Clarity on PLM

I had the chance to talk with … Aras recently to get an update on their open source PLM offering. I find there is a lot of confusion about open source software, and talking to Aras offered a very simple view of what open source means to them (and their customers). In a nutshell, they say, open source PLM means “no more PLM license fees, ever.” Pretty compelling. But what do you get for free? Cost is only one part of the equation, manufacturers need to focus on the value they will receive. And license costs are only one part of cost. So what’s the deal?

What do they Do?

To be clear, Aras is not a charity or a non-profit organization. They are a serious software company. They just chose a different business model. They are not a bunch of open source zealots trying to change the world. They are PLM savvy software people that intended – and still intend – to bring a full feature PLM product to market and run a profitable business at the same time. Is that open source? Yes, that is practical open source that makes sense for both the vendor and their community (customers).

Yes, Aras has customers. Those customers pay them. The software comes free, you just download it from the Aras site. But companies pay a subscription fee for maintenance and support should they choose them. And let’s face it, most do unless they are just in an exploratory or pilot mode. I am sure that there are some that envision open source as a purely collaborative group of individuals from different companies, diligently working away in their spare time. There is some truth the the value of the community in development, but in general the core development is done by Aras developers. There are community donated solutions to extend Aras, they claim 60 such “projects” available at this time.

One other key aspect of the “Enterprise Open Source” model Aras is promoting is that manufacturers pay a flat subscription fee. This means as companies expand their usage of the solution, their software costs do not rise. There is no user-based fee, which for example might allow a larger company to expand to other divisions for no additional charge. It also means adding users outside of Engineering does not add to the software cost. Again, a pretty compelling model.

What do they Offer?

But even free only makes sense if the solution provides value. PLM systems take time and resources to implement, and there will still be costs for hardware and other supporting infrastructure. If the value is low, even free doesn’t make it worthwhile. One thing that is important to remember about Aras is that they did not start from scratch. Aras was already developing a PLM solution (and one with some very nice architecture, by the way) before they adopted the open source model. So their solution is broad, and includes capabilities that even the biggest vendors don’t necessarily have. An example is APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) to support Quality Lifecycle Management in the PLM context. So don’t expect Aras to be a PLM “starter kit” for a custom solution. It is a standard solution, developed by a real software company. They have just chosen a different business model.

Does open source work? Open source solutions are not for everybody. But Aras is certainly worth looking at if you are considering a PLM implementation (or extension). And as far as Aras is concerned, they have managed to grow in a down economy. So it is clearly working for them. For more on Aras, see my previous post One-to-One: PLM? Microsoft? SOA? Open Source? Aras says yes.

So that’s what I hear from open source PLM vendor Aras, I hope you found it useful. I hope it gives a clearer picture on the realities of open source. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

What I learned this week … came from some reflection on a workshop I conducted on enterprise systems for a small division of a large A&D contractor. We discussed their needs for functionality across a number of different solutions including ERP, PLM, QLM, and EPM. Other than a craving for alphabet soup after all of the acronyms flying around the room, I took some time to think about the enterprise systems ecosystem and how disjointed it is. I couldn’t believe the number of different, disconnected solutions they needed. It begged the question, should we fight best-of-breed or embrace it?

My Observations

On the one hand, I realized that there was no one system that could handle all of their needs, and that they would have to address overlaps and conflicts between the systems they needed. Their business strategy requires capabilities including:

• ERP
• PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) – including a significant amount of document/content management
• EPM (Enterprise Program Managment) – including project accounting and billing for government contracts, which might not really fit cleanly under the EPM label
• QLM (Quality Lifecycle Management – including process management for things like ISO, CAPA, and others

As they begin to look at solutions, I am hopeful they find and ERP that meets their program/contract accounting needs. I am also hopeful that either their ERP or PLM will be able to give them a start on their quality and risk management requirements. I am also thankful that they don’t need customer relationship management (CRM), supply chain management (SCM), or service lifecycle management (SLM) right now – just thinking about integrating all of that makes my head spin.

Even without the other solutions, this was a big laundry list of solutions for a small manufacturer to tackle. I was concerned about the best-of-breed approach we were arriving at, although I am not aware of any single, integrated solution that would meet their needs. Then, I also realized that integrating the collection of solutions they need will be a lot easier than it would have been even five years ago. In many cases, integration today involves connecting web services. It still takes work to map out processes to the appropriate solutions and define cross-application workflow (reminds me of an older article I wrote on Business Processes Cross Application Boundaries, still interesting to read I think). But the technical job of integration has gotten much easier. While I don’t expect this company to develop a lot of sophisticated composite applications, simply tying capabilities together in a portal and creating hyperlinks between information may take them a long way.

Implications for Manufacturers

I believe that the trade-offs between a fully integrated solution and a best of breed approach have shifted. Integration is still not easy, but the need to trade off critical functionality for integration has diminished. For example, in the integration of ERP with PLM we have seen a lot of advancement, and I see a lot of standard integration offerings between vendors. And as one participant in a recent study on ERP and PLM integration indicates, even solutions from a single vendor typically require integration work because one size does not fit all. But if we stick with best-of-breed, don’t we perpetuate the lack of standard application boundaries and overlapping scope issues we find with the different applications? Clearly, there is still a trade-off to be made.

So those are some of my thoughts on best-of-breed strategies, I hope you found it interesting. I hadn’t really given enough thought about how much has changed until putting it into context for this manufacturer. What do you think? Is best-of-breed returning to favor as the preferred approach? How much functionality are you willing to trade for integration?

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

What do they Offer?

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

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

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

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

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

Who do they Work with?

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

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

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

What do they Do?

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

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

What do they Offer?

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

Who do they Work With?

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

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

I had the chance to talk with … a couple of vendors this year about Quality Lifecycle Management, or QLM. I posted earlier about What I Learned: Expanding PLM’s Pervue – Quality and Risk Management and promised to follow up with some more detail on the vendors. Here are my thoughts on my conversations with Dyadem. One early caveat is that Dyadem – while they support the QLM approach to quality – refers to themselves as a “Quality Risk Management” solution provider as opposed to QLM.

What do they Do?

Dyadem has used the terms “Risk Lifecycle Management” in addition to “Quality Risk Management” and QLM to describe what they do. In my conversations with them, I have found they are very thoughtful about what they call their solution. What is common to the descriptions I have heard from them are the terms “risk” and “quality.” Why? Because risk and quality are intrinsically tied together. Poor quality management results in excess costs, a very hard metric to get a handle on. Poor quality also opens companies up to significant risks in the market – from poor customer perception, high repair/warranty/replacement costs, or from potentially catastrophic results of product failure leading to legal action.

So Dyadem helps companies reduce the cost and risk of poor quality. How? For one thing, Dyadem tries to help companies learn from their repeated errors. Many quality issues follow a pattern of:

• Create a condition that leads to an error
• Make an error
• Correct the error
• Repeat

What’s missing? Learning from the error, and changing the underlying condition that led to the problem. I know this doesn’t sound like rocket science, but it is probably the core element of QLM – and one that is dreadfully missing in most manufacturing companies today. Corrective action needs to be applied to the underlying condition as opposed to the error itself. This is what the quality “lifecycle” is all about – feeding the cause of errors back to engineering so they can be designed out of products and/or manufacturing processes.

What do they Offer?

In short, Dyadem offers solutions that help companies identify their errors and put in place quality and risk management processes. Identifying errors comes from analysis of manufacturing and quality data. By crunching the numbers coming from the underlying manufacturing systems (such as ERP) they can help identify recurring problems. In addition, Dyadem offers solutions to put in place quality lifecycle processes including:

• Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) – to identify potential and recognized errors and put in place corrective action to prevent them, preferably early in the product design cycle
• Fault Tree Analysis – to identify potential hazards that can lead to an error
• Process Hazard Analysis – to identify risks or hazards based on processes and put in place prevention measures (an example of this technique is HAZOP)

A trained eye will also notice that most of these techniques are adopted to comply with regulatory mandates in certain industries, as clearly Dyadem helps companies comply with quality and risk management regulations in addition to helping them reduce the cost and risk associated with poor quality.

Who do they Work with?

Dyadem works with discrete manufacturers such as automotive, aerospace, and medical device companies as well as process manufacturers like pharmaceutical companies. In fact, Dyadem offers separate versions of their flagship Stature product for process and discrete as well as some industry flavors of their other solutions, such a their FMEA-Med tool which (not surprisingly) helps medical device companies develop failure modes and effects analysis documents, which are important for FDA validation.

So that’s what I hear from Dyadem, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? Is quality a missing link in PLM? What else should I have asked them?

I had the chance to talk with … both Dyadem and MasterControl earlier this year about their Quality Lifecycle Management (QLM) solutions. The conversations are examples of how PLM is expanding to cover additional product-related processes. Quality is among a number of product lifecycle processes - including compliance, service, product costing, direct sourcing and potentially others- that are logical extensions to PLM. QLM, however, is still a standalone solution for the most part. So what is QLM, and how does it fit into the product lifecycle and into product lifecycle management (PLM)?

Note: OK, this is really a combination of two 1:1 conversations, I wonder if that is a 2:1 or 2:2? So let’s call it a “What I Learned” and follow up with the Dyadem and MasterControl stories later this week.

What is Quality Lifecycle Management?

Quality is an important aspect of any product, and key to the profitability of a product across its lifecycle. Quality management plays critical roles in the product lifecycle, including:

• Accelerating time to market (particularly in regulated industries where products must be approved for sale)
• Ensuring and documenting compliance to industry or customer quality processes
• Improving customer satisfaction and response to customer complaints
• Reducing the cost of poor quality
• Minimizing corporate risk
  
• Applying lessons learned from product use to enhance product designs (closing the loop in the product lifecycle)

Quality lifecycle management includes managing the quality of the product as well as the quality of product-related processes. One quality lesson we have learned as an industry over the years is that managing quality in through inspection is not as effective as managing quality in by design and through good process. For that reason, managing quality processes is as important as managing results.

One example of a QLM process is managing product quality in design by correcting problems before they surface with approaches like Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). FMEA (specifically design FMEA, or DFMEA) is a great example of where QLM can help because it can directly impact product quality, but can also impact time to market and compliance. FMEAs are mandated in certain industries and by some customers, and can delay product launch if not available (although hopefully we aren’t putting them together at the end of product development, but actually using them in the beginning). Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) is another example of a process that attempts to close the loop in the product lifecycle, by tying actual quality issues back to be addressed in earlier phases of the lifecycle (through another design revision or modified manufacturing plans, for example).

How does it Fit in the PLM Ecosytem?

There are a number of competing and complementary solutions that can help manage product and process quality. These include specialized Quality Management Systems (QMS) in addition to ERP, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) and QLM. In the ideal scenario, I would place the majority of the quality planning functions in PLM, which probably requires a PLM/QLM hybrid. Then, the execution would be tracked in ERP/QMS and fed back into a QLM capability in PLM to close the loop. Unfortunately, most PLM systems do not have needed QLM capabilities, let alone a solution that can compete with standalone applications. To be fair, two PLM solutions that I know have invested in these capabilities Agile and Aras. QMS also plays an important role, typically adding strong analytics capabilities to monitor and improve product and process quality. Of course, QMS solutions are also a logical choice to provide QLM capabilities. In short, the landscape is full of good solutions to choose from, but it takes some work to sort it all out. For more on the expansion of PLM solutions into related processes, please see PLM, Please Take 3 Giant Steps Forward.

Implications for Manufacturers

Manufacturers today can’t afford the risk and cost associated with poor quality. In most industries, the base quality of products has improved pretty dramatically over the past decade. And for many industries (such as Medical Devices or Pharmaceutical) there are mandatory processes that must be complied with.  So managing quality is not optional, it is a cost of doing business. The area where I see an opportunity for manufacturers to gain an advantage of their competition, however, is to apply quality management concepts to the product lifecycle – closing the loop between product design and the rest of the lifecycle. This is where the opportunity for QLM really comes into play.

So that’s what I learned, I hope you found it interesting. What do you think? I will follow up with more from the vendors later this week.