Clarity on PLM

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

The Research Findings – What Comes Next?

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

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

The Research Findings – What Are We Doing About It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Research Findings – History

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

The Research Findings – View in 2010

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

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

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

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

Implications for Manufacturers

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

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

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

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?

I had the chance to talk with … Dassault Systemes CEO Bernard Charles and his team at Dassault’s 2009 customer conference today. I attended the general sessions in the morning and then spent some time speaking with DS execs in a smaller group setting. Once again, Bernard and the team painted a very different picture of PLM than some might have in mind. Dassault does PLM, but the vision does not stop there. It doesn’t matter if you call it PLM 2.0 (as Dassault does) or put some other label on it – DS has a very unique view on what the future will look like. And they have plans to play a broader role than CAD, CAE or product design.

What do they Do?
Dassault is one of the largest PLM vendors in the market. For more on what they do, see past posts One-to-One: Reinventing Dassault Systems? and also One-to-One: Dassault Strives to Make 3D Accessible to All in the SMB with V6.

Where is Dassault Systemes Going?
DS is clearly a leader in the PLM space. How do they view themselves in the future? Some key tenants of the DS vision shared today include:

• 3D Lifelike Experience - “see what you mean” or “SWYM“
• Social Innovation
• Smart Products
• User-Generated Content and Involvement – “from Consumer to Consum’Actor“
• Sustainable Development
• Business Processes – core processes for 11 industries and ~50 industry sub-segments
• PLM Online for All – web-based and SOA

What Does it All Mean?
First, expect Dassault to push the 3D experience hard. Second, don’t expect them to limit the use of 3D and lifelike experiences to an engineering audience. In the manufacturing industries, expect to see them continue to offer 3D applications for new areas such as sales and marketing. DS sees themselves playing just as much of a role helping companies define the product experience (packaging design, shelf placement, consumer interaction) as they do defining the product itself. They have already brought solutions to market and have done some work (not commercial product yet) in areas such as eye tracking technology to analyze customer reaction and behavior. Keep your eyes on the 3DVIA brand and how it fits in with ENOVIA. Note that these solutions have potential in many other industries than manufacturing (or even gaming, another current DS market), with the opportunity to enhance the web to incorporate lifelike experiences. Bernard pointed out in the general session that the Web “does not have emotion or allow people to experience or interact.” What is needed, he explains, are 3D and smart objects that offer realistic simulation and comply with the real-world rules of physics. To me, this feels like a very different vision for PLM than I hear elsewhere.

Also, expect DS to push into more social aspects of innovation. This was one of the biggest topics we discussed in our smaller group. Bernard tells the story of how social networking techniques are helping within Dassault, and how they are learning through their use of Blue Kiwi (a software company they have invested heavily in) and of their own 3DVIA solutions. I don’t think they have it all figured out, which I respect. As I have seen in the past, DS is willing to experiment and learn (as their customers are learning) to leverage new social computing technologies.

I believe that social computing in PLM is a significant new evolution of PLM – see Social Computing Drives Innovation and related posts. Dassault sees this as well. As Bernard said “A year ago, I would have said social software is an add-on, now it is at the core of what we do.” A pretty powerful statement to say the least. There is more to say here, but the post is already getting long (sorry).

What about Product Design?
Don’t take this the wrong way. Dassault is still 100% in the PLM “1.0″ game and working hard to have the best design, analysis, and data management solutions they can bring to market. Dassault continues to invest heavily in their core solutions and the V6 platform. CAD and CAE are not as static, mature solutions as some would like to believe. Some examples of continued investment in the core solutions include:

• Systems Design and Simulation - in Bernard’s words, “Smart products is the future of CATIA” – see post about mechatronics and one of Dassault’s partners in One to One: Big Blues Unprecedented Mechatronic Opportunity for more.
• Continued Development to Support New Manufacturing Materials -composites, nanomaterials, …
• Integration and Interoperability – as an example, Simulation Lifecycle Management of SIMULIA data in ENOVIA

There is more here, but that is not the focus of my (rather lengthy, sorry) post.

Takeaways and Implications for Manufacturers
A demo of 3DVIA and the new iPhone application was a great example of the uniqueness of the DS vision. Instead of a car or plane Bernard showed 3DVIA on an iPhone. He took a picture of the furniture on the stage, and then added a table from the 3DVIA library. Not satisfied with the boring table, the model is sent via e-mail and a designer modifies it in 3D Shape. It is published back to 3DVIA, pulled up on the iPhone, and now we see a picture of the stage with a newly modeled table along with the existing furniture. The punchline is that “3D opens the door to the world we imagine.” Not a standard main-stage demo for a PLM company. Expect Dassault to push further with their vision of making the virtual world better reflect the real world.

So Dassault Systemes vision is different. To be I am not concluding that it is better, but I am concluding that it is unique. It is not for me to decide what companies will gain the most value from, only the customers and the market can decide that.

So that’s what I hear from Dassault Systemes. Bernard and the team are clearly not satisfied with a goal of leading today’s market, but shaping the future market as well. 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 … Jim Todhunter and the team at Invention Machine about the new product release they announced today. There are lot of things that I like in the release designed to help further Invention Machine’s ability to operationalize innovation. But what really struck me was the goal of this release to improve “Every Day Innovation” in a procedural, sustainable way.

What do they Do?

In short, and in my words, Invention Machine offers a software solution that helps manufacturers turn innovation into a repeatable process. This is what I like to call “operationalizing innovation” as opposed to leaving innovation to chance. Invention Machine does this through a combination of:

• Task-oriented innovation workflows
• Packaged innovation, engineering and problem-solving tools and methodologies
• Innovation and engineering knowledge management and search

Invention Machine is a very unique company, and one that many have a hard time grasping exactly what they do. But what always strikes me is that they have a very impressive list of customers. I have had the chance to talk with quite a few of these customers, and they are all positive about what Invention Machine has done for them. So even if they are hard to understand, they are definitely worth a look.

What’s New?

So what is new in the release? There is quite a bit. Their Goldfire 5.5 launch adds new capabilities across the product line, and also introduces a new product called “Goldfire Insight.” The goal of this solution is to boost deployment of Goldfire to the “every day” innovators. Innovation comes in many forms, and Invention Machine is trying to extend their capabilities into every day engineering and innovation problem solving instead of just generating the big ideas or solving big, hairy problems. Jim Todhunter talks about the “little i” ind of innovation in addition to the “big I” type. Maybe one way to think of it is that Goldfire Insight helps the every day innovator stand on the shoulders of the master innovators to turn innovation into reality.

There are also new capabilities in the existing solutions. One of these capabilities is a question answering technology that helps innovators find the knowledge they need to get their jobs done without reinventing the wheel. There is also a new Knowledge Navigator that helps return knowledge in logical categories or “lenses,” providing order and intelligence to unstructured information and query results by leveraging Invention Machine’s strong semantic search capabilities.

There is also a new Research Guide that I am pretty interested in seeing in action at customers. The Research Guide not only helps capture engineering knowledge, it helps capture the innovation and decision-making process. Think of dynamically creating a “mind map” during a research or innovation project that documents the path you took (and links to the knowledge you uncovered) so you can go back and revisit it at a later time. This creates a new source of knowledge, by documenting the innovation process and the innovation path to create new knowledge. Pretty compelling. I liked the way Jim Todhunter explained it (possibly paraphrased):

Information -> enables -> Communities -> to perform -> Innovation -> which generates -> Information

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