These two gentlemen breathed, lived and created technology but in a totally different manner which is in total contrast to one another. And their death was looked in the same way both of them lived.

Dennis Ritchie was the creator of C programming language that set the stepping stone for more to come over the years and more importantly was the chief architect of Unix which is still the mother of all operating systems. Both these creations of Ritchie stands way too tall to what Steve Jobs has created/delivered to this world. Dennis has been a technology personified.

Steve Jobs created products with a difference. He saw the world ahead and created wealth – not just for himself but to a whole group of people. He packaged his product with simplicity and built innovative business models. He put technology into a nice package that will pull people. Steve has been a management/business personified.

Nothing against Steve Jobs (honestly a big fan of him) but I think the media, social media, social network and his “cult” of iProduct users have taken his death way too ahead . I strongly believe Ritchie – a humble man needs a much deserving salute and I take pride in writing this one for him who clearly marked the start of a digital era that Steve took to the next level.

What is disgusting is the fact – educated people have fallen for fame, style and hype and have been behind Steve Job’s family during the big loss but have completely ignored this great gentleman – Dennis Ritchie.

I was clearly impressed with this article by Neeraj Thakur – Steve Jobs wasn’t great. I agree with the point he makes that Polio Vaccine changed the world and how Salk (the inventor) chose not to Patent it which could have made him a billionaire or beyond today. That is the commitment to the world and the work he did.

Long story short, the world is moving to a more selfish mode with people clearly seeing Wealth or Fame way ahead of Work. Hope sense prevails.

RIP Steve and Dennis.

A few questions to prove a control environment exists are as follows:

Can a polar bear live in equatorial region ?
Can a human being stay without food for a month?
Can a mango tree grow in a wet rainy area?
Can a television work under water?

Every subject or object in this world have a control environment under which it operates. How would it be if such control information of any object can be made available as part of a product or service that is procured.

Now taking the control environment for a product alone into consideration –

Every product claims of warranty, service and spares and it is so important for maintaining the control environment and it would be even better if it could be ensured that the product always operates only under the prescribed environment. For example, how would it be if a 30 tonne truck does not start the moment it is loaded over the limit? While every product/system clearly specify their requirements and operating conditions which is the control environment – they fail to make a validation during operations.

Control environment is a very key aspect for every product right from the requirements stage to concept to development to operations to service. But where is it managed? How is it managed? Why is not being managed? What can PLM do to maintain the control environment?

More on Control Environment to follow shortly. Will soon find instances of control environment – something very interesting.

At one point in time, SMOKING was considered a major addiction that people will take years to come out of health hazards but SNORKING as I intend to call is no lesser addiction than Smoking. This damages public relations, patience levels, writing skills and more so with virtual relationships rather than realistic ones.

The age group of less than 20 in India have become a victim to this addiction called Snorking big time making real relationships fail. I have people within my family/friends circle that talk to me over a facebook chat or other IM means but shy away face to face. Are we really building a good generation as we move forward that can lead organizations of the future and the country ahead.

Well, as we get older, it is always a feeling – we were brought up the correct way and we should pass that on to the next generation but does technology wait? People drive technology but it is indeed technology around us that defines the next generation. Is SNORKING the new normal that is indeed required for the next generation. New normal is the standard that evolves every now and then with technological advances. Is SNORKING just an effect of this? I attended a town hall meeting recently and a question was asked about how many people are on facebook. Was it really required to be asked. Are people becoming too conscious even about the points they make to score brownie points.

Every new trend lives for a while before it is taken over by something larger? We have seen some of these like Walkman getting taken over completely by the iPOD within a very short span of time. Is SNORKING a temporary impasse similar to those that will soon be taken over by some other monster.

Long story short, Social Networking has brought in the following questions in me.

1) Is it required, a necessary evil or a pure evil?
2) Is this a new watchdog driven by greed of enterprises that have taken over the personal space of people?
3) Is this worth the addiction it deserves?
4) Will this become a norm going forward

It is good to be SNORKING. SNORK within limits is fine but too much SNORKING and getting away from physical meeting and networking is no good.

PLM

PLM has come from two major directions. While some of the vendors brought in PLM from a PDM background (CAD -> Workgroup Manager -> PDM -> PLM), there are other products that have come purely from enterprise approach (a holistic view of ERP, SCM, CRM and PLM). The commonality of these two major streams is the fact that the objective of PLM Systems continue to remain the same with managing the Bill of Materials across the product life cycle.

Key Features of PLM

With Bill of Material (BoM), being the crux of any PLM System – the key feature automatically revolves around the BoM Management with inclusion of change management and other aspects of process management with aspects of data coming in from various stakeholders. The key features within a PLM System are as listed below

• BoM Management
• Change Management
• PLM Infrastructure (Access, Security etc)
• Process Management
• Data Vaulting
• Reports and Analytics
• Project, Program and Portfolio Management
• Integrations (CAD, ERP etc)

and some more which are occasionally used.

To establish these features, there are various components being utilized. Let us look into those components of PLM.

Components of PLM

Like any multi-dimensional system, PLM brings in a variety of technology based components to provide the scalability of the overall solution. Some of the key components are as follows categorized under commercial and proprietary

Commercial

Commercial components are available as a plug and play piece from either the PLM vendor or from a third party. This include

Database
Web/Web Application Server
Server Infrastructure

Database – The core of any PLM system is the database it runs on. The scalability of the database ensures the longevity in the usage, reuse and standardization of the PLM application within an organization. Usage of standard databases and supported versions is critical for the success of a PLM implementation. The key features of database like search/query, reports are utilized extensively in PLM.

Web/Web App Server – With the expansion of organizations (internal and external including partners, customers), PLM has gone beyond the enterprise and servers with required security and scalability continue to be a critical component.

Server Infrastructure – The hardware, network and the likes that make the overall server infrastructure will provide the key control within organizations.

Proprietary

These components form the core PLM product and are proprietary to the product vendor.

Schema
Integration framework
File Management framework

Schema – This is the basis on which the entire PLM system runs on. The core of any PLM platform which is developed over the commercial database to match the required features within the PLM system.

Integration framework – While PLM can be utilized standalone, the benefits are multi-fold when integrated correctly with the other applications like CAD, ERP and other systems. Most PLM systems provide a XML based framework that can be leveraged for integrations. With the launch of Service oriented architecture, key services are made available for integrations.

File management framework – The key aspect of PLM system, in terms of performance, have always been driven by the challenge in managing large volume of data in the vaults and the speed of uploads and downloads. Each of the PLM system have their typical file management framework that suits their needs.

These are some of the key components of PLM system which have their own roadmap that drive the PLM product roadmap.

NOTE : This is a product agnostic view and hence may not apply as is for all the PLM products.

When the next question hits the deck – how have we improved over the last one year, every organization gets into a catch 22 situation. Reason – Quantification of an implementation is missing. Is there a way to quantify a PLM implementation?

This blog will provide certain key input into a maturity model that can be tailored to organizations to apply for their own benefit.

PLM is a combination of process, technology, systems, applications that cuts across the various components of the lifecycle from concept to retirement of the product multiplied by the usage of features that cut across various levels from Strategy, Planning, Management and Execution as shown in the picture below.

The maturity of PLM can be measured broadly under four categories which are not mutually exclusive. Due to the integral nature of PLM and the means of implementation, this set of four major categories provides a means to define the maturity of the system driven purely based on measurable quantities.

1) Process Indicators

Every process looks to be operating perfectly until challenged – A statement made by an Engineer in Toyota that drove to a new culture in the organization. Process indicators are well confused by everyone. Some people collect process characteristics to define the maturity of processes while others do it for weighing the outcome of the process. Process indicators need to be a combination of process parameters and the product that comes out of the process. Key Metrics need to be gathered from various processes and identify the critical process indicators that matter the most.

2) Technology Indicators

Technology is an enabler to any process. While Technology brings in a value add in various forms, it is also imperative that they bring in certain overhead. Identifying the critical technology indicators that assist in accelerating product development with minimal non value adds to the organization will be an ideal technology to be deployed within the organization. Identifying the right technology is a critical piece to an organization that should be spent time and effort on.

3) Usage Indicators

Process can be at its best leveraged by the best available/afforded technology only when it is being used with the right set of trained people. Usage of an application, as complex as a PLM System, is very critical and every organization needs to find out the critical usage factors that suits their needs. Usage indicator when tied up with the correct set of process and technology indicators can bring out the best and worst in a simple manner.

4) Data Indicators

Data is a central piece that is created, updated and deleted. The rate of growth of data in the system and the type of data that is being used from the system provides critical information regarding the usage of the system. The assessment provides a simplistic view on the data which can provide a direction to the roadmap with respect to the next steps of the implementation.

