Product data management (PDM) or product information management (PIM) systems provide the tools to control access to and manage all product definition data. It does this by maintaining information (meta-data) about product information. PDM systems, when tightly integrated with other product development tools, do this transparently and with minimal additional effort on the part of the user. In addition, PDM tools provide valuable functionality with process management particularly as it relates to configuration management or engineering change control. This environment is depicted below. PDM systems vary in their functionality, but some of their common capabilities are described below.
Access Control
Access control to each element in the product definition data base can be specified. Read only access can be given to personnel not directly involved with the design, development and planning process. Creation and maintenance access can be given to the individuals responsible for product and process design. As Product Data Management systems evolve towards Collaborative Product Commerce (CPC) systems which are used across multiple enterprises in a supply chain, access control becomes more critical and requires control to limit access to specific projects, products or parts for a specific supplier or customer.
Component / Material Classification
Components and materials can be classified and organized and attributes assigned. This supports standardization by identifying similar components/materials, eliminating redundancy, and establishing a preferred parts list. Establishing classes and subclasses with attributes allows a designer to search and select a needed material, component or assembly with minimal effort thereby avoiding having to re-specifying an existing or similar component or material.
Product Structure
Since the relationship of a product's parts is a logical one maintained by the information system rather than a fixed physical relationship as represented on a drawing, it is possible to readily maintain more than one relationship. This will allow different views of part relationships in assemblies to correspond to the various departmental needs (e.g., engineering and manufacturing product structures), while maintaining rigor and consistency of the product's definition through this single data base. Thus, this one logical data base can support product and process design requirements as well as maintain part relationships to serve as a manufacturing bill of materials for MRP II/ERP. In other words, PDM provides the ability to hold not just the physical relationships between parts in an assembly but also other kinds of structures; for instance, manufacturing, financial, maintenance or document relationships. So, it is possible for specialist team members to see the product structured from their point of view. Product data can be accessed via this complete Bill of Materials. This access includes assemblies, parts and related documents.
An integrated approach to developing, organizing and maintaining part and product definition data facilitates the design process, makes design data more readily usable and enhances integration with process requirements.
Engineering Changes
Engineering changes can be facilitated with this configuration management and administrative control embedded within the system. CAE/ CAD tools will enable engineering changes to be more thoroughly developed and analyzed to better define change impact. Once a design has been created, it can be checked-out electronically to a workstation for engineering changes. When the changes have been made, it can be returned to the central database and placed in a queue or an email notification sent for approval by designated parties. In this manner, a Change Control Board (CCB) can even "convene" and provide individual member's input electronically. In addition to supporting engineering analysis, information related to procurement, inventory, manufacturing and cost is available for members of the CCB to evaluate, designate the effectivity of the change and determine the disposition of existing items.
Process Management and Workflow
PDM systems support process management by defining process steps related to the development, distribution and use of product data. The process is defined in the form of specified process steps and release or promotion levels that the data must achieve. The manner in which the process is defined varies with every PDM system. Within a project, responsibilities are defined for the process steps - who needs to approve the data or work on the data before it moves to the next release or promotion level. While, the current process is defined in a company's configuration management or engineering change procedures and in its new product development process, often changes have to be made to take advantage of the communication and coordination capabilities of the PDM system. This new data is moved to the next person's "in basket" within PDM or an email notification is sent.
To start with, a solid model may go through many changes during the course of development, each involving modifications to the underlying engineering data. Often the engineer will wish simply to explore a particular approach, later abandoning it in favor of a previous version. Once the engineer is satisfied with the model for the activity that he or she is performing, the model and any other related data is submitted. The PDM system might then notify an analyst that the design is is ready to perform FEA stress analysis on it. When that task is complete, the stress analyst performs an electronic sign-off. The PDM system might then notify manufacturing engineer that the assembly or part design is ready to plan its manufacturing process and a tool designer might then be notified that the part design is ready for a tool design. After these tasks are performed, the individuals submit their data to the PDM system which maintains its association with the underlying product structure. A final step in the process might be a product team review and approval. After the team sign-off, the part or assembly would then be elevated to a release or higher promotion level. A similar, but different process may be established for engineering changes.
The PDM system must have the flexibility to establish the process approach that an organization uses for development, release, and change of engineering, manufacturing, and other related data. It must allow appropriate rules to be established to control the process. For example, the company could instruct the system to prevent an engineer from signing off an assembly for release until all its parts have been individually released.
Collaboration
Collaboration can be supported in several ways. First, a PDM system may be the gateway that a team uses to access the information under discussion avoiding the need to copy and distribute a series of paper documents. Second, the PDM system may provide a synchronous or asynchronous collaboration environment for team members to access, present, review and product feedback on product and process information. Further, this collaboration tool may incorporate a view and mark-up capability and the provide the ability to store marked-up files or documents by collaborator. Third, what are now described as collaborative product commerce systems (CPC), provide extended PDM functionality and access control outside the enterprise for customers, suppliers and interested third parties (e.g., regulatory agencies). This speeds the distribution of information, enhances coordination, and speeds the capture of feedback.
Benefits
A PDM system provides benefits in a number of areas:
Time-to-Market: Data is instantly available to all with access. There is no waiting for paper documents to be distributed nor time wasted while documents sit in an in-basket waiting for review. Time spent searching for component and product data is reduced. Collaboration features also speed and improve the process.
