Tag Archives: PLM

It’s The Product, Stupid – Unintended Consequences

4 Mar

So I’m in the shower at the Rec Center this morning, using yet another brand of body wash.  Why, you ask?  Well, it’s not that I don’t have a favorite; I do.  I am a fan of Axe, even though their ad campaigns and product graphics are, well, juvenile.  I think they have a great body wash and I would use it every day, but I don’t.

Why not?  No, it’s not because young women were starting to pester me, it’s much more mundane than that.

It has to do with the bottle design.  The bottle ‘opens’ by pushing down on the back of the lid, which works like a rocker switch to open the front of the lid.  Clever design until the day when, jostled around in my travel bag, the lid opens, spilling Axe all over the inside of the bag.  It only had to happen a couple of times to make me realize that Axe was not for travel, only for home.   So now, I switch from brand to brand looking for an alternative.  The initial criteria is, the bottle can’t be opened accidentally, after that, I consider the actual contents of the bottle.

The moral of the story?  the ‘product’ is not just what’s inside the container, it is the entire experience.  Axe failed to provide the ‘product’ that I could safely bring to the rec center every morning, and now they are relegated to twice a week use.

Do you know if this is happening with your product?  Are there ‘un-intended consequences’ to your design?  You better find out!

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , ,

Where PLM and eProcurement Meet…

29 May

My previous world (PLM) and new world (eProcurement) collided in a blog by my friend Oleg Shilovitsky; “New Definition of PLM from UK Datamation Info Assets”.

There has been a significant amount of ‘virtual ink’ spent discussing “exactly what is PLM?”  It’s provided me with a lot of blogging material over the months….

This new ‘definition’ in Oleg’s blog I found to be intriguing:

PLM is different from say CAD, ERP, CRM, etc. and therefore investment decisions in it should be based on different criteria. PLM’s key role, as defined in the Datamation PLM Model report, is the effective management of information assets through-life. In other words, it is a “live entity”

There you have it.  PLM is typically sold based on what it does for you now (vaulting… security… design process management).  Not all that different from an eProcurement system (catalog management, purchasing, contracting).  The key value through life is not that it can handle these day to day tasks.  The key value is based on the fact that it builds an endless repository of all of those transactions.

In the PLM world, this data could be used to create design best practices, or it could be used for intelligent trouble shooting of design flaws.

In the eProcurement world, this data powers Purchase Decision Optimization (PDO).  PDO means that each and every purchase can be optimized, based on previous buyer experience, supplier performance, trends, etc.; the kind of social marketplace that has become 2nd nature in the consumer world, but is still rare in business to business transactions.

So, whether it’s design data in a PLM system, or purchasing data in an eProc system, it’s not how you get the data, it’s what you do with it once you have it that counts.  Learn more about PDO here.

- RTR

Tags: , , , ,

It’s All About Your Niche, Do You WANT to Leave There?

9 Apr

Back to reading my original blog muse, Oleg Shilovitsky.  In a recent blog (“Ugly vs. Cool”) he took PLM vendors to task re: their product user interface.  It got me thinking:

What do my previous company, CIMx Software, and my current company, Vinimaya, have in common?

Although there are many differences, and many other reasons for their success, both software companies are, in part, successful because of the failings of another industry’s functionality and user interface.

Ask any PLM vendor and they will say that they support manufacturing.  Truth be told, they have products designed and built for the design engineer and management of design projects.  The user interface is designed by engineers and for engineers.   The schemas and taxonomies of the PLM system do not support the workings of the manufacturing shop, and the user interface is way too complex for the casual user.  In the case of CIMx  Software, there have been numerous attempts by the engineering organizations at CIMx customers to ‘standard ize’ on the PLM environment for manufacturing and shop floor.  At one particulart customer, there were close to 1/2 dozen ‘pilots’ of the PLM system in manufacturing engineering.  They all failed to provide what CIMx had out of the box.

The same can be said for ERP ‘eProc’ applications and Vinimaya.  If ERP vendors provided simple federated search across all of their internal and external suppliers with a user interface like Google or Amazon, there would be no need for SmartSearch™.   That’s not the case.  eProc systems tend to have the same laborious click-heavy, multi-screen UI issues as most ERP and PLM functions.

Why is this so?  It boils down to two elements, legacy and domain expertise.

1) Legacy.  One of my favorite quotes about the software industry is “God created the universe in six days because he didn’t have an installed base”.  It is extremely difficult for established vendors in a particular space (ERP, PLM) to completely re-write their large monolithic systems.  They can certainly apply a web ‘veneer’ and update icons and other visual elements, but it’s the same old code underneath.

2) Domain Expertise.  I recall the amazement in the voice of a colleague in the MES space when he had to explain to their PLM partner the  concept of a work order.  You may know the technology behind and engineering bill of materials backwards and forwards, but that does not mean your expertise has any value down on the shop floor.

So, where do you want to live, Mr. ERP vendor?  Mr. PLM vendor?  The more you decide to venture outside of your area of core competence, the more you will have to be concerned about functionality and UI, and the less likely you will be able to compete with the likes of CIMx and Vinimaya.

