I was catching up on social media reading over the weekend, and my attention was caught by Matthias Ahrens post speaking about about multi-CAD PDM support and federated PLM architecture. Check this out here. Here is the key passage:
….it seems that each PLM system has its favorite CAD system, which it can work with best in class. Probably from the same vendor? These leads to the long-term strategic question to either select the primary mechanical CAD package according to the PLM decision or to select the PLM system according to the primary CAD package decision?
In reference to the multi-CAD challenge this could drive the federated PLM landscape approach into two different options. Either to run a single PLM system, serving multiple CAD packages or to orchestrate multiple PLM systems, while each ist setup to serve one CAD package best in class?
This inquiry brings up a fundamental dilemma in the PLM industry: whether to adopt a fully vertical monolithic CAD-PDM-PLM architecture or embrace a federated PLM approach with multi-CAD bundles. Let’s talk about it in the article today.
Historical Context: PLM and CAD Integration
Traditionally, the architecture of PDM/ PLM systems has been tightly linked to CAD architecture and PDM options. At the beginning, PDM was just a way to manage files. But both technology and business pushed CAD vendors towards creation of advanced solutions and deep integration between CAD and PDM. While CAD vendors didn’t monopolize their CAD from integration with other PDM/PLM products, most of them created a “preferred bundle”. I wrote about it my article – How CAD vendors murdered PDM business.
The roots of the transformation is in the need for seamless data exchange and process integration between product design and lifecycle management tools. The evolution of CAD tools necessitated corresponding advancements in PDM systems to manage and utilize the complex data generated during the design process effectively.
Deepening Integration: Benefits and Challenges
The trend towards deeper integration between CAD and PDM systems has aimed to capture more detailed information and enhance the depth of integration. This approach enables more comprehensive data management and streamlined workflows, providing significant advantages in product development efficiency and accuracy.
However, this increasing integration also introduces additional complexity. Supporting and navigating CAD-PDM bundles can become cumbersome, with potential challenges in maintaining system compatibility, data consistency, and process alignment. As the integration deepens, the difficulty of managing these interconnected systems grows, posing a significant challenge for organizations. It was pushing some of the customers to to go with multiple CAD/PDM to ERP integrations and use ERP as a “single source of truth”. Some others are looking into a dominant federated PLM platform to integrate with multiple CAD/PDM solutions.
The Impact of Cloud-CAD Development
The development of cloud-based CAD solutions further complicates the landscape. Cloud-CAD systems brings PDM functionalities ‘buil-in’ which makes PDM inseparable from CAD. In this case, companies don’t have much choice than consider PLM federate architecture. Organizations don’t have much choice rather than to figure out the architecture to integrate with multiple CAD/PDM bundles (for MCAD, ECAD, etc.)
The Dilemma: Monolithic vs. Federated Architecture
The trend of CAD/PDM bundles (both functional and cloud-based) raises critical questions about the future of CAD-PDM-PLM architecture, as the traditional boundaries between these systems blur. Organizations must consider how to adapt their PLM strategies to accommodate these emerging cloud-based tools. This evolution leads to a crucial dilemma: should organizations opt for a fully vertical monolithic CAD-PDM-PLM architecture or a federated PLM approach with multi-CAD bundles? Let’s discuss what are pros and cons of both.
Monolithic CAD-PDM-PLM Architecture:
This is a traditional architecture supported by all CAD vendors. The main idea here is simple – CAD vendors are responsible for the integration and customers prefer to work with a single vendor. It is a deep vertical architecture.
Advantages:
- Centralized control over data and processes.
- Streamlined workflows and user experience.
- Enhanced data consistency and integration.
Challenges:
- Potential vendor lock-in and lack of flexibility.
- Scalability issues as organizational needs evolve.
- Complexity in management of multi-disciplinary design data
An additional challenge of this option is the cost of implementation and customization because vertically integrated systems don’t pay enough attention to openness and interoperability. Check my article – Post Monolithic PLM world.
Federated PLM Architecture with Multi-CAD Bundles:
This is PLM holy grail for many years. The idea of PLM overlay exists for many years, but technologically and organization wise it was difficult to implement. Things are changing with advanced data management, REST API and cloud-based technologies. Here are proc and cons.
Advantages:
- Flexibility to integrate best-of-breed solutions.
- Scalability to adapt to changing business needs.
- Enhanced collaboration across diverse systems and teams.
Challenges:
- Potential complexity in managing multiple, interconnected systems.
- Ensuring data consistency and interoperability.
- Increased management overhead and governance requirements.
The opportunity in this option is to bring modern technologies in data management, data integration and leverage the trend towards openness. Check my early article about breaking future monolithic architectures.
Emerging Trends
I can see several key trends are shaping the future of PLM and PDM systems that important to mention to understand the potential risks and opportunities in this market. Among them modern integrations, reality of businesses and product development process as well as new data management and AI technologies. Here my 3 favorite trends:
Increased Cloud CAD-PDM Bundles: The rise of cloud-based CAD solutions that integrate PDM functionalities directly, offering streamlined and scalable options for organizations. Cloud CAD platforms provide seamless REST API support which simplifies the integration of data and processes.
Multi-Disciplinary Design Reality: The growing need for multi-disciplinary design capabilities makes fully integrated CAD-PDM-PLM options challenging but potentially feasible with advanced integration technologies. There is need to integrate MCAD, ECAD, PCB and other design options anyway.
Development of Federated Semantic Product Data Modeling: Advancements in product data modeling for PLM, supporting integration with multiple CAD-PDM bundles and file-based CAD systems, are emerging. These developments promise more robust and flexible data management solutions.
What is my conclusion?
The Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) vendors faces a critical decision: to embrace federated CAD-PDM and PLM architectures or continue pushing for monolithic, vertically integrated systems. What future PLM software architecture will look like? The critical demand to get an access to up to date information coming from multiple processes such as computer aided design (CAD), quality management (QMS) and other business systems, pushes everyone (customers, CAD software and PLM solutions developers) to explore better integration and federation options.
I advocate for modern federated systems, as it offers a more agile and robust approach. The future belongs to open product models delivered through cloud technologies, with advanced product knowledge models capable of seamless integration with multiple data sources. This direction promises greater flexibility, scalability, and collaboration, ultimately driving innovation and efficiency in product development processes.
Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg
Disclaimer: I’m co-founder and CEO of OpenBOM developing a digital-thread platform with cloud-native PDM & PLM capabilities to manage product data lifecycle and connect manufacturers, construction companies, and their supply chain networks. My opinion can be unintentionally biased.