Improved Productivity: Studies have shown that engineers spend 25% to 35% of their time searching for, retrieving, handling, filing, and storing documents and information. This time can be reduced with a PDM system and its single repository, its classification and information structuring capabilities. The classification and search capabilities aid design retrieval, provide the opportunity to avoid "reinventing the wheel", and, as a result, reduce the related development effort.
Improved Control: Because PDM better manages configurations and assures that everyone is working from the most current data, it avoids problems of working with old data. Access control features assure that only authorized parties can access or change proprietary information. Control over engineering changes is improved with less manual effort.
2008년 6월 29일 일요일
Corporates Strategy
CORPORATE STRATEGY
There are four key aspects of corporate strategy. The first has to do with the strategic management of the current set of businesses in the company’s portfolio and the allocation of resources among them. The second related aspect is the creation of shareholder value through corporate strategy. These first two aspects—portfolio techniques and value-based planning—will be covered in this part(Chapters 6, 7, and 8). The third aspect has to do with the realization of synergies across businesses and the identification and management of direct linkages between businesses. The fourth aspect is the strategy of diversification, whether through acquisition or internal development. The third and fourth aspects will be covered in Part IV, Chapter 9.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CORPORATE AND BUSINESS STRATEGIES
For a company that has not diversified beyond its core business, corporate and business strategies are inseparable. For example, the Bacardi Corporation has been in the rum business since its founding, and, with the exception of a local beer in one small market, it manufactured no other spirits besides rum. Bacardi’s corporate strategy was to be in the "light spirits" business. Its business strategy focused on becoming the number-one-selling spirits brand in the world. It manufactured no vodka, scotch, or bourbon (keeping its focus on a differentiated, premium rum). Its corporate strategy was simply to locate its production facilities in a few strategic locations (close to sugar cane or close to markets) and to allocate its rum distillate and marketing talent to the most promising markets around the world. In this setting, notice how corporate and business strategies intermingle.
In 1993, however, Bacardi acquired Martini and Rossi, the Italian ver-mouth maker who had more than 100 brands and products in almost as many markets. Now Bacardi had a portfolio of liqueurs, scotches, cordials, and wines, as well as a hotel and a foods distribution business. The attention of senior management turned from the selling of rum to rationalizing a very diverse portfolio of products, brands, and operating companies (corporate strategy). Meanwhile operating management around the world focused on the specifics of competing in their various markets and businesses (business strategy).
The Bacardi-Martini example highlights some of the differences between corporate and business strategic management. As further illustration, listen to the different words used in conversation by managers engaged in each. At corporate headquarters of a diversified firm, you might hear executives speaking of major acquisitions in the works that are (or are not) synergistic with current business, how this might affect EPS and the tax picture, and what the cash-flow implications are. Finally, they might discuss whether or not the proposed acquisition will help move them more solidly into the "energy business" or "technology business." These corporate strategy discussions tend to be somewhat abstract in nature.
Now, at the division level you might hear discussions about working more closely with supplier X, meeting customer Y at a particular trade show, or planning a negotiating strategy for the next labor contract. This discussion might be coupled with speculation about how particular competitors are going to be handling the same issues. These are business strategy discussions.
Note how they reflect a world of tangible events, people, and things, whereas the corporate-level discussion dealt with more abstract concepts.
The classic argument that the railroads might have prospered in the wake of the growth of our highway system if they had defined their business as "transportation" rather than "railroads" was simply a suggestion to think of one’s business in more abstract (corporate) terms. Saying that your business is "transportation" does not tell you how to compete; that is, it does not define your business strategy—it merely helps to define your scope of activities. Although recognizing a business’s scope is important to survival in a changing world, it is clearly not enough. All three—corporate, business, and functional—are necessary strategic management activities.
CORPORATE STRATEGY IDENTIFICATION
When firms expand into a variety of businesses, they frequently transfer successes in the initial business to the subsequent businesses. For example, when Bic Pen Corporation expanded beyond ballpoint pen production into disposable cigarette lighters, it used the same plastic-injection molding technology and similar distribution channels to sell what was essentially another mass-marketed, disposable consumer item. The additional learning required to design and produce this new product was relatively low, given that the same technology was employed in the factory: plastic was injected into a mold to form a casing, into which dispensable liquid was poured, and metal parts were attached to dispense the fluid.
When firms adopt similar business strategies in different lines of business, they have adopted what we might term a generic business strategy across all their businesses. Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments are two firms that compete in various segments of the electronics industry, that employ generic strategies in many of their product lines, and whose generic strategies are quite distinct (see Table 6-1).
Using generic strategies to build a corporation from a variety of businesses implies the cloning of an original strategy onto new businesses. This, of course, is only one means of extending the boundaries of the corporation into new domains. To the extent that a corporation expands by building upon a core business and the set of skills embodied in that business, we can say that it is realizing synergies across its businesses.
At the other extreme are pure conglomerates, which are built through the acquisition of unrelated business. It was not unusual during the 1960s and the early 1980s for corporations to build conglomerates based on the theory that the acquisition of unrelated businesses in countercyclical industries would smooth out the cash flows for the whole corporation. This led to the development of a variety of portfolio planning techniques for managing corporate strategy by such firms as the Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey and Company. These techniques typically plotted the variety of businesses on a two-dimensional grid, with market position or market share on one dimension and industry growth or attractiveness on the other. The theory was that high-market-share businesses were likely to be lower-cost manufacturers than smaller-share businesses, simply as a result of volume or scale economies, which allowed those businesses to realize higher profit margins and greater cash throw-off per dollar of sales. With a portfolio of businesses, the cash throw-off from the better-positioned firms could be used to fund the growth of more promising—perhaps smaller-market-share—businesses in the portfolio.