- RTR

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

Hard… Right… Turn…

15 Mar

This one is personal and introspective. It’s life change time, or as my Army officer son would say, a ‘Significant Emotional Event’.

I have just taken a hard right turn.

TURN:

After 16 years at CIMx Software, 30 years in manufacturing application software, and a lifetime involved in manufacturing, as of March 19, I will be the newly minted VP of Client Success at  Vinimaya.  Vinimaya is a provider of a cloud-based software for turning corporate procurement into an experience more like B2C purchasing (a la Amazon), rather than buyers having to become ERP experts or worse, become someone who’s entire job is fighting their way through endless supplier catalogs, websites, etc.

Yes, my friends, this is about as far from PLM/MES as one can get.  It excites me.  A whole new world.  On the one hand, helping clients succeed with vendor supplied software is pretty much a market agnostic endeavor.  As CIMx’ mentor, T D Hughes, would say, “All business is the same, it just looks different”.  On the other hand, the nuances and peculiarities of e-Procurement are something I will have to pick up, and quickly.

RIGHT:

Is this the right decision?  Only time will tell.  I can say that it feels right.  As former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, stated:

“If you have 40 to 70 percent of the information, you probably have what you need. Take a chance, do something. Go with your gut instinct. Because if you wait for all of the information (to make a decision) you might miss (out).”

That’s where I am.  I’ve turned over more than a few stones since the Vinimaya opportunity came my way, and everything I’ve learned (more than 40%, less than 70%), tells me this is where I ought to be.

HARD:

Is this a hard decision?  Wow.  How do you walk away from a company that you help start?  A company that you help grow from those scary but exciting first days in 1996 to a company that survives and thrives while watching competitors get acquired or go out of business?  Not to mention the camaraderie, the close family atmosphere, the friendships that span decades?   THAT, my friends, is the hard part.

But I have done it.  I have taken that hard right turn.

Never fear, PLM bloggers.  Though I have a new career, I will still be writing about software.  Do not worry, Real Time Rick is here to stay.

OH NO…  I just referred to myself in the THIRD PERSON.

I apologize, it will never happen again! ;-)

-RTR

Tags: , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Customer Driven? What’s the Correct Mix?

13 Feb

I’ve been receiving a prodigious number of tweets from SWW12 (SolidWorks World).  I found one statement from Dassault Systemes very intriguing:

“90% of Solidworks 2012 enhancements are coming from customer-driven requests”

It got me thinking.  Early in my software career, I would have seen this as a very successful strategy.  What could be better than having 90% of your enhancements coming from customer-driven requests?  Isn’t it an honorable and valid direction, taking care of your customer?  Keep the customer satisfied!  CIMx Software’s initial logo and business cards had the tagline “customer driven solutions”

Lately, I’ve been wondering about customer-driven requests.  I’m not saying that meeting customer-driven requests is a bad thing, but is it innovative?  Many of us idolized Steve Jobs for NOT doing what the masses were looking for.  There’s a famous quote from Henry Ford, when asked if he listened to the customer:

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

I know, I know, easy for me to say sitting here freezing in Cincinnati why the SWW12 attendees are enjoying sunny San Diego.  I just wonder; does 90% customer-driven means 10% true innovation?  Probably not, but I would hazard a guess that it’s not 90% true innovation.

- RTR

Tags: , , , , , ,

PLM vs. PDM – Perception vs. Reality

8 Feb

Inge Kraninckx asked a question about the definitions of PDM & PLM in the PLM PDM CAD group on Linked in.

I just read this statement in a Journal by PLMIG (Q3/2010) Do you agree with this definition?

As reaction to the idea that PLM is “scaled up PDM”, and the idea that PDM applies to less of the product lifecycle than PLM, they formulate this definition:
“PDM is the IT platform for PLM.”
Or, expressed from the opposite viewpoint:-
“PLM is the business context in which PDM is implemented.”

I think that the definition really comes down to perception vs reality. 

Our CEO here at CIMx is fond of  saying “perception is reality”  at one point early in our history, it was the tag line on his email signature. 

In the PDM/PLM debate the “perception” of Product LIFE-CYCLE Management is, in my view, significantly larger than the reality.  The reality is that most PLM systems are doing PDM, managing product data via BOM management, engineering change management, vaulting and workflow.  In that regard, PDM [read BOM management, engineering change management, vaulting and workflow], IS the IT platform for the yet unfulfilled promise of PLM.

Some may construe my comments as bashing PLM vendors.  Not true, I believe that Product Life Cycle management is where their focus should be as they grow and mature their products, and I believe that the vendors in that marketplace are working diligently to expand their horizons beyond the comfort of the engineering office. 

In order to support the full product lifecycle, PLM vendors need to invest in domain expertise outside of the realm of engineering (PDM).

This can be done by aquisition (as Dassault has done with the acquisition of Intercim, and Siemens has done with multiple acquisitions, Tecnomatix comes to mind), but acquisition brings it’s own challenges; differences in culture, technology and focus.  

Domain expertise can also be achieved by much less grandiose investments in partnering and/or talent. 

I believe that todays PDM will become PLM, it’s just a matter of time.

- RTR

Tags: , , , , ,

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers