Posts tagged as:

Process Management

PLM is all about process management. This statement comes to the play when people explain the value of PLM in the organization. Usually, when you think about process management, your mind is switching to some kind of “workflow thinking” mode, which assumes you need to follow the process from state to state by accomplishing tasks and activities. In every PLM implementation, this is a moment of time, people ask – how do we manage engineering processes? What toolset we need to have to make it happen?

I can see, engineering people, are bad organized. In many situations to run processes among engineers is similar to herding cats. To manage process in an engineering organization is a challenge. This is a place where PLM vendors usually fails to provide a reliable and simple solution. Engineers are asking for additional flexibility and vendors have a tendencies to provide a complicated solutions. Many PLM tools are providing sort of Workflow designer to create a process model. Later on, you can discover that engineers tend to abandon these processes. Main reason – these processes are not reflecting the reality. I wanted to come with some ideas how to fix that. I came up with the three definitions – tasks, engagement and information context. Take a look on the picture below.

The overall engineering process is described as list of tasks (above). This is the simplest way to present what needs to be done. It easy to digest and follow up. At the same time, the activity around this task list is not linear. In order to accomplish the task, an engineer needs to engage with additional people. This a typical situation when a person who leads the process needs to communicate with other people and comes with the result. Often, it is ad-hoc communication that cannot be formalized resides in people’s mind. Another situation happens when an engineer needs to bring an additional set of information to accomplish the task or make a decision. To combine these activities together is not a simple thing. Workflow is a wrong tool to solve this problem. To support a simplified task management tools with the ability to manage external engagement and connect to information context can be  a potential solution to the problem.

What is my conclusion? The simplification is a key word to summarize my thoughts. In many situations, engineers will prefer a simple task list to get things done. However, tools need to provide a collaborative capabilities to connect the engineer’s activity to other people and additional sources of information. Just my thoughts. I’m interesting to learn how you manage engineering tasks in your organizations.

Best, Oleg

Share

14 comments

Free is the best future price. If you follow my blog, you probably had a chance to read this post three years ago. The world of software is very different nowadays. Trends such as open source, software as a services (SaaS), freemium – this is only a short list of new business models. Earlier this year, I had a chance to run panel discussion – The Future of PLM business models at PLM Innovation conference in Munich. You can take a look on my slides here.

One of the interesting trends these days is a shift from ownership to share and services. It happens in different fields. My best non-software example is Michelin selling miles instead of tires and Zipcar share-car service.

The following blog post by Kenesto caught my attention couple of days ago – How to price PLM in the cloud? Kenesto believes  to innovate not only in cloud process management technologies, but also in the way this technology will be sold.

We believe that the cloud encourages changes to the way process automation software can — and should be — priced. So, we started from a clean sheet of paper when we decided how to price Kenesto. We don’t have legacy “seats” to preserve or boxes to push. We’ve not only changed the way process automation software works and is delivered, we also hope we have changed (for the better) the way people buy it.

In a nutshell, Kenesto is proposing companies to pay per bundle of processes. Pricing plans are available from 100 processes/month and up to 8000 processes/month. This process model made me think a bit differently about PLM pricing and  process management, specifically. Do you want me to sell processes “by gallons” as a gas? My expectation that process management software will streamline processes in the organization. What does it mean? Improve processes doesn’t say much if company has more processes or fewer processes. Who is responsible to set “valid amount of processes” for any organization? Another question that this model generated is how to make software cost predictable. Imaging tomorrow engineer cannot open ECO because of process limit. Does it sound crazy? Who knows…

What is my conclusion? The idea of PLMometer with customer credit card connected to processes counter is an interesting one. It sounds similar to Google pay-per-click model. You can print money based on the amount of processes used by engineering and other people in the organization. Pay per click worked for Google. Will it work for Kenesto? – a good question to ask. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

0 comments

Earlier this week, Kenesto – new outfit of Mike Payne announced about general availability of their cloud based business process automation services. If you missed the announcement, navigate your browser to the following link. I blogged about Kenesto before – PLM, Kenesto and Process experience. Released version brings some additional features such as a cloud viewer from TechSoft3D, enhanced reporting and few more. According to Mike Payne:

We have built a product which works the way people want it to without forcing them to change how they work and which delivers technology in precisely the way people want to access it. With Kenesto 2012 we have reached an objective no PLM system has achieved before: practically zero implementation costs for deployment or training.

