PLM 2.0: Born to Die?

by Oleg on August 26, 2011 · 16 comments

PLM 2.0 is a new term that was born about 5 years ago. The term was introduced by Dassault Sysetemes as part of their V6 platform. At the same time, Dassault didn’t put “an equal” sign between V6 and PLM 2.0. The consideration about PLM 2.0 was mostly related as a vision and the next fundamental step in the development of PLM solutions. According to the Dassault’s definition of PLM 2.0, you can find that it combined of 5 elements – 3D, Online, IP, Web 2.0 and Communities.

Do you think PLM 2.0 is taking off? Watch the following video from one of the Dassault conferences 2-3 years ago. I hope you will find it funny. As you can see the familiarity of ordinary people with PLM and specially PLM 2.0 is below average :) .

Web 2.0 roots of PLM 2.0

Thinking about PLM 2.0, you cannot miss the analogy with Web 2.0. The fundamental elements of Web 2.0 are related to the ideas of information sharing and collaborative activities of people on the web. Here is the definition of Web 2.0 according to the Wikipedia article.

The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing,interoperability, user-centered design,[1] and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies.

Take a look on the following interesting comparison between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 I found online:

Enterprise 2.0 roots of PLM 2.0

Another association with PLM 2.0 is coming from somewhat called Enterprise 2.0 (E2.0). Enterprise 2.0 term was invented by Andrew McCaffee back in 2006. Here is another definition from Wikipedia:

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of “Web 2.0″ technologies within an organization to enable or streamline business processes while enhancing collaboration – connecting people through the use of social-media tools. Enterprise 2.0 aims to help employees, customers and suppliers collaborate, share, and organize information. Andrew McAfeedescribes Enterprise 2.0 as “the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers”.

Another comparison – now between Enterprise 1.0 and Enterprise 2.0 (picture credit of Enterprise 2.0 conference)

I was reading Jos Voskuil blog yesterday. Jos started a long series of post about PLM 2.0. Navigate to the following link to read the first one: Why PLM 2.0? Jos brings another comparison between PLM 1.0 and PLM 2.0. The analogy between previous definitions and comparisons are clear.

This picture made me think about V6 and PLM 2.0 realization. Actually, I didn’t find many components of PLM 2.0 in previous definitions made by Dassault. V6 is a big leapfrog for DS and delivers a completely different PLM experience. Even so, the question about PLM 2.0 remains open.

What is my conclusion? I think the key word in a failure of PLM 2.0 is openness and availability. On a contrary, think for a moment about Web 2.0 – Blogs, Wikipedia, Flikr, eBay, Twitter… These and many other applications and technologies turned Web 1.0 into what we know as Web 2.0. It allowed many people bring web to a completely new level. I can influence the content published on the web, and many people simultaneously can have an access to this content. What I’d expect from PLM 2.0? I’d say, first, the ability to all people in the organization to have an easy access to product lifecycle data and processes. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen, until now. So, we have a new version of PLM. It applies to DS V6 and to other PLM vendors as well. However, I cannot call it PLM 2.0. Just my thought…

Best, Oleg

Share
  • Pingback: PLM 2.0: Born to Die? | WEB100 Blog

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidsherburne David G Sherburne

    Oleg,
    I agree with your assertion that PLM 2.0 has not fully developed or
    realized but I think its born to live and disrupt and not die. I agree
    that web and full access is a foundation for PLM 2.0 success, another
    key piece is an open environment where data can easily be accessed and
    shared and free flow is a problem with 1.0 platforms that restrict
    access to certain data, integrate poorly, or can’t reasonably scale. On
    Facebook sharing of personal information between apps is the key to
    value added services and the key to the success of FB like it or not!
    This is the same with PLM and key to unlocking Web 2.0 value. All
    applications have to be open, exchange information freely and embrace
    architectures that allow heterogeneous enterprise environments to
    thrive. You can be closed IF you have a perfect solution as with Apple
    but in the PLM 1.0 industry no one has achieved a perfect solution!

    I
    think PLM 2.0 will require leaders of the PLM industry to change the
    architectures and the business model shifting their thinking to be
    successful. Monolithic, closed, single solution models cannot be web 2.0
    supportive and they will die when the shift occurs. Open does not equal
    closed, manging market share does not equal leadership in a changing
    world. Today I see sales people still present the closed scenario over
    and over showing the stale thinking across the industry. PLM 2.0 is only
    marketing today because its a hard choice for big managers to risk
    leading. One mis step by a large company can cause injury or death
    during an industry transition like this. Yet standing still can also
    cause missed opportunity as with the example of  Microsoft, when a small
    start up like Google had a vision and got it right! Kodak held onto
    film and now is dead, the list goes on and on. The PLM industry needs
    visionaries to be successful, innovative and drive Web 2.0 ideas openly
    into products and then into the business. The status quo will been
    broken some day and the model will change because the real value to the
    business is open access and free flow of information across integrated
    processes and application platforms. So who will get it right and shift
    the industry?

    So
    what will shake out of the PLM 2.0 strategic war? Something good for
    the industry in my thinking! That's why free markets are good for
    business and what makes the drama so interesting to watch! I think PLM
    1.0 is dead and 2.0 is born!

  • Pingback: Will “JT Open” Enable Future of PLM 2.0?

  • Pingback: Will “JT Open” Enable Future of PLM 2.0? « Daily PLM Think Tank Blog

  • beyondplm

    David,

    Thanks for sharing your insight! I agree with many of your statements and especially the following one — “All applications have to be open, exchange information freely and embrace architectures that allow heterogeneous enterprise environments to thrive.”

    The vision of PLM 2.0 (by DS) is a good one. However, this vision wasn't supported by any other PLM vendors (obviously – competition). At the same time, DS V6 was too focused on the bundle of CATIA and ENOVIA. The result – the main point “PLM online for everyone” was missed, and peeps picked on the topic of controlling CATIA with ENOVIA data, which was obviously wrong one to focus on.

    In parallel, JT Open is a good candidate to drive openness and, at the end, making PLM 2.0 a reality. I'd be expecting some interesting industry moves if Siemens PLM will decide to release JT Open as open source with no membership.

    Just my thoughts. Best, Oleg

  • mila

    Why would an average Joe know what PLM (or PLM 2.0) is? What is the point of the street interviews?

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidsherburne David G Sherburne

    Oleg its going to be good to see what happens during this disruption. I agree that a Siemens move to JT open source would be a very interesting development and surly signal change. I think this would truly enable the collaboration between many companies, and I think Siemens could benefit from this contribution with their CAD, PLM/PDM offerings. Maybe we would really get to “design in context” where assy can be developed and controlled from heterogeneous CAD systems!

  • beyondplm

    David, You mentioned a very important thing, in my view – design in context! Open source realization in this place can be an interesting strategical step. Best, Oleg

  • beyondplm

    I think video is a bit funny. However, seriously speaking, enterprise software needs to think how to talk to “an average Joe”. It helps to clean enterprise software from over complication. And it is going alongside with a trend of IT consumerization. Just my opinion, of course. Best, Oleg

  • Pingback: Why PLM 2.0? – Part 2: The Challenges in current PLM « Jos Voskuil's Weblog

  • Pingback: Blair Ip

  • Shreya

    You said it right.Web 2.0 was a hit because it was pro open technology,average joe could contribute and collaborate.

  • beyondplm

    Shreya, thanks for the comment – contribution by all people and simplicity was the key. Tnx, Oleg

  • Pingback: arlboro reds

  • Pingback: newport cigarettes cupons

  • Pingback: master of frontpage

Previous post:

Next post: