Archive for December, 2008
Making PLM Social
Posted by Chris Williams in PLM, Social Media on December 30, 2008
I’m writing this in response to Oleg’s post on the same topic. He states Social Media applications have revolutionized the way people interact, and poses the question “what about PLM”. He goes on to say the consumer revolution is about content and therefore the Socialization of PLM will also be about user generated content…
His mistake is to say that very few people in the Enterprise can handle CAD and Product Structure. While it may be true that very few can authour CAD, it is not accurate to say everyone else does not understand the result of CAD. The CAD output is a representation of the product, which is exactly what the Enterprise is working to define and deliver. The same is true about Product Structure. While not everyone in Enterprise authours a Product Structure, they certainly understand the concept and certainly use it as a navigational aid. Definitions of the Product in either 3D, 2D or as a Product Structure are all user generated content that makes sense to anyone involved through out the Product Lifecycle.
Yes content is king, but it is not as simple as user generated content. You must question why content is king and why content connects people. So lets explore a bit further the connections in a Social Media application. If I post a picture on Flickr, it has no affect on the masses. The Social engine takes off when people with a common interest, or an interest in the theme of the picture, find the picture and take an interest in this picture. If your picture is about Gothic architecture and I am looking for information on Trees, I will never connect to you through this picture. I would conclude that the connections are made through a common interest and people’s ability to engage as they see fit.
The content is a representation or proxy of a common interest, or something that “potentially” binds us!
This concept carries over perfectly to product development and to CAD and Product Structure. A CAD file is a proxy or representation of a part/component within the product. This can also be true for excel files, word files and email discussion about the part. For example an email discussion about the cost of the part that also contains a cost calculation excel file, are representations of a part. These representation connect people within a context, cost of the part. If I have an interest in cost then I may engage this content, either through search, RSS or just by navigating back to the location of this content. Cost is not as simple as a value maintained in a database. Cost represents an ongoing exchange, debate, negotiation and compromise among the extended team. If you wish to understand how the ending value was defined you must understand all the exchanges between people with a point-of-view.
You can continue the above cost example for any other attribute about the product. The same story would hold true for color of the paint, material selection and product features. I would conclude that the product development process is already Social. What needs improvement, or to become more Social capable are the tools used actively through out the day.
Yammer Will Not Work In PLM!
Posted by Chris Williams in Uncategorized on December 20, 2008
Call it what you want SMS, IM, Twitter, Yammer, Text or email, they are all the same. They are all used to create micro messages between individuals or groups. What is interesting to me is why people gravitated to the use of these tools and why we have become captivated to check them when the ping, ding or chirp?
We have all looked at our kids, at least those of us that are old enough to be known as CAD guys (the newbies in the market think of themselves as PLMers), and said, “hey wouldn’t it be more productive to pickup the phone just speak to them?”…
The fact is, it is not more productive! Maybe we don’t consciously understand, but micro messaging is effective because the sender is forcing a context on the receive. If I message you, “what movie do we see or what time do we meet”, then all I get is the information I want. If I pickup the phone and ask the same question, I will most likely get the information, but after you tell me about something else going on in your life, like the jerk that just cut you off, or the design review meeting you just got out of. Micro messages have become a key element of both our personal life and our work life.
Social networks and forums are micro messages that engage a large “to:” list or a “to:” list that is defined by someone other than the sender. Imagine if you could apply this same concept to design. First to get information you need, but second to understand how the design progressed. Oleg just posted about using micro blogs in PLM. Al Dean of www.Develop3D.comcommented that he feels this will not work due to user buy-in. Al is right, but the answer is incomplete. It is important to explore why the user will not buy-in. My feeling is users do things that provide personal productivity and fight what is just about the group or future value. The reason Yammer will fail in PLM is that Yammer is totally out of context for the user and provides value to the receiver, not the sender!
