Clarity on PLM

A quick peek into some research on … the role Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) play alongside ERP and PLM to help manufacturers improve their business and increase product profitability. I have researched, posted, and discussed the complementary and integrated roles of ERP and PLM numerous times. But the question would come up, “how does MES fits into the picture?” In my graphic I had placeholders for more execution-oriented systems such as MES, Maintenance Repair & Overhaul (MRO), and others. But I made a conscious decision not to complicate the already complicated subject of integrating the manufacturing systems ecosystem. Now that the industry has made progress in understanding how to integrate ERP and PLM, the time has come to address the role of MES. The details can be found in Tech-Clarity Insight: Integrating PLM and MES – Realizing the Digital Factory.

The Research Findings – Preface (or possibly rambling, you be the judge)

For you engineers reading this, do you remember freshman year when they taught you how to calculate stress and strain on rigid bodies? Then as you progressed in your learning, you found out that it was a gross oversimplification and didn’t really apply to real world materials? Or for you brainier people when someone admits that the rules of physics and mathematics are just models that seem to work (for the most part) but aren’t really hard and true rules? Or for business-oriented readers, the first time you heard an accountant ask “what would you like the numbers to be?” instead of giving you a simple answer. I might be digressing a little, so I’ll make my point – sometimes you need to understand the basics without all of the other real-world complexity that makes it hard. But it’s important to get to that real-world understanding, because that is where the real understanding lies. End digression.

The Research Findings – Simplified Roles of ERP and PLM

In my earliest discussions I typically simplified the roles of ERP and PLM as:

• PLM = Innovation
• ERP = Execution

I then progressed that a bit as:

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

I still like these definitions today, particularly the PLM one. The key difference in the ERP definition is the word “business.” While there are some companies that execute with ERP on the shop floor, for the most part it is used in planning for production and recording the results. Actual production is typically managed outside of ERP. Sometimes it is not automated at all, other times with some form of MES. So the picture was not yet complete.

The Roles of ERP and PLM – Now with MES!

So where does that leave us? With a need to integrate the manufacturing systems ecosystem into the reality of manufacturing operations. This is where MES enters into the picture. I had the opportunity to interview three companies that were willing to share their experience. One is a leading aerospace manufacturer who has significant experience with the integration but unfortunately wasn’t comfortable being identified, one is a Siemens electronics plant, and third is ATK Space Systems. Please read the report for their perspectives, they are worth hearing.

The roles as defined by this report, which are reflected in the updated graphic, are:

• PLM - PLM drives and captures product and process innovation
• MES – MES manages and tracks execution to turn those products into reality
• ERP -  ERP manages the commercial business of manufacturing

Still pretty simplistic, I know. But sometimes having simple, clear roles helps companies move their strategy forward. In addition to redefining the roles, the report discusses the following topics in more detail:

• Integrating the product and production lifecycle
• Automating the integrated product and production lifecycle
• Closing the Loop between designs and products

Implications for Manufacturers

I realize this is a long post, there is a lot to say and I have barely scratched the surface of the information in the report. So I will keep this short. Consider the role that MES plays alongside ERP and PLM and take the opportunity to integrate the product and production lifecycle. Whether you call that the “digital factory” or that term means something different to you, examine the value of increasing speed, improving quality, and decreasing errors by developing a synchronized manufacturing backbone that ties innovation, business execution, and manufacturing execution.

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

I had the chance to talk with … Kalypso‘s managing partner Bill Poston and new Kalypso partner Andreas Lindenthal about the recent merger of their companies. PLM implementation experts are in high demand, with most many “big name” consulting firms carrying small teams. In this case, two smaller specialists in product innovation and PLM are coming together to make an even stronger team.

What do they Do?

Kalypso is an innovation consulting firm. They help companies set the right strategies, develop the right business processes, and implement the right software to improve their product innovation performance. Kalypso specialized in a number of aspects of innovation including:

• Business & Innovation Strategy
• Front End of Innovation
• Portfolio & Pipeline Management (PPM)
• Development & NPI (new product introduction)
• Value Management
• PLM Technology
• Leadership & Learning
• Intellectual Property Management

Metafore is an very experienced PLM implementation consulting firm. Both firms have rich backgrounds in management consulting, systems integration, and PLM.

Benefits of the Merger

What is the value of the combined team? As I mentioned earlier, PLM consultants are in high demand. More importantly, it is often difficult to find good business consulting in this area. The largest consulting firms typically provide a large breadth of services (strategy, process definition, implementation, development) but lack depth in PLM resources. The smaller firms often have very deep PLM systems skills (although frequently in a single vendor’s system) but lack a breadth of consulting services. Kalypso offered both depth and breadth, even before the acquisition. So although Kalypso is a “smaller” consulting firm, they already had one of the largest independent PLM teams in the industry. The addition of Metafore extends that advantage.

But the new, combined entity is not just a bigger version of Kalypso. Instead, Metafore adds deeper skills in Siemens PLM solutions (namely Teamcenter) as well as more experience with smaller vendors including Aras, Arena Solutions, and Omnify Software. This complements Kalypso’s traditional strength in Oracle (Agile), Dassault Systemes (Enovia / MatrixOne) and PTC (Windchill). The merger also gives Kalypso more programming power, including access to offshore developers.

Who do they Work With?

Kalypso works with manufacturers of all industries, and has done some interesting innovation work in the service industries as well. The first time I met Kalypso in fact, was due to their unique expertise in PLM for CPG (consumer packaged goods) and the food industry. The addition of Metafore’s team provides Kalypso with more breadth in industries such as automotive, A&D, and industrial manufacturing.

Implications for Manufacturers

For existing Kalypso or Metafore clients, the merger will mean access to extended resources and a more capable partner. For those looking for product innovation or PLM expertise, the combined offering provides a compelling alternative to the big consultants that may not have the deep skills you need, or the small firs that may not have the breadth of services (or the top-tier talent) that Kalypso offers.

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

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I am a paid member of Kalypso’s Board of Advisors. I don’t feel that I would have written the article in any different way if that weren’t the case, but I felt that disclosing this information was the proper thing to do.

What I learned this week … was that we could use a good, common PLM definition and scope, but we will not get one. The discussion (a lot of discussion in multiple forums, actually) came from my post SAP, Too Much or Too Little Credit for PLM Efforts and another called Who Will Disrupt Entrenched PLM Vendors? Chris Williams pointed out on a LinkedIn thread that he felt maybe the confusion was due to a lack of understanding of what PLM really is, and asked for a common definition. My response? Not so much.

A Not-so-Common Defintion

Chris asked the million dollar question. But PLM is not one thing. While ERP has matured to a more common footprint across the vendors, the scope of PLM from each of the vendors differs. I define PLM as “processes and software used to improve product innovation, product development, and engineering performance.” That is (by definition, not by fault) very broad. There is no one “PLM” definition. The vision of the vendors shows consoliation over time, but today they are very different. Siemens includes MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) for A&D. Dassault Systemes has spent much more effort in “lifelike simulation.” PTC includes development of product documentation. Then, there are the applications that don’t come as a part of the suite, which makes each implementation different. Aras includes APQP and quality. They are all different.

Implications for Manufacturers

The lack of a common definition is also why putting in PLM without a strategy is a quagmire waiting to happen. But a common defintion won’t help. While there are standard processes in PLM, they are not as common as in ERP. There are examples of common processes, such as Stage-Gate processes for new product development (NPD) or CMII for change management. But product innovation and product development are not as standardized processes as accounting, as an example. It is not the lack of common PLM system definition at the root of this, it is the lack of common PLM processes. And as much as companies like Invention Machine are putting process orientation into innovation, it will still not be as standardized as ERP functions like human resource management.

So, manufacturers really need to think about what problems they want to solve before implementing PLM. You can’t just install the software and expect any benefits (beyond maybe simple data management). This is what I call the PLM Program, a strategy and vision for PLM that you accomplish in small, incremental steps.

So those are my thoughts on a common PLM defintion, don’t hold your breath waiting for it. I hope you found it interesting. Do you have a better one? I didn’t, if you do let us know about it.

That, by the way, is one of the reasons it is very hard for ERP to simply build another module and call it PLM. That is why SAP has a long program to develop PLM (which will be yet another variation on the PLM theme, different from the others).

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.

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 … 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?

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!

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.