Essentially, these portfolio techniques were cash management methods for diversified corporations. The details of this approach are outlined in the next chapter, "Note on Portfolio Techniques for Corporate Strategic Planning."
There are four key aspects of corporate strategy. The first has to do with the strategic management of the current set of businesses in the company’s portfolio and the allocation of resources among them. The second related aspect is the creation of shareholder value through corporate strategy. These first two aspects—portfolio techniques and value-based planning—will be covered in this part(Chapters 6, 7, and 8). The third aspect has to do with the realization of synergies across businesses and the identification and management of direct linkages between businesses. The fourth aspect is the strategy of diversification, whether through acquisition or internal development. The third and fourth aspects will be covered in Part IV, Chapter 9.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CORPORATE AND BUSINESS STRATEGIES
For a company that has not diversified beyond its core business, corporate and business strategies are inseparable. For example, the Bacardi Corporation has been in the rum business since its founding, and, with the exception of a local beer in one small market, it manufactured no other spirits besides rum. Bacardi’s corporate strategy was to be in the "light spirits" business. Its business strategy focused on becoming the number-one-selling spirits brand in the world. It manufactured no vodka, scotch, or bourbon (keeping its focus on a differentiated, premium rum). Its corporate strategy was simply to locate its production facilities in a few strategic locations (close to sugar cane or close to markets) and to allocate its rum distillate and marketing talent to the most promising markets around the world. In this setting, notice how corporate and business strategies intermingle.
In 1993, however, Bacardi acquired Martini and Rossi, the Italian ver-mouth maker who had more than 100 brands and products in almost as many markets. Now Bacardi had a portfolio of liqueurs, scotches, cordials, and wines, as well as a hotel and a foods distribution business. The attention of senior management turned from the selling of rum to rationalizing a very diverse portfolio of products, brands, and operating companies (corporate strategy). Meanwhile operating management around the world focused on the specifics of competing in their various markets and businesses (business strategy).
The Bacardi-Martini example highlights some of the differences between corporate and business strategic management. As further illustration, listen to the different words used in conversation by managers engaged in each. At corporate headquarters of a diversified firm, you might hear executives speaking of major acquisitions in the works that are (or are not) synergistic with current business, how this might affect EPS and the tax picture, and what the cash-flow implications are. Finally, they might discuss whether or not the proposed acquisition will help move them more solidly into the "energy business" or "technology business." These corporate strategy discussions tend to be somewhat abstract in nature.
Now, at the division level you might hear discussions about working more closely with supplier X, meeting customer Y at a particular trade show, or planning a negotiating strategy for the next labor contract. This discussion might be coupled with speculation about how particular competitors are going to be handling the same issues. These are business strategy discussions.
Note how they reflect a world of tangible events, people, and things, whereas the corporate-level discussion dealt with more abstract concepts.
The classic argument that the railroads might have prospered in the wake of the growth of our highway system if they had defined their business as "transportation" rather than "railroads" was simply a suggestion to think of one’s business in more abstract (corporate) terms. Saying that your business is "transportation" does not tell you how to compete; that is, it does not define your business strategy—it merely helps to define your scope of activities. Although recognizing a business’s scope is important to survival in a changing world, it is clearly not enough. All three—corporate, business, and functional—are necessary strategic management activities.
CORPORATE STRATEGY IDENTIFICATION
When firms expand into a variety of businesses, they frequently transfer successes in the initial business to the subsequent businesses. For example, when Bic Pen Corporation expanded beyond ballpoint pen production into disposable cigarette lighters, it used the same plastic-injection molding technology and similar distribution channels to sell what was essentially another mass-marketed, disposable consumer item. The additional learning required to design and produce this new product was relatively low, given that the same technology was employed in the factory: plastic was injected into a mold to form a casing, into which dispensable liquid was poured, and metal parts were attached to dispense the fluid.
When firms adopt similar business strategies in different lines of business, they have adopted what we might term a generic business strategy across all their businesses. Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments are two firms that compete in various segments of the electronics industry, that employ generic strategies in many of their product lines, and whose generic strategies are quite distinct (see Table 6-1).
Using generic strategies to build a corporation from a variety of businesses implies the cloning of an original strategy onto new businesses. This, of course, is only one means of extending the boundaries of the corporation into new domains. To the extent that a corporation expands by building upon a core business and the set of skills embodied in that business, we can say that it is realizing synergies across its businesses.
At the other extreme are pure conglomerates, which are built through the acquisition of unrelated business. It was not unusual during the 1960s and the early 1980s for corporations to build conglomerates based on the theory that the acquisition of unrelated businesses in countercyclical industries would smooth out the cash flows for the whole corporation. This led to the development of a variety of portfolio planning techniques for managing corporate strategy by such firms as the Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey and Company. These techniques typically plotted the variety of businesses on a two-dimensional grid, with market position or market share on one dimension and industry growth or attractiveness on the other. The theory was that high-market-share businesses were likely to be lower-cost manufacturers than smaller-share businesses, simply as a result of volume or scale economies, which allowed those businesses to realize higher profit margins and greater cash throw-off per dollar of sales. With a portfolio of businesses, the cash throw-off from the better-positioned firms could be used to fund the growth of more promising—perhaps smaller-market-share—businesses in the portfolio.
Essentially, these portfolio techniques were cash management methods for diversified corporations. The details of this approach are outlined in the next chapter, "Note on Portfolio Techniques for Corporate Strategic Planning."
전략이란 무엇인가?
A strategy is a description of the manner in which a company or enterprise intends to gain a competitive advantage. Strategies describe actions aimed directly at altering the strength of the enterprise relative to that of its competitors. Strategies should allow the enterprise to gain a relative advantage through measures its competitors will find hard to follow and allow the advantage to be extended even further. Strategy development results from the continuous application and interaction of three fundamental thinking skills -- identification of elements and scope, analysis, and synthesis. The basic elements of a strategy for an enterprise are -- the market (comprised of customers, competitors and technology embedded in a milieu of social, political, economic, demographic and scientific driving forces for change), stakeholders, enterprise capability and enterprise capacity. The enterprise capability and capacity are defined by it projects, resources and culture.There are seven basic innovation strategies:
Customer driven
Competition driven
Technology driven
Stakeholder driven
Project driven
Resource driven
Culture driven
In today's environment, it is highly unlikely that anyone of these pure, basic innovation strategies would yield competitive advantage for very long. The opportunities and threats in the market change too rapidly, and the desires of stakeholders are mercurial. Moreover, what will attract and develop the resources of an enterprise today will very likely not be the same next year. What is needed therefore is not the selection and adoption of one of the basic strategies, but a mix of strategies that could and will likely change over a relatively short time period. The innovation strategy of an enterprise must be balanced and dynamic.
Customer driven
Competition driven
Technology driven
Stakeholder driven
Project driven
Resource driven
Culture driven
In today's environment, it is highly unlikely that anyone of these pure, basic innovation strategies would yield competitive advantage for very long. The opportunities and threats in the market change too rapidly, and the desires of stakeholders are mercurial. Moreover, what will attract and develop the resources of an enterprise today will very likely not be the same next year. What is needed therefore is not the selection and adoption of one of the basic strategies, but a mix of strategies that could and will likely change over a relatively short time period. The innovation strategy of an enterprise must be balanced and dynamic.
2008년 6월 27일 금요일
What is PLM?
What is PLM?
The terms CAD, CAE, CAM don't seem to be good enough to describe what we are doing, so we're being subjected to having it called PLM. Should we go for it?
by MARTYN DAY, editor, Cadserver, April 15, 2002
To the uninitiated, the marketing surrounding the PLM bandwagon has been pretty impenetrable, following hot on the heels of other market analysis firms’ attempts to ‘talk up the CAD market’ with new three letter acronyms like Collaborative Product Commerce (CPC) and collaborative Product Definition management (cPDm).
The MCAD market has had to put up with a continuous barrage of new terms and three letter acronyms over the years but the effort to brand PLM as the collective title of many, linked, common engineering functions is several stages past traditional previous efforts at generating meaningless marketing roughage, I can only describe it as ‘marketing incontinence’. For instance in Daratech’s agenda for the conference, this description was printed to explain the topics for first evening’s dinner:
"A panel of senior executives from leading global manufacturing enterprises will share their vision and strategy for compressing time to market by streamlining and re-engineering their product creation process so as to better leverage, manage and reuse engineering and corporate data and knowledge, collaborate more closely and efficiently with suppliers and partners, integrate and coordinate CAD, PDM and PLM with enterprise systems and supply-chain partners, and exploit virtual prototyping and simulation to reduce or eliminate physical prototyping."
It’s English, but not as we know it. Unfortunately reading PLM-related verbiage or listening to someone effuse about it has a similar effect to a Botox injection to the brain.
There seems to be two problems with the marketing of PLM. The first is that all the players in the PLM game seem to be ‘feeding off each other’ in terms of the words used and general business language. The second point is that the area is so complex and all encompassing that it’s impossible to explain without the use of many other three letter acronyms or buzzwords. The net result is marketing documents that have very long sentences which contain a lot of ‘compressed information’. The reader has the choice to decrypt the marketing material, or decide that life is way too short for all this and wisely move on. I think someone has to point out that this is the complete opposite of what marketing is about.
Parlez-vous PLM?
Marketing aside, I will now attempt to give my understanding of PLM, in plain English. Traditionally the CAD market has been all about generating designs, in 2D or 3D software. As technologies progressed, the CAD programs incorporated more engineering know-how with new and developers expanding into parallel markets, like developing tools to manage the design files created in their packages (areas termed EDM and PDM). In addition, new products were created to enable the computerized machining from CAD models, together with utilities to test and simulate these complete digital mock-ups (called CAE, FEA etc.). Advanced users took on concepts such as defining entire product assemblies in CAD, deploying collaboration tools. While all this progress was useful in speeding up product design cycles, there were many ‘islands of automation’ and the integration of all these functions. Product Lifecycle Management is the term which is now being used to describe the process or wish to integrate these islands, producing a completely digital design through manufacturing solution.
The perceived benefits are pretty obvious but worth spelling out (not in any order):
1. Shorter Time to Market
2. Better product quality
3. Reduction in prototyping costs
4. Savings through the re-use of the original data
5. A framework for product optimisation
6. Savings in reduction in wastage.
7. Savings through the complete integration of engineering workflows
As things stand, you can’t go out and buy a PLM system as such, a turnkey PLM system doesn’t currently exist. PLM is more about the integration of existing enterprise systems (CAD/CAM, ERP, CAE, PDM etc.) together with new systems, like collaboration portals, to completely envelope and control the creation, test, manufacture, service, decommission and recycle processes.
