Clarity on PLM

What I learned this week … came from a Crowdsourced Manufacturing? blog entry by Wayne Hodgkins. I haven’t read his Off Course-On Target blog before, but I liked what he had to say.  He made me really start to look at 3D Printing as a viable manufacturing options as opposed to a prototyping / design validation tool. This post is interesting, but I also took a quick look at his posts on printing in stainless steel and a very cool contraption that includes an onion, a laser scanner, and a 3D printer. Click through his site to David Bowen’s and see a video of that machine in action, it is a piece of art.

My Preconceptions about 3D Printing

OK, here is where I open myself up to criticism. I have always considered 3D Printing a tremendously valuable tool for developing rapid, inexpensive prototypes. To me, a digital 3D model is a great way to visualize a design, but it is (in the end) still presented on a 2D screen. As much work has been done in adding life-like reality to digital models, there is still something very significant about holding something in your hands. My impression of the 3D printing technologies was a way to quickly make a model of a part to help validate the design of the real part.

What I Have Learned

3D printing is not an area I have spent much time researching, so I may just be behind the curve. But what I am starting to get a glimpse into is the world where 3D printing means serious manufacturing. The post about printing with stainless steel, for example, talks about printing molds for real parts. But then goes further to explain how stainless parts can be printed by a company called Shapeways. I love the term used in one of the blogs, DIY Manufacturing (DIY for “do it yourself”). Clearly this is not going to replace manufacturing as we know it any time soon, but these technologies will certainly have a place and will make an impact.

Implications for Manufacturers

I want to revise something I said above. I now see 3D Printing as a viable manufacturing options in addition to being a prototyping / design validation tool. Both are very valuable and can change the interaction between design and manufacturing. By lowering the barriers between the digital model and the physical part (whether prototype or real) the potential for rapid innovation and design iteration explodes. It also opens up great possibilities to allow parts to be designed in one location and “printed” in another. We have gone from drawings and physical prototypes to digital prototypes. Now, I am starting to imagine a collaboration where one engineer effectively “e-mails” a part to a supplier, or “faxes” a part to another engineer by laser scanning a physical part or prototype and sending the model to be printed. One step further, why can’t I order a 3D model from anywhere in the world and just go to my local printer (unless I have one in my garage) to pick up the part? Who knows, maybe this is already happening somewhere.

So this is clearly an area I need to learn more about, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let me know about it.

I had the chance to talk with … Siemens PLM a couple of times in response to my post on Quality Lifecycle Management titled Expanding PLM’s Pervue – Quality and Risk Management. While I mentioned that some of the major PLM vendors had developed solutions for quality management, I did not mention Siemens PLM. The reason for not mentioning them, I explained, is that I didn’t know about their solution! I since had a good conversation with the Siemens team about their offering. It is interesting, takes a bit of a unique approach, and I think it is worth talking about. So here it is!

What do they Offer?

What I find unique about the Siemens Dimensional Planning and Validation (DPV) solution is that it does not replicate what standalone Quality Risk Management (QRM) and Quality Lifecycle Management vendors offer. It is a relatively unique approach, which also makes it a complementary solution.  One of the main things things that manufacturers can do to improve quality is to “close the loop” on quality by feeding actual results back into the manufacturing and design processes to improve quality. That is what the Siemens solution does.

Providing feedback on quality to upstream functions  is one of those concepts that is obvious to most people, few will disagree with, but most companies don’t do. Why? It is hard to cross organizational boundaries and get people to work together. Frequently, Engineering and Manufacturing don’t have access to information (or at least information that they trust.) Sometimes, as I am sure some will point out, they just don’t listen. What I like about the Siemens solution is that the feedback is quantitative and based on actuals. In fact, what the solution does is take actual dimension product measurements (typically from automated testing equipment) from the shop floor and provide feedback upstream.

