Clarity on PLM

A quick peek into some research on … the importance of good supply chain information in A Risk-Based Approach to Component and Supplier Management: Mitigating Risk with Component and Compliance Intelligence. The research discusses how good intelligence on the supply chain can help mitigate risks such as counterfeits and fakes, obsolescence, and regulatory noncompliance. The report provides examples from a number of leading manufacturers including defense contractor BAE Systems, electronics industry service provider Jabil, and high tech company ON Semiconductor.

The Research Findings

There are a number of important observations based on interviews with the the three firms that agree to participate in the interviews. Please read the report for the full details. The main thing that stuck out for me was the need to build a framework that allows companies to leverage component and supply chain data to make good business decisions. This is critical to risk management, and helps companies avoid or reduce the impact of a number of common supply disruptions.  As the report finds, “The key is to arm the decision-maker with the right information in time to act strategically.” Like so many other aspects of product development and product lifecycle management (PLM) I have studied, supply risk is best addressed early, when there are still more options available.

The framework of information is not trivial, and requires an investment by the manufacturer to ensure complete, consistent, and accurate information. The elements of the framework include data from both the manufacturer and the supporting supply chain. For example, a good framework combines information from multiple sources, putting the supply data into the context of the company’s products and offering potential alternatives when issues do arise. This data can include:

• Bills of Material (BOMs)
• Approved Vendor Lists (AVLs)
• Approved Material Lists (AMLs)
• Component Specifications
• Supplier Data
• Obsolescence  Notifications
• Controlled Substance Lists
• Compliance Certifications
• Bills of Substance (material composition for purchased components)
• Notifications of Identified Counterfeits
• And more

Having a clean, trusted source of information helps companies identify risk, analyze the potential impact, and mitigate the risk effectively. I can’t imagine summing up the findings from the research any better than one of the company thought leaders I interviewed for the report who said “Knowledge is power, the more you know the better decisions you can make.” Well said, and quite true.

Implications for Manufacturers

I often write about the importance of good software to help manufacturers maintain product profitability. This research is a good reminder that having the right information is just as important. Sourcing product and supply chain knowledge is a frequently overlooked aspect of a solid PLM strategy, as I mentioned previously in my report on Making Engineering Efficient – with Electronic Reference Information. Having the right information – both internal and external – in a framework where it can be applied to make business decisions like risk management is an important tool in managing risk, but also to bringing profitable products to market in a broader sense.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on mitigating supply risk with good supply chain intelligence, 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 a summary of this and more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity. The full report is also available for free courtesy of IHS.

A quick peek into some research on … how the roles of ERP and PLM have evolved from Tech-Clarity’s most recent report, Tech-Clarity Insight: The Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM – Integrating the Roles of Execution and Innovation. This research is a follow up to The Complementary Roles of ERP and PLM. The paper furthers my previous research and describes how the use of these enterprise systems has evolved, and the associated maturation of the integration between ERP and PLM systems. As my past research has concluded, these systems remain the cornerstone of product profitability and are better together.

The Research

The research included interviews with manufacturers Emerson and Cameron, along with an interview with a Systems Integrator that focuses on ERP-PLM integration. What I appreciated the most about the integrator’s perspective is that they partner with leading vendors of both PLM and ERP software, and understand both perspectives. Having worked closely with ERP systems prior to reconnecting with my engineering roots and focusing more on PLM, I recognize how rare it is to speak with people that really understand (and respect) both domains.

The Research Findings

At the highest level, the key takeaways from the research are:

• PLM and ERP still play distinct, complementary roles in helping manufacturers drive product profitability
• ERP supports the business of planning and managing the execution cycle
• PLM owns the innovation cycle – including product development and engineering
• Companies are making great progress in integrating ERP and PLM, as ERP-PLM integration has become the norm and many have moved to advanced levels of integration

What Else is New?

The advances in integration caused me to rework my “Innovation Cycle – Execution Cycle” framework that I use to explain the roles of ERP and PLM. I have changes the model to reflect a more bi-directional model, and to support exchanges of more advanced information including:

• Bill of Process (BOP) – including the ERP “routing” in addition to the manufacturing BOM
• Quality, Compliance, and Cost plans – from PLM to ERP for execution
• Actual results – from ERP to PLM, including costs, inventory levels, etc.