5) System Indicators

System indicators provides a systemic view with respect to the PLM System maintenance, upgrade and ease of operation from a system perspective. Since PLM is a long-term journey – an ease from the System point of view is as critical as any of the other listed above and this section provides a simplistic view of the critical pieces from a system side.

With these five arms being defined exhaustively, the empirical model for a PLM assessment that has been developed, provides a very good starting point and a critical decision maker in the key aspects of an organization’s PLM direction.

A detailed analysis of each of the above section will be published shortly.

With this level of economy equation, quite a few new models are to be delivered and will be the name of the game. Let’s name it for the time being as “Source and Ship(SAS)”. Source and Ship is not a new concept but it is the reverse of outsourcing. We could call it the reverse outsourcing as well. While outsourcing is controlled by the customer to the vendor, SAS is to be driven by the vendor. A vendor defines product A in Brazil, Russia, India or China (BRIC) and puts it out for sale. A customer who has the reach to the consumers of this product sources this from the vendor and packages it to the customer. The traditional model was defined in such a way where the IP lies with the brand while certain parts were being supplied by vendors. Then came the outsourced manufacturing to bring in the cost leverage with certain minor aspects of IP(Process) outsourced. With the change in intellectual demographics of the world, the design and manufacturing being sourced(instead of outsourced) is a very near possibility

The following figure clearly mentions the difference between the traditional, the outsourced model as against a Source and Ship model

Engineering plays a critical role in any product’s success. If an iPhone, Blackberry or Android has created a wave with their list of features, accessories, compatible applications and newer versions compatibility – a mammoth engineering innovation goes on behind the scenes to make this happen. When such critical engineering shifts from one place to another (as shown in the figure above), the need for systemic approach plays a critical role.

This change in ownership of critical information will is going to present a drastic change in the way business applications(likes of ERP) and engineering applications(likes of PLM) operate within the manufacturer and the supplier organizations. Here is a brief look at the way, PLM could operate in this space and how organizations that are planning to move in this direction could leverage PLM effectively to be ahead of the curve and take advantage of the situation.

Engineering Source:

Suppliers will start C2M as a reality with their extended services and the source of Engineering will move from the manufacturers to the suppliers. While this looks simple, the required infrastructure from both the manufacturers and the suppliers in this space will require a major revamp. Engineering and Supply chain will have a huge effect with the source change and controls on supply chain to control extensive Engineering data.

Collaboration:

With traditional manufacturing scenario shown above, the IP was completely handled by the manufacturer with collaboration limited to a particular part of system in the entire product. This was shared with select suppliers who were absolutely unaware of the end product into which this system was being commissioned. A higher level of collaboration was required in the outsourced model with increased back and forth communication across the board for a seamless integration of product development and manufacturing. Now with the source and ship model and the engineering source shift expected to drive the change – social product development will be a critical piece in the puzzle that will make this a reality. How would it be to develop a product using facebook? More engineering brains can quickly look at a product from anywhere across the globe.

Product Data:

Any product data contains multifold data – Engineering, Manufacturing, Process, Service information, Cost information with different views of the product within and external to the organization. With the change in the development model and business model – the crux of information that is created, updated and purged across the ecosystem will have a major change. This will add a huge amount of data into the supplier’s organization and the manufacturer will also have the choice of working with competing suppliers in the same space to make the right decision.

PLM

PLM which plays a critical role with Engineering and Product Data also holds the key for the source of Collaboration. PLM, traditionally, has been very rigid to use and have brought in flexibility with time and customer’s changing requirements. With a drastic change as mentioned above, PLM in collaboration with BPM can provide the required flexibility that can help organizations achieve the level of ease of operations and contain the IP within.

A follow up blog is on the way to show how an integration between BPM and PLM can help organizations.

To get there, one of the preliminary questions to be answered is about the production and consumption of data. Every information stored in PLM has the following 4 basic states – create, update, delete, view (the basic ones of any database record). The first 3 states are purely from a data producer perspective while the last one consumes the data to create some other data of interest. This brings in the dependency chart within the data which is driven by the processes and data model/data dictionary defined for the organization.

ROI of PLM can be rationalized and significantly improved with a clearly focused model of implementation which focuses not just on the processes or the PLM product implemented. Persistence of critical information is key to every organization but that surely does not mean every piece of information needs to be stored within an organization. While RDBMS and other technological advances provide certain flexibility and improved mechanism to store data, it is imperative to identify the right set of data to be stored. STORE THE DATA THAT IS REQUIRED – Let’s keep it simple.

Many implementations of PLM miss out on such critical aspects that leads to multiple systems being used by organizations and hence not realizing the best out of PLM.

PLM can be a producer of critical data if implemented in the right way. While it is the users who create the data predominantly, certain key information can be extracted and manipulated internally(again driven by the process and data dependency) – this can automate critical processes which are maintained today in spreadsheets and certain legacy applications in every organization.

During the pre-implementation phase of PLM, every organization should validate the implementation process and plan the maturity level of the implementation according to their set of processes being incorporated in PLM. It is very easy to implement PLM as a data store where users create data but it is even more critical for organizaitons to realize the fact that these data should be consumed for other purposes which PLM can be leveraged upon.

Based on my experience, many customers miss out this option during the implementation phase and later target the product for not providing key features that could be leveraged for the same. Every system (not only PLM) can be utilized to the maximum if used with the right intention and in a PLM implementation this intention should be from a data producer/data consumer perspective as well over and above the process requirements within an organization.

PLM should be implemented with a strategy to ensure it can produce certain critical data while it does consume data as well. One of the aspects an organization should look forward to is having a PLM maturity model which I will cover in my next blog.

See you soon!!!
Coming soon – PLM Maturity Analysis in an organization – An empirical model for analysis of a PLM implementation to improve the ROI and streamline an implementation

When is a product Green?

A product is green when it
a) utilizes the least energy to be designed and manufactured
b) utilizes the least energy during the operation
c) is made of least hazardous material
d) can be easily dismantled and reused
e) does not become a waste at the end of life
f) is made of resources available in abundance
g) can generate energy in some form during the course of its life

Now to design a product that can meet even half of the above listed requirements, let us take the example of designing an energy efficient product.One of the critical data point for collection of data during the lifecycle is the definition of the “control environment”. In today’s product development world, one of the major lapses is in the capture of control environment.

What is Control Environment?
Every product operates under specific external factors. While standards have come in place to accommodate the definition of key Control Environment parameters, it is important for product manufacturers to clearly mention the Control Environment as part of the product document in the manuals.

With products becoming global with varied standards, the set of control parameters are critical, both from a definition and maintenance during the design, development and usage of the product.

Where is the Control Environment captured?

Control Environment has been reduced to a financial/business term for some reason. But products have control environment which are hardly captured/maintained in a particular format.

With increased focus on Green, sustainability – it is imperative for organizations to maintain the Control Environment of the products in a specific format. With the increase of global products with localized features, unless control environments are captured it is very difficult to start thinking in terms of sustainability.

My next blog will get into specifics of Control Environment(by my thoughts) for a product.

As always, comments/criticisms/suggestions welcome!!! Until, Take care!

Based on the limited googling and the availability of information online and some additional references, the definition of BoM seems to have been derived from Accounting philosophy where the definition of Bill of Materials is – Listing of all the assemblies, subassemblies, parts, and raw materials that are needed to produce one unit of a finished product. Thus, each finished product has its own bill of materials. The listing in the bill of materials file is hierarchical; it shows the quantity of each item needed to complete one unit of the next-highest level of assembly. Source

This was the first definition of Bill of Materials which was actually derived from another accounting Jargon called the Standard Bill of Materials which stands for Listing of the standard quantity per unit of each item of material going into a unit of finished product. It should be adjusted for unavoidable waste, spoilage, and other normal inefficiencies. Source

The advancement in Science and Technology created the first dilution for the term Bill of Materials when people started generalizing the terminology to fit their need around this fancy jargon. The best example for dilution of this term can be seen here.

With the evolution of various systems like PLM, ERP, CRM, SCM and sooner than later MOM and EAM to which every individual is going to become a slave to, and each of these systems having their own philosophy of this simple concept of Bill of Materials compounded by the fact that every department of an organization viz. Design, Manufacturing, Accounting, Purchasing, Marketing to name a few look at BoM from a totally different aspect -> This term BoM is one of the simple parameters which has been made a complex affair in today’s organizations. The confusion created by this single term has created huge mess in various organizations worldwide and the fight will go on.

Now let us get back into action with Bill of Materials.

1) What is Bill of Materials?

