Clarity on PLM

What I learned this week … was that there is still innovation in innovation-focused events! Last year, I heard from two separate friends about a new event they participated in that they thought was fantastic. Instead of the usual physical conference, they attended a virtual event. This wasn’t the first virtual event I had heard of (I have attended a few and present over the web frequently) – but this was the first one that I heard get high praise.

<Updated to correct my glaring typo – thanks Jenna>

The Event

The event from last year was called Pipeline. It included a series of speakers that rivaled any you would find at an onsite conference. In addition, it had virtual booths that allowed you to get information and interact with speakers and sponsors. Why was this event so much more interesting than others? I have to admit, I don’t know the answer. But they did a few things right:

• The platform for the event was built for this purpose
• The speakers were educational, not giving product pitches
• There is an opportunity to chat with the speakers, perhaps better access than at a physical conference where they have another session to attend
• The sponsors were there to educate as well
• The organizers focus on putting on a great event, not trying to steal the limelight
• They had over 1,000 people attend

In general, it wasn’t a sales pitch wrapped up like a conference. In fact, I wasn’t sure who organized it before looking into it a little bit deeper. Well done. I usually don’t get those kind of unsolicited, positive comments on anything related to a conference.

My Opportunity to Participate (and Yours)

This year, I was surprised to get a phone call from Planview (a portfolio management vendor, a Pipeline sponsor, and also the company that organizes the event). I told them how impressed I was with the conference and was surprised to find out they were asking me to participate. I am happy to say I will be presenting on Social Computing and the Product Lifecycle at Pipeline2011! I plan to attend as well, there are some great speakers. You can register for Pipeline2011 here, it is free to attend and you don’t have to leave the comfort of your office (no travel expenses, and no hangover from staying out to late at the conference).

So I am looking forward to speaking, and also attending. This is a pretty unique event. Who knew that there were such well received virtual events? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

What I learned this week … came after reflecting on this video on social computing in PLM I ran across on PTC’s website. I spent a significant amount of my time and energy last year trying to understand the implications of the social networking explosion on product innovation, product development, and engineering. It was interesting to listen to the podcast with the benefit of time moving on a bit to reassess the situation and see what will likely happen in 2011. So what happens next?

Brief Background and Views

Take a look at the video, but my viewpoint in a nutshell is:

• Social networking and social media have ramped up significantly in our personal lives (Facebook, YouTube, etc.)
• Social computing is continuing to gain ground in work environments and applications (LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.)
• Product innovation is a team sport (inherently requiring collaboration and cross-functional participation)
• Facebook and similar tools aren’t appropriate for new product development (NPD), but the concepts are (see Facebook fail post)
• The content for the social interaction around product development and engineering is the product (making it a natural to integrate it with PLM)
• Early adopters are on the move and gaining benefits (see early results from the Spike research I worked on with Kalypso)

My Crystal Ball Says 2011 Will Bring…

First, I don’t have a crystal ball and I can’t see the future. All I can do is tell you that this is one of the most obvious directions companies will take. This is as close to a “no-brainer” as they come. I do believe that social computing is happening in product innovation and NPD and will continue to expand. The tie to product data is also intuitive to me, although it will take more time and work. So here are my thoughts:

• Collaboration – This will happen sooner rather than later, it is the proverbial “low hanging fruit.” Companies will leverage generalized applications like Microsoft SharePoint, as well as specialty applications like Vuuch. The PLM vendors are actively working here as well, including PTC with SocialLink and Dassault Systemes with SwYm, and Siemens PLM. Integration to product data and existing PLM process will take longer, but the direction has been set. With so many companies still trying to get the basics in place (let’s face it, there are a lot of product data management (PDM) projects still in the works to put the foundation in place) I don’t think that this will cross into the majority this year, but there will be a lot of projects going on.
• Discovery - Finding ideas, people, and information internally is coming. While collaboration is typically within the known product development or engineering team, discovery extends this to a broader group. I think we will see progress on this in 2011. This can start relatively easy with discussion groups and innovation portals. I see a lot of companies experimenting with this. I believe a lot of this will be internally focused, however, which doesn’t stretch business models or existing processes but enhances them.
• Product Knowledge Management -This is an interesting one, and I think it will take longer. The promise here is not only to collaborate and discover, but to capture that interaction for future reference. This requires integrating the interactions back into the product record and storing them. The value is there, but it has to be done in a coordinated, integrated fashion so will take longer (in my opinion).
• Community, VOC, New IP -Developing external communities and gathering ideas from the outside is something I have always said will take longer. I am rethinking that. It requires people to think differently and develop new business models. But I have seen innovative companies get behind this.  For example, Kimberly-Clark talks about an innovative program in this interview. My opinion has changed as I view this as a standalone initiative. Full integration to innovation processes and NPD (and particularly engineering) will likely take longer, but a good idea that doesn’t require a huge investment is not going to wait in an innovative company. I see vendors like Brightidea, Congistreamer, Imaginatik, Spigit, and a host of others making an impact here in addition to the traditional companies.

Implications for Manufacturers

Things are happening. The world is changing the way we communicate, and the leaders will find a way to be more innovative and drive higher levels of profitability. Innovation has started and will continue. When? That is the big question. My crystal ball only works backwards (researching what has already happened). But I think we will see a lot of progress this year. Check back with me in 2012 when my crystal ball (aka rearview mirror) is working.

So those are my thoughts for 2011, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think, or more importantly what you are planning to do about it!

What I learned this week … is that manufacturers (and others) are as passionate and focused on new product development and innovation as ever. I had the opportunity to act as master of ceremonies (emcee JB in the house!) for Aberdeen Group‘s Leadership in Product Development Summit. We had a great lineup of speakers from some great companies that shared their experience in developing new products.

The Discussion

The topic ranged from how to generate new product ideas to how companies can use simulation to validate designs in the digital stages before product development and engineering decisions are locked in. Cindy Jutras, perhaps the most senior analyst at Aberdeen being one of only two research fellows, kicked it off. Cindy gave great insight from Aberdeen’s research that helped companies understand the urgency and priority of improving product development. The research showed that developing new products is a top-of-mind concern for companies across industries.

I followed Cindy’s talk by explaining that in addition to innovative products, early findings from my new upcoming research on NPD (I am publishing the report as an adjunct research fellow of Aberdeen) indicate that companies are aiming to improve the timeliness of product launch and addressing increased price competition. The research I presented turned the corner from the challenges to the actions companies are taking to address them. The early findings from my upcoming Aberdeen benchmark indicate that Best-in-Class companies are targeting improvements to product development across the product development cycle. Leading companies are planning to improve processes starting from generating new ideas, through detailed design and regulatory compliance, all the way to releasing products to manufacturing. The presentations from manufacturers such as Ingersoll Rand, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, iRobot and service companies including Nielson and Wachovia (on product development focus, interestingly enough) reinforced the breadth of product development areas that can be improved, and gave practical examples of how to improve them.

The Group – Diverse and Engaged

One of the things that I enjoyed most was that although the conference was focused primarily on manufacturing companies (who develop physical products), we had speakers and attendees from software and service companies as well. It was great to see the ideas crossing back and forth between industries! The conference was kicked off by Doug Williams of zipcar. For those that don’t know, zipcar is an innovative company that provides cars on demand for their members. Just like Apple, zipcar’s business includes a service component (the cars), a software component (the website and reservation systems), and hardware (the devices in the car). Doug is the executive responsible for engineering for the company, and discussed how they had transitioned from traditional “waterfall” development processes to an agile product development process. What I found fascinating is that even manufacturers that don’t have software in their products (those are getting fewer by the day, it seems with the level of “smart” products with embedded software) could relate to the concept of agile. In fact, the concepts are similar and can help promote a lean product development process. In the same way, Doug Post (it was also the conference of the “three Dougs”) from the DoD talk about validating products early in the lifecycle using simulation technology had the attention of many that had much simpler products than jet fighters or naval vessels.

Implications for Manufacturers

What are my takeaways for manufacturers? First, focus on improving product development across all phases of the lifecycle. Second, take the time to learn from others. It was great to see people getting new ideas and insights from their peers across industries. Thank you to Aberdeen Group for including me in your event! And thank you to sponsors Accept, Ansys, Brightidea, Microsoft, PTC, Adobe, Cognistreamer, and Kalypso for your support of the event (and your participation, too).

So those are some of my thoughts from the conference, I hope you found them interesting. It is clearly not a summary of the whole conference, but instead a couple of my key takeaways. There will be a more comprehensive webcast to wrap things up, keep an eye on the Tech-Clarity events page for new product development, innovation, and PLM-related topics.

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).

A quick peek into some research on … how manufacturers are taking advantage of social computing and “Web 2.0″ technologies to raise the bar on product development performance in my new report Tech-Clarity Insight: Going Social with Product Development: Improving Product Development Performance with Social Computing. The paper discusses the intersection of social computing and new product development (NPD) processes and tools. I have posted frequently about the intersection of social computing and PLM and product innovation, and this research provides some examples on how these strategies are starting to play out for manufacturers like Microsoft (think PC hardware and game consoles, not Windows) and Pitney Bowes.
The Research Findings

The paper discusses uses of social computing from the basics of collaboration to the adoption of more innovative business models. Most companies will start with more conservative extensions to existing processes like design collaboration. In these cases, incorporating tools like instant messaging into the product development workflow can help streamline interactions. Capabilities like presence detection and interactive file sharing help make existing collaborative processes better. For many companies, these capabilities are readily available and require little change to underlying business processes.

Other forms of communication, such as blogs and wikis, offer a combination of better communication and knowledge management. These online discussion tools change the product dialogue from a one-way push of information to a two-way, interactive, dynamic, electronic conversation to help people better share information and ideas. Beyond better communication, the simple fact that the conversations are happening centrally and in electronic format turns product-related discussions and decision-making into a searchable knowledge asset.

Social computing can also be used to extend collaboration and information sharing to broader communities. This allows product developers to collaborate with the people they know, but also extend their search to find others in the corporate network that have valuable knowledge and expertise that previously would have gone untapped. By connecting people around product and project context, companies enable “social discovery” which fundamentally changes the available talent and expertise available to a project.

Beyond the corporate community, companies can also develop new product intellectual property (IP) from social computing. By extending the online community to customers and the market, new opportunities to gather “voice of the customer” and test ideas emerge. While these concepts require more change to the business and the way it operates, they also offer an even greater potential return by leveraging larger communities.

Implications for Manufacturers
The implications break down into two categories. The first implications are about the applicability and importance of social computing in product development. You have probably heard me talk about this before, and this report helps confirm and expand my thoughts on the subject. There is clearly something of value happening with the intersection of this exciting and popular new way of communicating and the business of developing profitable products.

The second set of implications fall into the category of practical advice and lessons learned to take advantage of this new opportunity. The opportunities are available, but the most important thing is that manufacturers don’t discount the applicability of social computing concepts based on their personal experience with Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, or any other social networking sites. Manufacturers have to see through the use of these communication techniques for “fun” and see the significant business potential. This potential will likely never come from the public social networking sites, but instead by incorporating these “Web 2.0″ concepts into existing infrastructure and product development solutions. This is the most practical method to both achieve the value, but also ensure that product data and intellectual property (IP) is protected and that the solutions are used in the right context – to improve products and projects that drive corporate profitability.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on social computing in product development, 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 watching the Did You Know 3.0 Video and asking myself what it means to the world of manufacturing and product lifecycle management (PLM). The answer? Quite a lot. If you haven’t seen the video, it is worth 5 minutes of your time to give you an entertaining and informative look into the times we live in. The part that really caught me was that we live in “exponential times.” Things are changing rapidly in our personal and professional lives, and manufacturers need to consider the ways the world is changing in order to be relevant with the right products (and the right processes) to capitalize on the future.

Note: Thanks to Randall Newton at CADCAMNet for posting the link. I have seen this before, but his post was what made me really think about it.

Did You Know?

The video, if you haven’t seen it before, tries to put the world in perspective through facts and pictograms. I have seen these before, and they are always thought-provoking.  According to the source, this was put together by Karl Fisch and modified by Scott McLeod. Some of the key takeaways for me are:

• MySpace has 200 million subscribers, if it were a country it would be 5th largest in the world
• A week’s worth of the New York Times holds as much information as an average person would come across in a lifetime in the 18th century
• The amount of technical information doubles every two years
• The number of text messages sent/received in a day exceeds the population of the planet
• The time it took for a product/technology to reach a market audience of 50 million:
  • Radio – 38 years
  • Television – 13 years
  • iPod – 3 years
  • FaceBook – 2 years

Further, there are some fascinating facts about the increased capabilities of computing technologies.

What Does it All Mean (for Manufacturing and PLM)?

The video ends with a question – “What Does it All Mean?” – without providing an answer. The answer, of course, depends on who you are and how the changes impact your world.  When I watched this, I tried to take the perspective of what impacts this will have on product innovation, product development, engineering, and manufacturing. Further, I tried to consider how this will impact the software solutions that help support product lifecycle management. There are challenges and opportunities on the way. Here are my thoughts:

• Social networking is exploding – this offers a tremendous benefit for manufacturers that want to use social computing in PLM to improve collaboration and dramatically change the way they interact with their markets and customers.
• Knowledge is exploding – manufacturers have a tremendous challenge to manage their own information and intellectual property, let alone be able to access and leverage the information available across the globe. Search, Knowledge Management (KM), and Business Intelligence (BI) will become bigger requirements inside PLM and to drive product innovation by tapping into global knowledge sources. Social computing will also play a role here, as manufacturers try to discover the people with the right knowledge in addition to knowledge.
• Time to market is evaporating – the time lag between a technical advance and the commercialization is disappearing. This makes new product development (NPD) critical, but also further supports the need to rapidly discover and take advantage of knowledge anywhere in the world. It also means that manufacturers will have to get their products right the first time, or someone else will take the market away from them.
• Computing power is exploding – the exponential growth of computing power will play a large role in what PLM vendors are able to do with their software, opening up new opportunities including continued expansion of 3D, animation, and simulation in the way we interact with products.

So that is some insight on the times we live in and my thoughts on the implications for manufacturing and PLM, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t. And I am sure I missed something, feel free to add. And for those that watched the video, please pass along any ideas on how to get that music out of my head!

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

What I learned this week … came from Bill Poston at Kalypso in his reply to a Business Week article titled “Innovation Interrupted – The Failed Promise of Innovation in the U.S.”

BusinessWeek June Cover

Bill’s commentary really got me thinking about a really fundamental question. Do companies have too few product innovation ideas, or are we just not good at turning those ideas into profitable products? It also made me ask a separate question, “is this really a U.S. -centric issue or is this a global issue?”

Overview

The original article, written by economist Michael Mandel, appeared in BusinessWeek in June. In the article, Michael makes some strong assertions that  the U.S. has not been as innovative over the last decade as it has been in the past, and goes further to point to this lack of innovation is a contributor to the current U.S. financial trouble. He points out a number of areas that held promise in the late 1990′s that failed to live up to market expectations, including:

• Biotech
• Alternative energy
• MEMS (microelectromechanical systems)

Michael explains that “the commercial impact of most of those breakthroughs fell far short of expectations,” and points out the information technology (IT) market as the shining star of innovation over the last decade. What Bill picked up on was what I believe is the story within the story. In Bill’s words, “the problem is more often in the basic fundamentals of new product development and commercialization.” Mr. Mandel supports this as well by saying “Many of the technological high hope of 1998, it turns out, were simply delayed” and “if the current rate of commercialization picks up” the U.S. Economy may recover more quickly. Bill comes down clearly on his viewpoint, saying that “We do not believe that we lack the ability to deliver innovation nor that success is necessarily dependent on brilliant insights or strategies” but that companies “need to focus on the fundamentals and make better business decisions.”

My Perspective

Is this an innovation problem, or a product pipeline problem? Or am I just splitting hairs, and the definition of “innovation” should end with “to make a profit?” I think if I looked through my archives I would find that I define profitability as a core part of my definition of innovation. To me, this story (and Bill’s response) is what I hear from manufacturers everywhere I turn:

• We have enough ideas, we just don’t know how to sort through them to find the valuable ones
• We don’t have a process to effectively take innovation and turn it into profitable, commercial products

Digging deeper, we would probably hear:

• We have too much junk in our portfolio / product pipeline
• Our product pipeline is overloaded
• We can’t move new product development projects through the pipeline fast enough
• We don’t kill projects soon enough

What does all of this mean? Like Bill says, most companies are missing the fundamentals. There are very good, proven best practices that a lot of manufacturers have not adopted. Many companies face the same problems. They are solvable. A process for innovation is important, but a process to commercialize that innovation is a fundamental requirement for a commercial business.

Implications for Manufacturers?

The implications? I will keep this brief. Focus on innovation, but don’t just focus on coming up with great ideas. Focus on new product development and (like the tagline of my old company Sequencia) turning product innovation into profits! Sounds simple, but there is a lot of work to do and it is time to get started.

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