When product design meets plant design

I’ve been fortunate enough to work with some EPCs (Engineering Procurement and Construction companies) that also owned product companies in order to control more of the value chain. In these companies I’ve witnessed some very interesting discussions between plant engineering and product engineering. They often have a really hard time understanding each other.

Communication Problems

A typical situation is when plant engineers and product engineers come together to discuss PLM, and a way to create a consolidation platform for both plant and product engineering in a project execution context. This often results in a failure to communicate. The tools, processes, language and culture usually differ between plant engineers and product engineers. They have different vocabulary and focus. This can be accommodated by learning the language and understanding the culture. It is more challenging when they think they talk about the same, but in reality talk about very different things. As an example: Systems Engineering is for a plant engineer very different from Systems Engineering for a product engineer even if both of them can talk about functional decomposition.

It is crucial that enough effort is spent on making them understand each other. Then you can start finding the points of interaction and overlaps.

The business objective

• Plant engineering: The general idea is usually that plant engineering wants to re-use more across projects. Every project (customer delivery) is Engineer To Order, but by copying parts of some other design that was similar, or modules from a “Best Practice” library the EPC can reduce the amount of engineering hours spent in proposal or FEED (Front End Engineering and Design) phase.
• Product engineering: Product engineering usually also delivers project specific product designs, but would like to move in the direction of standardization while still having control of the project specific product deliveries.

How can this be done?

Consolidating and integrating plant and product engineering

In most of the cases I’ve seen where they consolidate plant and product information, some kind of product master library or catalog is created. The catalog holds the plant aspect with tag structure and functional requirements seen from plant engineering (a tag structure).

In addition it contains the product aspects with at least a generic product design (generic EBOM ) for the product, and in some cases a commercial representation of the product (sales structure).

This would mean that plant engineering could pick products or systems from the library and get an auto generated tag structure with requirements corresponding to the plant view of the product or system, whereas product engineering could be notified if a demand for further product engineering is required for the product in that specific project.

This is all very well until plant engineering and product engineering start figuring out what the actual content of the library or catalog should be. There is a substantial language barrier there, and the main issue is that they will use the same terms but mean very different things. Terms like functional location, functional decomposition, systems engineering are similar in both plant engineering and product engineering.

The difference is that the plant person will think of tag structures, P&ID (Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams), functional decomposition and requirements needed to design, build, operate and maintain the plant as a whole which means that only a subset of information is needed for each individual product. The product person will think of the products requirements, functional, logical and physical views (RFLP) of the entire product.

This can lead to long discussions where everybody thinks that they understand each other. It seems that they agree and start implementing a solution. After some time it becomes evident that they need very different things from the product master library.

What is my conclusion?

It is extremely important to agree on definitions and terms. What they mean to different stakeholders and what they should mean to the company. Product engineering should show and explain how products are designed to the plant engineers, and the plant engineers should show and explain how plants are designed and what information is needed to the product engineers. This exercise should be done as early as possible to avoid costly misunderstandings between the two domains. I would even go as far as saying that it would be a good idea to do this even if the EPC does not own the product companies.

Bjørn Fidjeland
www.infuseit.com

The Strategy of Divide & Conquer and its pitfalls

Have you used the strategy of “Divide and Conquer” in your PLM (product lifecycle management) project? I’m sure you have – it’s the commonly used “best practice” to solve a problem by “slicing the elephant”.  Or as the Romans would phrase it: to break another power into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then take control of those pieces one by one.

• It’s used in software implementation projects to slice processes into activities which are realized through features and functions which are again sliced into technical tasks
• It’s used in problem solving to get a grip of the challenge in front of you
• It’s used in change management and rollout strategies both in terms of scope and organization

Losing the Big Picture

Dividing the world into manageable chunks is powerful and has become a de-facto approach to take on challenging tasks. It’s a reasonable thought and it is a good strategy in many cases but it has its pitfalls. And looking at the other side of the coin: The “Divide and conquer” strategy is about keeping smaller powers and governments from uniting. This might have been a winning concept for Romans and the British Empire to conquer their enemies. But PLM and software implementation projects using this strategy require some mitigation actions to avoid falling into a trap of sub-optimization, lack of transparency and losing the sight of the actual goal. Because, even though you want to cut your elephant into digestible chunks, you still need to be able to see what you are eating. You become the victim of the strategy itself as its whole purpose is to separate, while both PLM initiatives and most software projects require a holistic approach throughout its implementation.