Let us keep it simple. I go with the age old definition of Listing of all the assemblies, subassemblies, parts, and raw materials that are needed to produce one unit of a finished product. For every product an organization makes, there can be ONE AND ONLY Bill of Material. All the other terms used such as Design/Engineering BoM, MBoM, CAD BoM etc are terms used for convenience/confusion and do not make any specific term. Now, does that mean the other data are not required? Absolutely NOT. But the point here is to ensure that these are not to be called as Bill of Materials which dilutes the original concept of BoM and creates a divide in most organizations in terms of definition of BoM which further dampens up the enterprise systems and processes in place.

Every organization will have its own process of BoM definition which should drive the other processes in making the BoM complete. A radical change is required in definition of BoM and systems approach in every organization to make BoM management a reality.

2) Where should BoM be?

A never ending and an evergreen problem. With the dilution of the definition of BoM and the arrival of complementary terms like EBoM, MBoM, Service BoM all coming into play – the simple problem of data management and relationship management has exploded into different directions with BoM bombed and data spread across various systems creating a huge mess of the data, process and systems/applications dealing with data. The primary reason for the data being everywhere is due to the fact that the definition of BoM is skewed.

3) Which is the BoM ?

Every product clearly has only one BoM – the list of objects that is put together to making of one finished product. In that case, clearly that is the BoM. This is indeed a single long list(could be a single level or multiple level list) which is based on Engineering, Manufacturing and Sourced parts and assemblies. This is the BoM. Anything that does not meet this cannot be called the Bill of Materials.

4) When BoM?

The when part of the BoM is a critical piece which I plan to divide into various pieces.

a) Create
b) Update
c) Delete
d) Change
e) Use

It is this critical part of the question that initiates various systems like ERP, PLM think in different directions. A complex list of BoMs with the varied when create, when update scenarios make BoM Management unmanageable. When you think of a single BoM concept this can make the life simple to all the users with a simplistic approach to these scenarios. Issues are multiplied due to the fact that a matrix of BoMs and scenarios have been defined with none of them leading to a single BoM strategy. A more detailed When will be available as a separate blog soon.

5) Why BoM?

A BoM is indeed necessary and the reason behind that is simple to make a collection of data of related objects that will be included for each and every product. A well defined BoM makes absolute sense to all the users of the data whilst BoM as a definition is so very loosely coupled in any organization

6) How BoM?

This is a vertical centric and organization dependent question which is the underlying technique and IP that drives the creation of a Bill of Material. This has to be unique and will differentiate a product and the process of creation of the product.

With this basic understanding of BoM, if we take a step back and look into every organization’s process, people and technology that drives the organization – very few of the organizations across the globe may have the three listed above aligned in a direction that can make them flexible yet robust. When the current enterprise systems are looked from this perspective, I hardly see any system (ERP, PLM, SCM etc) aligned to this fact and each one having a different defintion and process definition capability in their purview that can easily trouble organizations from having a seamless process and simple product definition.

This is a precursor to a series on Bill of Materials Management which I plan to create over a period of time from now on.

As always, your comments, views, recommendations, criticisms are welcome.

1) Jacuzzi – A product that was originally designed for treating arthritis, this never took off due to high cost. Arthritis patients with money was the target market where it did not take off. Immediately, this was launched as a high end relax/fun item where it became a hit. INNOVATION – CHANGE THE MARKET

2) Newton – Apple’s famous failure which is tipped off as the engine behind iPAD. Newton was a PDA OS that failed miserably for over a decade but might come out strong in a different game. INNOVATION – Usage

3) Leaning Tower of Pisa – The tower was never intended to be leaning. It was planned to be straight. INNOVATION – “Positioning”

4) Twenty20 Cricket – In a time crazy world, a five day cricket match or one day match was getting to a plateau in the interest level of people. A shorter version of the game was launched which initially was fighting the traditional thinkers until city/county/state based approach was launched all over the world. INNOVATION – Teaming

5) Microsoft Bob – The famous failure from Microsoft which never took off in the 90′s. This never took off on 3.1 and Windows 95. So immediately the pieces of it went all over the places including Microsoft Office, Vista and other products. INNOVATION – Reuse

6) Cyberdog – The initial browser from Apple which was a failure due to memory issues but that was all very well answered by Safari. INNOVATION – Improvisation

7) Motorola ROKR – The first phone Apple tried in partnership with Motorola. Learnt a lot from this experience and improved everything in iPhone.

If someone has not attempted things differently, we will surely not have the above list. Is it not worth attempting something new/different? It is, always. Failure is the stepping stone for success and success or failure comes only by attempting in the right areas at the right time.