So who is pushing this PLM re-branding of the industry? The main culprits appear to be the market analysis firms, namely Gartner, CIMdata and Daratech, all with their own individual take on what it means and terms to describe issues within it. Although, I have to say, the core terminology does seem to be converging on a group of common terms. Then there are the key developers, of which there are three; PTC, IBM/Dassault Systemes and EDS PLM Solutions Division (formerly UGS and SDRC). There are also several large-scale engineering customers driving forward with PLM requirements, these tend to be big spending automotive and Aerospace manufacturers, like Toyota, GM, Airbus and Ford.
With a group of powerful customers demanding a completely integrated solution, one can hardly blame the developers for creating tools to cater to their customer’s needs. The market analysis firms are there to report back industry trends and define segments and I guess that’s why PLM was born. The question is how relevant is all this is to other CAD-based engineering companies out there? I think I am struggling with the level of granularity of the whole concept, PLM is a ‘Macro term’, literally lumping every engineering system and process together, combining consultancy services with product sales and is going to be, by definition, a bespoke solution for each customer. PLM appears to be just a fancy new term for old fashioned Systems Integration but just adding-in the all the software product revenues too. If the PLM label is to be accepted outside of the key driving customers, then there is a big task to be done in improving the clarity of the message – pages and pages of buzzwords separated by commas does not a market make.
There are also technical hurdles to overcome for both customers and the software developers within the PLM space. It’s rare to find an engineering company with CAD tools from just one vendor, as many firms believe in buying the ‘best of breed’ solutions for each task within the manufacturing process. PLM is based on the model (or product definition) feeding data to all the other systems but by using multiple creation tools, frequent data translation become necessary and we all know that can compromise the richness of the data. However, to ensure that the model does not get compromised, PLM adopters are being advised that they should buy everything from a single source, to minimize the headaches and maximize the benefit. There’s also the argument that the more diverse your software suite, the more it will cost to integrate, as well as the continual problem of maintaining that integration when individual pieces of the software solution get updated.
Conclusion
There is a fair degree of collusion within the CAD industry, between vendors and analysts to 'talk up the market' and shake off the image of a tired, mature, slow-growing industry. On the face of it, this is not a bad thing. The problem is, is that it caters to a small number of customers and so appears to be market leading, not market led. Also, the concentration on PLM seems to be at the expense of all other areas (CAD, CAM, CAE etc.) and finally the marketing that is being generated appears to be all spin, no content and frequently beyond comprehension.
This year I daresay I will hear a lot more preaching about PLM from IBM/ Dassault, PTC and EDS and I will continue to strive to gain PLM enlightenment.
The terms CAD, CAE, CAM don't seem to be good enough to describe what we are doing, so we're being subjected to having it called PLM. Should we go for it?
by MARTYN DAY, editor, Cadserver, April 15, 2002
To the uninitiated, the marketing surrounding the PLM bandwagon has been pretty impenetrable, following hot on the heels of other market analysis firms’ attempts to ‘talk up the CAD market’ with new three letter acronyms like Collaborative Product Commerce (CPC) and collaborative Product Definition management (cPDm).
The MCAD market has had to put up with a continuous barrage of new terms and three letter acronyms over the years but the effort to brand PLM as the collective title of many, linked, common engineering functions is several stages past traditional previous efforts at generating meaningless marketing roughage, I can only describe it as ‘marketing incontinence’. For instance in Daratech’s agenda for the conference, this description was printed to explain the topics for first evening’s dinner:
"A panel of senior executives from leading global manufacturing enterprises will share their vision and strategy for compressing time to market by streamlining and re-engineering their product creation process so as to better leverage, manage and reuse engineering and corporate data and knowledge, collaborate more closely and efficiently with suppliers and partners, integrate and coordinate CAD, PDM and PLM with enterprise systems and supply-chain partners, and exploit virtual prototyping and simulation to reduce or eliminate physical prototyping."
It’s English, but not as we know it. Unfortunately reading PLM-related verbiage or listening to someone effuse about it has a similar effect to a Botox injection to the brain.
There seems to be two problems with the marketing of PLM. The first is that all the players in the PLM game seem to be ‘feeding off each other’ in terms of the words used and general business language. The second point is that the area is so complex and all encompassing that it’s impossible to explain without the use of many other three letter acronyms or buzzwords. The net result is marketing documents that have very long sentences which contain a lot of ‘compressed information’. The reader has the choice to decrypt the marketing material, or decide that life is way too short for all this and wisely move on. I think someone has to point out that this is the complete opposite of what marketing is about.
Parlez-vous PLM?
Marketing aside, I will now attempt to give my understanding of PLM, in plain English. Traditionally the CAD market has been all about generating designs, in 2D or 3D software. As technologies progressed, the CAD programs incorporated more engineering know-how with new and developers expanding into parallel markets, like developing tools to manage the design files created in their packages (areas termed EDM and PDM). In addition, new products were created to enable the computerized machining from CAD models, together with utilities to test and simulate these complete digital mock-ups (called CAE, FEA etc.). Advanced users took on concepts such as defining entire product assemblies in CAD, deploying collaboration tools. While all this progress was useful in speeding up product design cycles, there were many ‘islands of automation’ and the integration of all these functions. Product Lifecycle Management is the term which is now being used to describe the process or wish to integrate these islands, producing a completely digital design through manufacturing solution.
The perceived benefits are pretty obvious but worth spelling out (not in any order):
1. Shorter Time to Market
2. Better product quality
3. Reduction in prototyping costs
4. Savings through the re-use of the original data
5. A framework for product optimisation
6. Savings in reduction in wastage.
7. Savings through the complete integration of engineering workflows
As things stand, you can’t go out and buy a PLM system as such, a turnkey PLM system doesn’t currently exist. PLM is more about the integration of existing enterprise systems (CAD/CAM, ERP, CAE, PDM etc.) together with new systems, like collaboration portals, to completely envelope and control the creation, test, manufacture, service, decommission and recycle processes.
So who is pushing this PLM re-branding of the industry? The main culprits appear to be the market analysis firms, namely Gartner, CIMdata and Daratech, all with their own individual take on what it means and terms to describe issues within it. Although, I have to say, the core terminology does seem to be converging on a group of common terms. Then there are the key developers, of which there are three; PTC, IBM/Dassault Systemes and EDS PLM Solutions Division (formerly UGS and SDRC). There are also several large-scale engineering customers driving forward with PLM requirements, these tend to be big spending automotive and Aerospace manufacturers, like Toyota, GM, Airbus and Ford.
With a group of powerful customers demanding a completely integrated solution, one can hardly blame the developers for creating tools to cater to their customer’s needs. The market analysis firms are there to report back industry trends and define segments and I guess that’s why PLM was born. The question is how relevant is all this is to other CAD-based engineering companies out there? I think I am struggling with the level of granularity of the whole concept, PLM is a ‘Macro term’, literally lumping every engineering system and process together, combining consultancy services with product sales and is going to be, by definition, a bespoke solution for each customer. PLM appears to be just a fancy new term for old fashioned Systems Integration but just adding-in the all the software product revenues too. If the PLM label is to be accepted outside of the key driving customers, then there is a big task to be done in improving the clarity of the message – pages and pages of buzzwords separated by commas does not a market make.
There are also technical hurdles to overcome for both customers and the software developers within the PLM space. It’s rare to find an engineering company with CAD tools from just one vendor, as many firms believe in buying the ‘best of breed’ solutions for each task within the manufacturing process. PLM is based on the model (or product definition) feeding data to all the other systems but by using multiple creation tools, frequent data translation become necessary and we all know that can compromise the richness of the data. However, to ensure that the model does not get compromised, PLM adopters are being advised that they should buy everything from a single source, to minimize the headaches and maximize the benefit. There’s also the argument that the more diverse your software suite, the more it will cost to integrate, as well as the continual problem of maintaining that integration when individual pieces of the software solution get updated.
Conclusion
There is a fair degree of collusion within the CAD industry, between vendors and analysts to 'talk up the market' and shake off the image of a tired, mature, slow-growing industry. On the face of it, this is not a bad thing. The problem is, is that it caters to a small number of customers and so appears to be market leading, not market led. Also, the concentration on PLM seems to be at the expense of all other areas (CAD, CAM, CAE etc.) and finally the marketing that is being generated appears to be all spin, no content and frequently beyond comprehension.
This year I daresay I will hear a lot more preaching about PLM from IBM/ Dassault, PTC and EDS and I will continue to strive to gain PLM enlightenment.
2008년 6월 9일 월요일
PLM의 가치란 무엇인가?
PLM의 가치는 기업의 생존전략에서 제품중심가치로 생각한다는 것이다. 이전에도 기업은 제품의 중요성에 대해서 인식하였으나 PLM가치의 재발견은 기업이 이제는 제품중심으로 살아 남아야 한다는 것에 인식을 같이 하고 있으며, 기업이 제품으로 승부하는 것이다.
고객이나 시장에서의 선택은 기업이 창출하는 제품의 가치에 의해서 결정 된다는 것이다. 기업은 제품의 가치란 고객의 감정에 의해서 결정된다는 것을 인식하며,제품의 가치가 높다는 것은 시장에서 성공할 수 있는 제품일 것이다. 긍극적으로 PLM의 가치는 제품의 가치를 높여주는 것을 도와주는 것이다.
PLM의 가치는 4가지로 분류할 수 있다. PLM 사업가치(PLM Business Value), 목적(추구)가치, 영역가치, 활동가치(PLM Activity Value) 이다. 그리고 비즈니스가치에는 3가지가 있는데 기업중심의 가치, 시장중심의 가치, 고객중심의 가치이다. 그리고 목적가치에는 3가지이며, 제품을 생각하고(Think),만들고(Make),사용(Use)한다는 것이다.
고객이나 시장에서의 선택은 기업이 창출하는 제품의 가치에 의해서 결정 된다는 것이다. 기업은 제품의 가치란 고객의 감정에 의해서 결정된다는 것을 인식하며,제품의 가치가 높다는 것은 시장에서 성공할 수 있는 제품일 것이다. 긍극적으로 PLM의 가치는 제품의 가치를 높여주는 것을 도와주는 것이다.
PLM의 가치는 4가지로 분류할 수 있다. PLM 사업가치(PLM Business Value), 목적(추구)가치, 영역가치, 활동가치(PLM Activity Value) 이다. 그리고 비즈니스가치에는 3가지가 있는데 기업중심의 가치, 시장중심의 가치, 고객중심의 가치이다. 그리고 목적가치에는 3가지이며, 제품을 생각하고(Think),만들고(Make),사용(Use)한다는 것이다.
제품 프로세스란 무엇인가?
제품 프로세스정의
PLM에서 제품 프로세스는 제품구조와 함께 양대 개념 중에 하나이다. 그러나 많은 사람들이 프로세스라는 용어를 자연스럽게 사용하지만 프로세스란 무엇인가라는 질문에 대답하기는 쉽지 않다. 그래서 이 단원에서는 프로세스와 제품 프로세스 그리고 PLM에서 어떻게 구현되고 있는가를 생각해 보려고 한다.
우선 프로세스의 개념적 정의와 구조 그리고 PLM영역에서의 비즈니스 프로세스의 형태, 그리고 마지막으로 PLM시스템에서의 프로세스 구현방법과 대해서 기술하려고 한다. 보다 더 자세히 내용은 제2장의 PLM 프로세스와 제품 프로세스에서 설명하려고 한다
프로세스(Process)란 서로 연관성 있는 활동(Activity)들의 집합체이며, 커다란 프로세스는 한 개 이상의 부 프로세스(Sub-Process)를 가진다. 그리고 이 부 프로세스는 여러 개의 활동(Activity)들을 가지며, 이러한 활동 더 작고 간단한 임무(Task)로 나 누워진다. 이러한 임무는 아주 단순 단계(Step)로 구성되어있다. 그리고 특정한 목적을 가진 여러 개의 프로세스 집합을 일상적으로 시스템이라고 부른다.
보통 프로세스를 공정(Process), 절차(Procedure), 업무흐름(Workflow) 등을 혼용하여 사용한다. 공정이라는 것은 분명이 산출물(Output)이 목적이지만 절차는 반드시 산출물이 필요한 것은 아니라 과업의 완수가 목적이다. 업무흐름은 반복성이 있고 재사용이 가능한 복수의 공정과 절차의 혼합된 업무표현이라고 생각된다. 참고로 차이점은 절차(Procedure)는 과업(Task)의 완수가 목적, 실행에 초점, 서로 다른 복수의 목표를 가질 수 있다. 공정(Process)은 목표산출물의 달성이 목적이며, 운용에 초점을 두고 단일 목표를 가진다.
광의의 프로세스개념에서는 이세상에 존재하는 모든 활동을 프로세스라고 할 수 있다.그러나 본서에서 다뤄지는 것은 업무 프로세스(Business Process)이다.
PLM에서 제품 프로세스는 제품구조와 함께 양대 개념 중에 하나이다. 그러나 많은 사람들이 프로세스라는 용어를 자연스럽게 사용하지만 프로세스란 무엇인가라는 질문에 대답하기는 쉽지 않다. 그래서 이 단원에서는 프로세스와 제품 프로세스 그리고 PLM에서 어떻게 구현되고 있는가를 생각해 보려고 한다.
우선 프로세스의 개념적 정의와 구조 그리고 PLM영역에서의 비즈니스 프로세스의 형태, 그리고 마지막으로 PLM시스템에서의 프로세스 구현방법과 대해서 기술하려고 한다. 보다 더 자세히 내용은 제2장의 PLM 프로세스와 제품 프로세스에서 설명하려고 한다
프로세스(Process)란 서로 연관성 있는 활동(Activity)들의 집합체이며, 커다란 프로세스는 한 개 이상의 부 프로세스(Sub-Process)를 가진다. 그리고 이 부 프로세스는 여러 개의 활동(Activity)들을 가지며, 이러한 활동 더 작고 간단한 임무(Task)로 나 누워진다. 이러한 임무는 아주 단순 단계(Step)로 구성되어있다. 그리고 특정한 목적을 가진 여러 개의 프로세스 집합을 일상적으로 시스템이라고 부른다.
보통 프로세스를 공정(Process), 절차(Procedure), 업무흐름(Workflow) 등을 혼용하여 사용한다. 공정이라는 것은 분명이 산출물(Output)이 목적이지만 절차는 반드시 산출물이 필요한 것은 아니라 과업의 완수가 목적이다. 업무흐름은 반복성이 있고 재사용이 가능한 복수의 공정과 절차의 혼합된 업무표현이라고 생각된다. 참고로 차이점은 절차(Procedure)는 과업(Task)의 완수가 목적, 실행에 초점, 서로 다른 복수의 목표를 가질 수 있다. 공정(Process)은 목표산출물의 달성이 목적이며, 운용에 초점을 두고 단일 목표를 가진다.
광의의 프로세스개념에서는 이세상에 존재하는 모든 활동을 프로세스라고 할 수 있다.그러나 본서에서 다뤄지는 것은 업무 프로세스(Business Process)이다.
PLM의 다양한 정의
PLM의 정의는 제품의 전 생명주기(Lifecycle)를 통하여 제품의 관련된 정보와 프로세스를 관리하는 것이다. 여기서의 제품의 생명주기라는 것은 초기의 제품의 요구사항부터 개념정의, 개발 및 생산 그리고 유통과 서비스 마지막 단계인 운용 및 유지보수 그리고 폐기나 재활용까지를 의미한다.
이러한 정의 1990년 중반부터 시작하여 1977년 CIM Data는 PDM의 정의를 완성하였다. PDM은 설계자를 비롯한 관련 부서가 제품개발 프로세스와 이에 필요한 제품의 효과적 관리를 지원하는 도구이다. PDM 시스템은 제품의 설계, 생산 혹은 건설 그리고 유지보수에 필요한 자료나 정보를 관리하게 된다[CIM Data 1997].
2000년에 PLM이라는 용어가 등장하기 시작하였으며 초기에는 PDM 업계에서는 CAD, CAE, PDM, Digital Manufacturing의 통합의 의미로 받아 드려졌다. 그리고 다시 CIM Data는 2002년 PLM을 다음과 같이 정의하였다.