Conveying the Big Picture

If you don’t keep the bigger picture in mind while working on the details, you will deviate from the guiding vision and strategies, the architectural principles, the business goals and actual business needs, the overall processes, and the UX (user experiance) guidelines. Let’s look at the symptoms for each of the listed areas above:

• Vision and Strategies – Sub-optimized efforts which doesn’t contribute to the overall vision or strategy
• Architectural Principles – Platform, application, design decisions breaking the IT strategy will create silos, interconnectability issues, customized solutions, and a diverse spectrum of used technologies. This results in high TCO (total cost of ownership) and a situation where it becomes hard to support and maintain solutions (read: higher risk)
• Business Goals and Needs – Functions and features might be developed according to guidelines and conform with good architectural principles but that doesn’t make anyone happy if it doesn’t help in achieving business goals or addressing business needs
• Processes – If you don’t know how things are stitched together, the risk is pretty big that you will miss something along the way, resulting in a set of “disconnected” features
• UX – The perceived usability of an application will suffer if the look and behavior diverge across functions. This will result in more need for support, more user errors, more training and lower efficiency

The Right Decision at the Right Time

So one challenge we have identified with the strategy is that we need to find ways to convey the “big” picture, so that we can make the right decisions while working on the details, as we want the pieces to still work together to achieve the objective of the whole.

But, we need to find the right level of details describing this big picture. And the timing of setting these details (= make certain decisions) is also crucial. Finding this balance is important as we will lose important freedom too early in the process and thereby our agility.

I hope that it’s clear that it’s not a waterfall approach that I’m promoting. It’s just that I don’t believe that you can work effectively with enterprise software implementations, such as PLM systems,  if you don’t have some ground work done both in terms of processes/methods and involved technology. The output is as much an artifact to be used further down the lane as it should be used to anchor the stipulated way forward and keeping stakeholders involved.

Conclusion

The challenge lies in the way we slice the elephant, while maintaining the big picture and manage the balance between too much or too little of the ground work: taking the right decision at the right time. The next trick is to actually use that knowledge to communicate and anchor our way forward and give input to activities further down the lane. That is what will cater for success.

Do you agree? Have you found this balance and do you have an effective way of conveying guidelines, principles and decisions?

Robert Wallerblad

www.infuseit.com

The Mountain Code for PLM

In this Easter time there are a lot of Norwegians going to the mountains to go skiing in the remaining snow. There are guidelines on how to behave to be safe in the mountains. They are called “Fjellvettreglene” or the Norwegian Mountain Code. As it turns out, they are also strangely relevant for PLM.

1. Be prepared (Don’t go on a long trip without practice)

A good plan is half the job. If you also have people with PLM experience and preferably some PLM implementation experience you are in a good position. It is hard doing a PLM selection and implementation if you don’t have any experience at all. Start small and learn along the way, don't try to take the whole elephant in one bite.

2. Leave word of your route

A twist on this is that you have a better chance of getting the rest of the organization along on your PLM journey if you inform and educate. Let the others know what you plan to do and why you do it. Communicate the visions, plans and achievements. Keep management informed along the way of both good and bad.

3. Be weather-wise (listen to the forecast)

Listen to the weather forecast and show respect for the weather. In a PLM context this can mean that there might be circumstances and events out of your control that can influence the PLM project in a negative manner. A typical one is: “we will do PLM after ERP. And, by the way, the ERP project is delayed”. Others kinds of “bad weather” can be: downsizing, financial troubles, the company is about to or recently has been sold. You should try to listen around for the most obvious ones and be prepared to handle them, and if the forecast is really bad: postpone the trip.

There is also a positive twist to this. Take the opportunity if the weather forecast looks good. If the financial situations is good, management is supportive and there are some clear areas where PLM can contribute: Start now and get a positive momentum.

4. Be equipped for bad weather and frost.

Even if the forecast is good, you might be surprised with bad weather. Be prepared for challenges and troubles. Do risk management properly and have plans for problems before they appear. If the company has financial troubles; how can you cope with a smaller budget and less people? What can you take out of scope if circumstances demand it?

5. Listen to experienced mountaineers

If this is your the first PLM project in your company and you don´t have people with PLM experience, you should listen to others who have done this before. Learn from others and avoid the mistakes done by others. Contact similar companies in your industry, companies in your neighborhood or personal network that have implemented PLM. There are amounts of good advice to get from others. And finally: don´t always trust the vendors ;-)

6. Use map and compass

Create a vision, a roadmap and a plan. And follow it. Of course you might have to adjust the course along the way, but you should always know where you are and where you want to go. You might have to change the destination as well, if you are surprised by bad weather. But that is better than getting lost.

7. Don't go solo

PLM is not a one-man or a one-team job. You must ensure that your project group consists of people from several departments and disciplines. You need involvement of and commitment of all key stakeholders. Make sure that they share your vision and trust your plans.

8. Turn back in time; sensible retreat is no disgrace

PLM projects can be hard and you will meet some trouble. If the trouble is big enough you should consider turning back. In a small scale it can be a new module or functional area just ready for roll-out, which turns out to not be of good enough quality. In a larger scale it can be the whole PLM solution. Turning back to stop the whole implementation is a tough decision, but in some cases it must be done. And it should be done sooner rather than later. Whether it is possible to turn back gracefully is another matter ;-)

9. Conserve energy and build a snow shelter if necessary

Instead of turning back you can stay where you are and conserve energy. Instead of continuing at high speed you take a break and evaluate your position. Did the map or direction change? Are there any unforeseen obstacles? Maybe it is time to re-visit the vision and plan. If worst comes to worst; you can of course book a one-way ticket to Hawaii and relax in the sun. Or, as the Norwegians do during Easter; Go up in the mountains and enjoy the last remnants of snow.

Conclusion

Mountain trekking or skiing has a lot in common with PLM. Following common-sense guidelines is helpful in both cases. From time to time you meet problems, but the better prepared you are; the more likely it is that you can handle it and progress without any danger. Respect the challenge and don’t plan for a harder route than you are trained and equipped to take.

Enjoy the PLM journey and have a nice Easter

Tore Brathaug
www.infuseit.com

PLM Success – Knowledge within the operational data that you produce

This blog continues a discussion which has been the topic of two other blogs; PLM – Vision or micro-ambition? and  PLM Success - Think Inside the Box. Previous blogs was about the importance of embracing changes and input along the way of implementing PLM and not only working blindly towards a set goal.  And the usage of your employees and cross-fertilization as a source for input.

Today we will deal with the usage of operational data as input for process improvements. 

I’m talking about the data generated while executing the company’s processes, and not “product data”. I believe that this is one of the “untapped” or at least underestimated sources for input we have, as it’s already collected to a large extent, to manage the company’s day-to-day business.

IT is traditionally a service and infrastructure provider for the business-side of the company; giving them the tools to execute their work and make well founded decisions. But, what if we could use IT to also provide the means to turn the “eye” inwards in terms of methods? Providing that a PLM system doesn’t always force a process and way of working upon you (read: not controlled in detail by the system), there is potential work to be done to see how the stipulated methods are followed. What if we analyzed how work is done and thereby receive feedback on current working methods and potential areas for improvements or alignment to reality (does it look shiny enough?).

Data warehouse analysis related to PLM processes, that I’ve seen, usually has their focus in time, money, quality and risk. Sometimes you’ll find this type of analysis in dashboard in today’s PLM systems and other enterprise systems. But they are almost always used to support the operational aspect of the business. What if we looked at the list but with method improvement focus?

• Time – How many iterations does it take to get to a certain status in the development and what are the underlying reasons for it (communication, education, etc)?
• Money – are we selling to the right price in the different markets? Are we able to get our “raw material” to the right price? How is our sourcing affecting transportation cost?
• Quality – sustainable sourcing and material statistics, scrap- and recall-statistics
• Risk – are we placing our orders “right” to get the right risk exposure? How is our in-stock volume? Could we use more low fair transportation alternatives? How good are we at forecasting and thereby being able to book, buy and commit so that we get better in-price?

With the information that we get from the data; processes and practices could be followed up to see how they are adopted and applied by business. We could also analyze good performing teams, and thereby improve company methods and best practices.

We could even take this one step further – with tools such as dynaTrace we could analyze on application level what functions are being used and how to optimize the flow and usability within the specific application in a prioritized way.

The important point here is that we could get input for the PLM journey by looking at how the company is performing and acting in its current processes. Changes doesn’t always have to be revolutionary and ground breaking, in this case they are evolutionary. Derived from the knowledge we get by analyzing data.

This is definitely not science fiction. All technology is there to be used; it’s more a question of maturity and determination to use the data with long term strategic focus and not only making the coming quarter look good.

Robert Wallerblad
www.infuseit.com

PLM Success – Think Inside the Box

This blog will deal with two of the “shiny things” mentioned in PLM – Vision or micro-ambition? – Cross-Fertilization and Knowledge from within the organization.

Usually when talking about “thinking inside the box”, the message is simple - look within your own organization and you will find an untapped source for innovation.

But creating an entrepreneurial culture within a company resulting in innovation is a challenge, and it has primarily to do with people and less with tools. If outside forces don’t push for a change, it really requires strong leadership to create a culture which will make it happen (culture of innovation by Dilbert). Simply having ideas is not enough; you need to have a way of capturing, screening and executing upon the right ones. So the solution is to bring the knowledge of the employee and the means of the company together. According to a study, made by Accenture, 85% of ideas from employees have been focused on internal improvements, so there is a large potential.

More and more industries are forced to change their way of working, making it more focused on reuse, repeatability and knowledge sharing.  Even industries such as Plant Design, which traditionally look at themselves as one-off project oriented, are moving towards PLM. But looking for possibilities to reuse components, modules or products should not be the only goal. Processes, practices and tools should also be considered part of these initiatives. A colleague of mine, Bjørn Fidjeland, wrote a blog about it some time ago; PLM for Plant Design Project?

This takes us smoothly into another way to look at the “box”; look at it as the PLM domain and the untapped resource other industries. What could we learn from each other and how can we combine our knowledge? Or, in other words Cross-fertilization.

Getting inspiration from other industries is a low hanging fruit as both business concepts and new ways of tool utilization don’t have to be reinvented; they are just there ready to be discovered and utilized with minor adoptions to a new context. It’s an “easy” way to inject your practices with good ideas from others; basically adopting the old and proven concept of “steeling with pride”.

You don’t know what you don’t know so the challenge here is to interface with other industries.

An excellent example of the strength of cross-fertilization is Jack Andraka. With only his mind, the enthusiasm of a 15-year-old, YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, and some helping hands from “people in the business” he invented a new diagnostic test for pancreatic cancer. By connecting the dots, using his knowledge and others,  Andraka managed to create a test which according to him is 168 times faster, 1/26 000 as expensive (costing around three cents), over 400 times more sensitive than the current diagnostic tests, and only takes five minutes to run.

(If you want to see something that will make your day, please have a look at this clip of Jack winning the grand prize of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair)

Just by looking at the headlines used to outline different take-aways from different industries, see picture below, there is a lot to learn.

And if we then, look at the challenges that the different industries are facing we will find a lot of touch points again, but dealt with in different ways - Market regulation, global and local sourcing, simulation, design collaboration, traceability, reuse of information/components/modules/products, … Isn’t it time to stop inventing the wheel?

Robert Wallerblad
www.infuseit.com

PLM – Vision or micro-ambition?

The journey itself is the goal, not the actual destination. A cliché, I know! But clichés are clichés because they contain some truth. You might have heard that people are often referring to PLM implementations as being a journey.  And I tend to agree.

