2 years of PLM blogging – pick a future topic

Time flies. We have a 2 years anniversary as bloggers. Here are some reflections about the previous blogs. What is getting the most attention? What is a bit scary? You also get the opportunity to vote for a future blog topic.

Some statistics

• 26 blogs in two years.
• Close to 15000 readings. We aim higher the next 2 years.
• Most of the readers are in USA, Sweden, Norway or France. Our main market is in the Nordics. Hello Denmark and Finland! You are not even in top 10…

What gets most attention?
As independent PLM advisors we have had very different topics. Some of them are generic views of PLM challenges and how to overcome them. Others are deep dive into specific processes, industries or solutions. Others are on the outskirt of PLM.

The 3 with most attention (percentage of total readings):

• PLM vs ERP – the everlasting trench war or the best PLM ROI? – 6%
• Why PLM often fails to reach its potential – 5%
• You don’t know what you don’t know about PLM – 4%

It is a bit scary that the top topic is PLM vs ERP. This has been on top of the mind in most PLM implementations and clearly one of the selling points of PLM; Get control with PLM and feed downstream processes automatically with quality data. This is still a struggle, 20 years after I started with PLM. It should not be so.

The other two topics are related to PLM challenges in general. Why is it so hard with PLM? And what do you need to know in order to succeed? This is less as a surprise as people struggling will look for tips and tricks and learn from other failures. These are still on a very generic level.

Some other of the top ones:

• The Strategy of Divide & Conquer and its pitfalls – 3%
• PLM – Vision or micro-ambition? – 3%
• How to select a PLM system – 3%

These are more to the point and explains or discusses pros and cons of a strategy or method. There is a hunger out there to get inspiration or tips in their PLM tasks. Maybe we should be even more concrete and deep dive into some of our experiences?

Some reflections
I have been working with PLM for two decades. It is a bit sad that many of the topics are the same today as when we started. And there is not commonly agreed definition of what PLM is? Is it a tool, an approach, a process or what? And many companies seem to have to do the same mistakes as many have done before them.

I don’t know, but I guess that many of our readers are really interested in PLM and have some specific PLM responsibility. Then it is like kicking in an open door for some of the topics. Sometimes it seems that the PLM community is for a secluded group of men in their 40’s and 50’s, with a white shirt and little hair, and have been working with PLM for at least 15 years – like myself and my colleagues. Where are the hipsters and our better halves?

It would be very nice if some of the posts also would be read by senior managers or non-PLM people. Then we could have some interesting discussions. There is still a need for raising PLM awareness and understanding. It is fully up to us to attract new audience.

Many are happy to share their experience and there are some really good sources for PLM inspiration. Here are some of the ones that I appreciate the most.

• Beyond PLM
• The virtual Dutchman
• Tech Clarity
• Engineering (Engineering)

We want to focus on PLM as an approach covering many tools and processes and not that much on PLM solutions as such.

Vote for a future topic
We want to share our experience and want your input on what topics that are of biggest interest. The topic with the most votes will be a future blog post. Please spend a minute and vote for a topic.

Summary
It seems that the interest is in both strategic high level, process or industry specific and deep dive into solution areas. There are a lot of possible topics. Please help us select the most interesting topics.

Thanks for reading our blogs and interacting in discussions. We will continue as long as there is an interest in our posts.

Tore Brathaug
www.infuseit.com

Can a true PLM initiative be decentralized?

In a previous blog I was looking for the PLM expert. The conclusion was that implementing PLM is a team effort (which is perhaps not a surprise), as a PLM implementation includes process, tool and organizational aspects. The executing team should possess knowledge within the customers’ business, the targeted domain, and available technology. Strengthened by having a reference group working in the day-to-day business and the support of management.

But we didn’t address the question on which level this “body of expertise” should act. Where should this organization reside, and what mandate should it have?

In short: what would the impact be of having a centralized or decentralized ownership of PLM?

