Will connected PLM replace single version of truth?

Will connected PLM replace single version of truth?

connected-plm-future

For many years, single (or one) version of truth was a core principle of PLM data organization. It was a vision and slogan behind PLM value and one of the reasons to bring PLM system to manufacturing companies. It was widely accepted and supported by analysts, architects and PLM sales.

PLM single point of truth

Below, I captured few quotes about that going back 5-10 years ago. Here is the one from CIMdata newsletter here

Consolidating all product-related information, i.e., the raw materials, ingredients, formulas, packaging, labels, and artwork, into a single source of truth reduces mistakes and shortens the time to find information. Compliance analysis helps ensure that products meet regulations quickly and that there are no surprises after product launch. Least-cost formulation helps manufacturers compete and be successful both in the short and long term.

…and here:

Enabling systems engineering with PLM holds forth the promise of the single logical source of the truth. The greatest challenge engineers face is to find the necessary information and verify its source and accuracy. This problem dates back to the dawn of the Industrial Age. A single logical source of the truth, particularly at the project level, multiplies any project team’s effectiveness. A single version of truth is critical for effective decision-making and business success.

Another passage from Jos Voskuil article – Some users don’t like the single version of truth:

I believe the biggest challenge for every organization implementing PDM and later PLM is, to get all users aligned to store their information in a central location and to share it with others. Only in this manner a company can achieve the goal of having a single version of the truth. With single version of the truth I mean – if I look in the PLM system I find there all the needed data to explain me the exact status of a product or a project. If it is not in the PLM system, it does not exist!

Engineering.com video by Tech4PDChannel by Chad Jackson and Jim Brown:

It’s important for the enterprise to work on a single version of the truth. That has been one of the tenants of PLM for at least a decade. That can’t happen if there is one version of the truth in Engineering (PLM) and another that touches the rest of the business (ERP).

The end of single point of truth

As much as single point of truth mantra is simple and powerful, it probably cannot sustain the reality of modern engineering and manufacturing environment. And the biggest challenge is global and distributed environment we live into, complexity of multiple systems and more. It leads to many debates about single point of truth. One of my favorite examples to compare single version of truth with garbage bin by Jos Voskuil blog – PLM and Blockers:

Some vendors claim if you store everything in their system, you have a “single version of the truth”. Sounds attractive. My garbage bin at home is also a place where everything ends up in a single place, but a garbage bin has not been designed for sharing, as another person has no clue and time to analyze what´s inside. Even data in the same system can be hidden for others as the way to find data is not anticipated.

Capgemini article One version of the truth – a phrase that is past its sell-by date? makes the point about a reality of data changes in multiple systems. In such case, to have multiple “versions” and been able to understand data difference can be even more important that bringing all data to a single system.

“Version of the truth” is also somewhat challenging. The truth is the truth, it doesn’t have versions – it just is! The truth may change over time but if it is correctly recorded then at any instance in time there is only one truth. When the raw data sets are consolidated through different systems (Supply chain and Finance) and then arrive at the boardroom as different figures, which one do you accept? When making decisions, should you only use one of them, and if so which one? Or might it be better to maintain both and try to determine why they are different and then eliminate the sources of error?

No-one would deny that having one version makes it easier to make decisions but to make good decisions requires accurate data. One version that is wrong is worse than having two versions (right or wrong!) since it will be used as the truth despite being wrong. With two versions you have to investigate further and while that might be tedious and expensive it at least adds value compared to blindly accepting one version of the truth!

Connected PLM?

One of the new fancy words in PLM marketing slang is “Connected PLM”. We are much more connected these days – connected cars, connected homes, mobile devices, sensors, Internet of Things, etc. The ideas of search and data sharing are coming to replace the ideas of “single database”. There is an increased interest in data-orientation and data connectivity opposite to a single data container (database). Here is an interesting passage from Jos Voskuil blog

The future is about storing all these pieces of data inside connected data environments, instead of storing a lot of data inside a (versioned) information container (a file / a document). Managing these data elements in the context of each other allow people to build information from any viewpoint – project oriented, product oriented, manufacturing oriented, service oriented, etc.

Automation World article – The New PLM: Highly Connected, a Little Disruptive brings you a perspective of how PLM vendors are investing into data connectivity and IoT. You don’t see singe version of truth anymore. Opposite to that you can see the idea of “connected” information.

And it’s not just automobiles that are morphing into complex electronic systems. Many of the smart things saturating our everyday lives as part of the Internet of Things (IoT) are engineered with mechanical, electrical, software and firmware components, all of which amount to connected chaos when it comes to managing configurations, revisions and quality control as part of the product lifecycle management (PLM) system.

….the industry has entered a new stage in which suppliers and customers are also an important part of the product lifecycle. Suppliers, in some ways, are becoming design partners and customers are leveraging social networks to provide feedback on product functionality. In addition, the “connected products” that make up the IoT are creating a convergence of electronics and software, so there is a need for more integrated simulation models.

What is my conclusion? It became obvious that to maintain a single database storing all data pieces about product is not feasible. PLM industry is adopting a new mantra – connected PLM. It makes a lot of sense because information is indeed lives in multiple places. An attempt to have a system to manage all information together in a single database will fail. How existing PLM platforms will adopt to a new reality? This is a good topic to discuss with industry analysts and PLM architects. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Want to learn more about PLM? Check out my new PLM Book website.

Disclaimer: I’m co-founder and CEO of openBoM developing cloud based bill of materials and inventory management tool for manufacturing companies, hardware startups and supply chain. My opinion can be unintentionally biased.

Share

Share This Post

  • Pingback: GHZ Partners | IT Services, Software()

  • Thanks Oleg for the various quotes. It illustrates the expanding definition and reach of PLM forces companies to redefine the concept “Single version of truth” into “best information so far” coming from various sources – the more reliable these sources are the closer to a reliable information. Otherwise it remain “alternative” information.

  • beyondplm

    Jos, I agree, PLM companies are reaching out and trying to find a new grounds to replace the old idea of “single database” or “single version of truth”, which is essentially the same in PLM marketing. “Best information” is certainly better explanation of what people want. But it is hard to translate it into sales mantra. Single version of truth was a good one, but it is over…

  • marclind

    Connected approach is certainly what companies like Airbus, Schaeffler, MAN, and others are doing w/ our (Aras) PLM these days…

    maybe term becomes “single ‘view’ of the truth” in future? 🙂

    MarcL
    http://www.aras.com

  • Wait, what? Getting rid of “single version of the truth” the quote from Cap Gemini is scary !! “Single Version of truth” was mainly fighting against the same-ich objects being stored in various store because of legacy and because of the fact for example that you couldn’t give access to your PDM in quality because it was just too expensive (license-wise). It was leading to a lot of data-maintenance and in the end data integrity was not there.

    So when the guy from the FAA comes after an issue on a plane, I’d like to see the guy from Cap Gemini saying: “hey, dude, I’ve got two versions of the data you are asking, one may be right and the other may be wrong, but hey, look at the bright side, it’s better than just having one wrong version !”

    Single version of the truth is still valid. Question is how do you ensure this version is identified in an environnement with multiple PLM connected.

  • beyondplm

    Marc,

    Engineer cannot have the same “view” as manufacturing planner and CM (contract manufacturer’s) view is different from OEM. I’d say each one should have his own view of the same “truth”. What do you think?

    Check these two blogs and my presentation for additional reference.

    How to develop “single BOM” strategy
    http://beyondplm.com/2016/03/08/pi-munich-presentation-develop-single-bom-strategy-3/

    Single BOM journey
    http://beyondplm.com/2016/09/15/single-bom-bill-materials-journey/

    Best, Oleg

  • beyondplm

    Yoann, I can see your point. Maybe there is a point to differentiate between physical and logical view? The first one is data scattered among multiple databases and even organizations. The second one is the ability to share and present this data to a specific user (based on his role).

    So, logical view can be presented to the guy from FAA you mentioned in the comment. No wrong versions… simple view with the right data retrieved from multiple places collected in a single augmented view.

  • marclind

    Ha! Was just having fun with it. For sure, EBOM is different structure from MBOM, of course. And CM is at different level from OEM.

    How about Single ‘view’ of EBOM for OEM? Should that exist? (i.e. not just CAD BOM, but full system-level EBOM)

    Think you highlight part of the problem. Catchy marketing phrases oversimplify and are easily misinterpreted or misunderstood.

    Just my 2 cents… as marketing guy 🙂

    MarcL
    http://www.aras.com

  • beyondplm

    Marc, you’re right! It is a time for PLM to move from buzzwords to pragmatic names. What about “BOM for OEM”?

  • Roland Drewinski

    Yoann, you hit the point. “Single source of truth” is some story telling for those not interested in the details. Please do not discuss it to death.

    Users just want that information needed to do their job. They should not worry about how the IT guys manage to cencentrate data in one spot or to control redundancy in distributed environments.

  • beyondplm

    Roland, you absolutely right- let’s IT guys to do a job! But here is the thing – what if there is no single IT guy (OEMs, TierNs, contractors, etc.)?

  • Pingback: Beyond PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) Blog What comes after "single version of truth"? Global annotation and data networks. - Beyond PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) Blog()