I agree because I believe that implementing PLM is a spiral of continues change. In my view you are never done, there are always areas of improvements or completely new ones to discover and conquer. A grand vision is important to have, everybody will tell you that, and I will probably not be the first one to tell you that a big bang approach is neither preferred nor feasible in most scenarios.

Just as the first line of the blog states; I believe that there are great values in areas not necessarily tied directly to the envisioned goal. Areas that will emerge throughout the journey of implementing the PLM vision, as your knowledge expand in the domain and outside influences force itself upon your company.

The comedian and all round geniuses Tim Minchin expressed his thoughts around big dreams and goals in this speech in a way that I found also suitable for PLM. Below is a segment of it (if you have time, its 12 min well spent to listen to the complete speech):

“I never really had one of these big dreams. And so I advocate passionate dedication to the pursuit of short-term goals. Be micro-ambitious. Put your head down and work with pride on whatever is in front of you… you never know where you might end up. Just be aware that the next worthy pursuit will probably appear in your periphery. Which is why you should be careful of long-term dreams. If you focus too far in front of you, you won’t see the shiny thing out the corner of your eye.”

I believe that these “shiny things” are very important for PLM initiatives, as a complement to a vision, as it will allow the company to keep the momentum, strength, and passion and show the surrounding world (read: “non-believers” within your own organization) that one can be responsive and deliver value.

An incremental way to slice the “elephant” is often discussed when one debates how PLM goals should be “digested”, but this is something else. This is a piece of the strategy that embraces agility, as it will allow new input throughout the journey. It is also an approach that brings an evolutionary mindset to the table, as it pushes for enhancements based on the outcome of already implemented initiatives. Don’t see this as something that is less valuable than the big vision - the outcome of this could be as innovative as the big visionary goal but perhaps smaller in scale.

Another important reason to address these emerging needs is that, in most cases, if the business requires a change they will find a way to get it. In other words; solutions addressing the challenges will be built to support their daily work – May it be excel or db, silo or no silo.

So what are those “shiny things”, if we put it into PLM context, and where can we find them?

Here are five sources, which I believe we could use to air refuel your PLM initiative:

• Cross-Fertilization – get inspiration from how other industries and domains are doing things. What is it that they are good at? And then apply the well-known concept of “stealing with pride”.
• New Industry and Market “trends” – market situations and trends will push business to act in areas neglected before and allow for tools and processes to emerge or evolve.
• New Technology Opportunities – new technology, maturity and adoption will allow for new ways of doing things.
• Knowledge from within the organization – look within your own organization and you will find an untapped source of innovation in your own employees.
• Knowledge within the operational data that you produce – operational data that companies collect to manage their day-to-day business can also be used to get input for process and tool improvements, and not only focus on supporting the operational aspect of the business.

My intent is to elaborate further on some of the topics above to illustrate better how these sources can be used and how one can expect to benefit from them. Stay tuned for more details in coming blogs …

Robert Wallerblad
www.infuseit.com

Other blogs in this series are:

PLM Success – Think Inside the Box
PLM Success – Knowledge within the operational data that you produce

PLM failures - how to address them?

In my previous blog, I talked about why PLM often fails to reach its potential. Now I will look at how to address this. Is it possible to re-vitalize PLM if it has been stagnant for years? It might. Just ask Henry Ford.

These were some of the typical situations I discussed:

• Our PLM is just PDM
• PLM is just for Design/Engineering
• Management is not interested in PLM
• We have had it (PLM) for years and very little happens
• Our PLM system is hard to change and hard to upgrade

The last one – cemented solutions and challenging upgrades – I’ll save as a topic for later.

Should you rethink your PLM strategy?

You should ask yourself that question. If you have a limited PLM solution it might still be right for you. Maybe CAD management is the most crucial area to your business? Is it sufficient to handle parts, BOM, documents and controlling changes (PDM)? Yes, PLM have bigger potential but it comes with extra complexity and cost – if there is no business justification for expanding the scope of PLM, don’t do it.

If you believe that your business would benefit from a renewed focus on PLM, however, there are some steps you could take. Which steps, how to take them and whether you need to take them all depend on the size of the company, the business culture and your own position.

You might be fortunate enough to possess the necessary power and money to change things yourself. More likely, you’ll have to maneuver through several levels of management and surrounding departments where some of them don´t even have a clue of what PLM is all about.

To help you get started, here are some steps you can take to get PLM on the management agenda:

Get inspired
To get new ideas and to get other people start thinking about possibilities with PLM you probably need inspiration and facts. In other words: education and awareness. There are several ways to do that. This inspiration should be spread both upwards to management and downwards to users. Just be careful not to create too high expectations. Failure to meet new expectations will be devastating.

What are other companies doing? Maybe there are new solutions and approaches today than when you started 5-10 years ago? Get inspiration from others. Talk to companies that have done interesting things with PLM. Not only in your own industry. There is a lot to learn about new ways of doing things from industries that at first glance seem completely different. There is a reason why apparel, food and beverage or service companies have started to embrace PLM. They have taken PLM from discreet manufacturing and put their own flavor in it, focusing on additional areas, processes and functionality, which again can be of interest for other industries. This will be a topic in a future blog.

One tip is to challenge your PLM vendor. They would probably be more than happy to arrange a PLM inspiration day where they talk about all the exiting possibilities and what fantastic solutions other customers have implemented. The effort from your vendor is typically for free as they see potential new license sales somewhere in the future. Visiting PLM conferences and seminars is also a good place to listen to other’s PLM stories and establish new contacts. Even better: convince your manager to attend the conference as well – it could be an eye opener. Resources on the internet, including blogs and focused LinkedIn groups, have also developed into quite viral arenas for knowledge sharing on PLM related matters.

What is your PLM vision?
What should PLM bring to your company? Why should you invest even more in PLM? Which parts of the enterprise strategy can PLM support or even be mandatory for? It could be global internal collaboration ("Design Anywhere - Build Anywhere" or "One Company»). It could be reduction of non-conformance costs (One version of the truth). It could be simplified IT landscape (Replace local isolated tools with integrated enterprise PLM). The key here is to understand what is important for management and see if and how PLM can support that. An alternative approach could be: Pick a part of PLM that you believe in and figure out which part of the enterprise strategy it supports ;-).

Establish a PLM strategy
If you start to get some traction with management and they start to see some potential in PLM, you are in a good position. Use that position to get acceptance for establishing (or re-establishing) a PLM strategy. How to achieve the PLM vision? Which steps to take? What are the short term and long term goals & objectives? What main functionality and processes should PLM cover? Which roles and business units should use PLM? What information should be handled? Which systems should be integrated or replaced?

Build a solid business case
Earlier it was enough to justify PLM by showing functional capabilities. To convince management you must speak their language. And the language they most certainly understand is money. Build a business case with justified costs, earnings, ROI and the plan for how to get there at minimum risk. This is also a good test of your PLM vision. Can you provide enough facts and considerations to build a proper case? Maybe it will show you that you should spend your money elsewhere where it gives a better ROI?

For the business case to be accepted you anyway must get management believe in PLM and take ownership. Show them that you know what you are talking about, how it supports the enterprise strategy and that you know how to get there. You will need management support not only to get started, but also to be successful in reaching the objectives.

Enterprise PLM architecture
If the business case is accepted, you can continue to enterprise IT architecture where you go more in detail than in the PLM strategy. You position PLM in the IT landscape, main information flows, processes and functional areas. Which IT systems to integrate, replace, change or leave as-is.

Finally
Now you can start thinking about implementation. Note that the above activities are quite independent of which PLM tool you have. And it might not be your existing PLM tool that is the problem. Replacing it with another PLM tool will not help unless you do some re-thinking.

Depending on your position and the complexity of your company, this whole process can take a couple of weeks and a level of documentation that you can do yourself or it can take months or even years and a big team. You might be able to skip some of the steps. What you definitely should have is a PLM vision as inspiration and guiding star. Or you might end up unsuccessful again.

Tore Brathaug
www.infuseit.com