Clarity on PLM

What I learned this week … came from some discussions with Chris Williams yesterday about my blog post SAP – Too Much, or Too Little Credit for PLM? in combination with a conversation over breakfast with Oleg, author of PLMTwine. In both conversations I kept hearing about who is going to disrupt the big PLM vendors (Dassault Systemes, PTC, Siemens PLM). Maybe I am just a small thinker, but there seems to be a lot more talk about disruption than actual disrupting going on. Time to share my thoughts, with the expectation that I might be eating my own words on this very blog over the next couple of years.

Disrupting Giants

Maybe it is my jaded view, but I don’t see technology being the disruptor to PLM. I have drawn as many “waves of technology” charts as the next guy, and discussed how difficult it is for vendors to move from one technology to the next big wave. But two things have happened:

• Enterprise software companies have managed to gain significant scale
• Vendors have gotten smarter at riding waves of technology

Already I am sure there are people disagreeing. Let me share my experience.

The Technology Wave Argument

Let’s start with the technology waves. Who will out-technology the big vendors. Will it be a SaaS play like Arena Solutions? Will it be open source like Aras? Or a brand new technology, like Chris William’s Vuuch? Or a more generalized infrastructure technology like Microsoft SharePoint? Or the king of disruption (they are disrupting everybody, I think I heard the words “disruption” and “Google“ at breakfast with Oleg more times than I orderd another cup of coffee (that is saying a lot).

OK, let me share some history that I lived through (maybe you have too). In the ERP world, many players have come and gone. Some have crashed and burned due to their own mismanagement, some have become obsolete in technology and withered away, and others tried and failed trying to migrate to new technology. So why doesn’t this happen to the current largest enterprise software vendor, SAP? Long ago, SAP burst onto the scense with Client-Server architecture with R/3. But truth be told, that transition was a slow and deliberate one. Since that time they have moved their technology along several times. Each time slowly, methodically, and never scrapping the old solution and going for broke on the new one. Countless others tried to grab the brass ring and jump to a new architecture, and drove their companies into the ground.

So while some get frustrated by slow evolution of architecture by big PLM vendors, I say they are being prudent. They are moving deliberately. Some say that will be their downfall. I say slow evolution is the best practice they learned from SAP’s success in ERP. I have heard the “we are going to make SAP (or Oracle, or whatever) obsolete pitch hundreds of times. Some from really great ideas and technologies. But where are they now? Part of the answer lies in the next section.

The Benefit of Scale

The key question in disrupting giants is what can you do that they can’t respond to? What can you where they can’t buy or build their way to the next generation? Particularly when most vendors are several steps ahead of the majority of their customers? Current vendors need to show a vision and a path, but revolution is pretty scary to most of the manufacturs they count as customers. As Oleg points out, and here I agree, one thing they can’t compete with is “free.” But I do not forsee the day that there will be an effort of the scale it takes to develop a full, integrated, PLM system. That is not just technology – it is data model and process as well. Let’s face it, this stuff is complex. But here is the thing. If one of these technologies gets hot, won’t the vendors with scale just acquire it? We are not talking about a solution with the broad interest and potential of word processing (Google Docs) or a brand new idea like social networking (Facebook, etc.). Who except a major enterprise player would invest in disrupting the PLM market? Who would find that investment appealing?

So is it SAP PLM? Or Oracle with their Agile solutions? They have the scale, do they have the will? Is PLM an interesting enough market that they will invest enough to compete with best-of-breed? Realizing, of course, that they have the advantage of their installed base in hand? Perhaps? But I don’t see this happening overnight. I believe the big ERP vendors will get to a level where they can compete, but the big PLM vendors have enough scale to stay ahead. SAP and Oracle will be players in the market, but I don’t think they will own it.

Bottom Line

Will their be acquisitions? Mergers? Sure. The names may change (I didn’t expect UGS to become Siemens PLM), but the assets (software and customer base) are large enough to live in. In my opinion. Unless they fall to their own mistakes, I don’t see a sudden displacement coming. I hope that I am not eating these words at some point, but if I should I will. But that is the way I see it.

Implications for Manufacturers

Buy the solution that works for you. Invest in it. Markets move slowly and software takes a long time to go away. Focus on the solution that meets your business needs, and that you feel you can grow with. Buy a solution that will fit the direction of your PLM vision. Keep an eye on new technologies and see where you can apply them. But I wouldn’t lose too much sleep about disruption right about now.

So have I just grown closed minded? Have I always been a small thinker and I just didn’t know it? Or am I making some sense? I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what it looks like from your vantage point.

A quick peek into some feedback on my research on … the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM in the manufacturing industry. First, thanks to Oleg for his feedback an continuing the ERP-PLM conversation on PLM Think Tank. Oleg made some very good points and provided some good research on the research. But in the spirit of a healthy debate I want to “myth bust” his response. I will address each of the sections in his response idividually, although I split the first one into three responses.

Responses and Reactions

Managing Innovation (Busted) - The title to Oleg’s report does not reflect the thrust of my paper, but he touches on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. He makes a strong point that innovation can’t be managed. I think the first two responses to his post say a lot, particularly the first one, show that this isn’t the case. No, we are not going to automate innovation with a product line of robots. But the energy and time of smart, innovative people can be harnessed and guided to produce more results by following an innovation process. I call this operationalizing innovation. It is about process. Really.

Distinct Roles of ERP and PLM (Busted) - The point that I was making in my paper is that ERP and PLM serve different purposes. PLM helps drive product innovation, ERP helps execute the business of manufacturing. PLM’s primary role is not managing innovation, it is helping companies innovate, develop new products, and engineer them more effectively. These are fundamentally different purposes. Yes, there is overlap. But there are more differences than overlaps. See the table below for more of my thoughts on this.

PLM as a Module of ERP (Busted) - Oleg disagreed with my statement that “PLM is not just another module of ERP” and points out SAP as an example. I disagree strongly with this. SAP tried to introduce PLM as just another module. If they were successful there would be no market for PTC Windchill, Siemens Teamcenter, or Dassault Systemes Enovia. What has SAP done over the last couple of years? SAP  developed a multi-year program to introduce PLM as a complete subystem to ERP instead of a module. See my post Does SAP “Do” PLM? for more on that. Can an ERP vendor provide PLM? Sure. Is it part of the ERP system itself? Not in the near future. Need more proof? Oracle bought Agile instead of developing further on their e-business suite. Busted.

Design and Product Data Management (Confirmed) - The core of PLM is data management. PDM should be rock solid, with very robust security. I do believe that extending to other areas (compliance, costing, etc.) that leverage that core data makes absolute sense. It is like building a house on an unstable foundation, it may look nice but in the end it will collapse.

Cross Funtional Processes (Plausible) – I absolutely agree that processes are organizational.  I believe that business processes absolutely come before software and functionality. I also agree that business processes cross enterprise boundaries (click to see the article with that same name). But my point was – and still is – that companies need to choose which processes will be supported by which solution. Yes, the answer can be that some processes are supported by a combination of the two. And I would love to see business process management (BPM) play a role, even to the point of developing composite applications that leverage the functions of each system. But the point is that there are some overlap areas where companies need to choose. There is more to agree with here than disagree, though.

PLM and ERP Integration (Plausible) – I didn’t go into technical integration in my report. Why? Because I believe that it is more important to get the ownership of data and the alignment of business processes right. This includes addressing semantic differences between the systems. The days where we couldn’t get one machine to talk to the other or data was stored in a proprietary format were the dark days of integration. Today, the technical side of integration is “easy.” By “easy” I mean it is a simple matter of time and money, but it is possible. It no longer requires magic. But it does require effort. And there are some good integration stories between ERP and PLM, but currently it is mostly customer or through integration partners. So we are mostly in agreement here (I think).

Where Does PLM Stop and ERP Begin? (Busted) - Oleg says “don’t even try to put this border.” Unfortunately, as a manufacturer you have to. You have to develop a strategy about which system will address which process (again, it can be a combination). From a vendor perspective there are no boundaries, and I am not suggesting some industry standard footprint of each solution. But for an individual implementation? In some processes you have two tools that can do the job, you have to pick.