By tracking actual dimensional results by plant, production run, and other manufacturing parameters the solution offers the ability to analyze performance over time and look for improvement opportunities. One of the key elements that makes this beneficial is the analytical engine behind it, similar to other trends to use business intelligence (BI) in PLM. Another nice feature is that the results become a part of the PLM data model, and can even be shown against the 3D model. The goal is to provide feedback to Engineers so they can adjust designs, features, tolerances, and inspection points to improve quality by design. In short, they are closing the loop.

Siemens explained the value in simple terms, which I will use as the last words for this section. I think these words some sum up the difference in their solution, because it is based on actual results, uses analytics and allerts to provide the right information to Engineers, and puts the results into the product/PLM context to be shared broadly across the enterprise. In their words, the solution helps manufacturers:

“Find it quicker, fix it faster, share the knowledge“

Who do they Work with?

This solution is primarily intended for discrete manufacturers with dimensionally based parts. The early development customer that Siemens worked with is in the automotive industry, where quality is critical and production volumes are high enough to make this feedback useful. Other similar industries can benefit from this as well.

So that’s what I hear from Siemens PLM, 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 use of business intelligence in PLM provides insight on taking advantage of the tremendous amount of product data  accumulating in today’s PLM systems. The research discusses how the maturation of manufacturers’ PLM implementations has created a tremendous volume of untapped information that can be leveraged to improve product innovation, product development, and engineering performance. As it has in previous enterprise applications (ERP, CRM, SCM, others), the time has come for manufacturers to tap into their growing information goldmines through the use of business intelligence (BI) tools.

The Research Findings

The research points out two parallel trends in PLM implementations today:

• Manufacturers have moved forward along the PLM implementation maturity curve – meaning they now have stable implementations and clean data
• PLM has evolved and expanded to incorporate more valuable, business-focused data in addition to technical information – meaning the data to be mined covers a broader spectrum of the product lifecycle, including cost, projects, sourcing, service, and more in addition to purely technical engineering data

The result of these two trends is that there is now a lot more usable business data in PLM. The report points out a number of areas of value that can be mined from the data, including savings on new product development timelines, closing the loop from service to engineering, improving product quality, analyzing sourcing, and reducing cost. In short, it shows that value can be extracted by improving pretty much any part of the product innovation, product development, and engineering processes. Please read the report for more details and examples.

Implications for Manufacturers

The message for manufacturers is that “there is gold in them hills” …. errrrrr, in those databases. The research also points out some special considerations for business intelligence in a PLM environment. For most manufacturers, applying a BI tool is not the difficult part. In fact, they probably have (at least) one tool available in their IT toolkit. But before diving in from a technical perspective, manufacturers need to be very careful to consider security, IP protection, and regulatory requirements that surround this very sensitive data. Manufacturers should also look for ways to leverage PLM vendor offerings or partnerships that give them a ready-made view into the PLM data and security model, to avoid spending time recreating the wheel and potentially making mistakes that provide misleading “facts” that people will trust. As the report says, “Developing an effective BI in PLM strategy also requires knowledge of the engineering and product development domains and the specific software applications being mined.”

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the maturation of PLM implementations and the opportunity it provides for data mining in 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.

What I learned this week … is a thought sparked by a post in the Daily PLM Think Tank on Engineering and Manufacturing Data Management back in 1992. The post isn’t from 1992, but Oleg was re-reading some books from that time and commented on some issues that the manufacturing industry is still struggling with after 17 years of progress. I know there are strong proponents of the single bill of material (BOM) concept, but I wonder if we will every really get there and whether we haven’t made some really good progress managing bills of material with different perspectives. And maybe, just maybe, there is an easier way.

The Single Bill

Oleg’s post doesn’t go into detail, but the first issue he shares is “Multiple Bills of Material” and follows with “Relations between Design, Engineering BOM and Routing.” The truth is that Engineering works from a different BOM than Manufacturing does. And, as the post also points out there are also separate “Maintenance and Repair Bill of Materials.” There are strong arguments for a single BOM that supports different views for different people (engineers vs. manufacturing vs. service, etc.). And there are very strong proponents (to the tune of religious zealot levels of belief). So for this discussion, let’s take as a given that it would be great to have a single BOM.

