Current Issue

   

2PLM Newsletter

John Stark Associates                                                                                                                                          August 25, 2014 - Vol16 #17

Welcome to the 2PLM e-zine

This issue includes :

 RSS Feed for 2PLM

NB. If you are viewing this page as a guest you only have limited access to our community.
Please take time to register and you will gain a lot of additional great features including:
More SEARCH results, tags, newsletter archives, and much more. Not yet registered?  It's easy and it's free!

Global PLM Research - Survey Results
by Roger Tempest
 
The proposal to establish a new, independent, non-commercial body that can fund highly-advanced research into Product Lifecycle Management was launched at the beginning of July. (2PLM July 07).

In order to establish the potential support for the concept, and to understand which advanced subjects might be researched, a questionnaire was circulated to academic institutions around the world. 44 responses were received from 28 countries, and the results show a massive potential for what might be achieved.

Current PLM is heading towards a "plateau of sameness", in which advances in connectivity mask a lack of genuine underlying progress. The academics who took part in the Survey identified 21 areas in which the PLM of the future could transcend today's constraints.

Furthermore, the response to the Survey has been more or less worldwide. With universities from different countries or even continents proposing similar ideas, the opportunities for international collaboration are immense.


 
If the PLM International Research Foundation were funded it would create a single PLM research programme that unifies the globe.

At this early stage the PLMIG is one of the leaders of this initiative, but the Foundation itself will need to be an independent legal entity with Board Members, a Steering Group, and a good administrative structure.

Now that the Survey has shown the wide-ranging research potential of the PLM-IRF, the next steps are to circulate the resulting Summary document to vendors, user companies and other potential supporters of the Foundation; and then to produce a new Proposal for how things might move forward.

You can find more information about the PLM-IRF on the PLMIG web site or via plmirf@plmig.com.

The Embodiment of Open R&D Innovation Management Begins
by Bradford L. Goldense
 
In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was introduced. The July 21 and August 4 issues addressed industry research findings regarding R&D Operating Environments and corporate practices in Organic R&D Innovation. In this fourth of a six part series, selected GGI findings on Open R&D Innovation will be discussed.

The study, entitled the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", was conducted by sending questionnaires to a wide range of companies developing products throughout North America. Participating companies had headquarters throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia, but their response was for North American R&D-Product Development operations. Complete data sets were received from 200 companies. Consumer, industrial, medical, chemical, and automotive/vehicular products were the top respondent industries. Participants completed 31 questions across the five primary research subjects. The research period was September 2012 to October 2013. The results were published March 3, 2014 in a 138-page report. This research is statistically valid and provides a Margin Of Error for each research question.

Open Innovation [OI] is the ability of a corporation to invent and innovate using outside sources and resources, excluding the use of contracted personnel to supplement employee-equivalent responsibilities.

The credit for coining the term, and beginning the body of knowledge related to Open Innovation, is generally given to Henry Chesbrough and the publication of his first book on Open Innovation in 2005. Certainly the underpinnings of this work began years before. Arguably, "the beginning" was the popularization of "benchmarking other companies" in the 1980s which changed historical practices of keeping private information within a company. Robert Camp's book on benchmarking in 1988 methodized corporate practices that had begun a few years earlier.

Bodies of knowledge take four to six decades to flesh-out and mature. In its nascency for seventeen years, and now growing in corporate practices for almost a decade, Open Innovation has progressed enough to begin to see some of the strategies, approaches, frameworks, software, and metrics that are likely to withstand the test of time. That said, much is still yet to be discovered and thought out. GGI's research provides a snapshot of OI evolution after approximately the first decade in practice.

Open Innovation is a two way street. GGI coined "Inbound Open Innovation" and "Outbound Open Innovation" to segment the research. If a company looks to make its capabilities available to other companies that may have an interest, that is Outbound. If a company is looking to acquire innovation to supplement its own Organic R&D Innovation capabilities, or perhaps to repackage and sell acquired innovation, that is Inbound. This article focuses on Inbound OI.

Five Inbound OI areas were researched: Importance of OI, Financial Tracking of OI, Financial Results from OI, Corporate OI Approaches To Acquire Capabilities, and Processes Used To Manage OI. Over 95% of all respondent companies provided answers to these research areas. That, in itself, is an indication that this evolving body of knowledge is likely to have staying power in the years ahead.

Importance of OI: Corporate emphasis on OI is currently strong; equivalent to the high corporate emphasis to improve organic innovation after the 2001 recession. While almost half of respondents said that the emphasis had not changed in the past five years, almost half said the initiative had become either more or much more important. Less than three percent indicated any reduction in importance. And, it is possible that those were the market leaders that were already years into OI practices and some of the excitement had worn off.