SolidWorks Gets Tagged! PLM 2.0 or People’s PLM, You Decide…
Posted by Chris Williams in Uncategorized on December 13, 2008
Tagging could be PLM by the people, for the people… If you haven’t read Oleg then commit an hour and give his blog a read. In a recent post he writes about the value of tagging. It is a great idea because as we all know it makes things easier to find. The only problem I see is it will require a user to do something that is not really natural, or can be seen as an extra effort (you have been able to tag in SolidWorks for a long time and it seems poeple don’t really use it). A blogger is motivated to tag because it helps get them readers. A CAD user is not looking to be read, or are they? Any way, the bottom up approach to providing value is certainly a great thing and very WEB 2.0 or PLM 2.0. If the data being tagged could be the smallest bits of information within a design project, then tagging could even have greater value. What if my email was tagged? What if the whiteboard discussion was tagged? What if my todo list was tagged? Wouldn’t these small bit of information be valuable when sorting out a design problem at some point in the future? I think so! I would even argue these little bits of information are the real IP of the product.
The power of the WEB is also evident in Oleg’s post. While writing the post, his inbox pinged him, and like all of us couldn’t ignore the email popup. Fortunatly, this time the email was relavent to what he was doing, as it was about SolidWorks and tagging. I wonder what he did with this mail? Because he can get back to this information through his blog or many others, I imagine he deleted the message. But what if he was a designer and the mail was about a design issue? What would he do? Most designers store their design related emails in mailbox folders, that they can search later. But what if I was not copied on the email and the message is useful to me or affects me? I will never know about it. Well, ultimatly I will find out, because I will end up sitting in a team meeting saying, “boy I wish I knew that… now I need to redo last weeks work…”.
Enter the Vuuch Empowered Discussion Server! You no longer need to create these folders. The discussion server will do it for you and a few steps further… by automaticly filtering messages for you. When working in a CAD file if you connect to the server, the server will present all discussions that have anything to do with that file.
Discussion or Process Management, Does PLM Capture IP
Posted by Chris Williams in Uncategorized on December 11, 2008
I was just reading Jos Voskuil’s post about the 5 reasons not to implement PLM. Although his title is tongue and cheeck, he does stumble onto some things that need to be further explored. In one post, reason 5, he explains PLM captures Product IP. I really wonder about this? Does PLM capture the IP or just the net result of the design process?
Assume you are one year after product launch and you discover a major flaw. Oh ya you just laid off your team because of the economy. Let’s also assume you had been using Enovia and Windchill throughout the design of this project, therefore you have no concern, because you have all the data you need to fix the problem. All you need to do is get some engineers, give them PLM excess and the fix is right around the corner… Right?
I wonder they would pick if you lined up the newly hired engineers and told them they could have one of the following items (Since PLM is not file management, the new team can have every CAD file, plus one item below):
- Bringing back the old project manager
- Bring back the manufacturing engineer that worked on the team
- Access to all the PLM data
- Every email sent during the entire the design process
I would say they would rather have all the email conversations.
2D Alive & Well
Posted by Chris Williams in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008
2D and less is what design is all about. 3D CAD has improved our ability to get ideas to market, but certainly 3D is not the the only design tool. There is a great post at Solidsmack about the tools used by industrial designers. 2D is still an essential part of conceiving a concept. Sketching as a means of deciding what to model will never die. Before you model, the team, big or small, must discuss the elements of the product and you just can’t question the value of napkins, whiteboards, paper, conversations and emails as essential product development tools used before and during 2D and/or 3D modeling. Googling napkin sketch will produce some interesting reading, take a look at catia & gizmo.
Certainly CAD does allow someone to workout a concept, but this process is more about converting an idea into something that can be made. But the real elements of a product are decided through design discussions and sketching and CAD implements them.
The list of tools used by designers covers email under MS Office. But the list is missing a key element of a successful designer, the ability to communicate. The design process requires a huge amount of communication. Team members communicate all day using simple tools like email to gain insight and make decisions. While this is very effective for those involved, it results in other team members sitting in design review meetings say “I wish I knew that, now I have to redo my work”. Email is useful to only those in the discussion and does nothing for those who are affected by the discussion!
I beleive the email based design discussions can be harnessed and improved…
Recent comments