Single BOM – Feasible or Folly?

Now that we are all friends, it is time to ask a practical set of questions:

• Is a single BOM really feasible?
• How hard of a transition would it be to support processes for a single BOM?
• And (most importantly) how much is it worth?

Let’s face it. Engineers care about things that manufacturers don’t. And manufacturing engineers care about things that design engineers don’t. Manufacturing really requires a lot more information than engineering, they require an integrated view of both the materials and procedures required to product a product – a Bill of Process (BOP). See more thoughts on the BOP in Research Rap: Enhancing Productivity and Reducing Cost with MPM and the Digital Factory and the related research report. Can the BOP be a different view of the same BOM? Yes, potentially. But that asks a lot of the people, the process, and the data model.

One other consideration is the difference between what an ERP needs to execute the business of manufacturing as compared to what engineers need. ERP BOMs frequently include information used for costing and consumable items used in manufacturing. They also summarize a detailed set of components into a single part number for procured items or sub-assemblies based on how they are physically present in the manufacturing environment. Even ERP routings are much simpler than the detailed BOP, primarily focusing on the level of detail required to track cost and plan production. See Research Rap: Complementary Roles of ERP and PLM in Innovation and look for some new Tech-Clarity research coming soon on the integrated roles of ERP and PLM. Again, can these be different views of the same data? Of course. But as we have proven by history, people aren’t moving in that direction with any great haste because it is simply hard to pull off.

We haven’t even touched on service, spare parts, preventitive maintenance, or discussed tracking “as built” or “as serviced” BOMs. But let’s just agree for the sake of argument that they are not easy to integrate.

Cost-Benefit of the Single BOM

OK, you are probably thinking “why didn’t he answer the questions he asked in the beginning of this section? All we have discussed so far is that it is difficult. So let’s conclude that there is a cost associated with moving to a single BOM approach. And for now, let’s ignore what it would take to transition from the “as is” to the “to be” state.

Now that we have agreed there is challenge and cost associated with a single BOM approach, the most logical question is to ask how much value the single BOM provides. Clearly, a single BOM would contribute to fewer errors and disconnects between all of the different people in involved in a product over the product lifecycle. It would go a long way towards the “single version of the truth” in regards to products that we all profess. But here is where I want to throw out a different question. Instead of comparing the cost-benefit of the single BOM approach, let’s look back at history and see if an alternate approach has been evolving as PLM has matured.

Single BOM or Associated BOMs?

Manufacturers and PLM providers have not ignored this topic. I would argue that a lot of progress has been made. How? Companies have spent a lot of time and effort making logical connections between different BOMs, and developing tools to help develop and synchronize different BOMs. For example, PLM, MPM, and Digital Manufacturing software helps companies translate an engineering BOM into a manufacturing BOM and then further into a BOP. In fact, they have gone further upstream to match conceptual BOMs and requirement structures downstream to BOMs. Maybe you would call these “workarounds” to the real answer of a single BOM. But I would propose a different view based on history and my observations. Perhaps engineers have done what we do best – addressed the problem in the most practical way as opposed to the most elegant way to solve a problem.

So those are my thoughts, I hope you found them interesting. I will admit that I am not a zealot in one direction or the other, and recognize those that are passionate about a single BOM. I am happy to be educated on different views, but I think the question needs to be asked. Are we trying to achieve our goals by taking the long, hard road when an easier path might suffice? Or am I all wet?

A quick peek into some research on … the use of digital prototyping techniques and technologies to design (and redesign) efficient manufacturing plants. Most of the times I discuss “digital prototyping” it regards products. But the same concepts apply when using digital prototyping in the plant – namely using digital models to increase design efficiency and get designs right the first time. Today I am happy to share my new report with you, Digital Prototyping in the Plant: Improving Manufacturing Agility with the Digital Factory.

Why Digital Prototyping Now?

Clearly, the economy has been tough on manufacturers across the globe. Today, manufacturers are facing a series of demands to survive today and thrive during the economic recovery. I researched engineering’s role in a survive and thrive strategy from a product perspective earlier this year, noting that Engineering can make short-term impacts on both the top and bottom lines in the near term while innovating to prepare for the future. But what impact does the economic downturn have on manufacturing and plant engineers? In the plant right now, you are probably facing:

• The need to cut cost
• The demand to improve efficiency
• The requirement to adjust to plant or line consolidations, volume/mix changes, and potentially new products
• Lean resources to accomplish all of the above

What Did the Research Reveal?

Tech-Clarity interviewed leading manufacturers including Android, Robert Bosch, and General Motors on their use of digital prototyping. By leveraging 3D models in their plants, these manufacturers are improving their ability to design and reuse optimal tooling at a detail level as well as optimizing workstations, lines, and plants at a macro level. They are leveraging the tools to validate and optimize changes in a virtual environment before commiting to physical changes. In return, they are able to “find hundreds of issues … early in the process” and ensure smooth production in the plant when modifications are brought online. 

One interesting finding was the use of 3D laser scanning to create 3D models of older plants that were likely designed using 2D drawings. In these scenarios, 3D for prototypes is created “using 3D laser scanning (LIDAR) to capture 3D point clouds of existing brownfield sites and pulling those into our CAD models.” This helps to reduce the barrier to entry for digital prototyping in existing plants.

Another interesting finding was the use of digital prototypes to collaborate with tooling suppliers, who are frequently geographically dispersed. With lower travel budgets and short time frames, electronic collaboration can bridge the gap. As one participant said, “This enables engineers collaborating deeply with external design suppliers to see the changes much faster and with less errors than in the 2D world.” Of course digital prototypes also help enable collaboration with design engineers in a concurrent engineering approach to get new products ramped up quickly.

Implications for Manufacturers

Cost saving opportunities are available, and change is inevitable. Manufacturers today have the opportunity to increase their agility and improve efficiency through digital prototyping technology. Please read the report for more recommendations. You may also be interested in a prior report, Leveraging the Digital Factory: Enhancing Productivity from Operator to Enterprise on the use of digital prototyping and Manufacturing Process Management (MPM) and Digital Manufacturing solutions to reduce cost, speed time to market, and improve product quality.

 So that was a quick peek into some recent research on digital prototyping in the plant, 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 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.

I had the chance to talk with … Siemens (the manufacturer) and Siemens PLM (their PLM software group) last week as a participant in an PLM industry analysts meeting. The meeting was full of interesting updates on their PLM products, but one thing that really struck me was Siemens talking about Siemens. As many people know, Siemens was a big user of Siemens PLM solutions prior to acquiring them (back when they were known as UGS). When Siemens acquired UGS I saw some real promise and some real potential problems, it was interesting to get an update and a new perspective.

Recapping my Earlier Thoughts on the Acquisition

I shared my public thoughts on the Siemens-UGS acquisition in my blog, and shared some more thoughts directly with the UGS and Siemens teams. In short, I believed:

• It was a positive move to have a more stable “home” for UGS, although they were doing well on their own
• There was a tremendous opportunity for the newly joined company to integrate engineering and manufacturing execution
• There was a real risk (in my mind at least) that Siemens would start touting a fully integrated PLM-MES-Plant Equipment model before many of their customers were ready to think about it, let alone have the maturity to take advantage of it

Looking back at my blog from May, 2008 I see comments like “too much vision?” and “too big to fit in people’s heads.” It looks like I didn’t pull many punches in my public blog, I guess I should be thankful I am still asked to the meetings…

Siemens (the PLM Vendor) on Siemens (the Manufacturer)

Fast forward to the present time, and I am pleased to say that Siemens PLM is selling … drum roll please … PLM. The Siemens leadership has taken a very pragmatic approach to integrating the companies, and (from what I can see from the outside at least) let Siemens lead the way. Most of the UGS leadership is still in place, and Siemens seems to respect the former UGS organization’s knowledge of the software industry. From the product updates it is clear that they have not taken their eye off of other PLM opportunities or overemphasized the integration initiative, as the PLM solution is being enhanced in ways that the PLM market demands, not the parent company. Of course, that is what is in the best interest of Siemens as a whole, but sometimes acquiring companies lose perspective on things like that.

