#PLM > The art of marketing or how to screw up a good idea

After a post on Oleg's Beyond PLM blog about PTC, I was thrilled by the "Applification" of their product. It's something I believe the PLM market should look at very closely in order to relaunch the innovation process in this industry. So I was thrilled.

So I tryed to get more information and watched that video:

http://creo.ptc.com/2010/10/28/replay-unveiling-of-creo/

I loved the assessment made by Jim Heppelmann. He's right in not believing that the PLM market is mature enough that there is no innovation possible. But his answers do not adress the issues he is trying to fix.

Application could be a good way to generate innovation in the PLM world. Give the backbone, people will develop not customizations but applications isolated from the core. Applications could call each other (have a look on what WP7 does, this is what a PLM should do: consolidate information the way you want).

Creo is what? a single database? That's not new. Role base application? That's not new either. Multi CAD support? Come on! MatrixOne was doing that 10 years ago! The attention on the user interface is good (I personally love their configurator), but it's still a thick client!

How does the architecture will adapt to specific needs? There is not a word on that. But that's the key to the future. The PLM vendors have to understand that they no longer sell only software. They have to enable services. Like the iPhone or Windows Phone 7, like Google or Amazon. By enabling service you will unleach the creativity but your fondation have to be solid (like iOS). The customers will be more happy to find more solutions on the market, they will be pleased to look at best practices from other industries, their implementation will not depend of the R&D of a single vendor, and so forth...

PTC has formulated well the issue the industry is facing, but is yet to overcome the PLM legacy to have a real breakthrough in the technology.

Is cloud computing really green?

Energy saving issue is in all IT managers nowadays. ISO 14001 takes a greater place in all companies and "cloud companies" (almost all of them) advertise that cloud will be a key element of the green strategy of any company.
But will clouds really allow that?

It seems logical when presented this way:
You have 5 servers that you need to cool down used at 80%, if you have 4 servers at 100% you will save the cooling of one server. That seems correct isn't it?

But what is cloud computing but the commoditization of computing resources? What happened when electricity became a commodity? It resulted into an increase of its consumption. Why? because it became cheap and easy. Why would that be any different for clouds?

What's your thoughts on that? What would you answer if one of your customer challenges you on that?

#Cloud > A "green" software certification for software company?

Some company push their software into the clouds without proper thinking of the impact for their customers. Once in the cloud they use an incredible amount of computing resources that are too expensive for their customers. Because it's too expensive that delay the port of classical desktop/server applications on the cloud (want names? look at SAP cloud strategy for instance - not now, but a few years back) and the adoption by the customer.
The customer wants to know how much his infrastructure in the cloud will cost him and that may become a criteria of choice in the future.

What I propose is that each software company advertise (and are certified) on their computing needs. Of course some standard would be required but it could be shown as well as a competitive advantage if it shows the ecological side of it.

An example: I want my company to have office apps in the clouds. I can chose either Office live or Google docs. let's assume they have equivalent features, I want to pick the one who will consume the least.

People pick already their cars based on the same criteria... what do you think? Would that be a decision criteria for you?

#PLM > The mysteries of the ETO industry

Have you ever wondered how an elevator was made? There is no standardization for an elevator. They all have different size, serve building of different heights, have different speed and design...

In a world that ask for more standardization how can a company reduce their engineering cost on some products that are never the same? When maintenance is done, how can you manage the history of changes that happened on a elevator?

This is the problem of all Engineering To Order Industry. You can tell me that Aerospace is an ETO industry, that Ship Building is too, but they manufacture too little to know exactly the same problematic (for the moment).

They are three main processes that I propose to look at in the future posts.

• Management of standard products and their "standard options" (What models of elevator the company offers and what are the "catalog options"?)
• Management of Orders and their specifics requirements (When I have an order, what are my customer "specific requirements" that I will need to take in account?)
• Management of the on site services (How do I manage changes on a existing installation whether I did it or someone else did it)

We will look closely at those three processes through the glass of the largest PLM approach possible. How to manage data, schedules, design definition, configuration definition... we will the see where are the differences with other industries where PLM is well implemented (High Tech, Aerospace,...) and what are the challenges (technical but not only) that the implementation of a PLM implies for such industries.

So talk to you soon.