The other thing that is new is not well reflected in the graphic yet. That is that ERP is frequently managing the execution of the manufacturing business, but not necessarily executing it. There is frequently a layer of solutions including Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES), MRO, Supply Chain Management, and others that manage real-time execution and integrate to ERP as the backbone. But that is a study for a different time.

Implications for Manufacturers

So what can manufacturers learn from this research? The first thing is that they shouldn’t be spending their time choosing between ERP and PLM. They need both. The second is that integration has moved from a “nice to have” to a standard, and that more advanced companies are extending ERP-PLM integration beyond release to manufacturing and change management. Companies that haven’t integrated the ERP and PLM systems are now behind the competitive curve. Of course if your company doesn’t have both ERP and PLM, your business is either very unique or the chances are you are even farther behind the curve. The good news is that it appears easier to integrate ERP and PLM than ever before due to advances in technology, and that companies are improving efficiency and reducing cost by doing so. So the task at hand is easier to achieve, and provides solid payback. Sounds like ERP and PLM integration needs to be on everybody’s enterprise systems agenda.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the roles of ERP and PLM, 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 talk with … Dassault Systemes CEO Bernard Charles and his team at Dassault’s 2009 customer conference today. I attended the general sessions in the morning and then spent some time speaking with DS execs in a smaller group setting. Once again, Bernard and the team painted a very different picture of PLM than some might have in mind. Dassault does PLM, but the vision does not stop there. It doesn’t matter if you call it PLM 2.0 (as Dassault does) or put some other label on it – DS has a very unique view on what the future will look like. And they have plans to play a broader role than CAD, CAE or product design.

What do they Do?
Dassault is one of the largest PLM vendors in the market. For more on what they do, see past posts One-to-One: Reinventing Dassault Systems? and also One-to-One: Dassault Strives to Make 3D Accessible to All in the SMB with V6.

Where is Dassault Systemes Going?
DS is clearly a leader in the PLM space. How do they view themselves in the future? Some key tenants of the DS vision shared today include:

• 3D Lifelike Experience - “see what you mean” or “SWYM“
• Social Innovation
• Smart Products
• User-Generated Content and Involvement – “from Consumer to Consum’Actor“
• Sustainable Development
• Business Processes – core processes for 11 industries and ~50 industry sub-segments
• PLM Online for All – web-based and SOA

What Does it All Mean?
First, expect Dassault to push the 3D experience hard. Second, don’t expect them to limit the use of 3D and lifelike experiences to an engineering audience. In the manufacturing industries, expect to see them continue to offer 3D applications for new areas such as sales and marketing. DS sees themselves playing just as much of a role helping companies define the product experience (packaging design, shelf placement, consumer interaction) as they do defining the product itself. They have already brought solutions to market and have done some work (not commercial product yet) in areas such as eye tracking technology to analyze customer reaction and behavior. Keep your eyes on the 3DVIA brand and how it fits in with ENOVIA. Note that these solutions have potential in many other industries than manufacturing (or even gaming, another current DS market), with the opportunity to enhance the web to incorporate lifelike experiences. Bernard pointed out in the general session that the Web “does not have emotion or allow people to experience or interact.” What is needed, he explains, are 3D and smart objects that offer realistic simulation and comply with the real-world rules of physics. To me, this feels like a very different vision for PLM than I hear elsewhere.

Also, expect DS to push into more social aspects of innovation. This was one of the biggest topics we discussed in our smaller group. Bernard tells the story of how social networking techniques are helping within Dassault, and how they are learning through their use of Blue Kiwi (a software company they have invested heavily in) and of their own 3DVIA solutions. I don’t think they have it all figured out, which I respect. As I have seen in the past, DS is willing to experiment and learn (as their customers are learning) to leverage new social computing technologies.

I believe that social computing in PLM is a significant new evolution of PLM – see Social Computing Drives Innovation and related posts. Dassault sees this as well. As Bernard said “A year ago, I would have said social software is an add-on, now it is at the core of what we do.” A pretty powerful statement to say the least. There is more to say here, but the post is already getting long (sorry).

What about Product Design?
Don’t take this the wrong way. Dassault is still 100% in the PLM “1.0″ game and working hard to have the best design, analysis, and data management solutions they can bring to market. Dassault continues to invest heavily in their core solutions and the V6 platform. CAD and CAE are not as static, mature solutions as some would like to believe. Some examples of continued investment in the core solutions include:

• Systems Design and Simulation - in Bernard’s words, “Smart products is the future of CATIA” – see post about mechatronics and one of Dassault’s partners in One to One: Big Blues Unprecedented Mechatronic Opportunity for more.
• Continued Development to Support New Manufacturing Materials -composites, nanomaterials, …
• Integration and Interoperability – as an example, Simulation Lifecycle Management of SIMULIA data in ENOVIA

There is more here, but that is not the focus of my (rather lengthy, sorry) post.

Takeaways and Implications for Manufacturers
A demo of 3DVIA and the new iPhone application was a great example of the uniqueness of the DS vision. Instead of a car or plane Bernard showed 3DVIA on an iPhone. He took a picture of the furniture on the stage, and then added a table from the 3DVIA library. Not satisfied with the boring table, the model is sent via e-mail and a designer modifies it in 3D Shape. It is published back to 3DVIA, pulled up on the iPhone, and now we see a picture of the stage with a newly modeled table along with the existing furniture. The punchline is that “3D opens the door to the world we imagine.” Not a standard main-stage demo for a PLM company. Expect Dassault to push further with their vision of making the virtual world better reflect the real world.

So Dassault Systemes vision is different. To be I am not concluding that it is better, but I am concluding that it is unique. It is not for me to decide what companies will gain the most value from, only the customers and the market can decide that.

So that’s what I hear from Dassault Systemes. Bernard and the team are clearly not satisfied with a goal of leading today’s market, but shaping the future market as well. I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

What I learned this week … came from a post that I found in a Consumer Reports blog. The article,  Tailgating Alert: Gasoline-powered blender banned by California Air Resources Board could have come out of the Onion because it is pretty over the top (who needs a blender with handlebars!?). But the punch line is not funny for the manufacturer in Phoenix, who probably had no idea that they were violating a California law and got slapped with a $240,00 fine.

The Lesson Learned?

I am not going to go into detail on this particular case, as much as anything I liked the picture. But the implications are real, and can serve as a wake up call to manufacturers. Compliance is serious business, and getting it wrong can cost a lot of money.

More to Come – Upcoming Research

I am in the process of finalizing a research report on product environmental compliance that deals with RoHS, REACH, and other product-related compliance issues. I will share more when I roll that out. Coincidentally, one of the biggest challenges identified with REACH was understanding the regulations. As one Phoenix-based manufacturer just found out, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I hope that the regulators don’t make too big an example of them, I picture two guys in a garage trying to figure out how to keep from losing their shirts. But the regulators are clearly sending a message that they are ready and willing to enforce their mandates.

So I will share more of my thoughts (and a framework for product compliance) soon. For now, that is one heck of a blender! I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

What I learned this week … was sparked by some recent social networking announcements on people tagging. The most recent was that Facebook plans to offer tagging very similar to what Twitter offers. This follows other announcements around geo-tagging, but I am really most interested in how tagging people can help in product development (and overall in product innovation).

Tag – You are It!

Most people that use social networks are getting used to tagging, particularly those that use Twitter. In Facebook, people are used to seeing tagging on uploaded photos. So what is tagging? Tagging (for our purposes here) is just associated a person with content. There are other forms of tagging as well, such as the “#” tagging or “hashcodes” in Twitter than help associate content with events or topics, keyword tagging, etc. But what I am talking about is simply including an individual’s identification along with the content. But I am not talking about their name, I am talking about tagging their online presence. Tagging isn’t just letting people know who is involved. The power of people tagging comes when associating the person to the context allows the tag to be followed to see or learn more about the person tagged.

Quick Example

OK, you are reading a blog on social networking so you probably already know this, but just in case I will provide a quick personal example:

I attended a conference, and one of the people I follow on Twitter mentioned that they were going to the bar with two other individuals. Not that interesting, right? Except that they were at the same conference that I was and my contact tagged the two people by including their “@” codes, or their Twitter identities. That meant that anybody that followed any of the three would now know they were getting together for a drink. So what? I recognized one of the names as somebody I wanted to meet. The second name I didn’t recognize, but I followed the link to the profile and found out it was another blogger that I would like to meet. In short, my network expanded by two new people that day because one friend tagged the other two. And, I got a free drink out of it too.

Can We Get Back to Product Development Please?

Thanks for your patience with the aside, I try not to assume everybody knows about things like tagging. So how does this apply to product development? Let’s take a quick example of status reports. If a status report mentions that @Engineer is working on a problem, I might read that status report and have something to offer. I could instantly click and connect with the tagged person (hopefully with some security settings in place) and offer my advice. Or, perhaps it is a year later and I am facing that same problem. I might search on the issue and find this old status report. Then, I see that @Engineer faced this problem a year ago. I could follow the link and find additional content related to the tagged individual that might help me with my problem, or connect to ask for advice.

Implications for Manufacturers

It’s Monday, I will keep this short. Tagging is a very important part of social computing, and highly applicable to PLM because product development is fundamentally a people-driven process. This is just one more reason that social computing in PLM makes so much sense to me.

Thinking of tagging in product development also ties strongly into past discussions such as Oleg’s PLM, don’t fight processes – focus on people! and other related discussions in the PLM community of late. It is also very important when considering the importance of social discovery and how social computing drives innovation.

So I believe tagging people in social computing will be helpful to product developers, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

A quick peek into some research on … the priorities, plans, views, and economic outlooks of companies that use engineering software. The survey-based study, published last night by Cyon Research, paints a very interesting picture of how manufacturers plan to invest and leverage engineering software (and related hardware) in the near future. I have had the opportunity to review and comment on the report during its development, and one thing that continuously struck me is not just how useful the published insights on the future of engineering software are, but the richness and depth of the information that the Cyon team couldn’t fit into the report.

The Research

The research spanned companies that use CAD, PLM, CAE, and other technical software, and included responses from almost 600 people. The report breaks down into a number of major categories, including:

• Purchasing plans, policies, and priorities
• Hardware refresh rate
• Financial outlook
• How companies differentiate themselves
• Engineering software selection criteria
• Views and plans on new releases from major software vendors (Dassault, Autodesk, Siemens)

In addition there are some interesting portions on who controls the BOM (and age-old question) and some insight into the relationship between CAE application usage and other engineering software used. The report contains a tremendous amount of information, with a number of very interesting charts. Plan to spend some time reading it if you have the opportunity, there is a lot to dig into.

Key Takeaways

There is far too much for me to give justice to in this space, but I will try to point out some of the more interesting things I learned from the report:

• Some companies have cut spending on engineering software – 29% of respondents indicated that they cut spending in the first half of 2009, with further cuts expected but at a slowing pace (for example 19% in first half of 2010). Note that these are likely in addition to cuts made in earlier budgets, so the total number that have reduced budgets from 2008 levels is probably higher.

• Many companies are playing “wait and see” -  42% are “considering or about to cut” spending if their business conditions worsen. This is what Cyon calls the “overhang” of the cuts, which includes the potential for further reductions dependent on the general economic conditions.

• Companies are planning to pick up spending (when they can) – in the words of the report, “The bright spot here is the longer-term outlook, 2010 and 2011, for increased spending in the purchases of design, analysis, and data management software.”

• Companies still have an appetite for improved solutions – the report gives details on the planned adoption of new technologies (V6 from Dassault Systemes, Inventor Fusion from Autodesk, and Sychronous Technology from Siemens PLM). I can’t share specifics, but across the board there are plans to implement the new solutions, although more Autodesk users say it is “too early to tell” given the maturity of the solution at this point.

Implications for Manufacturers

There are some valuable insights for manufacturers in this report to compare their strategies with their peers and competitors. The report provides some interesting detail on specific industries and their behavior, particularly on how each industry reported they plan to compete (product quality was the most commonly targeted differentiator overall, but this varied widely by industry).

I think this report is potentially even more valuable for software vendors.  The research gives them insight into what is important to their customers, and how they are planning to spend their money. For software companies, this can provide them with invaluable input into where they should focus their efforts to best serve their customers, particularly at a time when many are considering reductions in spending.

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

What I learned this week … came from a participant at my session on Social Computing in PLM at COFES last month. A quote from the session has been haunting me since that time, and I haven’t been able to place my finger on why it has resonated in my head. I think because it is both meaningful to me and meaningless at the same time. The quote was “We are not going to desgin an airplane on Facebook!” The statement drew a lot of chuckles, and I have to believe it’s a true statement of fact. But I think why it haunts me is that people are willing to discount the value of a hugely important trend (the use of social computing technologies in business) because the examples they have don’t quite fit the way the currently work.

Background
See my previous post for some background (and relevant links) about social computing in PLM. I believe this is one of the most important opportunities to improve product innovation, product development, and engineering performance that will unfold over the next 2-5 years. Without repeating all of that here, let’s drill into why the statement is meaningful and meaningless:

Why You Probably Will Use Social Computing in Product Development
To me, there is a simple fact about developing products that transcends industries, time, and corporate cultures. It is hard to get people to work together effectively. It takes a lot of different skills (technical, marketing, financial, etc.) to bring a profitable product to market. And beneath those classifications, there are more sub-skills. In the technical domain there are designers, engineers, validation/analysis people, compliance experts, manufacturing resources and quality personnel. Down another level inside engineering, many products require mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and software engineers. You get the point – there are a lot of skills (and therefor people) involved. This is true for even simple products, let alone an airplane. If the fundamental truth is that it is hard to keep all of these people informed and working together – and you believe there is value in improving it - how can social computing in PLM be anything but inevitable?

Just talking about the collaboration aspects of social computing leads me to a clear vision of how the daily communication and information sharing can be sped up and made more effective with capabilities like threaded discussion or instant messaging. I can easily envision using a blog to capture the thought processes and discussion for a major decision where multiple people need to weigh in, but also provide that context of the decision for downstream decision-making and learning. I see the potential to reduce e-mail and inefficient meetings in favor of more streamlined, rapid (yet documented) communication. And this doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface on the ability to work with a broader network of talented individuals or tap into communities such as pools of experts or customers. These are practical ways to improve product development that can return faster time to market, better product decision-making, earlier design validation (less rework), reduced cost, improved efficiency, and more.

Why You Won’t Design a Plane on Facebook
With all of this said, not designing a plane on Facebook suddenly sounds like a meaningless, misguided statement. Between collaboration and discovery, the value is available. I can conclude that this is a case of somebody looking at a solution (Facebook) and not being able to abstract the underlying capabilities (social networking) to apply to their own business. This isn’t uncommon, it is hard for a lot of people to look beyond the current implementation of a technology. On the other hand, we are talking about really smart, experienced engineers here, not a part time clerk with little training or visibility to the “big picture.”

So as much as I want to dismiss the comment, I can’t shake it.Why? He is right, at least for him, and at least now. Why? There is work to be done and questions to be answered before just dropping the technology in place. Here are a series of questions / objections that he could point out that make Facebook inadequate:

• How do I have time to pay attention to this in addition to everything I already do?
• How do we address security concerns?
• What relevance do status comments and photos have to do with serious engineering?
• How will we protect intellectual properly?
• What does Facebook know about business processes or how to manage them?
• What does Facebook know about engineering data? CAD files? Projects? Engineering in general?
• Why would I trust my business performance to a technology platform like Facebook that doesn’t appear stable or perform well (sorry Facebook, that is just my practical experience not a sound technical analysis)?

These questions are valid, and just a sample of what companies are asking. This is what makes Facebook (as an application, as it stands today) meaningless to developing an airplane. The big question is whether answering these questions and solving the technical (and business) challenges will provide new business value. Are the obstacles to be climbed (or blown up to clear a better path) worth the value of arriving at the destination? And if it’s not Facebook (I agree it’s not), then what will be the path to enable product development with social computing capabilities?