A Decentralized PLM Ownership

From a process and method point-of-view you could probably find reasons to actually move the responsibility from the corporate level and allow local flexibility:

• Risk management through diversification, which would allow business units to try out things which could then benefit others in the organization
• Ownership of your own working methods would potentially allow easier change management
• Less compromises in the way you work and the tools you use in your daily work would probably generate less friction
• Closer to the immediate challenges will allow the organization to be more agile and finding solutions to emerging threats, opportunities and trends

Okay, so there might be good things with decentralized processes and methods. But let’s have a look at what a decentralized PLM (both process and tool) does to some of the (old) core values of P L M:

• Manage Information - Manage data and processes
• Find Information - Search, where used/referenced, process status
• Share Information - Real-time collaboration. Information attached to workflow

Doesn’t a “local” PLM system contradict with those values? I assume it has to do with your definition of local. If it is a site with 5000 employees does it have to be integrated with the rest of the company? It all depends on the business.

But let’s flip the coin completely and look at some more challenges you might find in an environment which has a decentralized PLM ownership:

• No one will be responsible for thinking horizontally and aligning the company across departments and across functions/disciplines
• Each department is measured and rewarded by their own results, blocking a strategic change as this requires an investment
• Hard to have job-rotation and change staff as the processes, working methods and tools differ
• More costly to have an effective tool support as it’s not consolidated
• Less efficiency further down the chain or even loss of opportunities and inability to execute on initiatives completely. In many cases the lack of a common way of doing things is hurtfully exposed once you have a need of unified processes and information at one end while having a diversified way of working and/or structuring and storing information at the other. It works as long as you don’t think of others … Typical initiatives and areas which will put their demands on what and the way information is delivered are: business analytics, procurement, manufacturing, e-commerce, and aftermarket.
• In many cases (to my experience) a decentralized ownership means more “let’s just make it work” which means that the experienced employees will have a way of dealing with things but the new ones will have to “find their way”. Is that really making things smooth and efficient?

Decentralized Processes and Methods but Consolidated PLM Tool(s)

Providing that you believe in decentralized processes and methods but also in the need for a consolidated application support for effective distribution of information you might avoid some of the bullets above. And looking at the core PLM values stated above; “only” the process part might not be accomplished.

The concept of self-organizing teams is not new. It is a great part of the agile software development movement. Isn’t this what we would talk about when we put PLM in a decentralized process environment but with consolidated tools and information, having common PLM tool(s) orchestrate these “teams” to deliver information and use tools in an uniting way?

In such an environment process support might be hard to implement within the commonly used tools, which might not always be a bad thing. Having processes tightly implemented into the IT tools assume a deterministic look at the world, but as we all know the world and the way we work is an ever changing parameter. So this could actually trigger a healthy look at how you architect and build your tool support as it will require modularization and flexibility.

The trap which you might fall into is that the consolidating system will become the “scapegoat” as it will have to unite and be a compromise from an end-user point of view. Also, many regulated businesses don’t have this option. To unite under one proven and compliant process is a matter of necessity and survival for these companies.

Decentralized PDM and Consolidated PLM

A trend we see at large companies is that they move away from one enterprise PLM solution covering everything. We see several examples of local PDM solutions allowing local flexibility feeding an enterprise PLM which has information and processes harmonized, but on a higher and more generic level.

Processes and ”how to do things” (methods or practices if you will) are not the same, and to be able to deliver and consolidate information in a coherent and consistent way “the way you do things” might very well have to be aligned as well. An example of an area which requires this thinking is CAD / CAM. In other words it’s important to understand if you have these type dependency so that you act accordingly in your decentralized PDM environment.

Using a PDM tool closer to the authoring tools will often result in better connection and less translation issues and richer details as a result. But keeping the innovation loops within PDM and consolidate in PLM cements the functional silo as it delays the point in which a cross functional view can be “visualized”.

Conclusion

As I can see it you actually don’t need to centralize everything under the PLM “umbrella”. This is of course a bit depending on your type of business.

Processes and methods should be carefully implemented. You could reap a great deal of benefits by aligning and consolidating tools and information across the enterprise and still allow processes to be more autonomous in nature. One trick is to implement the processes on the right / high enough level (in the applications) which would allow people to work within it, while still keeping important flexibility and agility in the tool. It is important to keep a clear distinction between processes and methods so that you consciously decide what it is that you want the tool to support and what you keep outside it, as this will allow you to adjust the way you work to temporary situations and differences in business models, while still delivering and using commonly structured information and tools.

Are you convinced that one approach is better than the other? What’s your view on this?

Robert Wallerblad
www.infuseit.com

Personalized PLM Tool - make it yours!

Lately I’ve been thinking about how you could make people adapt and embrace an enterprise system such as PLM. And those thoughts got me to ask these questions - How can you get a feeling of my PLM system? And how far do you need to go to get there?

An email application allows the user to categorize and label emails. A “Todo” application allows the user to categorize, label, set alarms, and flag tasks/todo. And cloud-solutions like Salesforce CRM that are built for flexibility allows the user some flexibility on the user interface and what information to focus on.

These examples allows the user to view and manage data in a highly personalized way, defined by the user.

Individual Personalization through settings and preferences

The above are examples of explicit interactions, and is therefore a result of the users’ direct manipulation of the UI.

If we would take the same approach but put into a PLM application context it could be:

• Changes to color schema
• Filtering of content
• Hiding and moving UI components such as columns in a table or tabs/areas with blocks of functionality
• Setting up dashboards which would potentially aggregate and analyze information and then display it in a tasteful way
• “Clipboard” function which allows the user to put information into different buckets

Adaptive Design

But there is also something called implicit interaction, where the system adapts to the user and its context without the need for the user to interact with the UI directly. Some examples of this from the mobile world are when the background light changes on your device depending on the light around you or that depending on the movement of your device the text gets enlarged. In both case it’s something that allows the user to easier digest the information without having to tell the device what should be done to compensate for the conditions/context in which the information is digested.

A common usage of adaptive design in PLM applications is when the application is adjusted to the user’s profile. Roles, teams, skills etc can all be used to expose the user to a suitable set of information and functions.

There are also examples where adaptive design is attempting to use the situational and temporal context in which the user exists to create a better experience or more suitable set of information. Examples of that could be to adapt information to the location of user (geographically, inside or outside company network, etc), network connectivity or bandwidth.

Conclusion & What can we ask from the future?

We will “never” be able to know and anticipate what preferences the user has when it comes to how he wants to look at, work with, and analyze information. So the individual personalization is needed to create flexibility, at least when trying to address a larger user community.  I believe that personalization will have to be there in all the variants that we have today but more sophisticate. And that we will get more powerful capabilities to create dashboards, “feeds”, and searches which will allow the user to collect, view, and analyze information according to his preferences.

But here is an interesting observation; if you look at mobile apps you will not find that many personalization options which allows the user to adapt it. Instead they have to go for simplicity, where the app dictates how the user sees and uses the information. And still people get addicted.

So, what would happen if we join simplicity and personalization? Making the system adapt based upon users’ interaction with the it, instead of designing all preference and rules up front. Think “Recent opened” on steroids. Here are some examples on top of my mind how that could look like in a "PLM setting":

• Get reminders based upon patterns that has been found in how you act. Examples could be that you have a reoccurring event. Let’s say that you normally check for orders to approve on Monday mornings or that you check the deliveries against the GANT chart on Friday afternoons. Now the system reminds you that “hey, have you forgotten to do X?” and perhaps event provide you with the capabilities to actually perform what she things you should do.
• Or think of gmails categorization of your mails as important based upon how you have interacted with the sender in previous emails and chats, as well as which keywords that have been frequently occurring in the mails you recently have opened.
• Search is another area which could be hugely improved by being more “sensible” to both context but also by users previous usage

In the above discussion I used the word system or application (singular). The assumption was that we need to address the need of the individual using one application. But maybe we can agree on that working within processes actually makes you use multiple different applications. And instead of using PLM as a label for a system we use it as a label for the concept. Then what makes PLM mine is that “your” information is following you independently of which application you might have in front of you at a certain point in time. And that the information is the center of attention and the applications are secondary and transparent. That is what would really benefit the user and give the user the notion of my - that your information actually follow you in a coherent and consistent way across applications throughout the complete process. That independent of application you would have your dashboards, feeds, federated searches, subscription inbox, etc available. Collecting information and actions from different sources and applications.

What do you think? How will the future look like for enterprise systems such as PLM in terms of personalization? Will we aim to be more adaptive in system design? And what use cases do you see will trigger it?

Robert Wallerblad

www.infuseit.com

Why is it so difficult to measure PLM success?

Everybody talks about measuring the result of their PLM initiative but nobody does anything! This is of course exaggerated, but in general, there are too few companies knowing what PLM has given them (or cost them). Many companies do not really know if
the PLM project is a success or not. The result is that management only cares about PLM once a year when they see the cost in the budget. Why is it so and what can be done about it?

There are few numbers available

In my 18 years in the PLM business, I have seen very few monetary values of PLM achievements. Of course, the PLM solution providers have their slide decks with generic numbers and maybe a few concrete examples they use over and over again. It is difficult to use those numbers directly in another company. The KPI’s can be reused, but you have to have your own numbers to be able to trust them.

This quote from Accenture is quite illustrating:

“The CEO came to the department and asked: I have spent 100 million euros on the implementation – what are the business results? They couldn't give him a proper answer.”

Unfortunately, this CEO is not alone.

PLM vendors have Excel sheets where you fill in a predefined list of possible improvements. By magic, you get a huge number that nobody (except the PLM sales guy) trusts.

We use the lack of numbers also as an excuse. The others do not have the numbers so I will manage without them as well.

The engineer’s flaws

I think that one reason for this lack of measures is that it is mostly engineers (as me) which care highly about PLM. In addition, engineers have two flaws in this context:

• We are satisfied when things work (then we move to the next task)
• We want answers to be un-ambiguous

We engineers want efficient and consistent workflows and a CAD integration that works. Yes, it would be nice to know what value that brings, but what we really care about is getting it to work. We are satisfied when it works and we have a feeling that this is good for the company. We do not see the importance of measuring what value it brings.

Engineers also like things to be accurate and without uncertainty. Calculating a business benefit and ROI is not an exact science, thus we do not trust it and do not do it unless we have to. If we are forced to, we tend to look only at the benefits that we can measure and get an accurate number. E.g. number of documents stored, ECO throughput time etc. Such numbers can show how PLM progresses, but it does not tell so much about actual business value. We miss the big picture and do not put areas that maybe are more important but harder to measure. E.g. global collaboration enabling two sites to share resources and work together or increased service margins due to better access to information.

Do not know how to do it

Given the engineering background, we feel it is hard identifying what to measure and defining calculation methods that we trust. Many PLM people agree that it would be good to have these values, but do not know where to begin and give up before starting. Many PLM people think they lack the financial tools and understanding to attack this beast in a proper way. They focus instead on the things they know: Getting a good configuration management process in place.

Hard to measure

Yes, it can be hard to measure business benefits and you cannot always trust the numbers 100%. It is easier to measure reduced volume of products on storage or faster production processes than improved product information quality. ERP focus on physical products and things you have while PLM focus on virtual products and things you do not have. This is still no excuse. We have to start showing the value of PLM or it will continue to be a product development support tool or even just a CAD management tool.

A typical excuse is also that we lack the numbers from before PLM came in and do not have anything to compare with. That is the same as saying that PLM is cemented and will not improve beyond the initial improvement. If that is true, the management is right in not investing more in PLM.

Why do you need to measure PLM success?

PLM people always complain that ERP gets all the attention and PLM at the best gets the leftovers when it comes to management attention and budget. The typical complaint is that management (thus the budget owners) do not understand PLM and its importance. We can only blame ourselves. We are unable to talk to the management in a language they understand. My experience is that some ERP business values also can be tough to calculate, but the ERP guys and girls are much better at talking a language the management understands – business benefits, calculated savings, earnings and cost. If PLM people were able to do the same, PLM would be in a much better position.

You cannot expect management attention and large investments or operations budgets for PLM (at least not anymore) if you cannot show what PLM brings and an ROI that management trusts. A trend is that PLM investment decisions are done on C-level.

Another thing is that measures in itself give improvements as you put attention on the area and follow the progress.

What can you do?

We also touched this in a previous blog where we looked at data from PLM related processes with a method improvement focus. Here is another interesting blog from Melanie Manning about how to create effective metrics.

First, you have to agree on what to measure. Tie PLM to the business strategy. What is important for management? Where will your business go in the next 2 to 5 years? Identify the areas where PLM contribute to the overall business strategy. PLM can be an enabler for changing things. Identify KPI’s related to the business strategy.

Start thinking like the financial guys. Act like a business analyst. Is there is a business improvement somewhere supported by PLM? How can you measure it? Do not only focus on the bottom-up simple stuff. Look at the big picture and involve the business and management. Think about short-term, long-term, tangibles, intangibles, cost reduction and revenue increase. As a common exercise, you can find improvement areas. Get business and management to give their thoughts on possible improvements. If they give the numbers, they are more likely to trust the result.

Some examples are: Product introductions per engineering hour, degree of collaboration, engineering efficiency, number of executed projects, project execution time, increased service revenue, reduced number of applications, product error costs, degree of CTO vs ETO, amount of manual entries of information. You have to agree on what makes sense for your company. The trick is turning such KPI’s into money values.

The most important is to start measuring. Agree on some KPI’s and follow them over time. And show what the KPI’s mean in money.

Tore Brathaug

www.infuseit.com

You don’t know what you don’t know about PLM

It is hard for non-PLM experts to know all the aspects and possibilities of PLM solutions. I have seen it over and over again. How can companies looking for a PLM solution make the right choices? Should they start specifying what they need or should they just trust their hunch and pick the one on top of their mind?

The topic is also valid for companies that have had PLM for a long time and are stuck. It is hard to know how and in which direction to go. In this blog I focus on first, or even second time buyers that don’t have large PLM organizations and a lot of internal PLM knowledge.

PLM can be so much

There are as many opinions about what PLM is as there are people. On an overall level you can probably agree that the core is:

• Part Management
• BOM Management
• Document Management
• Change Management

Throw in some CAD integrations and an ERP integration. Maybe variant management or project management. Or maybe PLM are all the tools and processes creating or managing product information?

An enterprise PLM solution like Teamcenter, Windchill, Agile and Enovia has an enormous breadth, but there is also a challenge to understand the details in a selected PLM area. For example CAD integration or the change management process.

The core functionality mentioned above is really not more than classical PDM and which what most companies still need the most. But it can be hard enough. There are so many details that you probably didn’t think you had to care about.

• What should the naming rules be? Running number? Any logic?
• What metadata do you want need, and can you agree on it? How does that match for instance ERP?
• What are the approval steps for different object types? What is an object type by the way?
• Easy revisioning in development and full blown change process in productionmanufacturing?
• How do you get a BOM from CAD? Can you use it directly?
• Etc.

There is so much detail in core PDM that you will not be able to cover it all during an evaluation phase. The devil is in the details and some of these differences can have significant impact on your way of working. Unless you really know what to look for you will not be able to identify the details that matters for you until you implement or even roll out the solution.

The evaluation process

Buying PLM is like buying a house. You visit the house one or maybe two times for half an hour. You read the prospect and then pay more than you planned. Then you get surprised a couple of months later when you get the house as there are so many details you see now that you could not possible see during the sales process. The good thing is that the human brain usually rationalizes bad decisions to look good. The good things about the house is exaggerated and the bad things are ignored. It can be the same with PLM. However, problems with PLM tends to be visible to others than the ones making the decisions, and that makes the bad things hard to ignore.

The problem with buying a PLM system, and a house, is that unless you are an expert you don’t know what to look for. You look at all and end up looking at nothing and make a decision based on who did the best demonstration and who you trusted most in the sales process. By the way: those people you trust the most are not likely to be part of the implementation anyway.

The sales presentations (and the information you find on the vendor’s websites) from the competitors can probably be switched without you noticing. On a sales level all solutions can do everything. You have to find the differences yourself. I like this quote from David Stewart at Zerowait-state: "..it’s hard to discern which is the better (PLM) choice. I still feel like the best way to know or choose is based on experience".

To compensate for not being able to see clear differences between the PLM solutions you typically describe what your requirements are and send out RFQs with a lot of details. If you are considering any of the enterprise tools the problem is that the solution providers probably can say yes to almost all and do the same things as the competitors. It is very hard to distinguish PLM solutions based on a list of requirements. See this blog for some insights to why traditional RFQ processes is a problem.

The typical tendencies when specifying needs/requirements as first time buyers are:

• Not to specify at all or on a so high level it does not give any value. The answers all look the same. You end up picking the one you know or the one you believe the most in.
• Or specifying in detail everything you can think of. You spend tremendous effort in detailing a very long list of requirements to be sure you cover all aspects. You end up with a complex solution.

The first one might be as good as the second. A big requirements phase is a danger in itself. You easily end up specifying today’s way of working. You don’t see all the changes a PLM solution should bring.

I suggest that you spend more time on reference visits and focus on the supplier, and not that much on the PLM solution itself. Find some of the references yourself. Don’t just take the ones that are picked by the suppliers. The key question: Is the supplier capable to be a long-term partner ensuring your success?

Hard to differentiate the PLM tools (even for experienced people)

I have been both on the specifying side as a customer, on the response side as an implementer and now on the customer side as an advisor in many PLM evaluations. And I see it again and again. The people evaluating PLM solutions are not able to distinguish clearly and rationally between the different options.

It is very hard to find facts about the differences. And the truth is that on a high level the differences among the enterprise PLM tools are quite small. You will see differences if you consider some lighter “PLM” solutions that are more CAD management oriented or ERP with PLM functionality. But even there it might be difficult. For CAD management oriented tools they might fall short on multi-CAD and integration to ERP. For ERP they might fall short on CAD integrations or on advanced PLM functionality like systems engineering. But for the core functionality it will seem that they all can do it.

The vendor’s tendency

The vendors tend to fall into one of two categories:

• The oversimplifyers – They oversimplify the message and the effort. This makes it easy to understand for management and other stakeholders that are not experts in this field.
• The scope-extenders – They want to extend the scope to show all the magnificent solutions they have that you didn’t ask for in the beginning

Be very aware of people in the extreme end of these two.

• The too good to be true is usually that. You will end up with a limited solution and realize you got less than you expected.
• The large scope might be too large. You end up with a very long and complex project which is more expensive than you thought and it is hard to get the organization on-board.

The sales guys anyway will paint a nice picture. The challenge for you is to see behind the fancy slide decks and prepared sales messages.

What should you do?

It is hard for first time PLM buyers to grasp the totality and at the same time identify the crucial details that can make or break your PLM project.

