Clarity on PLM

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!

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

Recapping my Earlier Thoughts on the Acquisition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick peek into some research on … the priorities, plans, views, and economic outlooks of companies that use engineering software. The survey-based study, published last night by Cyon Research, paints a very interesting picture of how manufacturers plan to invest and leverage engineering software (and related hardware) in the near future. I have had the opportunity to review and comment on the report during its development, and one thing that continuously struck me is not just how useful the published insights on the future of engineering software are, but the richness and depth of the information that the Cyon team couldn’t fit into the report.

The Research

The research spanned companies that use CAD, PLM, CAE, and other technical software, and included responses from almost 600 people. The report breaks down into a number of major categories, including:

• Purchasing plans, policies, and priorities
• Hardware refresh rate
• Financial outlook
• How companies differentiate themselves
• Engineering software selection criteria
• Views and plans on new releases from major software vendors (Dassault, Autodesk, Siemens)

In addition there are some interesting portions on who controls the BOM (and age-old question) and some insight into the relationship between CAE application usage and other engineering software used. The report contains a tremendous amount of information, with a number of very interesting charts. Plan to spend some time reading it if you have the opportunity, there is a lot to dig into.

Key Takeaways

There is far too much for me to give justice to in this space, but I will try to point out some of the more interesting things I learned from the report:

• Some companies have cut spending on engineering software – 29% of respondents indicated that they cut spending in the first half of 2009, with further cuts expected but at a slowing pace (for example 19% in first half of 2010). Note that these are likely in addition to cuts made in earlier budgets, so the total number that have reduced budgets from 2008 levels is probably higher.

• Many companies are playing “wait and see” -  42% are “considering or about to cut” spending if their business conditions worsen. This is what Cyon calls the “overhang” of the cuts, which includes the potential for further reductions dependent on the general economic conditions.

• Companies are planning to pick up spending (when they can) – in the words of the report, “The bright spot here is the longer-term outlook, 2010 and 2011, for increased spending in the purchases of design, analysis, and data management software.”

• Companies still have an appetite for improved solutions – the report gives details on the planned adoption of new technologies (V6 from Dassault Systemes, Inventor Fusion from Autodesk, and Sychronous Technology from Siemens PLM). I can’t share specifics, but across the board there are plans to implement the new solutions, although more Autodesk users say it is “too early to tell” given the maturity of the solution at this point.

Implications for Manufacturers

There are some valuable insights for manufacturers in this report to compare their strategies with their peers and competitors. The report provides some interesting detail on specific industries and their behavior, particularly on how each industry reported they plan to compete (product quality was the most commonly targeted differentiator overall, but this varied widely by industry).

I think this report is potentially even more valuable for software vendors.  The research gives them insight into what is important to their customers, and how they are planning to spend their money. For software companies, this can provide them with invaluable input into where they should focus their efforts to best serve their customers, particularly at a time when many are considering reductions in spending.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the viewpoint from engineering software users, 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.

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?

I had the chance to talk with … the team at Siemens PLM about their recent release of Teamcenter 8. Siemens released this new version of their Teamcenter PLM software concurrently with the new release of their Digital Manufacturing solution, Tecnomatix. Given time and space in a blog, I am going to focus on Teamcenter today. The theme of the Teamcenter 8 is productivity – “individual productivity, application productivity and IT productivity.” From what I can see, let’s just say that Siemens has been pretty productive themselves, and has invested heavily in this new release. Early indications are that Siemens has done a very nice job moving their PLM solution forward for their customers.

A Major Step Forward for Siemens and Teamcenter

I posted last week about the themes of several major PLM releases being announced within a week in my post What I Learned: PLM, Please Take 3 Giant Steps Forward. In that post I mentioned that PLM was expanding in three primary areas – to more people in the product development process, to a broader perspective on the product itself, and to a greater amount of the product lifecycle. In that post, I said that PLM companies have taken some large strides in technology, including service oriented architectures (SOA), analytics, and Web 2.0 capabilities. Let’s discuss Teamcenter 8 from those perspectives:

Teamcenter 8 Extending PLM to More People

Teamcenter has been developed with a broad perspective on the people involved in product innovation, product development, and engineering. With this release, Siemens is making it easier for these teams to work with the information in Teamcenter. One key enhancement in this direction it Microsoft Outlook integration. This Teamcenter release reflects the “ribbon” look and feel of newer Microsoft applications, and integrates product data management functions directly into Office and Outlook. For example, users can save Outlook messages into Teamcenter to capture and share product conversations, and can synchronize tasks between the two applications. From Office, users have live, bi-directional integration between Teamcenter and Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. Some users may be able to work within Word or Excel without ever having to work directly with the Teamcenter interface, extending the ability to include non-technical users in PLM processes.

Teamcenter also has broad collaboration capabilities, including the JT file format (which Siemens has published) that allows companies to share 3D design representations without the need for the recipient to have the authoring CAD tool. With this release, Siemens adds a new “ultra-light precise” or “ULP” format that Siemens claims can share 3D graphics and related manufacturing data at about 1% of the size of the original CAD file.

Teamcenter 8 Support for a Fuller Product Definition

Siemens has also made progress in expanding the view of the product controlled within PLM. This has been accomplished though enhanced content and document management, which allows companies to include more non-engineering data in the PLM system. For the CPG industries, they have also added support for managing f

One of the most intriquing things that I see is the potential for Siemens to leverage their new relationship with IBM to better address mechatronics, or “smarter products.” In Teamcenter 8, manufacturers can now better manage application lifecycle management (ALM) data to support the embedded software that is becoming more common in todays smarter products (for more on mechatronics and IMB see my One-to-One: Big Blue’s Unprecedented Mechatronic Design Opportunity post) for more. Teamcenter 8 can now go beyond managing the software code file to managing the metadata from software development tools, specifically IBM Rational ClearCase for software configuration management. Teamcenter’s support for mechatronics also extends to electrical design automation (EDA), with embedded support within tools from Cadence, Mentor, Intercept, and Altim.

Greater Lifecycle Coverage

The team at Siemens was clearly busy. In addition to expanding support for the people and products in the product lifecycle, they have extended coverage for the product lifecycle itself. For example, Siemens has extended systems requirements and requirements management to cover the early phases of the product lifecycle. Teamcenter now offers the ability for companies to develop requirements using a template in Microsoft Word. Teamcenters content management enhancements should also provide significant opportunities to support processes and information from more phases of the product lifecycle.

Teamcenter is also reaching out to suppliers and Manufacturing. Teamcenter supplier relationship management (SRM) offers a new capability to exchange “suitcases” of information with suppliers. In addition, Siemens had integrated the manufacturing bill of process (BOP) from Tecnomatix and enhanced simulation process management with Siemens NX. Teamcenter 8 also includes new industry templates for aerosspace & defense and Softlines, Footwear,and Accessories and has updated templates for medical devices and high tech electronics.

Enhanced Teamcenter Technology

Siemens has invested heavily in their PLM architecture over the last several years. Siemens now claims to have 1,800 customers live on their unified architecture, a common four-tier, service-oriented architecture (SOA) for their Teamcenter solutions. Platform enhancements include new store and forward capabilities, faster searches, and easier solution extensibility without programming.

Siemens has also announced support for a number if IBM infrastructure solutions including DB2, Websphere and Tivoli, including a pre-configured option that includes IBM DB2 Information Manager and WebSphere Application Server (WAS).

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?

What I learned this week…came from the joint IBM and Siemens PLM event announcing the enhanced strategic alliance between Siemens PLM, IBM Software, and IBM Global Business Services (GBS). The relationship between IBM and Siemens PLM is not new; baking in Websphere and Information Management (DB2), a.k.a. the PDIF (Product Development Integration Framework), and IBM’s SOA with Teamcenter, is. The end goal of this is enabling easier integration for IBM customers who want a PLM system and Siemens PLM customers who need a more robust infrastructure for global product development. Ultimately, I think this is a very positive step in enabling manufacturers to achieve the promise of enterprise new product development and launch (NPDL), as well as supply chain integration – to expand PLM from the engineering workgroup where product data, portfolios, and new product ideas are more rapidly accessible to the entire value chain.

What’s different about this?
Primarily, what’s different is that Siemens PLM is the first to offer full, out of the box integration with the IBM PDIF. What started as “coopetition” in 2004 between the two companies has now evolved to a comprehensive alliance agreement, where Teamcenter can be preconfigured with IBM’s middleware. Over the past couple of years, IBM has spoken extensively about PDIF, and they have forged relationships with the leading PLM vendors like Dassault Systemes, PTC, and Siemens PLM – but they did not have a packaged offering per se. Now, with the enhanced Siemens relationship, which includes business process consulting (across industry), implementation, and application hosting, they have done this. Both companies also continue to support open standards, for ease of integration with the inevitable multi-CAD and PDM environments that commonly exist with manufacturers.

A joint customer, Emerson, presented and spoke about “Teamcenter in a box,” a preconfigured global solution managed by corporate IT that can be rolled out to different divisions and partners. These divisions and partners, leveraging Teamcenter’s SOA, can subscribe to the features they want, which are then served out of corporate IT. This approach is one that could be replicated as an SMB (small/medium business) solution, or at existing enterprise customers who want to quickly roll out PLM functionality to multiple divisions across the company.

Teamcenter and Rational: A Smart Idea
A great opportunity for IBM and Siemens is the integration of Teamcenter with the Rational Software platform, which enables more efficient product development of complex, “smarter” products like cars, cell phones and planes that increasingly incorporate electrical, mechanical, and software requirements, engineering changes, and other product development data. For more on this, see: One-to-One: Big Blue’s Unprecedented Mechatronic Design Opportunity. IBM acquisitions Telelogic and Cognos also could fit into the Teamcenter arrangement. These two pieces should be (and I think they will be) lynchpins of IBM’s PLM strategy; integrated with Siemens PLM, they could provide great benefit to Teamcenter customers who may be Telelogic DOORS users, and are looking for a product planning solution (Focalpoint), as well as product analytics support. Although as far as analytics, it’s not clear how Cognos will be leveraged as part of IBM’s PDIF – but certainly, with the need for better product cost and performance analytics in the market today, the Cognos’ analytics platform could be (and I’m assuming will be) more deeply leveraged at some point.

Implications for manufacturers?
The obvious question is what does this mean to IBM’s other ISV PLM partners. The short answer is, nothing. IBM’s relationship with Centric, Dassault, PTC, MSC Software and others will remain the same; the only difference is each of these respective product lines will not, at least at this point, be preconfigured for IBM.

The challenge of unifying multiple applications, tools, and data across the product lifecycle has been alleviated with the SOAs most PLM providers now offer their solutions on; the addition of IBM’s stack to Teamcenter kicks this unification up a notch. All IBM products are certified to work with Siemens PLM products, and Siemens PLM is optimized to work with IBM middleware, or PDIF, and SOA. For manufacturers who use IBM and Teamcenter, this will enable more rapid access to the right information, better collaboration, and potentially faster time to market.

So that is what I learned this week. Let me know what you think.

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!