Summary
So that was a “quick” reply to Oleg’s comments on my recent research. I hope you found it interesting. I hope you found it entertaining. Mostly I hope you (and Oleg) recognize the good spirit in which this is written. Respectful debate is good for all of us. I appreciate Oleg’s perspective even when I disagree. And more often than not, we agree.

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 … how companies are meeting environmental regulations for their products, and doing so in a way that is sustainable to the business from a cost and risk perspective. As manufacturers face increasing pressure from regulations such as REACH and evolving regulations like the many flavors of RoHS, it is becoming more important to develop a platform and a capability to address compliance systematically as opposed to viewing it as a series of one-off projects by regulation. This study, Tech-Clarity Perspective: Product Environmental Compliance, combines interviews with three leading manufacturers with survey results from over 300 companies to help manufacturers understand environmental product compliance challenges and how companies are addressing them.

The Research Findings

This study was unique for Tech-Clarity because it involved both survey data and interviews with compliance leaders in several manufacturing companies. The report provides two perspectives. The first is a broad perspective on the approaches that companies are taking to address their product compliance challenges. The second is a more detailed look at how three leading companies – Motorola, APC, and Seagate – are addressing these challenges.

The results are very interesting. There are some interesting figures on how regulations are impacting manufacturers and where they are focusing. One finding that I thought was interesting is that REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals ) is now impacting products in manufacturers as frequently as RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances). Both regulations were reported by 79% of respondents as impacting their products. As always, I suggest that you read the research for more information.

Beyond those results, however, the report also makes certain conclusions about how companies can address compliance challenges in a sustainable way. In summary, these recommendations are:

• Compiling a common set of product environmental performance requirements
• Gaining a better understanding of the substances that make up components
• Automating the analysis and monitoring of product structures and composition against requirements
• Documenting proof of compliance electronically

Implications for Manufacturers

Many manufacturers are struggling with choosing which regulations to address, how thoroughly to address them, and how to approach the problem. The study paints a clear picture of three manufacturers that have looked at the problem holistically, and developed a systematic approach to deal with the multitude of regulations. Manufacturers can’t afford the risk of stopped shipments, poor market perception of environmental stewardship, or losing access to markets. On the other hand, dealing with each regulation on a project basis will grind business to a halt and dramatically spike the cost of environmental compliance. The environmental product compliance challenge is here to stay, it will only get more difficult as customer requirements and regulations like REACH and RoHS expand and evolve, and will continue to drive unacceptable market risk and high compliance costs.

Manufacturers that develop a repeatable, systematic approach to address regulations will simultaneously reduce compliance risk and control total cost of compliance. As the examples in the report show, companies are leveraging enterprise software including PLM and specialized product compliance capabilities to meet these needs.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on developing environmentally sustainable products in a commercially sustainable way, 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 compliance, PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

Note: The link provides access to a free copy of a report summary or to the full report which is made available by PTC (registration required).

I had the chance to talk with … Chris Randles and Blake Courter of SpaceClaim recently to better understand their role in the broader engineering software market. SpaceClaim hase certainly managed to shake things up, from their initial introduction to the market with direct modeling, their tongue in cheek Twitter plugin, and now their demonstration of the potential use of multitouch manipulation in 3D modeling. This is a company that is clearly set out to change the status quo, and has succeeded in doing so. Other than shaking things up, though, where is the unique value that SpaceClaim offers, and why do they believe there is room in a consolidating CAD market for a new entrant?

Some History and Perspective

Stop me if you have heard this one (or better yet, skip to the next section). SpaceClaim has definitely made an impact on the CAD market.  The company splashed onto the scene with a very different message than the major CAD players. They bashed the limitations that parametric modeling brings with it, and offered “direct modeling” as the next generation of 3D CAD modeling. While most will agree that parametric modeling provides significant benefits, they will also agree that it requires training and knowledge about how to model parametrically, and that existing models require an understanding of how the part was modeled in order to change it. And, in some cases, what appears to be a small change to the design may in fact be fundamental change to the steps in which the CAD model was created (known as the “history tree”) and require fundamental model changes.

Suffice it to say, there was a weakness in the armor of the major CAD vendors, and the weakness was tightly embedded in the strength of their parametric modeling capabilities. That gave SpaceClaim a very strong competitive opening to target. Two other companies, CoCreate and Kubotec, also had direct or “history free” modeling capabilities. But SpaceClaim was the first to really exploit the chink in the armor, primarily because they have very strong roots and credentials in the CAD industry. Founder Michael Payne for example was also a founder of PTC, one of the most successful CAD (and now PLM) vendors in the world and SolidWorks, the disruptive technology that brought 3D CAD to the desktop. So these new entrants came with pedigree, experience, and a differentiated message. The results? Whether the incumbant players viewed it as a competitive necessity, were already developing something in parallel, or just reacted to the interest generated by SpaceClaim, the big vendors have responded:

• PTC acquired CoCreate to offer a parallel solution to their flagship CAD offering Pro/Engineer, and since has announced direct modeling capabilities in Pro/E

• Siemens PLM introduced feature-based, history-free modeling called “synchronous technology“

• Dassault Systemes developed CATIA Live Shape with direct modeling as a part of their V6 solution

• Autodesk announced “Fusion Technology” which aims to incorporate the best of both parametric and direct modeling

What do they Offer? A Different Approach to Design

So why is this important? Other than shaking up the market (which they are pretty good at), they are offering a design paradigm with much lower barriers to entry, and much lower barriers to change. Will this replace parametric modeling? It’s not likely in my opinion. There are inherent advantages to both parametric and direct modeling, with parametric modeling offering less flexibility but more power to develop families of similar parts or parts designed for mass customization. What impresses me, though, is that SpaceClaim does not seem intent on just fighting a battle between the two modeling paradigms. Instead, SpaceClaim is focusing on where each should be used, and how direct modeling can open up new business opportunities.

In particular, SpaceClaim is trying to promote earlier 3D modeling by non-CAD-jockeys. They are focusing on the advantages available from early digital, 3D models to help companies validate their designs early in the product development process. Today, this isn’t as easy because engineers frequently have modern-day draftsmen that translate their designs into 3D models. This is not the formula for rapid design and iteration. SpaceClaim, then, is targeting industrial design, conceptual design, and modeling for simulation and analysis. The designers and engineers involved in these functions are not as well trained on CAD, and require solutions that are more efficient and require less upfront investment (in time, training, etc.). The large CAD vendors recognize this, of course, and are working to increase ease of use in addition to offering direct modeling capabilities. But clearly SpaceClaim has a window of opportunity and some real value to offer.

Implications for Manufacturers?

There is a phrase that I like, “Love me, hate me, but don’t ignore me.” I believe SpaceClaim lives that mantra. They have a place in the market, they are not satisfied with the status quo, and they are innovating. Manufacturers should take a look at SpaceClaim, and consider using them either as a main modeling solution if they don’t have an incumbent tool and don’t require parametrics, or more likely as a complementary solution to address more free-flowing design by non-CAD-jockeys.

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

What I learned this week … was sparked by a small article by Jennifer LeClaire at newsfactor.com. The article was short and sweet, and announced that Verizon Adds Social Networking To FiOS TV Service. So other than the fact that I like FIOS and this points to further consolidation between TV and multi-media computing (which I think is both cool and invetible), why did I care? It reminded me that social computing is a capability, and that how you apply it – and in what context – can turn it into something very unique. That is what Verizon is starting to do with their TV service, and exactly what the PLM community needs to do with social computing in product development.

What FIOS is Doing (Conceptually)

In brief, what FIOS is doing is trying to understand how the trend towards social networking can make their television offering more interesting to the consumer. Interactive TV has been talked about for a while, and although I am not expert on the subject I now recognize that my little cable convertor box is turning into a pretty powerful (and very programmable) media serving computer. But why does Verizon want to get involved in our social networking? And why would we let them? It is simple – CONTEXT. What Verizon is doing (from what I can gather) is allowing us to network about their programs. But not just network about them in a standalone fashion (would we really need Verizon to do that?), but social network in a real-time, embedded, integrated way with the programming. To me, that is what is important about this announcement from a conceptual basis.

Importance to Social Computing PLM

Let’s take the conceptual nugget – that Verizon thinks that their programming is more compelling and valuable if we can share, interact, and communite about it in context - and apply it to product innovation, product development, and engineering. Isn’t this exactly what we are talking about with social computing in PLM? Anybody could try to use Facebook, Twitter, or a host of other technologies and use them in a standalone fashion. But the real value will come from social computing that is tightly integrated into the context of products and product development. That is why I believe it will be the PLM vendors like PTC, Dassault Systemes, or Siemens that will bring these capabilities to PLM. Or, perhaps specialty providers like vuuch that know the PLM systems and how to integrate with them. It will take domain expertise in the business of designing and developing products to understand and incorporate social computing into the fabric of PLM. For more on social computing in PLM, see What I Learned: Is Social Product Development Viable without PLM?and What I Learned: We are not Going to Build an Airplane on Facebook.

Implications for Manufacturers?

Social compting is here and growing. Social computing in PLM is coming. I believe that Verizon is experimenting more than anything. They are trying to take a leading position to see what will work and what will not. They are a first-mover in social networking in TV. They will make mistakes and learn from them. They are being proactive and taking a leadership position. Likewise, now is the time for manufacturers to start the process of learning about social computing in PLM, and get their feet wet. There will be some stops and starts, potentially, but there will also be rewards for those that get it right.

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think. And I look forward to Tweeting with you about the Flyers hockey games once I get myself back over to FIOS!

I had a chance to talk with… Hardeep Gulati at Oracle about the recent Agile PLM 9.3 product release. Product analytics has been, and still is for the most part, a gap in the PLM market.  So considering Oracle’s acquisitions of Hyperion and Agile in recent years, it’s not a surprise that the Oracle 9.3 PLM release is focused squarely on this area. The challenge is making this product intelligence consumable to each of the different roles along the value chain – engineering and design, manufacturing and supply chain, marketing and sales. Make the information easy to access and relevant, or you’ll have a nice analytics tool that no one uses. Oracle realizes this and has also focused the release on enhancing an already good (based on conversations over the past year with Agile users) user experience by adding “productivity tools” – for example drag and drop, inline editing, and more personalization. The company will focus their next release on leveraging their portal technology for a common user interface – a critical component of their strategy.

What do they offer?
More specifically, the product lifecycle analytics solution Oracle is offering is focused on risk management - i.e. product quality, obsolete parts, supplier’s financial liability, new sourcing options, design process, demand volatility, and where exposure is in a product portfolio. Future focus will be on deeper customer analytics during the front end of innovation, and manufacturing intelligence.

In addition to analytics, Oracle has focused on integration. We’ve heard about AIA (Application Integration Architecture) as the platform for weaving together the numerous assets Oracle has acquired, including Agile. This “backbone” (or, FUSION middleware) is an open platform that can integrate the heterogeneous environments (other PDMs, best of breeds) that are so prevalent in product development. Oracle even offers a “PIP” (process integration pack) for integrating Agile to SAP. With the 9.3 backbone you can create product development-specific services (e.g. product cost management), and have scripting available to support integration to components and segments of the product lifecycle.

How Does it Fit into the Ecosystem?
With the lack of rich product analytics in the PLM world, this is a welcome announcement. If you are looking for better product performance intelligence at all stages of the product lifecycle, Oracle’s new release warrants a look. This announcement should accelerate competitive efforts in this arena – IBM with Cognos (and it’s recently announced closer partnership with Siemens PLM), Siemens PLM, PTC, and SAP (who is working to integrate the acquired Business Objects capabilities into its product intelligence platform). I expect the next 12 months to bring rapid improvement from these and other PLM vendors, from better product portfolio analysis to product, manufacturing and supply chain analytics.

So that’s what I hear from Oracle. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

Updated Post:

PLM evolution gets a fourth formal dimension – process. I am updating this post about a year after I wrote it. I just re-read it, and thought it was worth making at least one minor adjustment. Since that time, I realized that the “three dimensions” of expansion did not give enough emphasis on the importance of business processes. I have changed the way I present this to the “Four Dimensions of PLM Expansion.”

I thought it was worth updating this past post with (at a minimum) the graphic as I present it now. Looking back, it clearly should have been this way in the first place!

What I learned this week … came from reflecting on three major PLM product announcements this week. In one week, Dassault is announcing the new release of their “PLM 2.0″ suite, Oracle is announcing the next release of Agile PLM, and Siemens PLM is announcing the new releases of Teamcenter and Tecnomatix. Jeff Hojlo and I will be covering each of the releases in our blog, but I thought it made sense to start with some context-setting across all three. I am impressed with the amount of investment that PLM vendors have made in their products in what has been a difficult year for enterprise software in general, kudos to all three (and the others that have continued to invest in this solution set that continues to grow in importance).

Note: A special thanks to all of my friends in the vendor community for picking my vacation week at the beach to come out with some of the most exciting PLM news in some time! They couldn’t have just checked with me first (sarcasm intended).

Context from Past Discussions and Perspective

I have talked in the past about PLM expanding in three directions:

• People – Product development and product innovation are expanding across the enterprise to more people inside and outside of the business
• Product – A “product” consists of much more than R&D or engineering specifications, and needs to include a richer view that includes commercial considerations so we are looking at the “whole product.” In addition, the technical view needs to grow to include mechanics, electronics, and embedded software
• Lifecycle – Product-related processes are being integrated across previously disparate functions

As I talk about these three, I have to give an honorable mention to:

• Process – PLM processes are being expanded and integrated across all three of these directions, and it this extension and integration of processes and information that really puts the value into PLM. Without process, the other three are not possible.

Giant Leaps in Functional Scope

First, I want to start with the functional enhancements that the vendors have focused on. In the releases, I see significant investment in all three areas above. But it’s easy to talk about where your predictions come true. Instead of focusing on what I got right (not my style), let’s focus on what I missed. I missed:

• SOA – From a technical perspective, the adoption of service-oriented architecture (SOA) promises to make PLM more web-friendly, but also to allow it to be more easily pulled apart so individual elements can be incorporated into composite “mash up” processes and applications.
• Analytics -I am not going to be big enough to admit that I didn’t see this one coming. I have lived through ERP and Supply Chain and seen the transition from gathering information to leveraging it to make decisions. This is happening in PLM in a number of different areas, including designing for compliance, cost, etc. It is exceeding my expectations in terms of adoption by the vendors.
• Web 2.0 – The impact of Web 2.0 technologies and concepts are having a very big impact on PLM. The further expansion of collaboration and social computing in product development is starting to be seen. PTC also focused on this during their recent PROuser event and their earlier release of ProductPoint.

Implications for Manufacturers?
So what does this mean for manufacturers today? If you are a customer of one of the three vendors, you have some very nice functionality (and technology) to look forward to. It is time to start looking at the potential to improve your business and plan your migration. Vendors have spaced out releases in recent years, so hopefully you are due. It is time to start learning about the capabilities available, deciding how to take business advantage of them, and planning for their adoption.

If you are not a customer of one of these three vendors, take a look at your vendor to see how they are doing against the criteria above. I have seen some nice progress from PTC and SAP this year as well.

If you are not using PLM, it is time to consider why not. I believe there are very few manufacturers that will remain competitive without these capabilities. Further, this is just more proof that PLM is continuing on the path to become one of the most important – if not the most important – enterprise applications for manufacturers. The continued evolution of the solutions is just further evidence of the additional value that customers are demanding from their vendor partners.

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think. Look for more on each relevant release shortly. After all, the sun is bad for your skin and PLM is good for everybody!

A quick peek into some research on… how active engineers are with social networks. While attending the PROuser conference, I heard Robin Saitz of PTC talk about a study that they commissioned Forrester Research to develop. The goal of the study was to better understand how active PTC’s customers are in social networks. The results surprised me and they didn’t, it turns out that engineers and product developers are very active with social computing!

The Research

Forrester, from what I can see, has taken a significant lead in researching social computing. I hear and read frequently about their research and their books. Robin discusses some of this background and provides links in her blog on this research, “Think Engineers and Web 2.0 Don’t Mix? Think Again.”Forrester has developed some interesting frameworks on social computing, including their “Social Technographics Profile.” I won’t attempt to explain it because it is their framework and they are the experts. What interests me is turning this lens on engineers to see how they interact with social media. That is what the study did. To be honest, I have only seen a few publicly released pieces of the report, so I can’t go into detail about methodology or specifics. But the results I have seen are pretty amazing.

About nine out of ten (specifically 89%) of those surveyed use social media and Web 2.0.

There is clearly more to the research about how they use it, whether they use it personally or professionally, and other factors. Robin did make it clear that they are using social computing for work as well as personal reasons. I am hopeful that PTC will share more of this over time. But this is enough for me. The clear takeaway is that the industry is on the right track with social computing in PLM, or “Social Product Development.”

My Thoughts

Let me keep this short. My biggest concern about the move towards social computing in product development and engineering was whether people would be comfortable participating. I believe the use of social computing is inevitable (see more of my thoughts on social computing in PLM in this post, and related links). But what this tells me is that the adoption of social computing techniques will not be slowed by engineers’ discomfort with the concepts. In fact, the opposite is true. As Robin said in her blog, they are ready.

Why am I surprised? We like to be online. We sit behind our “glowing rectangles” all day – some of us with several monitors going at once. Engineers are comfortable being online and communicating electronically. Maybe some of us like it more than interacting personally, but this is not a psychology blog so I won’t head down that path. After thinking about the results, I can’t remember why I was surprised. What better community to adopt social computing?

Implications for Manufacturers

Developing products is an inherently “social” activity. Collaboration is a best practice. We know these things. Now add that fact that engineers and product developers are comfortable with online communities, social networking, and general “Web 2.o” activities. Social computing is going to be fundamental to the way we go about the business of product development in the not-too-distant future.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on product developers use of social computing, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect reality? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

What I learned this week … came from a 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.

A quick peek into some research on … the respective roles that ERP and PLM play in product innovation. This is not brand new research, but I believe it is just as relevant today as when I initially wrote this almost 5 years ago. Why? Not much has changed – with a couple of notable exceptions (SAP and Oracle). I find myself coming back to this topic on a regular basis, and I am starting to do some research in this area again so I thought I would bring this one back to the surface. It also offers some insight that might be helpful for a recent discussion on PLMTwine that touches on the importance of integrating PLM with ERP.

The Research
The research identified two clear and distinct sets of business processes that companies use to drive product
profitability. These two sets of processes include:

• The Innovation Cycle – characterized by rapid iteration
• The Execution Cycle – characterize by a more linear, repeatable process

These cycles are different, and require different solutions. PLM and ERP were developed – and have since evolved – to meet the needs of each of these cycles. Is there overlap? You bet. Processes like engineering change are consistent challenges to coordinate between these two meta-processes. But for most companies, there is
a clear hand-off point where a design is released to manufacturing (and external suppliers, for that matter)
where ERP takes over.

Below is a table extracted from the research that helps to show the differences between ERP and PLM. These differences are what make each the best solution for their respective set of processes – execution or innovation.

Updating the Viewpoint
So what would I change now that five years have passed? Not much. One other interesting fact from the research (and confirmed by a later benchmark I conducted at Aberdeen Group) is that most companies would really rather have one enterprise solution that covers all of their innovation and execution needs. Unfortunately, at the time none existed. I would love to say that five years later that had changed drastically, but it has not. What has changed? The desire for an integrated solution clearly has not changed, but:

• PLM vendors such as Dassault Systemes, PTC and in particular Siemens PLM have progressed their integration to ERP, focusing mainly on SAP due to it’s market prominence in ERP
• Oracle acquired Agile, giving them a PLM solution (two actually, including Prodika) that will be further integrated with Oracle ERP over time, but is also being sold into other ERP environments (again, including SAP)
• SAP has announced and is progressing on their own SAP PLM roadmap (Update: Look for a One to One on SAP PLM in the near future, we have just had a good conversation with the SAP PLM team about their progress)

Having said that, none of the above are clearly differentiated enough to serve as the “one integrated
answer” that many companies are looking for. So for now, the best solution is likely a hybrid of ERP, potentially some PLM from you ERP vendor, some best of breed PLM suite solutions, and some best of breed point PLM solutions. Sorry, I wish there were a cleaner answer than this.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the roles of ERP and PLM. I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect reality? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.