Implications for Manufacturers?
I want to end with a “yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” type of feel-good statement. But I am not that kind of analyst, and the answer isn’t that simple. But here it goes: “Yes, Global Manufacturer, you will design an airplane using social computing capabilities.” There goes my Pulitzer Prize, it just doesn’t have a ring to it. But on the other hand, it will be a statement that I will be comfortable to live with and review over the next few years to see if we (as a manufacturing community) are making progress in this direction. My bet is that - while not eloquent - my statement will ring true for some time.

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. I am probably writing about this just so the quote stops bouncing around in my head, thanks for indulging me. Let me know what you think.

NOTE: I updated the quote and post title from “… build an airplane …” to “… design an airplane… ” which captures the spirit of the conversation, and on reflection is probably better captures the actual quote.

What I learned this week … came as the result of a conversation I had recently with some of the people I know who are passionate about the use of social computing to improve product development. The examples that we kept discussing were good, but to me I kept hearing about better collaboration. Important, but from my use of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. I kept feeling like there was more to it that I wasn’t able to articulate. In one of those “aha” moments (aided by one of my favorite innovation tools, the white board) I finally got it. I would like to share that with you if I can.

Why Social Networking Complements Traditional Collaboration
After trying to crystallize my thoughts on this for a few months now, I think I have come to the essence of why social networking adds significantly to current the current capabilities of PLM:

• Collaboration – Working and sharing ideas with people you already know
• Social Networking in PLM – discovering new people and ideas that can further your product innovation and engineering efforts

In short, the difference is about discovery. PLM today offers great ways to share product data and 3D visual
product representations with others. Redlining, mockups, visualization, and other collaborative techniques help companies develop better products (and develop them faster). This is an important aspect of PLM, because it empowers cross-functional teams to work on the same information and share ideas. Given today’s global, dispersed product teams this is a necessity. Taking to the next level, it helps manufacturers work more closely with suppliers
and customers, allowing them to develop different aspects of a product in parallel but still stay in sync. Many manufacturers are already collaborating effectively internally and externally with some great results including better products that are being brought to the market much faster than before.

So Why Social Networking? Why Discovery?
The “aha” for me was looking back on my time at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) and our use
of Lotus Notes. When we wanted to find out where the expertise was in our vast (even then) network of information and people, you could search a database and find relevant projects and information. It was not perfect, but it helped you uncover important information. But, that wasn’t the value. The value was finding the people associated with the projects and clients, and then tapping into them. It gave us the ability to:

1. Find relevant projects or information
2. Review the information (if authorized) and learn from their documented
   experience
3. Find out who was involved

But of course what was documented was far less than what the person really knew. Now, extend that capability with an ability to:

1. Communicate with that person
2. Tap into that person’s extended network to discover even more ideas and people

Now we are talking about significantly greater business value because social networking drives discovery. This discovery includes leveraging what some call “weak links,” which are people that are in your extended network that you don’t know well enough to know what they know (grossly paraphrased and interpreted compared to the original, with apologies). And then after we discover new ideas and the people that have
them … drum roll please … we start collaborating. And social computing capabilities alongside “traditional” collaboration step in to make that work even better. Brilliant!

Perhaps I am just slower on the uptake than the rest of our community and this has been obvious to others for a while. But to me, I don’t like to bite on using technology for the sake of technology, and this is the first time it is crystal clear in my mind why social networking in PLM is:

• More than just collaboration
• Makes collaboration better
• A significant, complementary addition to the PLM toolset
• An important evolution in PLM (processes and tools)
• Here to stay

Implications for Manufacturers?
I believe this is a significant evolution for PLM. It does not replace the core PLM capabilities that companies need, including product data management (PDM), project and portfolio management, business process automation, or countless others. It doesn’t even replace collaboration. What it does is draw more innovative ideas and people into your product innovation, product development, and engineering processes. And then,
yes, social computing capabilities like chat, presence detection, threaded discussion, unified communication (and more) can help better enable companies to collaborate. But to me, the real opportunity is that it can do more – it can help a manufacturer find out who they should be collaborating with in the first place!

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting and share my excitement for this new development. Let me know what you think.

Note: This post was originally posted in my blog on Manufacturing Business Technology, reposted here in parallel