Having said that, the larger opportunity has not been lost. It just hasn’t been pushed into places where it is too much to handle. The teams talked about some real examples of joint opportunities where they have worked together, and are moving in a practical way towards integrated offerings. What was even more interesting to me as to listen to Helmuth Ludwig talk about Siemens as a corporation. He talks about the ability to team with his manufacturing counterparts to help move towards greater integration of innovation and manufacturing. He used the term “laboratory” to explain how they can learn internally from their more advanced manufacturing businesses. Siemens (and other PLM vendors) often team with their more advanced customers to experiment and co-develop solutions, but few have the advantage of having the PLM vendor, the manufacturer, the MES vendor, and the plant equipment/controls vendor all within the same company.

Siemens (the Manufacturer) on Siemens (the PLM Vendor)

The other perspective that was shared at the meeting was from a Siemens manufacturing plant. This was not one of the “laboratory” opportunities, but one that was still maturing in their use of PLM. My key takeaways from that presentation are:

• They were using Siemens PLM solutions before the acquisition
• They are continuing to use Siemens PLM solutions now
• They are running at their own PLM maturity level, and not overwhelmed with having to adopt the fully integrated model (which they aren’t organizationally ready for)

In short, they are free to move up the PLM maturity curve at their own pace, and Siemens PLM is there to support them. The goods news is that Siemens seems to be able to support the majority of the market that is early in PLM maturity, at the same time they are pushing the limits on the more advanced end of a fully integrated innovation-production model.

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

I had the chance to talk with … a couple of vendors this year about Quality Lifecycle Management, or QLM. I posted earlier about What I Learned: Expanding PLM’s Pervue – Quality and Risk Management and promised to follow up with some more detail on the vendors. Here are my thoughts on my conversations with MasterControl. Before I get started, it’s important to state up front that MasterControl is not a pureplay QLM suppplier, but a broader solutions company that has strong capabilities in document management coupled with a history of helping companies in regulated industries. More on that later.

What do they Do?

Industry analysts like to put software companies into categories and neat little boxes so we can compare them to each other. This doesn’t fit the reality of most software companies or solutions, because – with the exception of some very mature enterprise solutions or point tools – the solution scope and footprint varies from vendor to vendor.Quality management solutions are particularly difficult, because they are often part of a larger solution (such as ERP, PLM, MES, or a combination of the above). As one commenter on my last post rightfully points out, “quality is a series of well defined business processes.” 

So what box do we put MasterControl in? You could start with “Document Management” and cover a lot of bases. In fact, MasterControl does offer document management capabilities for quality processes, including FMEA, CAPA, non-conformance, quality audit, regulatory submissions, and others. But that would not really suffice in an explanation. MasterControl also helps to manage change control, and even position themselves as a “compliant PLM” solution in some instances. Indeed, they can manage BOMs and other engineering and manufacturing data, including the DMR (device master record) for medical device companies. 

What do they Offer?

So not quite so easy to fit MasterControl into a single box, but one thing is certain – they should be considered when companies are looking for QLM. So while they don’t fit neatly into that box, they have a lot of capabilities in that arena and more. MasterControl focuses more on process compliance than product compliance, which is different (and potentially complementary) to some other, highly product-focused QLM solutions. One other consideration that is pretty unique is that MasterControl also helps regulated companies validate their software implementations. They also offer an integrated training module which helps track employee training records, which can be important to compliance efforts and audits.

Who do they Work With?

MasterControl works with a large number of manufacturers in the regulated industries, but also serves less regulated industries. Their customer list spans quite a few industries, including both discrete and process manufacturing industries. They also have a strong presence in midsize companies.

So that’s what I hear from MasterControl, I hope you found it useful. I have talked about two very different vendors so far, which points out how fragmented this market really is. What do you think? Is quality a missing link in PLM? What else should I have asked them?

A quick peek into some research on … the economic state of manufacturing in the US. I don’t research the market or financials, but the least 12-24 months have been tough on manufacturers and all of those that are a part of the manufacturing ecosystem. I saw this press release from the Associated Press, and realized how long I have been waiting for some positive indication for all of us. And here it is…”Stocks higher on improving manufacturing data.” It’s about time!

 The Research

The statement was based on two reports. Here are the findings from the release:

On Thursday, investors were encouraged by news that factory activity in the mid-Atlantic region jumped back into positive territory in August, reaching its highest level since November 2007, before the recession began. The report from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank echoed findings earlier this week in a similar survey for the New York region.

Implications for Manufacturers

Maybe these reports are a sign that brighter futures are ahead. Although these two reports are not enough to build a strategy around, I thought we could all use some good news. For those that have been diligently working on product innovation during the quiet time, maybe 2010 will finally be the time to take the wraps off of your new products to greet a receptive market. Good luck to us all on this.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the manufacturing market, I hope you found it interesting. I look forward to sharing some more of my own research on PLM with you over the next month. Does the research reflect your reality? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

What I learned this week … came from a presentation given by Jim Heppelmann and Brian Shepherd of PTC and this week’s PTCUser conference. The presentation gave a view into some of the interesting things that PTC is working on in their solution set, and a peek into their vision for the future of PLM systems. More accurately, what Jim and Brian said the future for their Product Development System as opposed to “PLM,” which is an important differentiation for them.

Overview

User conferences are a great place to let software customers know about all of the great new solutions they should be considering. This conference is no different, PTC has been busy and they have a lot to show off. Of particular interest to me was getting an update on their views on the use of social computing techniques in PLM. I have posted before on PTC’s social product development strategy, and I was looking forward to the update. The most interesting part of the conversation wasn’t directly about social computing, but about how these “community” applications fit in with the rest of PLM…err, I mean PDS.

Enter the “Triad”
I will not do this justice here, so I will introduce it quickly and we can drive some conversation around it in the comments. The core message is that there have been two primary sets of applications for product development and engineering, and now there is a third category. The concept is PTC’s, but I am putting it in my own words below. The three legs of the stool, then, are:

User – This are the individual productivity tools. This is what makes the engineer more efficient in their work. These tools include CAD, CAE, and others. They are the “Microsoft Excel” types of tools, those that help one person at a time do their job.

Corporate – The are enterprise applications. These solutions provide control and coordination across a business. They are typically more complicated, and sometimes require a trade-off between personal productivity and corporate value (such as capturing and managing IP). Many times, users feel these solutions are an extra part of their job as opposed to an enabler, and that they have to “feed the system.”

Community -  These are social computing applications. These help companies collaborate and share information in a lighter weight, looser environment. This is the new area of solutions that promise to drive better team performance.

I have some additional thoughts and questions, but I will hold them for now. The one piece I will share is that these areas are not entirely distinct, and that they get more value when they are together. The value gained from one does not exclude potential value from the others. A quick example is that by logging the collaborative comments in the “community” applications, you are creating new corporate knowledge and IP – but without feeling like you are “feeding the system.” So maybe in the long run the “community” category helps provide some of the control but with a lower level of effort from the user? OK, enough on that from me right now.

Implications for Manufacturers?

In the short-term, this is a new way to look at social computing applications and how they fit with your individual productivity tools and your enterprise applications. It is a way to think about how to complement your current solutions with new capabilities. It is also a good metric to use when evaluating the vision of your PLM solution provider. Are they looking out for all three legs of your triad? They should be.

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think.