Don’t over-specify to compensate. You will not be able to specify up front how the solution and processes should be in 3 years. Even if you could the world will change in the meantime. It is more important to draw up the big lines and have a long term vision, strategy and plan. You should start with the most important areas and specify to such a level that you can differentiate. There are differences between the PLM solutions, you just have to know what to look for. If the differences is in an area that are of great importance to you it is better to find that out during the evaluation phase than in the implementation phase.

To be able to do this you could recruit or hire people who have done PLM evaluations and implementations before. It might seem expensive, but it will pay-off with a solution that is better fitted to your needs.

You might consider running a proof of concept (POC). But you risk going in the same trap. You have to know what to look for in the POC to get any value of it. Done properly a POC based on your data, products and your wanted way of working can be a really good approach.

You should look at other factors than just the feature list. The most important is the supplier itself: Have they done this many times before? Do they have understanding of your business? Do they act as real advisors guiding you in the right direction? Do they have references in your region?

See our How to select a PLM system blog post for more details about how to run a PLM evaluation.

Summary

PLM buyers: You don’t know what you don’t know about PLM. That means it is hard for you to distinguish the tools and the suppliers. Don’t try to specify everything. Have a clear vision of where you want to go and what you want to achieve and what is important for the business. Establish a commonly agreed strategy and a high level plan on how to get there.

Don’t go too much in detail, just where it matters. The challenge is to know which areas and details that are important for you and at the same time can differentiate the different tools and suppliers.

Focus instead on the suppliers and identify the one that is most likely to become a long-term partner ensuring your success. It is far more important to select the right supplier than selecting the right tool.

Tore Brathaug

www.infuseit.com

The PLM-user Pitch

The PLM system pitch and the related discussions is almost always focused on the decision makers - how should you convince the management to buy, and how should you show that you provide value with your implementation?

The topic is most often focused on the disconnect between IT and Business and how to bridge the gap.

It’s of course an important topic but today we will look at it from another angle.

There is another void to fill and that is the one between the benefit of the enterprise and the actual user of the system.

Neither vendors nor the companies looking for PLM systems have (enough of) this in focus. There is a functional focus, I can agree on that, but that is not necessarily the same thing as a user oriented PLM focus. It’s more about having a checklist to see that an application can fulfill the functional requirements, which is not really the same as having the user in the center.

So what would happen if we would focus on the users? Because once bought, a system such as PLM is not only good for the business as a whole, it is also intended to help users in their everyday work.

Tools and processes for the greater good

An enterprise tool is often emphasized as the tool which should support the complete company’s need and not necessarily the individual. We focus on overall process/information improvement and harmonization and not the end-users tasks and daily work.

A company oriented pitch is also often more future oriented, than what you would like to phrase it to an end-user. The employees are more focused on the present and solving the challenges of today. That’s where our pitch should be focused – the present and what it means for the individual.

An individual productivity tool

If you take the scope of PDM, you should be able to pitch the actual idea to make it about enabling the individual; making it easier to find the right information, enabling earlier transparency as well as collaboration. For complex data sets and/or tasks it will help out in keeping data integrity, and dependencies thereby offloading the workers from otherwise tedious and error prone tasks.

But unfortunately there are challenges with this pitch:

• The end user and the way they want a system to behave and support them in their daily work is diversified. What makes a good fit for one will not necessarily fit others. Basically I don’t believe that there is a “Heinz ketchup of PLM”, fitting all tastes. I rather believe that the need is as diverse as the salsas that you can buy in your local supermarket.
• If we talk about PDM systems - functions associated with PDM comes with quite a heavy baggage in terms of old system behavior which has not always been perceived as enabling. A shift in technology and the ability to work more seamlessly will most likely help out in making PDM applications less of a struggle in the future.

A Tool for Knowledge

The productivity pitch will not get that much traction if your PLM system is used to “only” specify your products once you have developed them, instead of being develop within it. Unfortunately this (mis)usage is not as uncommon as you might think. In many cases putting things into the system is an administrative task at the end of what one consider value adding activities, and this really undermines the individual’s perception of having the system support her needs.

