Archive | MOM RSS feed for this section

Is Your Head In The Cloud(s)?

6 Mar

It’s great to see some level-headed discussion on ‘THE CLOUD’.

Oleg Shilovitsky blogged today about “PLM Competition 2010s and Anti-cloud PLM rap?”.  On the one hand, his blog speaks of AutoDesk’s entry into the Cloud PLM space with AutoDesk PLM 360, and the market dynamics that could change if this product gets legs in the marketplace.

He balances that with comments from a blog by Peter Schroer, President and Founder of Aras Corporation, entitled “The Cloud Won’t Cure What Ails You”.  Here’s a direct quote from Peter’s blog:

The cloud is not a magic elixir. It’s not going to re-engineer your business, optimize your strategy or help you lose 10 lbs (unless you’re carrying a server).  All the cloud is going to do is move your data or apps from down the hall or down the street, to someplace else that you probably won’t ever put your finger on. That’s it folks.

Thank you, Peter.  As I stated in my last blog,  there is no easy answer, no free lunch.  If your process is broken, or you have no process, putting it ‘in the cloud’ is not going to solve anything.

First, understand your current process,

Second, design the ‘should-be’ process,

Third, choose a best-in-class tool that can easily automate this desired process and will grow with you as your business changes,

THEN, determine whether it belongs on the cloud or not.

Learn more here

- RTR

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

If It’s All About Process, Why Focus On Features?

22 Feb

The following was tweeted from the PLM Conference at the Westin in Munich this morning by Gabriel Gheorghiu:

“Marc Halpern (Gartner) some of the best #PLM implementations done without PLM software. Processes matter most #plm2012“

If this is true, and I believe it is, then why on God’s green earth do companies still go through the same drill, asking for a feature list, looking at features, providing RFIs/RFPs that talk about features (example: 314 features in an RFP that we answered last year).

What do features matter?  It’s ALL ABOUT THE PROCESS.  It doesn’t matter how shiny it is, whether or not it’s on the cloud, what technology platform it runs on.  Here’s all that matters:

Do you have a reliable, efficient process?

Does this software make that process better?

’nuff said

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Standardization – What’s YOUR job Mr. Software Vendor?

21 Feb

There is a discussion going on over at LinkedIn  about whether or not a single MES system can be used across multiple plants.  The topic of standardization is a hot one.   Individual plants (and individuals) believe that they are ‘different’, that one size does not fit all.  We all believe that we are unique, that no one does exactly what we do.  In the case of manufacturing, there is some truth to that.  Efforts to ‘standardize’ manufacturing have the tendency to stifle creativity.  They also tend toward creeping bureaucracy.

Uniqueness is not always a good thing.  As someone once told me “Do it once, it might be a mistake, do it twice it’s a habit, three times it’s a tradition”.    There are a lot of traditions out there in manufacturing that would lend themselves to retirement.  If the rationale for a process is “But we’ve always done it this way”, then maybe you have to dig a bit deeper.

So what is the software vendor’s job in all of this?  Standardization?  Uniqueness?

In a timeless blog from 2009, David Meerman Scott provided the “Top Gobbledygook phrases used in 2008 and how to avoid them”.  Our friend ‘Unique’ checks in at #3 on the list of most overused phrases in B2B press releases, right after #2 “Pleased To” and #1 “Innovate”….

… but we have all bases covered with #14 Flexible and #18 Scalability!

So, now that we are all pleased to uniquely innovate, what are we really saying here?

The point of my title is that how a software product is designed and implemented goes a long way in balancing the business need for standardization in the face of  the users desire for ”uniqueness’.  Hey, if it was easy, ANYONE could do it!

The key for software vendors is standardization that fosters uniqueness.  What does that mean?  If you’re too unique, you may miss your target.  If you’re approach is ‘forced’ standardization, you aren’t allowing your customers to use their uniqueness to their advantage.

Being unique is a good thing, otherwise we wouldn’t make such a big deal about it in our B2B press releases!  A BETTER thing is to foster the uniqueness that the end-user requires in a structured framework that the business requires.  Give them what they want, make it simple, hide the rules and complexity.  Now THAT’S innovation!  (Sorry, couldn’t resist…)

more here…

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

They’re Doing It Without You!

14 Feb

I owe this inspiration to SAP’s Paul Boris.

There is a long-running dialog on the LinkedIn Manufacturing Execution Systems Group, started by Luigi De Bernardini , entitled “Does any ERP need an MES?”  It’s been up for about two weeks.

BTW: Paul’s answer was

“That question is really like asking do you really need a heart AND lungs ?”

… but that’s not the the inspiration.  The inspiration came from his opening paragraph, which was both humorous and insightful, and I told Paul I would steal it:

“I believe everyone who manufactures anything has an MES – it might be a specific Manufacturing Execution System, Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets or even Many Employees Scurrying around (sorry) – but they have something.”

After laughing out loud, I realized this really brought home something that is key to all software vendors selling in the Manufacturing Space.

Nobody is sitting around waiting for your application, Sparky!

They have stuff to make.  They have to order material, build stuff, cut chips, deal with the day-to-day issues that manufacturers face.  They are lean.  They have no time.  Covey Quandrant 2 activities?  Not so much.

When they finally DO have time to look at your shiny new application, be careful to look at their body language, facial expressions.  What are they telling you, once you are actually paying attention to them?

“… it looks impressive, but how long will my shop be down in order to make this work?  I don’t have ANY time,  so where am I going to find implementation time?  PLEASE don’t tell me I have to ‘re-do’ my old work in your system.”

Why do these shiny new applications fail to generate excitement in the plant manager’s heart?  Because they don’t take into account that the work is being done now without them.

You have two choices:

1) Build a compelling case for why the shop should be disrupted for months (if you can)

2) Build an application that can be implemented without disrupting production

Learn more about option 2  here

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thoughts on Customer Loyalty

7 Feb

My older brother John once work on a mega-project while he was with the consulting/training wing of Digital Equipment Corp up in Merrimack, NH.  The customer, who shall remain nameless, was, in a word, difficult.  At one point, in an internal meeting at DEC, the exasperated Project Manager said,”Can we fire the customer?”

In our own business, our customer base runs the gamut.   We have companies that have not upgraded our software for years, and are quite happy, thank you very much, to be running their Oracle 8 implementation well past the Oracle ‘end-of-support’ date.  Others want to know, in detail, what are our plans for Oracle 12g, Windows8 and IE9.

In our history, we have become widely known as a company that provides exemplary service, even when the customer is many releases back.  Certainly, we can’t do everything for the laggers, any more than we can jump to the latest and greatest at a moments notice for the bleeding edge crowd.

At some point in time, pushing an old product forward into newer technology becomes a losing battle.  At some point in time, every vendor needs to get on to the next big thing.   What do you do about your exisitng customer base, the folks that ‘got you there’?  I believe every vendor has faced this dilemma.  We have, and are comfortable with our support of existing product and growth into new technologies.  However….

Here’s a hypothetical situation:

You have an installed customer base that has used your product for many years.  You have continued to enhance that product, but are moving to a new technology base and a new offering.

They have reaped the rewards of your software many times over (if they weren’t seeing value, they would have dumped you long ago).   Their ROI may have been achieved in 18 months, they have used your product for 5-10 years.  Like an old car, you don’t “owe them” anything…

At this point in time, what value do THEY provide YOU compared to YOUR annual investment in THEM?  Is their instance of your software so old that you find yourself handling an inordinate number of support calls?  Do you have to keep relatively obsolete hardware and software inventory to support them?

Should you fire those customers?

I welcome your comments….

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Commenting On The Adventures Of Process Man

31 Jan

I read a HIGHLY entertaining blog today from Stephen Porter (Zero Wait-State PLM) “Forgotten Hero-Process Man“

In this blog, Stephen describes how Batman had a distinct disadvantage to other ‘super friends’ as he had no super powers, only gadgets.  He morphs that conversation into the ‘forgotten’ superhero “Process Man” who is vital to the success of any project implementation. 

We have a long-time customer that has used our legacy product for over 15 years.  A number of years ago, they acted as an internal reference for another site.  The manager of this site asked “What would you do differently if you put CIMx in today?”.  Our customer answered [paraphrasing],

“I wouldn’t have treated it as a replacement for our old system.  That mindset really limited our use of their technology.”

I remember at the time thinking how profound a statement this was.  We had always prided ourselves in being customer centric.  In fact, our slogan when we started CIMx in 1996 was “customer driven solutions”.  Is just doing what the customer asks enough? 

By the way, this same customer, after funding an enhancement to our product that we had cautioned against, said in frustration:

“How could you let us talk you into that?”

Sounds like a job for….  PROCESS MAN!!!

Over time, we learned that the most important part of the ‘sale’ is the assessment.  It’s not about the tools, it’s about the process.  As I learned in Dale Carnegie Sales Advantage training. 

“Millions of twist drills are sold every year, but people are buying the ability to make holes.”

So let’s hear it for Process Man!  Process Man truly is the unsung hero. If you don’t understand the current and future process, you are missing the benefit of the technology you are investing in.

Companies that choose to merely automate their current process are doomed to make crap faster.

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Choices…..Do they really want a Swiss Army Knife?

27 Jan

I watched an interesting youtube video by Dr. Jim Anderson about giving customers too many choices.

The example that Dr. Anderson used was a very familiar one, “Red Box” DVD kiosks.  They are so successful they are installing RedBox kiosks at a clip of one per hour.  His assertion is that Red Box succeeds by limiting customer choice.  They feature current popular movies…. Period.  Easy in, easy out, get the latest hot movie, go home and watch it.  NetFlix may have a library thousands of times larger than RedBox.  Who cares?

Any and all sales training courses stress the use of questioning methodologies to zero in on the customers ‘pain’, develop a solution to that specific problem, strongly communicate the value of that solution to that customer, then close the deal.

If this is all true, why do we software vendors spend so much ink and gum flapping on flexibility?? 

I recall a visit to a major manufacturer in the Philadelphia area about 10 years ago.  I was travelling with our software development director, and his counterpart from a partner company.  When this prospect would ask “How can ‘x’ problem be solved?”, every answer began with “Well,  there are a number of ways we could handle that….”

By the way, we didn’t get that business…..

The customer does not want a Swiss Army Knife.  They want a specific solution to a specific problem.  They DO NOT CARE how ‘Insanely Configurable’ it is!

So why do we do this?  I have a theory…

In software sales, no one wants to hear “no”.  No one wants to say “no”.  You all know the old saw. 

“If a salesman says yes, he means maybe, if he says maybe he means no, if he says no, he’s not really a salesman.”

The moment your detailed questioning gets to the essential issue, you may not have the solution!  But if you’re configurable… well, the detail doesn’t really matter, there’s NOTHING you can’t do, right?  The answer will always be yes!

Here’s the problem, Sparky.  By staying vague and configurable, you are not offering your customer/prospect ANYTHING of value.

Remember, they are not looking for your software system.  They are looking to solve a SPECIFIC business problem.  If you can’t address it head on, you’re not doing them or yourself any favors.

-RTR

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments on Expensive Documentation and Cheap Textbooks

23 Jan
Oleg Shilovitsky has started an interesting blog topic on his ’Beyond PLM’ site .  The topic is how Apple and the iPad are changing the dynamics in the publishing industry, and how this might affect the PLM market.

This is a fascinating topic.  We were speaking to a small company that makes custom, complex wire harnesses in both the Medical Device and Aerospace industries.  Their shop floor vision is that, rather than punching a time clock, their shop work force would ‘check out’ an iPad from a rack, and proceed to the work area.  Using CIMx Interax, they would have a ‘work order website’ that they could access that would provide them all required and reference information that they desire.

That’s half of the paperless manufacturing equation; there is so much in the area of documentation that is relevant to the shop floor that is already in electronic format.  The key is making it readily available. 

The other half of paperless manufacturing is data collection and procedural control.  Again, the key is simplicity and flexibility.  Allow enough freedom to get the  job done, with enough control to be sure it’s done right.

We’ve actually been doing this in one form or another since 1997.  We’ve just been waiting for the hardware to catch up.

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Reality-Based Software

23 Jan

The ongoing discussion started by Jim Brown (Tech Clarity) re: “A Maturity Model for Product Data Accessibility?” at the PLM CAD CAM Network group in LinkedIn continues to be thoughtful and insightful.  Jim responded recently with this quote regarding ‘sloppy data’

For the record, I wasn’t suggested that individuals should be sloppy – the pursuit of accuracy and order are important.  But instead saying that we live in environments that tend towards chaos no matter how hard we try, and we need to keep doing the job that customers pay for (designing and producing great products) in that reality.

YES!!!!

It is so common in our industry to assume we know best.  I hear software people talking about “educating the customer”.  Not so fast, Sparky.  I maintain we have MUCH more to learn FROM our customers and prospects than we can ever teach them.  Do we have something to offer?   You bet….  but don’t prescribe before you diagnose.

In the paperless manufacturing space, this “know it all” behavior is rampant.  We can improve your bottom line, provide new efficiencies that you never thought possible, make your key traceability and quality data accessible electronically.

All you have to do is… change everything!  Those MS word work instructions?  Sorry, you have to re-enter them in OUR environment, so they’ll be ‘useful’.  No, we don’t have a converter, but cut and paste should work for those 10,000 docs, right?  Those ERP routings?  Everyone knows that the ERP routings are incomplete, we’ll just take over that task as well.   Oh, by the way?  for this to work MOST efficiently, we need to own the BOM as well..

Is it any wonder that most companies (especially in the small to medium business space) look at paperless manufacturing with a sense of dread?  If they had the time to turn their organization upside down, they wouldn’t need the help!  At the end of the day, they need to produce product.  Everything else STARTS in 2nd place.  I imagine re-keying in existing information is well down the list.

The approach that needs to be taken by software vendors is what I am referring to in the blog title: 

Reality-based Software.   

Paraphrasing Jim Brown, software vendors need to do the job that customers pay for in the customer’s reality not the vendor’s reality.  Learn more here…

-RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Problem with [PLM/ERP/MES] Integration… Is it People?

20 Jan

Since I started blogging, the ‘inspiration’ comes from two sources. 

1) Interesting things I read online or elsewhere (I am not completely paperless)…

2) Bolts of lightning

This is one of the 2nd variety.  A few of us here at CIMx were having a philosophical discussion on manufacturing process, when the dots were connected, the switch was thrown and the lightning bolt commenced. 

Is there something missing in the integration discussion?

Integrations have gotten more complex.  Technologist will continue to advance technology.  Flat file transfer becomes neutral interface tables which becomes XML and web services.  Automated error recovery.  Electronic alerts.

So why do integration projects still run overtime, over budget?  Why do the most painstaking designs still produce code that doesn’t do the job when push comes to shove?  Could it be… people?

In a previous company, I developed an integration for an automotive OEM.  This integration provided updated scheduling information for the production of stamping dies.  There was a 2″ looseleaf notebook that described the process that they used in excrutiating detail.  I codified that process and produced the integration.  Done deal….

Except it didn’t work.  After lengthy discussions and discovery, we determined that the detailed process never worked.  In their paper environment, manufacturing engineers would manually fill out the information and feed it to a clerk.  The clerk would then change the information and re-key it into the scheduling system.  The missing piece was the logic in the clerk’s head that described what the data really  meant and how the system should see it.

I’ve heard story after story in a similar vein.  There’s always an exception, always a unique case.  Computers are only as smart as the program they’re running.  People can analyze, synthesize, make exceptions, break the rules, to get the job done…  and they will

The moral of the story.  It’s not the technical connection of data you need to work on.  It’s the people side of the process….

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers