How to change existing PLM User Experience

Good point Oleg, although two major differences between PLM and an Ipad (and its application) :
– the ipad has one implementation for every user, not much customisable. I think that could/should be possible for PLM, but we are years from that. Customers still require a lot of customising.
– Almost each application added is a data silo and needs additionnal application to sync like ( zappier).

And you obviously took SAP with one of the worst UI in the PLM industry! not really fair 😉 !

Hi Oleg,

really true, I only can confirm it (I
give PLM trainings regularly).

I see in many companies that most cause
for heterogeneous UI are heterogeneous requirements. It is often combined
with (mentioned you) data model driven implementation. The administrators understand
business requirements as a request for a data model extension and not as a
frontend for the business process.

I had very good experience with PLM programmers who
worked for years for an engineering department as a user. They have another
view on the problem and UI. Even although many software tools are not adjustable
very well, they always could come to a user-friendly solution.

Alexander

Alexander, thanks for your comment! The example of programmer that was a user before is a good one. I like that. It reminded me that – “you can only learn how much your design sucks when you watch people use it”

Loved that Jobs video. As much as I am not a fan of Apple, it’s pretty obvious he was a stellar CEO and a prime factor in Apple’s rise.

A couple of thoughts here that you haven’t already touched on:

1. Users never had a say in software selection, and real, honest usability is rarely a criteria other than some generic checkbox on a vendor proposal. Maybe that’s starting to change, but I still see too many implementations where users are merely pawns in a larger IT game.

2. Most of the established PLM products have long legacies and as such they aren’t really one product but many stuck together and sold as one product. What that does to interface, and data models is rather predictable: users suffer from a Frankenstein effect of the underlying code.

Bad PLM user interface is what got me blogging in the first place, one of my early posts covered exactly that: http://eng-eng.com/enterprise-ui-users-say/

Granted some progress has happened in a few years and it should have, if no progress happened then the problem would be indeed terrible.

Active Workspace is an enigma for me, having used it even in it’s earliest iterations. They are certainly trying, but they are doing it wrong. Even after several years it only has the most basic functionality, and they advertise it as a client for non-core users, i.e. those that were suffering with the absolutely tragic browser-based thin client of many years past. But the data model and functionality underneath is the same old same old, it’s just a new coat of paint. So the question of how long to re-implement is no time at all, because Teamcenter is still there. That’s understandable considering they don’t want to upset current customers, but it’s not helping. Meanwhile RAC users are suffering with the same old stuff. Not to mention AW was put together with the Win8 design aesthetic which has been long eclipsed. Considering their last major redesign aesthetic before that was modeled after MS Outlook again gives you some idea of the glacial pace that’s not good enough anymore.

If anyone in the PLM space wants to get serious, waterfall client development has to go bye-bye. It need to be a continuous, constantly updated and iterative exploration of some new ideas. I’m not sure most of the PLM incumbents have the requisite bravery to do that.
Bottom line, points for trying, but I’m not seeing as much progress as I would like to see.

Fair enough. 🙂
RAC = Rich Access Client. It’s the primary Teamcenter Desktop Client, the only one that has the full set of functionality. It’s locally installed on each machine. Many of the CAD integrations are dependent on the RAC. If you spot a couple Teamcenter consultants talking shop and they start talking about the “rack” this is what they are referring to.