But, independent of scenario you would probably gain one thing and that is a knowledge bank. The system will create transparency which would benefit the individual, as searchable and structured information will allow for higher productivity second time around.

This transparency will also benefit the people further down the chain. The earlier you manage to accomplish it the more power you will get of it, and it’s also an opportunity for business intelligence to analyze trends earlier which again could be used as a pitch for certain end users or consumers of information.

Democratization

By sharing knowledge we will enable decentralizing and distribution of tasks. Technology will enable this. Because by systemizing knowledge we can put it in the hands of “anyone”.

Think about simulation which previously was something that only highly specialized people worked with. Today software is taken the first hit through checking the output of the individuals work before integrating it with the rest of whatever solution one is working on. All domains have it; software, hardware, mechanical design, electronics, etc. And some will take the step to create mockups which brings multiple disciplines together.

There will always be a place for specialized skills but the frontier is and will continue to move as we manage to systemize knowledge. And this should appeal to the expert as it will allow her to focus on things which are less bread and butter, at the same time as it gives the non-expert more confidence in the output she produces.

A trendy phenomena is Internet of Things; think what we can do with data collected from products in the field and once we systemize that knowledge. How will that translate into the way we design our products or conduct or service and maintenance business? Once that data is cracked it can be used as BI put into the hands of the individual.

Could this bottom-up approach result in benefits on company level (for “the greater good”)?

Could we flip this around to make it about the company, and what is best for it? Of course we could. Thinking about and addressing the needs of the individual will at the end find its way to the bottom line, resulting in better overall quality, better flows, higher productivity, higher data quality, etc.

Conclusion

IT and PLM should not be seen as a support function next to the core business – your PLM processes is actually part of your business. In many companies today it is therefore within your PLM systems that you conduct your business. If we embrace that fact, the focus can’t always be on the benefits on company level, the day-to-day work has to find its way to the PLM pitch.

Robert Wallerblad

www.infuseit.com

A Picture is worth a Thousand Words

My professional path has allowed me to work with many industries and type of customers - looking at just my recent year and it has taken me into classic manufacturing, automotive, defense as well as apparel. Something that has been a signature of my work across all these customers is the fact that I’ve been very visual in the way that I’ve been communicating. I’ve been using mockups to illustrate my ideas from pre-study, architectural reviews, scoping workshops, concept discussions, down to developer input and user stories. What I can say is this – independent of industry or audience, these artifacts are always appreciated and well received.

Engineers, spare part catalogue editors, configuration managers,   pattern makers, buyers, controllers, designers, .... I can continue this list ... managers, project sponsors, project owners, project managers, business developers, SW architects, SW tester, and SW developers, .... what do they have in common? Well, they want (and need) to be able to understand at least to some extent the IT solution that will affect them or that they will be responsible for.

Here is a small prezi on the topic that might give you some more food for thought. Enjoy (and don't miss the movie clip at the end)!

As you might understand by now I’m quite clear on my view on this topic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should stop writing all nice diagrams, charts, boxes, and lanes that you do today (as long as they have a good purpose ;). But the audience for those artifacts is limited to experts, and unlike what you might think even techies at the IT-side find visual illustrations of a topic useful.

If you haven't used mockups before there is one trap that you will fall into: your audience will look at the mockup as something finished and fully covering – end users expect the solution to look and behave as the mockup and developers will try to realize every little inch of the picture without questioning. To mitigate this behavior, it is very important to apply some expectation management. The purpose of the mockup, its usage and “how to read it” should be clear to the audience (and preferably repeated as often as the mockups are shown ;).

It feels great to be understood and even better for the audience at the receiving end to actually understand. So try it out!

One last thing regarding mockups - They don't replace human interaction and verbal communication. It's a complement to that and all your current tools to make yourself understood.

Robert Wallerblad

www.infuseit.com