Clarity on PLM

One of my favorite parts of going to conferences is learning what cool projects, products, and other cool accomplishments manufacturers have leveraged PLM for. In addition to sharing some very positive news on the market (see PLM Keeping up Momentum: Siemens PLM Analyst Conference 2011)  the recent Siemens PLM analyst event showcased a number of Siemens’ customers getting real business value from PLM. I thought I would share a few examples with you. And if you want, you can hear for yourself how excited I was in this interview with Dora Smith of Siemens PLM.

Aerojet

One of the great things about PLM is that it can solve a wide variety of problems. In Aerojet‘s case, PLM is helping improve product quality. I blogged about Siemens Dimensional Planning and Validation (DPV) solution in Circling Back on Quality with Siemens PLM and more generally about the significant benefits available from integrating Quality Lifecycle Management (QLM) in PLM. It was great to hear a first hand example of how a company is bringing quality and engineering together, or “closing the loop on quality.” One of the really cool things – which unfortunately we didn’t actually see an example of because Aerojet serves the defense industry – is that they now display quality information (SPC data) in the context of the product – in this case graphically displaying it against a JT model of the product. John Hodur, Principle Quality Engineer explained how Aerojet is integrating inspection results with tolerance results to develop tolerance stackups using actual data. A great example of how PLM is expanding into new areas, and integrating new people and processes into Engineering.

Edison2

Sometimes at conferences you not only get to hear about cool projects, you get to hear from really cool people. Yes, this is a conference focused on the intersection of engineering and software and I said cool. Really cool. The presenter was not only an engineer that worked on a really cool project to design a ground-breaking, record setting light car, but also a race car driver. So we have gone from rocket scientists to race car drivers in one post. He explained how Edison2 won the Progressive Insurance X Prize contest to build the most fuel-efficient and  safe car that can carry four passengers and luggage. The results were impressive. What was also impressive was how excited he was at the toolset he used, Solid Edge. He explained how the new Synchronous  Technology in Solid Edge helped them rapidly design (and more importantly redesign) the car as they went through multiple design iterations.

Rolls Royce

Another great PLM facet highlighted at the conference was integration of PLM into other systems and the positive impact it has on quality. Gordon McKechnie expressed that Rolls Royce is critical to their customers and that its products “work in industries where if a product fails it is no OK.” What an understatement! He explained that to pursue high quality – yet still maintain a very competitive cost – Rolls Royce wants to have one system managing the product across the enterprise. He explained that they have lots of point systems, but are driving to a single source of data. This is not just for PLM as most people think of it – they believe in “totally integrated PLM” that expands from product design all the way into manufacturing. In his words, “integration is key, and integration is a problem today.” A problem that Rolls Royce is leading the charge to overcome. To that end, Rolls Royce is on the leading edge of ERP-MES integration and uses both Siemens’ Teamcenter PLM and Simatic IT MES solutions. Oh and just so you don’t think we went from rockets to cars and didn’t include anything else cool, Rolls Royce makes aircraft engines – another pretty cool (and highly complex) product. Just in case you thought they made cars…

So that’s what I hear from Siemens PLM’s customers. There were other stories as well, but these were the ones that I decided to share. What do you think? Pretty cool stuff? What have you done with PLM?

I had the chance to talk with … Dassault Systemes about their acquisition of MES provider Intercim. The acquisition of Intercim is a strategic move, and represents Dassault’s confirmation of the importance of linking engineering intent and manufacturing process planning to manufacturing operations (and vice versa).

What do they Do?

Dassault Systemes is one of the premier providers of PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) solutions. Dassault has a very broad suite ranging from CAD (Catia and Solidworks) and simulation (Simulia) all the way through technical communications (3DVia) and enterprise systems (Enovia PLM). In the past year or so they have also added search (Exalead) and social computing (SwYm). Dassault Systemes has been redefining the boundaries of PLM and pursuing a strategy to bring “lifelike experience” to digital representations of the world. For more of my thoughts on DS, please see Reflections on Dassault Systemes Business, Strategy, and Progress at DSCC. Perhaps one of the most important assets pertaining to this announcement is DS’ digital manufacturing solution (Delmia) for manufacturing process planning.

Intercim is an MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems) software company with emphasis on complex and highly regulated manufacturing companies. Intercim helps companies execute the plans from engineering in the plant. They also focus on tracking what they call “emergent processes” when execution deviates from the plan.  The goal is to manage non-conformance and exceptions in in the same platform as normal operations. They also handle plant operations such as scheduling, task management, and shop floor reporting. One of the differentiators that Intercim claims is “operations intelligence” which enables their customers to analyze manufacturing results to identify areas of concern or opportunities for improvement. For example,  a manufacturer may identify an operation that is running significantly differently than the digital process definition it is based on.

What do they Offer?

DS plans to offer a deeply integrated PLM-MES system. They describe an environment of “digital continuity” that delivers digitizing work instructions to the plant floor, but goes beyond to close the loop to provide feedback to Engineering on defects and other issues. Intercim will become a part of the Delmia brand within DS, giving DS an integrated digital manufacturing – MES solution.

The integration of PLM and MES has the potential to provide significant business value, as described in The Roles of ERP and PLM in Manufacturing – now with MES!  The post links to a report on PLM and MES called Tech-Clarity Insight: Integrating PLM and MES – Realizing the Digital Factory, which addresses:

• Integrating the product and production lifecycle
• Automating the integrated product and production lifecycle
• Closing the Loop between designs and products

Who do they Work with?

To be clear, this is not a new relationship. Dassault and Intercim have been working together for some time as partners. They have a number of joint customers already, and will continue to penetrate the highly regulated, complex manufacturing industries such as aerospace.

So that’s what I hear from DS and Intercim, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

A quick peek into some research on … the role Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) play alongside ERP and PLM to help manufacturers improve their business and increase product profitability. I have researched, posted, and discussed the complementary and integrated roles of ERP and PLM numerous times. But the question would come up, “how does MES fits into the picture?” In my graphic I had placeholders for more execution-oriented systems such as MES, Maintenance Repair & Overhaul (MRO), and others. But I made a conscious decision not to complicate the already complicated subject of integrating the manufacturing systems ecosystem. Now that the industry has made progress in understanding how to integrate ERP and PLM, the time has come to address the role of MES. The details can be found in Tech-Clarity Insight: Integrating PLM and MES – Realizing the Digital Factory.

The Research Findings – Preface (or possibly rambling, you be the judge)

For you engineers reading this, do you remember freshman year when they taught you how to calculate stress and strain on rigid bodies? Then as you progressed in your learning, you found out that it was a gross oversimplification and didn’t really apply to real world materials? Or for you brainier people when someone admits that the rules of physics and mathematics are just models that seem to work (for the most part) but aren’t really hard and true rules? Or for business-oriented readers, the first time you heard an accountant ask “what would you like the numbers to be?” instead of giving you a simple answer. I might be digressing a little, so I’ll make my point – sometimes you need to understand the basics without all of the other real-world complexity that makes it hard. But it’s important to get to that real-world understanding, because that is where the real understanding lies. End digression.

The Research Findings – Simplified Roles of ERP and PLM

In my earliest discussions I typically simplified the roles of ERP and PLM as:

• PLM = Innovation
• ERP = Execution

I then progressed that a bit as:

• PLM – PLM focuses on product innovation, and is designed to help manufacturers design, develop, and launch profitable products.
• ERP - ERP’s role is executing the business of manufacturing, supporting the business of planning and managing the execution cycle.

I still like these definitions today, particularly the PLM one. The key difference in the ERP definition is the word “business.” While there are some companies that execute with ERP on the shop floor, for the most part it is used in planning for production and recording the results. Actual production is typically managed outside of ERP. Sometimes it is not automated at all, other times with some form of MES. So the picture was not yet complete.

The Roles of ERP and PLM – Now with MES!

So where does that leave us? With a need to integrate the manufacturing systems ecosystem into the reality of manufacturing operations. This is where MES enters into the picture. I had the opportunity to interview three companies that were willing to share their experience. One is a leading aerospace manufacturer who has significant experience with the integration but unfortunately wasn’t comfortable being identified, one is a Siemens electronics plant, and third is ATK Space Systems. Please read the report for their perspectives, they are worth hearing.

The roles as defined by this report, which are reflected in the updated graphic, are:

• PLM - PLM drives and captures product and process innovation
• MES – MES manages and tracks execution to turn those products into reality
• ERP -  ERP manages the commercial business of manufacturing

Still pretty simplistic, I know. But sometimes having simple, clear roles helps companies move their strategy forward. In addition to redefining the roles, the report discusses the following topics in more detail:

• Integrating the product and production lifecycle
• Automating the integrated product and production lifecycle
• Closing the Loop between designs and products

Implications for Manufacturers

I realize this is a long post, there is a lot to say and I have barely scratched the surface of the information in the report. So I will keep this short. Consider the role that MES plays alongside ERP and PLM and take the opportunity to integrate the product and production lifecycle. Whether you call that the “digital factory” or that term means something different to you, examine the value of increasing speed, improving quality, and decreasing errors by developing a synchronized manufacturing backbone that ties innovation, business execution, and manufacturing execution.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on role that MES plays with ERP and PLM in a manufacturing software strategy, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … how product portfolio management (PPM) can be more closely tied to engineering projects. The research, Issue in Focus: Product Portfolio Management in a PLM Strategy – Closing the Loop on Product Planning explores the connection between PLM and PPM for manufacturers that focus on intense engineering programs as opposed to high-volume products like consumer packaged goods (CPG). I look forward to your thoughts as I shake off the cobwebs from a summer that involved too little attention to blogging. But it was a good summer, and I hope you enjoyed yours (or your winter for those of you in the Southern Hemisphere).

The Research Findings

Most of the research I have read – and written- on PPM in the past has focused primarily on fast-moving consumer goods. Clearly, consumer goods companies live and die based on a steady stream of new and innovative products with extremely short product lifecycles. But what about companies that focus on engineering-centric products like aircraft? Or organizations like Sandia Labs, interviewed for the paper, a multi-program engineering and science laboratory? Don’t they have to manage and balance their engineering investments? Do they have any special needs?

The research starts by reporting that the basics of PPM still apply, companies need to focus on the following four fundamentals:

• Select and Maximize Product Portfolio
• Resource and Enable Pipeline
• Execute and Manage Projects
• Determine and Monitor Product Value

Beyond that, the research points out that PPM processes are often disconnected from other product development and engineering processes. The paper then asks the question “What additional value can be achieved through a tighter integration between PPM and PLM, and from closing the gap between product planning and the reality of the underlying design and development efforts?“  In fast-moving consumer goods, the R&D project is complete before production begins. The die has been cast from a portfolio perspective by the time the product is released. In more engineering-intense industries, however, program management is ongoing during the entire project and real knowledge can replace early assumptions. This is where the opportunity lies to close the loop between the engineering program and the portfolio, so portfolio assumptions can be monitored and updated as the engineering proceeds. This is also true for fast-moving goods during the R&D process, of course.

Implications for Manufacturers

So why is this important? PLM have grown, as discussed in my Four Dimensions of PLM Expansion. Many PLM initiatives now include portfolio management in their scope. Further, PLM vendors including Siemens PLM, PTC, Dassault Systemes, and others have added PPM to their product suites. Enterprise vendors SAP and Oracle also have PPM offerings in addition to PLM. Does this present an opportunity for tighter integration? The paper does more good at bringing up the question than answering it. The most important advice in the research is “…manufacturers shouldn’t integrate because they can, they should find the right areas of value to focus in across the four core PPM processes.” I believe the integration opportunities will vary by company, but the good news is that the door has now been opened and the potential is there.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on portfolio management, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

What I learned this week … came from a great post on Hypertextual titled Positioning with other IT systems: the liquid nature of Enterprise 2.0. I really enjoyed reading the post, and some of the underlying information linked to it including How Enterprise 2.0 fosters Knowledge Capture. There are some very powerful thoughts here. I think the post does a fantastic job of discussing the value that social computing has to offer PLM (and other applications such as ERP, SCM, and CRM). I see things slightly differently regarding social computing and PLM, but I believe it is in a complementary not a conflicting way. I will respond to the post directly, but I felt I had more to say than I could fit into a comment so decided to share here.

Enterprise Applications Roles

To summarize a few key background points from the post (please read the post, it is worth your time and I will not do it full justice here):

• Referencing Michael Grieves’ book Product Lifecycle Management, Driving the Next Generation of Lean Thinking, the author (Cecil Dijoux) points out that the interconnecting nature of ERP, PLM, SCM, and CRM in relation to domain knowledge and business activities. The model here shows ERP overlapping in certain activities and domains. I couldn’t agree more.
• Later he states that ERP, PLM, SCM, and CRM systems “have very clear boundaries and a strict scope of responsibilities.” That is a good model to work from, although I believe that there are overlapping “grey areas” where roles need to be defined on a company basis. See The Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM in Manufacturing for more of my thoughts there, including how PLM develops plans for manufacturing and quality that are executed in ERP. Oleg has also been posting some very interesting points on ERP and PLM in PLM Twine.

Social Software and Enterprise Applications

More importantly, the Cecil goes further to point out two areas where traditional enterprise applications fall short, and social computing software (what he refers to as ”Emergent Social Software Platforms” or “ESSP”) “fill the gap”: 

• Tacit Knowledge – This is information that is corporate knowledge, and frequently poorly captured. I love the way Cecil describes the issue; “Some studies show that between 25 and 50% of the communication between knowledge workers remains tacit and uncaptured. The question is how can we be productive and comfortable with our daily work if about half of the raw material we’re working with is wandering around ?.“ Knowledge management is a tremendous issue in product innovation, product development, and engineering. In the underlying post on Enterprise 2.0, Cecil says “It is easier and less intimidating for knowledge workers to capture knowledge on collaborative platforms (wiki, blogs, forums etc …)  then on word documents and then knowledge management systems.“
• Communities – Product development is about people, or as I have been known to say “product innovation is a team sport.” Again, I love what Cecil has to say. “ESSP make it easy to build communities which, in the enterprise context, are built around common areas of knowledge, business expertise, and professional know-how. These communities juxtapose different types of experts (technical, marketing, sale, integration) on a specific domain. This allows to build multi-dimensional expertise in very confined and otherwise unreachable locations in the company activity and knowledge map.”

I can’t agree more with what Cecil says about how social computing helps capture tacit knowledge and develop communities. I went back to check, I said almost the exact same things in Going Social with Product Development, although in a different way. What I said is that there are three areas where social computing will help PLM specifically:

• Enhance product development team execution and collaboration
• More naturally capture and share product knowledge and expertise
• Enable the discovery of new IP and product value

I think the alignment with the second point and Cecil’s point on tacit knowledge is clear. My thoughts on communities are represented in both improving collaboration within existing teams, but also discovering new product value through “social discovery.” Please see more detail in the report Tech-Clarity Insight: Going Social with Product Development: Improving Product Development Performance with Social Computing.

My Complementary View

So where do I see things differently? Cecil talks about social computing filling gaps in the enterprise system landscape. In his words, “This provides a liquid nature to ESSPs that helps them to seep in and fill up any gaps left by other systems.” I see this very differently. Maybe it is my old scars from the days when enterprise workflow was going to do the same thing. Instead, I see social computing as a new part of the infrastructure that helps connect and extend applications like PLM into a community. The social software is important, but the product lifecycle management domain expertise is crucial.

What is the key difference in views? Integration. I believe that social software is a part of the answer. But social computing needs to be addressed in the context of PLM. See How Will PLM Get Social? for more of my insight. How will PLM capture knowledge and make it useful unless it is tied back to the underlying product record? It will help, but it will miss the mark. To me, the value in social computing is not as a gap filler. Yes, it fills the gaps of capturing tacit knowledge and developing communities. But instead I see it is a new way to connect and extend PLM to capture and discover knowledge in the context of the product. It is also a way to improve collaboration in the product development community. Perhaps Cecil will agree, we may just be looking at different aspects of the same topic.

Implications for Manufacturers

If you have read this far, you clearly have an interest in the intersection of social computing and PLM. I have only one piece of advise. Keep learning. This is going to have a big impact on how companies innovate and bring products to market, and the manufacturers that are experimenting with social computing techniques in PLM and developing corporate understanding will have a big advantage in the future. We don’t know what that future will look like, but I can tell you it will be different and you don’t want to be caught left behind. On this point, I believe Cecil would probably echo my thoughts. And if you haven’t read his posts yet, go back and learn from them. There is a lot you can take away from his posts.

So that is what I learned from Cecil on Hypertextual (Merci Cecil!) along with some of my perspective. I hope you found it interesting. Let us know what you think.

A quick peek into some research on … closing the loop on product innovation through an integrated ERP-PLM strategy. This paper furthers past research on The Complementary Roles of ERP and PLM and earlier research on how integration between these two enterprise systems is maturing in the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM. The topic of how manufacturers can best leverage ERP and PLM systems is one that I continue to get questions on, and I hope that this paper, Issue in Focus: The Integrated ERP-PLM Strategy, helps further the conversation. I should also point to a good discussion on Oleg’s PLM Twine generated by my last research on ERP and PLM, there are some good comments made there.

The Research Findings

At the risk of being redundant, the paper reconfirms the primary roles of ERP and PLM:

• PLM – PLM focuses on product innovation, and is designed to help manufacturers design, develop, and launch profitable products.
• ERP - ERP’s role is executing the business of manufacturing, supporting the business of planning and managing the execution cycle.

To many these may seem to be an obvious statements, but I still hear confusion in the manufacturing community. This is particularly true as ERP companies introduce PLM solutions. That is why I clearly “Busted“ the myth that PLM is a module of ERP in my Mythbusting ERP-PLM Integration post.

So what is new in this report? A focus on closed loop innovation. Here are the key points that I hope people will take away from the research:

• Innovation is not limited to Engineering – Manufacturing, Service, and other departments innovate too. They change processes and make minor product changes for service or manufacturability to keep things working smoothly. These smaller, day-to-day innovations are frequently not communicated back to Engineering, and are therefore implemented inconsistently and not designed into the next generation of products. I recognize that this is not as prevalent in all industries (due to regulation), but the result is a disconnect between what was designed and what is built and in the field.
• Companies are not Confident Enough to Introduce Changes Rapidly – Many companies do not have a change management process that allows them to rapidly improve their product. Engineering changes are held up into batches or delayed because manufacturers lack the ability to clearly communicate changes to Manufacturing and the supply chain without disruption. The result here is delayed time to market for cost reduction, quality improvements, and minor product enhancements. Or, companies push forward anyway and end up with scrap, rework, and unhappy customers.

A well integrated manufacturing systems environment can help companies overcome these two issues. Closing the loop (through integration) allows companies to rapidly introduce continuous improvements, and keep designs in sync across departments and the product lifecycle.

Implications for Manufacturers
For manufacturers, integrating ERP and PLM is becoming more commonplace. This is good news. Of course, not everybody has PLM in place yet, although most have an ERP (or more than one in many cases, but that is a different story). Unfortunately, I continue to see companies make ERP and PLM choices tactically instead of strategically. I discussed one example of this in Choosing an ERP to fit PLM. This leads to two other points that I hope manufacturers will take away from this research:

• ERP and PLM strategies are too important to be technology-led decisions, and should be addressed in a process-centric approach.
• Recognizing that both ERP and PLM are critical to product profitability, manufacturers must be uncompromising on the needs of these two systems.

As I say in the final recommendations, “Choose the right ERP and PLM solutions, making sure they meet your company, industry, and manufacturing model requirements.” Get the right ERP and PLM systems first. Focus first on getting software that meets the innovation and execution needs of your business. It is better if those solutions are “integration-capable” through current technologies (SOA, XML, API, etc.). Ideally, the solutions come pre-integrated by the vendors. But integration has to be a secondary set of requirements behind functional capability.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on integrating ERP and PLM to close the loop on product innovation, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

I had the chance to participate in a discussion by Bob Deragisch of Parker Hannifin at COFES last week. His topic, Living with Heterogeneous Systems, is a top of mind issue for many large manufacturers I speak with. So has Parker found the key to managing disparate engineering and enterprise systems? In a word, no. Sorry, there was no silver bullet answer uncovered by Parker or any of the other participants. But the steps Parker has taken and the ongoing challenge are worth discussing.

The Parker Scenario

Here are some of the key thinkgs that I took away from Bob’s discussion and description of the Parker Hannifin systems ecosystem:

• Parker Hannifin is now 135 divisions
• They have acquired 120 companies of all sizes
• Just in aersospace (Bob’s area), they have 8 divisions … and 6 ERP systems!
• They have even more engineering tools than ERP systems - 185 engineering tools

Does that sound scarey? It should. How can those systems possibly be integrated into a consistent, repeatable workflow? How can data be shared effectively across so many tools? How can engineering data be reused? How can employees be shared between divisions (or from program to program) to meet capacity needs? This is the challenge that Parker faced. This is not that different than a lot of big companies, particularly those that have grown through acquisition.

Parker’s Response

So given the challenges, what has Parker done? The first thing Bob made sure to say was that he wasn’t at COFES to present the answer, he was there looking for answers. He described what Parker has done to date. He explained that the first step was to try to homogenize. Parker developed corporate standards for their engineering tools. They have developed a systems design process that narrows tools down to 20 tools. For some, 20 might sound like a lot of engineering tools. For many, that number sounds like an unachievable dream. For Parker, it is a set of standards they are trying to move towards. They have one standard MCAD (mechanical CAD) tool and other singular standards for tools such as ECAD (electronics CAD), requirements management, and others.

So how has this worked? Trying to standardize on a single MCAD tool, for example, is “like herding cats.” There has been a lot of resistance by engineers that feel they are more productive in their tool of choice. Externally, Parker faces challenges in consolidating tools because they supply components and subsystems to other manufacturers. These customers ”expect designs to come in their format.” And Bob says they have given up on CAD interoperability.” Bob did add, however, that they expect interpoerability from PLM.

So is there help? PLM systems help manage the data and processes from all of these systems, and is a key part of the answer. New architectures make integration easier (see The Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM in Manufacturing). But this will be an issue for some time to come. If you have the answer, let us all know (and I will pass it on to Bob).

So that’s what I hear from Bob Deragisch at Parker, I hope you found it useful. I found his discussion relavent, open, and honest. Parker, as much progress as they have made, is still looking for answers. What do you think?

A quick peek into some research on … the technology behind PLM applications, and what today’s CIO needs to know to support it. The research from Tech-Clarity, Enabling Product Lifecycle Management: The CIO’s Guide to Supporting a PLM Initiative,  points out unique implementation and support challenges the CIO and their team must be aware of in order to get the most business value out of PLM.

The Research Findings

The CIO’s organization is getting more involved in PLM implementations. While many Engineering IT teams have managed CAD and other engineering software and supporting infrastructure, PLM is getting more attention from the enterprise IT team because it has become – (wait for it) – an enterprise application. I know, it only makes sense. Implementing enterprise class applications has different considerations than installing design tools, and enterprise IT typically has more experience with systems that span the organization and the supply chain.

Having said that, PLM is not ERP. Nor is it CRM, SCM, or any host of other business-oriented enterprise applications. PLM, by the nature of the processes and data it addresses, comes with some unique information technology challenges. Here are some of the considerations discussed in the report:

• Protecting IP – PLM data is concurrently highly confidential, and much more valuable when shared broadly. Intellectual property is more likely to be shared as collaboration expands, and a lot of that collaboration is outside of the control of the corporate firewall.
• Huge Files – Engineering and product development data is different than large volumes of transactional data. There are some potentially significant issues arising from managing and collaborating on large files in order to support PLM.
• Scalability – PLM is expanding to more people, a broader view of the product, to more of the product lifecycle, and supports more processes. Implementations needs to plan for expansion along multiple dimensions, which could potentially create an exponential demand on IT infrastructure.
• Architecture - PLM vendors are moving to enterprise architecture, providing support for the challenges above but also introducing new challenges. The good news, though, is that these challenges are ones that the many corporate IT groups have already addressed.

PLM also brings about integration challenges. Companies have to be ready to support frequent, bi-directional, real-time integration between PLM. If not in the first phase, potentially sooner than they think. See more on ERP-PLM integration in the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM report and Mythbusting ERP-PLM Integration post. PLM integration with ERP and the rest of the manufacturing systems ecosystem is becoming more important and more prevalent.

Implications for Manufacturers

The good news? The PLM industry has learned from large scale PLM deployments, and has developed technology and best practices to address these issues. IT professionals today are not blazing the trail when they implement PLM. PLM is becoming much more mainstream. But it is also evolving to more of an enterprise application than just product data management (PDM), and moving into the enterprise realm. There is help available, from peer manufacturers that have undergone the transiiton and experienced consultants alike.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on getting PLM technology right, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

What I learned this week … was a retrospective look at an article analyzing how industry-specific PLM application are. The review was in response to a comment on my post In Search of a Common PLM Definition. I had a little bit of fun with the review, and I thought I would share it here. In fairness to Oleg, I decided to use my “mythbusting” technique that I used on him earlier in the year in Mythbusing ERP-PLM Integration.

Responses and Reactions

Need to Document and Prioritize PLM Requirements (Confirmed) - I start by saying companies should document and prioritize requirements. I believe that holds as true today as ever. And I think that you might agree, so let’s confirm that as a statement that holds up today.

Inegrating PLM to Manufacturing (Plausible) - I use “technology transfer” as an example of a very industry-specific part of PLM. For those that aren’t as familiar with the term, it is effectively translating the product as defined in engineering / R&D (and PLM) into a product that can be produced, up to and including instructions for automated plant equipment. This is an area that really hasn’t come to be in most PLM solutions. The example holds trues as industry specific, but despite efforts in Digital Manufacturing (DM) and Manufacturing Process Management (MPM) - most manufacturers are still not yet integrating PLM to plant solutions like Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) or Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM). The opportunity is still compelling, but I thought we would be further ahead. Hats off to my old friends at Sequencia for being ahead of the curve.

Product Portfolio Management in PLM (Confirmed) - I use Product Portfolio Management as an example for a general solution. I think this one still stands true, and is a hot topic in product innovation and product development today.

My Bio (BUSTED, big time) - Most importantly, what was I thinking with that bio picture? I think I thought it made me look like a serious analyst. Instead, I just look like I have a stomach ache (and seriously need a haircut). Yikes. Busted. Definately.

So that is a brief look at some old research with the benefits of hindsight, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it. I look forward to additional commentary (although not on the picture, the glasses, or the haircut please).

NOTE: I use the “mythbusting” concept out of pure admiration and respect for such a brilliant concept, that helps kids (and adults) learn about how cool engineering can be while entertaining them.

I had the chance to talk with … the PLM team at SAP recently to get an update on their plans and their progress to date. I have stayed in touch with them over the years, and have always been impressed by the opportunity they have to connect the business of manufacturing with the business of product development. As I reflected on the conversation, I struggled to understand why after all of the years of SAP getting too much credit for PLM, why they don’t seem to be getting as much credit for their recent efforts as I would expect. Today I hope to present both sides of the argument in the hopes to bring some clarity to the subject, and to start a conversation so we can all learn from each other.

Too Much Credit?

I have focused a lot of discussion on the complementary roles of ERP and PLM, and for many companies that translates to the roles of SAP and PLM. I have cautioned manufacturers in the past:

• Not to assume that an ERP provider that “checks the box” for PLM actually has a suitable PLM suite
• Don’t assume that any company offering both ERP and PLM have actually integrated them in a way that works for their particular business
• PLM suites vary significantly between vendors, even among the “best-of-breed” vendors
• PLM is not just another module of ERP, but a suite of solutions itself with some unique requirements

Those comments were typically in reaction to the “suite provider effect” where executives take a cursory look at a software requirement (such as PLM) and say “Doesn’t our ERP company have that? Let’s just use theirs.” While the ERP vendor’s solution deserves a review, if it doesn’t meet the business needs than the potential benefits of a single vendor and an integrated solution don’t add up to much. This conversation started way back in 2003 with my article Can ERP Speak PLM? in Technology Evaluation Centers (TEC) when I served as the analyst for the PLM Evaluation Center.

With all of those cautions in mind, my hope was that manufacturers that have an ERP (such as SAP) would do a thorough evaluation of their needs, and then select the solution (or solutions) that would work best for their business. In other words, they shouldn’t just take PLM from their ERP provider blindly.

Not Enough Credit?

With all of those cautions aside, the ERP provider should get a fair evaluation. There are benefits to integration and a single vendor solution. And SAP has clearly invested in PLM. I wrote about SAP’s PLM strategy and roadmap in the past on my Manufacturing Business Technology blog.* SAP has taken on a multi-year program to enhance their PLM offering, and they have made significant progress. Last year they introduced a new, web-focused interface that pulls together a product-centric dashboard for an item. The “PLM Object Navigator” as it was called offers information about a part from both ERP and PLM perspectives, including configurable sidebars. They have now extended that interface to the process PLM community, where SAP has a significant installed base.

But user interface isn’t all that SAP has focused on. They have integrated CAD management and visual communication capabilities to develop visual representations of the CAD models that all users can access. They have added functionality including labeling functionality for consumer packaged goods (CPG). They have also enhanced product compliance, collaboration, and requirements management.

SAP has remained consistent in their focus to support four PLM “value scenarios,” enabling business processes to help manufacturers in specific initiatives to establish “Product and Service Leadership“:

• Consumer-Driven, Sustainable Innovation
• Integrated Product Development
• Continuous Product and Service Integration
• Embedded Product Compliance

The names have changed slightly over time, but the needs SAP is trying to meet are well-planned, important, and have remained consistent. Clearly, SAP has a plan and has been hard at work to achieve it. 

The Confusion, and the Questions

When I talk to the SAP PLM team, I can feel the excitement and their sense of accomplishment. I hear about the progress on their plans and how they are fulfilling the needs of their customers. Yet from the manufacturers I speak with, I don’t feel the same enthusiasm. So here are my questions:

• Am I talking to the wrong companies, or the wrong people?
• Is it still too early?
• Did the down economy last year stall SAP’s ability to get the word out?
• Does SAP not have the ear of the product innovation, product development, and engineering staff?
• Are manufacturers tired of hearing what is coming?
• Is there just still more that needs to be done?
• Are the best-of-breed vendors too far ahead? Or too entrenched?
• Is there a slow revolution happening that I am just not in touch with?

So that’s what I hear from SAP, and my resulting confusion. I hope you found it interesting. What do you think? Can you help shed some light on my questions?

*Note: Sorry, no link to past posts on SAP PLM right now. Unfortunately the blog was taken offline by Reed Business when they closed the magazine. I hope to get that content back at some point to share with you.