A blog by Oleg Shilovitsky
Information & Comments about Engineering and Manufacturing Software

Why today’s CAD & PLM tools won’t become future platforms?

Why today’s CAD & PLM tools won’t become future platforms?
Oleg
Oleg
12 January, 2015 | 3 min for reading

yesterdays-tools-are-failing-todays-engineers

PLM business and software vendors are transforming. Manufacturing companies are looking for new type of solutions that can give a faster ROI as well as become a better place for engineering and manufacturing innovation. The dissatisfaction of customers about slow ROI and low value proposition is growing. Back in 2012 I was listening to Boeing presentation – Reaching for the value of PLM at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. You can read my notes in the old blog post – PLM Innovation: Who will provide PLM to Boeing in 2015. I hope to hear more about new PLM trends at upcoming PLM Innovation congress in Dusseldorf next month and later this year at PI Americas in Boston in November 2015.

Earlier last year I posted – Traditional PLM have reached their limits. My main point was around ability to PLM platform to support a continues pipeline of business solutions in current business environment. Integration is one of the key inhibitors that preventing easy PLM implementation and deployment. However, from a broader perspective, existing PLM platforms were invented 10-20 years ago and vendors made only minor changes since then. In my view it means a lot in terms of changing paradigms of today’s business and computing environment and processes.

I found an interesting explanation about distribution nature of design in a recent blog by OnShape by Jon Hirschtick – Why we started from scratch (again) in the CAD business:

The Design World Has Changed – The way that design and manufacturing teams work together has dramatically changed. Teams that used to be under one roof are now fragmented and globally distributed. And teams are also changing faster, with people coming on and off projects all the time.

on-shape-website

Another provoking statement was made by Autodesk CEO Carl Bass at few conferences last year – Why yesterday’s tools are failing today’s engineers”. He speaks abut inefficient tools and a conflict of paradigms. You can watch his presentation here:

carl-bass-why-yesterday-tools

My attention was caught by CIMdata post – Platformization: The Next Step in PLM’s Evolution by Peter Bilello. An article speaks about what future development can support PLM growth and, specifically, about the impact of circular economy in manufacturing. Here is an interesting passage:

So what should/will the PLM enabling innovation platforms of the future look like? In my opinion, these platform-centric solutions need to be reliable, robust, and boundaryless. Reliable solutions must be able to withstand multiple system upgrades and platform migrations. In turn, these robust solutions must be adaptable, maintainable, extensible, scalable, reconfigurable, compatible, and stable. And finally, these boundaryless solutions must be free of artificial limitations on functionality that are imposed by the marketplace segmentation of design and engineering systems with conventional architectures. Meeting these characteristics will be a tall order for many of today’s commercially available PLM solutions, but one that must be met for the future of PLM to be successful.

I specially liked a notion of boundaryless solution and conventional architecture. It hard to say what is behind, but I wanted to speculate and connect it one of my previous articles – the end of single PLM database architecture is coming. To me it make sense – the amount of data is growing, companies are getting even more distributed, distributed design nature becomes a norm.

What is my conclusion? Existing tools and platforms limitation can slow down engineers and companies to innovate. Desktop tools and existing database architectures are limiting ways to implement and use them for new innovative process. Future PLM platforms will re-think existing design, product data management and business process paradigms by making them distributed and boundaryless. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
2 April, 2014

In my recent post about bill of materials – Bill of Materials (BOM): process or technology challenge? I touched the variety...

15 October, 2012

Manufacturing Bill of Materials or MBOM. Where it belongs and how to support it right? Does it part of your...

3 January, 2013

It is always interesting to take a look and see what posts drove the most attention of my readers in...

19 October, 2011

Few days ago, I was talking about some interesting patterns of PLM and ERP implementation. In a nutshell, the integration...

29 October, 2010

So, it finally happened. After almost 6 months of official preparation, PTC launched a new product line – CREO. CREO...

29 November, 2011

As you know, I’m in Las Vegas these days attending AU 2011. Autodesk is preparing some big messages these years,...

12 December, 2020

As the year goes towards the end, it is a great time to make some conclusions and observations about what...

22 June, 2018

This week was busy for events. At the beginning of the week, I attended LiveWorx. I’m sure you had a...

31 March, 2021

I had a conversion earlier this week about the BOM revision process. I used the abbreviation “FFF” in my response...

Blogroll

To the top