Financial Tracking of OI: Systems and infrastructure typically lag the implementation of new corporate practices. As well, cost tracking systems are generally much better architected and featured to take on a new activity than are revenue and profit tracking systems.
 
Four out of ten companies now track OI development costs, and slightly less track capital costs. Three out of ten companies now track OI revenues, and slightly less track OI profits.

Financial Results from OI:
While every company may not know exactly what monies accrue to them from OI initiatives, there is no lack of clarity on practitioner perceptions of economic benefit. A touchier area to research than corporate importance, the positive response on financial results was perhaps surprising. Six out of ten companies indicate neutral results, while acknowledging that OI has increased total corporate capability. Four out of ten companies indicate positive or strongly positive economic benefits. Only three out of two hundred respondents indicated anything other than neutral or positive.

Corporate OI Approaches To Acquire Capabilities: Today's corporate practices are a combination of practices used by non-R&D functions that have been imported to R&D, and new practices that uniquely evolved to fill corporate needs. Currently, the two most used OI approaches are "Supplier Co-Development" and "University Contract Agreements." While both have been part of the corporate nomenclature for years, both have increased in usage to sixty-seven percent and fifty percent respectively in the OI era. Fifteen to twenty percent report the emergence of several specialized bartering and brokering services that make matches between Outbound and Inbound companies. Like scouts for professional athletic teams, companies utilize these service firms to find and inventory capabilities and/or facilitate the licensing or sale of those capabilities. OI can also be a joint activity, two halves coming together to make a whole. Forty percent report joint R&D ventures with non-competitors. Seven percent report joint R&D ventures with competitors. In all, there are more than a dozen approaches. Almost all approaches have achieved greater than a five percent industry penetration.

Processes Used To Manage OI: Like financial tracking systems, formalized processes also lag the implementation of new corporate practices. Currently, seventy-three percent of companies do not yet have dedicated OI processes. When the time comes, OI processes will be more numerous than Organic R&D processes due to the quite wide range of OI approaches. Fifteen percent report having at least one dedicated OI process at this time. Twelve percent report having either two, three, or four processes at this time.

SUMMARY: Open Innovation is currently a corporate priority, rivaling organic innovation's importance a decade ago. While companies do not generally have processes and systems in place to institutionalize OI practices, it is a pretty sure bet they will in the years ahead. Corporate perceptions of the benefits and financial performance of OI are strongly positive. Few will turn away from the extra revenues and profits that OI could provide. While still a young body of knowledge, the increased usage of old techniques and the emergence of new techniques are enabling OI across companies and geographies. New service industries are spawning to fill corporate demands for OI. Expect that some new seemingly questionable bartering, brokering, or scouting firm will be knocking on your door in the years ahead to see if your company is interested in Inbound or Outbound OI.


For more information about Goldense Group Inc.'s (GGI) R&D, Product Development, Innovation, and Metrics research approach and topics, ongoing since 1998, please visit their research portal. Licensed pdfs of the 2014 findings and other research are available in GGI's iStore or through regarded distributors including Baker & Taylor and MarketResearch.com.

Bradford L. Goldense, NPDP, CMfgE, CPIM, CCP, president of Goldense Group Inc. has advised over 300 manufacturing companies on four continents in product management, R&D, engineering, product development, and metrics. GGI is a consulting, market research, and executive education firm founded in 1986. Brad writes a monthly column in Machine Design magazine for product creation professionals.

 

PLM Citations  
According to Google Scholar, as of August 22 2014, Product Lifecycle Management: Paradigm for 21st Century Product Realisation was the PLM publication most frequently cited in journal articles, technical reports, books and theses.

Recently it was cited in Interval Disaggregate: A New Operator for Business Planning. Details

Interval Disaggregate: A New Operator for Business Planning proposes a new planning operation called interval disaggregate, which goes as follows. Suppose that the planner, typically the management of a company, plans sales revenues of its products in the current year.

  

An interval of the expected revenue for each product in the current year is computed from historical data in the database as the prediction interval of linear regression on the data. A total target revenue for the current year is given by the planner. The goal of the interval disaggregate operation is to find an appropriate disaggregation of the target revenue, considering the intervals. Interval Disaggregate: A New Operator for Business Planning formulates the problem of interval disaggregation and gives solutions for the problem.
 

PLM and Small Businesses
by Scott Cleveland
 
PLM [product lifecycle management] software may not be a good fit for a small business.

Product lifecycle management is a broad topic. It starts with engineering information and branches out to manage human resources information, marketing information, customer service information, and many other kinds of information.

I am a firm believer that as manufacturing companies get larger, they will eventually have a real need for PLM software. However, while they are still small PLM may be overkill.

  • A small business may not have a need to address all of their departments today. They may only need to manage engineering files. In this case, a PLM solution may be way more than they need.
  • Most often, a PLM solution has a price tag that is far greater than they are looking to spend.
  • Typical PLM software has more than 400 features. Small companies may not even need 20 of those. Capabilities of PLM software far exceed what they need today and in the near future.
  • Implementing PLM software is a big project. It involves implementation services from the vendor, IT services from your own people and participation in the project by more of your own people. Your company may not be in a position at this time to make this kind of commitment.

The right decision for right now
PLM may be in your future, but a better business decision may be to start small and work up to PLM.

A good decision may be to purchase something less than PLM now with the idea that you will dump it in a few years. You could decide to keep that software and just add PLM software to the mix - integration would be a part of this decision.

Contact me to learn more about PLM and see how it can help your company ....

Scott Cleveland can be contacted on +1 408-464-6387


 

 

Small Ad Section

 

2PLM Newsletter introduces Small Ad section

We are now accepting small ads for this section of the 2PLM Newsletter. Up to 100 words and no graphics for $200/€150 per insertion. Discounts available for multiple insertions and repeat advertisers: please see 2PLM Sponsorship Opportunities for further details.

 

 

 

                                                    

 

PLM News

sponsored by:   

                                    

Corporate

PTC announced that it has completed its acquisition of Axeda Corporation. Details 

Financial

ANSYS, Inc. announced second quarter 2014 financial results. Total GAAP revenue was $232.4 million. Details

Autodesk, Inc. reported financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2015. Revenue was $637 million. Details

Cimatron Limited announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2014. Q2 revenues were $11.8 million. Details

Mentor Graphics Corp. announced financial results for the company's fiscal second quarter ended July 31, 2014. Revenues were $260.2 million. Details

Stratasys Ltd. announced second quarter financial results. Total revenue for the second quarter of 2014 was $178.5 million. Details

 

People

CIDEON Software announced that Clemens Voegele was appointed managing director of CIDEON Software. Details 

Implementations

Aras announced that Dow has selected the Aras PLM solution suite for project management. Details

AVEVA announced that Braskem has signed a contract with AVEVA. Details


Centric Software, Inc. announced that Sunrise Brands has selected Centric Software for its product lifecycle management (PLM) software. Details

MSC Software Corp. announced that Riba Composites is using MSC Nastran. Details

ZW3D announced that it has been chosen by BioPlastics. Details 

Developments

BlueCielo announced the BlueCielo Meridian 2014 suite. Details

CCE announced updated Unified Interop (UIOp) libraries. Details

Cimatron Limited announced the release of CimatronE 12. Details

Delcam announced that it has launched the 2015 version of its PowerMILL CAM system. Details

ICAM Technologies Corp. announced Integrated PSE V21. Details

Materialise announced 3-maticSTL 9.0. Details

MSC Software Corp. announced Marc 2014. Details

Nanosoft announced nanoCAD Plus 6.0. Details

Pointwise announced Pointwise Version 17.2 R2. Details

Rasterex announced the release of RxView & RxHighlight R16.0. Details

SURFCAM announced SURFCAM 2015 R1. Details

ZWCAD Design unveiled new 3D features for ZWCAD+ 2015. Details

ZWCAD Design unveiled ZWCAD+ 2015 Beta. Details

 

Relationships

Arena Solutions announced that it has integrated Arena PLM with SiliconExpert Technologies' electronic components information database. Details 

 Product                         Lifecycle                         Management: Paradigm for 21st Century Product                         Realisation

EOS announced that it has entered into a cooperation contract with plasmo Industrietechnik, a supplier of automated quality-assurance systems for manufacturing. Details

Zuken and SiSoft announced a partnership. Details 

Other

Active Sensing, Inc. announced that it has been recognised by Business-Software.com as a leading PLM software vendor for its PDXpert product lifecycle management software. Details

ANSYS announced that the ANSYS suite of multiphysics software will be used to support research activities at the University of Connecticut. Details

CADENAS announced their membership into the Power Transmission Distributors Association. Details

CDS announced the launch of the Rainbow Precision Products website built by Ecreativeworks. Details

Consilia Vektor announced that it released "The CAMScore Report: GrabCAD Workbench". Details

Omnify Software announced an Empower PLM application story featuring EST Analytical. Details

3D Systems announced the award of grants to leading universities to advance research in additive manufacturing technology. Details

 

 

Brief lines

Top

 To unsubscribe, please visit My account, - Newsletters- "manage my subscription" and untick the appropriate box.
 Subscription is free to registered users. Register now