Clarity on PLM

A quick peek into some research on … the benefits and savings available from consolidating onto a common CAD package in your business. Tech-Clarity Insight: Consolidating CAD – Benefits of a Unified CAD Strategy explores the strategic and operational benefits of leveraging a single package. As the research concludes, “… not all businesses have the opportunity to unify their CAD solutions … but there are multiple advantages for those that can.”

The Research Findings

The paper addresses benefits including enabling strategic initiatives and simple cost reduction. Strategically, a single tool can help support business strategies like a “design anywhere – build anywhere” approach. The report also explain how utilizing a single tool can help promote design reuse and simplify collaboration. Of course the biggest benefit may come from the ability to enable a more strategic, integrated PLM environment. These solutions typically involve a suite of pre-integrated solutions that are tailor-made for each other. 

The report also details the very tangible reductions in total cost of ownership for the CAD solution. By evaluating a multitude of cost drivers, the report suggests a framework and a sample set of calculations to quantify the cost savings available from consolidation. Some of the cost drivers are obvious, while others may be more subtle. For example:

• Removal of redundant CAD licenses (ok, no surprise yet)
• Reduce cost of upgrading software tools (maybe less obvious?)
• Eliminate need to develop training for redundant solution (maybe you wouldn’t have thought of this?)

See the report for a more complete listing and an educated (and conservative) example of the cost savings available. While the strategic benefits are compelling, many companies today may consider this strategy simply to achieve leaner IT overhead for their engineering software.

Implications for Manufacturers

What does this mean for manufacturers? I discussed that question with Paul Hoch, Team Leader of Product Engineering Services for lighting solutions manufacturer Zumtobel AG. He echoed a number of the benefits in the report, including cost savings and explaining that they “don’t get the full benefit from <their> 3D CAD models” without PLM. But the most strategic benefit Paul discussed was corporate flexibility, which is critical as companies try to survive in difficult, global markets.

“Our common tool is the basic infrastructure that allows us to make quick decisions on product and plant locations, it provides management with the flexibility and agility they need.“

I am not sure I can add anything more to the power of that statement, other than to suggest again that many companies may pursue consolidation for much more tactical reasons.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on consolidating CAD, 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 … SAP and their customer Colgate in June, and learned that they have been hard at work improving the way manufacturers innovate. I was attending an SAP customer event on PLM to get updated on the progress of SAP’s PLM efforts. SAP continued to showcase their new PLM interfaces (now including Recipe Management for the process industries). But the thing that caught my attention most was a presentation on a newly co-developed solution for product innovation codenamed “Edison.” While this isn’t a formal SAP product as of yet, it shows some real promise on how companies can use social computing to drive innovation.

Note: Hopefully this wasn’t the only thing I learned in June, but things have certainly busy and I am behind in sharing!

What they are Doing

The solution, presented jointly by SAP and Colgate, is labeled as an “idea management” solution. To me that description falls a bit short of what they have developed. The solution handles a broad range of the innovation process, including:

• Idea Solicitation – to help target innovation as opposed to an all purpose suggestion box
• Idea Submission – to capture ideas from participants, including any supporting media they choose to submit
• Review and Processing – to help companies find the ideas they want to focus on, including search, filtering, sorting, tagging, and commenting
• Evaluation – allowing companies to score innovation and promote the good ones
• Execution – although this was a little less clear to me, this is the idea that the promoted ideas would flow into SAP’s PPM solution to turn into product development projects

The first thing that stood out to me as evidence that this was based on practical experience was that they didn’t assume that getting more ideas was better. I run into vendors all the time who like to talk about helping their manufacturing customers get more ideas. All of my research and interviews end up with the same conclusion from manufacturers: “I don’t need more ideas, I need help sorting through all of the junk to find the good ones!” Manufacturers want better ideas, and they want a way to make sense of the volumes of input they get. Kudos to Colgate and SAP for getting this right, which I have to imagine came from Colgate’s real-world experience in innovation.