Autodesk PLM360 vs. Kenesto. Data management is a difference.

Randal Newton of GraphicSpeak coined an interesting term – unPLM. Navigate to the article to read more. Randal is driving some parallels between Autodesk PLM 360 and Kenesto. He is speaking about the amount of processes / solutions as one of the differences, but not only. Here is an interesting passage from the article:

The first product that comes to mind when looking at Kenesto is Autodesk 360 PLM, the cloud-based product lifecycle management system introduced earlier this year. Look past the cloud deployment, the openness about pricing, and the browser-based work environment and there are many differences. Autodesk 360 is aimed at the traditional PLM market, engineering departments; Kenesto is looking at wider deployment in the enterprise.

The comparison between “traditional PLM market, engineering department” and “wider enterprise deployment” is something that caught my attention. I navigated to the previous GraphicSpeak article – Autodesk launches cloud-based PLM. Here is a quote with examples of PLM 360 apps:

Autodesk says 360 is made up of more than 140 apps so far, which can either be used as-is or modified by users. The apps so far fall into ten categories: Quality, Supplier Management, Engineering, Program Management, Service and Support, Operations, Sales and Marketing, Manufacturing, Executives, IT professionals.

It looks like PLM 360 is clearly focused on how to cover all organizational activity and not stopping on the level of PLM for engineering department. When Kenesto is focusing on business automation, PLM 360 provides much more by allowing to manage data and processes beyond engineering. In my view, flexible and adaptable process managament is probably a differentitation. Kenesto can provide it on top of Autodesk PM 360 in order to serve broader set of end users in organization focusing on processes rather than on data management. For the moment, PLM 360 cannot support such a level of flexibility, and it creates an opportunity Kenesto can use. The right question to ask – for how long?

What is my conclusion? Process automation is an important function of many systems and applications. It can be part of PLM, CRM, ERP and other solutions. From that standpoint, Kenesto can potentially serve a much broader audience. However, PLM 360 is managing data. Kenesto is not doing so (at least, for the moment). So, Kenesto can come to the play when data-management problems  already solved (or less important). Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

0 comments

PLM and Process Tools: Opportunity or Complication?

January 18, 2012

I’d like to talk about BPM again. I was writing about BPM in the past. Navigate to this link to take a look on few pasts topics related to Business Process Management. Almost four years ago, I asked a question – Should PLM develop its own process tools? I think, the question is still not [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Process Simplification – the next goal for PLM companies?

January 6, 2012

It was a long time I didn’t talk about process management. The importance of process management is obvious. One of the main questions, companies are asking for is how to make process management more efficient and less complex. For the last 5-6 years, PLM companies put a lot of emphasizes behind the process improvement. Almost [...]

Share
Read the full article →

PLM Storm and Infinite Processes

August 8, 2011

I’m still off on vacation until Wednesday. However, as my PLM blogging buddy Jim Brown mentioned on the Facebook – “Blogging is my crack habit” . I started to return to my blogging activities. My usual dispute with Jim was about PLM and Processes Management. So, I decided to come today with some notes related to [...]

Share
Read the full article →

PDM vs. PLM: A Process Perspective

August 17, 2010

I want to continue the discussion started last week in my post ‘PDM vs. PLM: A Data Perspective‘. Thank you all for comments and your contribution to this conversation. I think, clarification in this space can be very beneficial for customers, vendors and other people involved in planning and operation systems for product development, engineering [...]

Share
Read the full article →