#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.

#Cloud Just read on a French website

"Beaucoup essaient de conserver leurs pratiques commerciales : licences chères, qui verrouillent les clients. Ou alors, ils proposent des offres hybrides de cloud privé. Mais ce n’est pas du cloud, ça donne juste l’illusion d’un plus grand contrôle, mais c’est le contraire qui se passe"

Werner Vogels, Amazon CTO

(http://www.ecrans.fr/Amazon-et-le-business-dans-les,10886.html)

Translation...

"Many try to keep their commercial approach: expensive licences, which lock their customer. Or they are offering hybrid private cloud. But it's not cloud, it just give an illusion of a greater control, but that's the opposite that happens"

#PLM > Social Engineering, ok but for what?

I was reviewing Oleg's presentation at the COFES 2010 and he finishes his post by this comment:

Not much was done beyond that. Consumer software, the Internet and specially Web 2.0 applications will provide a significant impact on the future of technologies and products in Engineering and Manufacturing Software

That inspires me two thoughts:

1- I hardly see any reason to build "social architecture" and what it brings to the classical "collaboration interface". Because companies do not need it.

The social network has a reality in everybody's everyday life but that culture is not pervasive now to the professional world (there are exceptions, that's true). PLM vendors glorify themselves to do social engineering, but that has no tangible reality in the enterprise.

The reason for that is the speed at the 2.0 changes our usages of the information. In the industry does not keep the pace. Before people actually take time to socialize about what they do, they will have to do their job first. The organization do not allow the time for social experience because the value of it is not quantifiable on the short term (and maybe because they do it wrong...)

2- PLM vendors promote PLM 2.0, Social PLM, but that is nothing but words. Their tools do not allow to do it! And they will never be able to do it!

Why? Because whatever they say PLM vendors are still seeing their products as "web 1.0" products, and the way they implement it is still "web 1.0" as well. It is closed, silo'ed and rigid.

If the PLM industry wants to go 2.0, use standards, allow third party applications (and remove pressure from your R&D to deliver new functionalities), go in the cloud (and take advantage to reshape your application's infrastructure!), adopt a model where deployment of new versions are banished, but where new functionalities are deployed seamlessly. Then you will have the foundation for social interaction coming slowly without even you noticing it.

Do not give, but teach to build, your accomplishment will be greater

#Cloud > Some idea for the clouds related to PLM

Taking the idea to focus on the computing rather than the clouds, here are some similar ideas...

1. FMP Analysis (or any simulation): Use the power of a server to do the calculations from a weak computer. You could have a session dedicated to a company, with simulation workflow associated.
2. CAD Data Cleansing: More and more automatic tools can cleans CAD data, what about a service that would do it for you online?
3. CAD Data Translation: Want to translate from a format to another? Ease the migration from system to another? Migration is a pain in term of resources. That could be done online with, of course appropriate validation workflows
4. 3D reviews. 3D reviews are fun and marketable. But they consume a significant amount of computing resources...

No go and create your company! :)