Another thing I was impressed with was the objectives of the project. They set out to build something “simple, usable, flexible, and extendable.” As well thought out as the solution seems, it doesn’t appear that they over-designed it. The solution does not look or feel like SAP, but instead is a light, web-based experience. While this might not be appropriate for the highly transactional world of traditional SAP solutions, it is ideal for this application where broad use by untrained participants is a key to success. After all, you don’t want all of your innovation coming from a few trained insiders!

One final point that Colgate made which I think is important to consider, is that the solution is not only valuable in the front end of innovation but throughout the new product development process. In fact, early use of the tool at Colgate has helped solve supply chain issues like cost reduction.

Implications for Manufacturers

The use of social computing techniques to drive innovation is beginning to take shape. SAP is clearly interested in providing this capability, as are standalone innovation management solutions such as Brightidea, Imaginatik, Ideajam, and others.  Some upcoming research I will publish soon with Kalypso shows that many manufacturers are getting started in the use of social media in innovation, and those that did are going to increase usage next year. Times are changing, and it will be interesting to see who can best take advantage of this new opportunity.

So that is what I heard from SAP and Colgate, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it. Who else should I be paying attention to in this space?

I  had the chance to talk with … the Siemens PLM team earlier this week at their PLM Connection user’s conference. There are more announcements than I can cover here in one post, so I will concentrate on one major announcement – HD-PLM (High Definition PLM). Siemens is making a significant investment in modernizing the PLM experience with HD PLM. How will it help manufacturers get more from their PLM investment? And from a users’ perspective, can it give the PLM experience a boost to help this valuable corporate tool become a little more fun to work with?

The Announcement

To start, HD-PLM is more than just user experience. It is a new technology framework designed to unify the PLM experience across all of Siemens PLM’s products. In fact, it is planned to be the common client for all solutions. The interface is ( dare I say) cool, and looks like something anyone would be happy to work with. Think Web 2.0 meets PLM. Some examples:

• Highly graphical interface and navigation paradigm – let’s face it, this is how engineers and product developer think
• Cover flow – think iTunes-like interface to browse products)
• Role-based workspace
• Knowledge drill-down – think embedded visual reporting and business intelligence (BI)
• Proactive alerts

Bust Siemens is not just focusing on user experience. “High Definition” means more than what you see. They are are also investing heavily in a more rich definition (and validation) of products, particularly around systems engineering and mechatronics. Siemens will be making a lot more of the vast information in their systems available in an easily accessible, visual way. This is no small project for Siemens, and will provide significant value to Siemens PLM customers.

Implications for Manufacturers

What does this mean to manufacturers? To keep this short and simple:

• PLM will get more fun (and cool)
• Siemens PLM customers can feel comfortable that Siemens is still investing significantly in the future, and will enjoy the benefits of that investment over time as the new technology is released in upgrades of the products they already own
• Non-Siemens customers will have another reason to look at Siemens PLM products

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? I expect to hear a lot more about this in the future, I look forward to sharing it here.

What I learned this week … is that product cost is not getting the attention it deserves in PLM. I was presenting on the future of PLM in a PLM-focused event last week in Helsinki. My topic was the future of PLM, and I based my discussion on the four dimensions of PLM expansion (recently updated past post). I got a great question from one of the participants. He wanted to know “why I hadn’t included cost in the future of PLM?“ My response? Good question!

Product Cost in PLM

Product Cost Management (PCM) in PLM is something that I used to bring up on a regular basis. Design for cost is an important initiatives. Particularly as companies are trying to remain lean in uncertain economic times, controlling cost is critical. Even in good times, designing products with optimal cost structures is hugely important to driving high profit margins. So why has this dropped off of my radar? Is the problem being addressed? Is the problem solved? No.

The problem still lingers, but I haven’t seen as many companies willing to try to address it. Perhaps this complicates the roles of ERP and PLM, and companies don’t want to deal with a hard decision on which system supports which part of the process. ERP and PLM both have the potential to help, and should be a part of the solution. But neither ERP nor PLM are ready to take on the PCM challenge fully.

• ERP
  • Has historic costs
  • Understands multi-currency, locations, volumes, other sourcing factors
  • Generally handles cost for the execution of procurement and manufacturing
• PLM
  • Has new parts
  • Understands product content early when costs are locked into designs
  • Generally handles product development decisions in the innovation lifecycle

So each system has some thing to offer. So why instead of addressing this properly with the right combination of ERP and PLM, do companies continue to use masses of disconnected spreadsheets to solve the problem? At least I can hope that they are managing the spreadsheets in PLM so it is readily available and can be reused. But that is only a partial solution. We need a better answer.

Challenges

ERP and PLM both bring value as seen above, but both fall short. Here are some of the issues:

• New purchased parts - ERP is not involved in the early parts of design, and doesn’t help with estimating costs of new parts. PLM (for the most part) doesn’t have a rich enough model for sourcing. I have seen “cost” as a single field too many times, without any concept that the cost will change based on volumes, locations, currencies, etc.
• Newly engineered parts – For brand new parts, there is not historic data to work from. Costs need to be developed based on product characteristics like materials and manufacturing complexity. Comparisons can help, but ERP typically doesn’t know enough to determine which parts are similar in their construction

Who will step up?

Are vendors ready for this? Agile has had a cost model for some time. Siemens partnered with ATK. Dassault Systemes invested in this area. PTC just announced that their InSight product analytics product will address cost. So there is hope. There are also specialty vendors like Akoya and aPriori that help engineers estimate cost based on product attributes. Why haven’t SAP PLM and Oracle (with Agile and ERP) done something about it?

More importantly, are manufacturers ready? Adidas CIO mentioned Design for Cost at a PLM user conference (PTCuser) yesterday. But I don’t hear it often enough. I haven’t seen the momentum that something as important to profitability as cost deserves.

Implications for Manufacturers

If manufacturers aren’t willing to integrate cost into their design processes (and PLM), they will be stuck with spreadsheets. And actually, the question was broader. The question also addressed other financials in addition to cost. For example, is PLM addressing product pricing? Product forecasting? While I think that it makes sense for PLM to address this, I have seen little activity in this area to this point. What a shame. What a great opportunity for someone to step up.

So that is my rant for today, I hope you found it interesting. Why did this fall off of my radar? Did it fall off of yours? Have you done something to address this? If you did let us know about it!

A quick peek into some research on … on social computing for product development. Why does Facebook miss the mark? Can it be fixed? I have been talking for some time about the potential value of social computing in PLM and have mentioned before why Facebook will fail. I am preparing for a presentation next week, and decided to pull my thoughts together. So here they are, I look forward to your feedback.

The Research Findings

There are two parts to the findings. The first is a list of concerns that I have heard, here is a short list:

• What relevance do status comments and photos have to do with serious engineering?
• How will we protect intellectual property?
• 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)?
• How do I have time to pay attention to this in addition to everything I already do?
• How do we address security concerns?

OK, part two. Can it be fixed? Yes, but I doubt they will do it. There are two reasons:

• They are not focused on this and don’t have domain expertise
• They don’t have the ability to connect to the underlying context, the product data

But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let’s see what Facebook can teach us about PLM. Here are my thoughts (and if you happen to be in Helsinki next week stop by to see this live):

Implications for Manufacturers

Don’t look to tools like Facebook to help you with social computing in PLM. But don’t discount the concepts. Learn from them. They are compelling. And manufacturers are getting started. In fact, I look forward to sharing research that I am doing with Kalypso that gives some great insight on what companies have been doing.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on Facebook failing in PLM, I hope you found it interesting. Yes, I know they didn’t design to tool for product development, so I am really not picking on them. 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 PLM Processes: Flowchart vs. Rule-based? from Oleg in PLM Twine. He discusses rule-based business processes for PLM, which immediately set off red flags in my head based on past experience. Oleg made me think about two different experiences I have in the same context, and it made me shudder. Why? I have seen rules go wrong too many times. And I have seen workflow processes go wrong just a many times.

Workflow Warnings

As Oleg knows, I am bit of a process weenie. Years at Andersen Consulting (the part that is now Accenture) will do that to you. I am 100% in favor of defining processes as a part of implementing business change and supporting technology. But here are some tidbits that I think are worth sharing:

• Define All Processes - Technology implementations should be process driven. Unless you define how the technology helps the business, you won’t get the most out of it.  
• Automate Some of Them - Not all processes should be workflows. While workflow is a great tool to automate and enforce processes, don’t overdo it. I have seen people implement workflow for workflow’s sake. It should be used as needed to improve efficiency and process adoption, but don’t workflow everything.
• Don’t Sweat the Exceptions – There are times where humans need to step in to make decisions and alter workflows. Don’t try to handle every exception condition. If you can identify them and send an alert, great. But most importantly make sure you have flexibility to alter a workflow based on business needs. This is where I see rules-based processes go wrong. Companies try to make rules cover too much, get too complex, and end up being hard to maintain, outdated, and eventually ignored.

The combination of workflow and rules can be very powerful, but can also lead to a resource sinkhole of if not approached cautiously. This is true for the process / rule authors and those that execute them alike.

Implications for Manufacturers

Define your processes. Use workflow where it makes sense. Keep it simple. Don’t try to do too much. Don’t forget that in many scenarios people make better decisions in context than any pre-determined set of rules can handle – don’t tie their hands. If you have standard operating procedures that you need to follow, you may need to document process exceptions. But don’t entirely lock them down in the system. Exceptions will happen, and if the system doesn’t accommodate the real world it will just happen outside of the system in an unmanaged way.

So those are my quick reactions to Oleg’s post, I hope you found it interesting. His post is worth reading if you haven’t already. But I get scared when I see the opportunity for things to go astray. And workflow and rules are a great candidate for bad things to happen. And this is from a self-admitted process weenie!

A quick peek into some research on … how manufacturers and vendors plan to react to the market for CAD, CAE, PLM, and other engineering software in 2010. Last week I posted the first part of my research for COFES, Engineering Market Research Results from COFES 2010. Last week I reviewed how 2009 predictions played out and what the survey participants expect from 2010. Today, I plan to focus on what they are going to do about it.

The Research Findings – What Comes Next?

Let’s jump right in. 2009 was a bad experience for most companies in our market, but the outlook for 2010 looks a lot better. Stunning analysis on my part, isn’t it? More details are in the prior post, but I realize I stating the obvious based on what most of you are experiencing. So what did the survey say will happen in the engineering software market between now and this time next year (2011)? It is not all positive.

• Continued Consolidation – Over half of the respondents predict “continued consolidation within the industry.” This is not all bad, by the way. The market for suites of applications always relies on innovation around the edge and consolidation into an integrated offering. This has been true for other markets as well, for example the way ERP became such a large suite of solutions. I expect we will also see the kind of consolidation expected in most mature markets, where companies acquire older solutions to scale up their customer base and maintenance revenue. 
• Fewer New Entrants – Almost half (44%) of the participants believe there will fewer new companies coming into our market. I have heard that it is still difficult to get venture funding, so this doesn’t surprise me. I hope this changes, because I think market innovation is much easier in a “garage” than in a big corporate R&D center.
• Entry by “Others” – A third that responded to the survey see further entry into this market by “non-traditional” vendors like SAP, Oracle, and possibly others through acquisition. Interestingly, less than half that many (15%) believe those same companies will enter by developing their own solutions. See Who Will Disrupt PLM Giants? for more of my thoughts on that.

The Research Findings – What Are We Doing About It?

So that explains what we think will happen, but what are market participants planning do it about it? In a word, grow. In two words, grow profitably.

• Over 1/2 of companies polled listed “grow in existing markets” and “grow in new markets“ in their three responses. What clearer message could we get? Companies are upbeat about 2010.
• But wait, 40% say they also have “remain lean” in their strategies for 2010. I believe there are two drivers behind this. The first is caution. Yes, we are recovering. But no, I haven’t talked to a lot of people that are 100% confident that it will continue or that we won’t have a “double dip.” But there is another reason, in my opinion. That is profitability. Companies that remain lean in growth markets make nice profits. It is not sustainable over the long haul because people get overworked, but as a business strategy it works.

Implications for Manufacturers
So what does this all mean if you are a manufacturer? First, you are facing many of the same conditions. Your businesses are also planning to grow, but you will likely stay lean. One of the way to stay lean is to get the most out of the resources you have, which I believe will help fuel the engineering software market recovery. To remain lean, many manufacturers will upgrade tools and automate processes to improve efficiency. 2010 will be a busy year. But would anybody trade a busy 2010 for a repeat of 2009? I doubt it. Let’s get things rolling again, and then as growth is sustained let’s start to invest and get people back to work.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on how companies plan to react to the recovering market in 2010, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

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

Enterprise Applications Roles

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

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

Social Software and Enterprise Applications

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

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

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

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

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

My Complementary View

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

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

Implications for Manufacturers

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

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

A quick peek into some research on … the market for CAD, CAE, PLM, and other engineering software for 2010. 2009 was a very difficult year, no surprise. But what does 2010 look like? When will the market recover to pre-recession levels? Those are the questions we asked in a research study conducted between Tech-Clarity (me), Cyon Research, and Design Insight. Here is a synopsis of the research I presented at COFES in April.

Note: Please understand that I am not a financial analyst, and that this research is based on survey data that indicates the sentiment and beliefs of those buying, selling, and otherwise participating in the engineering software market. In other words, there is no financial investment advice here.

The Research Findings – History

The results from the 2009 engineering software market study were difficult to look at. Unfortunately, they were a pretty good reflection of the situation. Most people felt that it would be at least 2-3 years before the market recovered. More telling, however, was that the execs at the companies that buy the software said the recovery were more pessimistic than the execs at the companies the sell the software. That was a disturbing finding. We also discussed the implications for smaller vendors (specialty vendors and startups) and the projection was not pretty. So what really happened? And how do companies in the engineering software market feel today?

The Research Findings – View in 2010

The market is clearly recovering. While last year I had to start with a quote from Dilbert to lighten everybody up, this year I quotes Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying the economy started growing again in the 3rd quarter of 2009, and the economy was finally starting to create jobs. There was no surprise or sigh of relief in the room, everybody already knew this. Since that time, Dassault Systemes, PTC, and Siemens PLM have reported good news (quarterly results and/or big deals) compared to last year (among others).  My FABWA (financial analysis by walking around) at the conference told me that smaller companies are feeling the recovery as well. People are buying engineering software again (please insert a choir of angels here).

What did the over 400 survey participants have to say? Here are the highlights:

• The predictions from last year for 2010 were relatively accurate, 59% of of respondents said their business suffered “severe” or “moderate” negative impact in 2009 (compared to a prediction of 55%) – Mythbuster approved!
• The projections for 2010 are better, but don’t indicate we are out of the woods yet. 23% still expect moderate negative impact in 2010. But only 8% predict severe negative impact, and 20% expect a positive impact. We’ll take that over 2009 for sure!
• The channels including VARs (value added resellers) and consultants were hurt the most. Over 1/2 experienced severe negative impact. This was worse than predicted, even though the expectations were not very positive.
• Suite vendors including those with multiple engineering software solutions, enterprise software vendors (like SAP and Oracle), and infrastructure providers (like Microsoft) faired the best. Only 20% experienced severe negative impact.
• The channels are the least optimistic for a positive impact in 2010 (only 9%), while the suite vendors are the most optimistic (36%)
• Our predictions for smaller vendors were mixed, with larger vendors expecting more failures in their smaller competitors. While it was a tough year, the majority of the companies respondents had direct experience with fell into the “struggle but survive” category. The smaller vendors predicted this, and good for them. Of course there have been consolidations and failures, and as one participant commented “100% of the startups I was following failed to start“

So the obvious question is what comes next? Well, for  me it as another cup of coffee and a decision that this post is getting too long. So look for a part 2 with the future view shortly.

Implications for Manufacturers

So what does this all mean to the people using engineering software to make a living? The good news is that your business is likely recovering as well. The bad news, is that you are probably running very lean. But from this research (and related research by Cyon Research presented by Brad Holtz) you are also likely to be buying engineering software to help. I am sure that is good news to many that have had strategic programs put on hold due to economic uncertainty. Things are starting to move forward again.

And hopefully your critical vendors either survived the downturn or were acquired by a company that will support you well. The vendor shakeout is probably not entirely over, but if your vendor made it through 2009 they have proven they have some resilience and should have a much easier time going forward.

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

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

The Research Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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