Clarity on PLM

What I learned this week … was that we could use a good, common PLM definition and scope, but we will not get one. The discussion (a lot of discussion in multiple forums, actually) came from my post SAP, Too Much or Too Little Credit for PLM Efforts and another called Who Will Disrupt Entrenched PLM Vendors? Chris Williams pointed out on a LinkedIn thread that he felt maybe the confusion was due to a lack of understanding of what PLM really is, and asked for a common definition. My response? Not so much.

A Not-so-Common Defintion

Chris asked the million dollar question. But PLM is not one thing. While ERP has matured to a more common footprint across the vendors, the scope of PLM from each of the vendors differs. I define PLM as “processes and software used to improve product innovation, product development, and engineering performance.” That is (by definition, not by fault) very broad. There is no one “PLM” definition. The vision of the vendors shows consoliation over time, but today they are very different. Siemens includes MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) for A&D. Dassault Systemes has spent much more effort in “lifelike simulation.” PTC includes development of product documentation. Then, there are the applications that don’t come as a part of the suite, which makes each implementation different. Aras includes APQP and quality. They are all different.

Implications for Manufacturers

The lack of a common definition is also why putting in PLM without a strategy is a quagmire waiting to happen. But a common defintion won’t help. While there are standard processes in PLM, they are not as common as in ERP. There are examples of common processes, such as Stage-Gate processes for new product development (NPD) or CMII for change management. But product innovation and product development are not as standardized processes as accounting, as an example. It is not the lack of common PLM system definition at the root of this, it is the lack of common PLM processes. And as much as companies like Invention Machine are putting process orientation into innovation, it will still not be as standardized as ERP functions like human resource management.

So, manufacturers really need to think about what problems they want to solve before implementing PLM. You can’t just install the software and expect any benefits (beyond maybe simple data management). This is what I call the PLM Program, a strategy and vision for PLM that you accomplish in small, incremental steps.

So those are my thoughts on a common PLM defintion, don’t hold your breath waiting for it. I hope you found it interesting. Do you have a better one? I didn’t, if you do let us know about it.

That, by the way, is one of the reasons it is very hard for ERP to simply build another module and call it PLM. That is why SAP has a long program to develop PLM (which will be yet another variation on the PLM theme, different from the others).

I had the chance to talk with … Jim Todhunter and the team at Invention Machine about the new product release they announced today. There are lot of things that I like in the release designed to help further Invention Machine’s ability to operationalize innovation. But what really struck me was the goal of this release to improve “Every Day Innovation” in a procedural, sustainable way.

What do they Do?

In short, and in my words, Invention Machine offers a software solution that helps manufacturers turn innovation into a repeatable process. This is what I like to call “operationalizing innovation” as opposed to leaving innovation to chance. Invention Machine does this through a combination of:

• Task-oriented innovation workflows
• Packaged innovation, engineering and problem-solving tools and methodologies
• Innovation and engineering knowledge management and search

Invention Machine is a very unique company, and one that many have a hard time grasping exactly what they do. But what always strikes me is that they have a very impressive list of customers. I have had the chance to talk with quite a few of these customers, and they are all positive about what Invention Machine has done for them. So even if they are hard to understand, they are definitely worth a look.

What’s New?

So what is new in the release? There is quite a bit. Their Goldfire 5.5 launch adds new capabilities across the product line, and also introduces a new product called “Goldfire Insight.” The goal of this solution is to boost deployment of Goldfire to the “every day” innovators. Innovation comes in many forms, and Invention Machine is trying to extend their capabilities into every day engineering and innovation problem solving instead of just generating the big ideas or solving big, hairy problems. Jim Todhunter talks about the “little i” ind of innovation in addition to the “big I” type. Maybe one way to think of it is that Goldfire Insight helps the every day innovator stand on the shoulders of the master innovators to turn innovation into reality.

There are also new capabilities in the existing solutions. One of these capabilities is a question answering technology that helps innovators find the knowledge they need to get their jobs done without reinventing the wheel. There is also a new Knowledge Navigator that helps return knowledge in logical categories or “lenses,” providing order and intelligence to unstructured information and query results by leveraging Invention Machine’s strong semantic search capabilities.

There is also a new Research Guide that I am pretty interested in seeing in action at customers. The Research Guide not only helps capture engineering knowledge, it helps capture the innovation and decision-making process. Think of dynamically creating a “mind map” during a research or innovation project that documents the path you took (and links to the knowledge you uncovered) so you can go back and revisit it at a later time. This creates a new source of knowledge, by documenting the innovation process and the innovation path to create new knowledge. Pretty compelling. I liked the way Jim Todhunter explained it (possibly paraphrased):

Information -> enables -> Communities -> to perform -> Innovation -> which generates -> Information

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