PLM은 사람과 프로세스와 비즈니스시스템과 정보를 통합한 개념부터 폐기까지의 확장된 전사적 제품의 정의 정보를 협업적 생성하고, 관리, 사용하는데 있어서의 비즈니스 솔루션 구성군을 적용하는 전략적 접근이다[CIM Data 2002].
PLM은 산업 생산제품과 관련정보를 개발하고 관리하기 위한 체계적이고 제어할 수 있는 방법이다. PLM은 제품의 전 주명주기, 초기 아이디어부터 폐기까지, 제품의 신제품개발과 판매 프로세스와 주문납품 프로세스를 동시에 제품관련자료를 관리를 수 있다고 주장한다 [Saaksvuori 2004].
또한 PLM 개발 업체들과 컨설팅 업체들은 자신의 관심사항을 중심으로 조금 다른 관점으로 PLM을 보고 있다.
PLM Development Consortium (University of Michigan ):
PLM은
제품 설계 개념에서부터 제조, 전개 및 유지 보수, 그리고 서비스에서 마지막 제품 폐기에 의한 제거까지의 제품의 수명주기의 모든 면에 통합된 정보 위주의 접근 방법이다.
Datamation: 기업의 지적 재산의 사용과 효율적인 유지를 위한 비즈니스 접근 방식이다. 기업 지적 재산은 기업의 목표를 달성해 가는 과정 속에 축적한 지식의 총체 (Product Definition, Product History, Best Practice)이다.
CIMdata: PLM은 협업적 창조, 관리 유통 그리고 인간, 프로세스, 비즈니스 시스템, 정보를 통합하는 제품의 정의정보를 확장된 기업에서 기획에서 폐기에 이르기까지 사용하도록 지원하는 일관된 비즈니스 솔루션의 집합에 적용되는 전략적 비즈니스 접근방식 이다.
Gartner: PLM은 기업과 협력 업체들에게 가장 큰 비즈니스가치를 전달하기 위해 개념에서 폐기까지 제품을 가이드 하는 프로세스이다.
SAP: PLM은 PDM의 확장된 형태로 이해할 수 있으며, 단순한 제품 정보의 통합 관리가 아닌 제품 라이프사이클의 지원을 위한 각종 진보된 기능들과 함께 설비/자산 및 품질, 환경/안전/보건에 대한 비즈니스 프로세스를 지원한다.
IBM: PLM이란 기업이 목표로 하는 저비용, 고품질, 개발기간 단축에 대한 요구를 충족하면서, 제품에 대한 설계, 생산, 유지보수에 이르는 전 공정에서 필요로 하는 모든 어플리케이션과 그에 따른 다양한 서비스를 함께 제공할 수 있게 하는 하나의 솔루션이다.
UGS: 포괄적인 PLM솔루션은 제품을 계획하고 출시하고 고객을 지원하는 동한 제품 수명주기에 관여하는 모든 사람이 협력할 수 있도록 함으로써 대규모 기업의 공동 작업을 편리하게 하는 것이다. (2007년 Siemens PLM Software로 사명 변경)
PTC: PLM은 제조업체와 그 파트너 회사들, 그리고 고객들이 제품의 전 라이프사이클에 걸쳐 협업을 통해 제품을 개념화, 설계, 제작 및 관리할 수 있도록 해주는 종합적인 기술 및 서비스 프레임워크 이다.
HP: 기업 내 혹은 연구개발부문의 정보관리에 그치지 않고 최신정보기술을 이용하여, 기획, 설계, 구매, 영업, 마케팅 및 A/S에 이르는 제품의 Life Cycle 전반에 걸친 업무의 협력체계(Collaboration)지원 및 정보의 Global한 지식화에 초점을 둔다.
PLM정의가 왜 이렇게 다양한 것인가? 이러한 것은 때로는 PLM 초보자에게는 혼란을 준다. 그러나 자세히 관찰을 해보면 모두 정확하게 정의하였으며 같은 것을 다양한 시각으로 정의한 것 뿐이다. 여기서의 다양한 시각이란 실제의 세계(Real World), 개념의 세계(Conceptual World), 그리고 전산환경의 세계(Computing World)를 통해서 본 시각 차이인 것이다.
PLM 컨설팅 업체는 PLM 비전과 가치와 개념에 대해서 관심을 가지며, PLM개발업체는 구체적인 구현과 시장성에 관심을 가진다. 그리고 경영학계는 실제 세계에서 일어나는 PLM의 실용적학문 관점에서 관심을 가진다. 이러한 다른 시각차이가 다양한 PLM정의를 가져왔다.
이러한 정의 1990년 중반부터 시작하여 1977년 CIM Data는 PDM의 정의를 완성하였다. PDM은 설계자를 비롯한 관련 부서가 제품개발 프로세스와 이에 필요한 제품의 효과적 관리를 지원하는 도구이다. PDM 시스템은 제품의 설계, 생산 혹은 건설 그리고 유지보수에 필요한 자료나 정보를 관리하게 된다[CIM Data 1997].
2000년에 PLM이라는 용어가 등장하기 시작하였으며 초기에는 PDM 업계에서는 CAD, CAE, PDM, Digital Manufacturing의 통합의 의미로 받아 드려졌다. 그리고 다시 CIM Data는 2002년 PLM을 다음과 같이 정의하였다.
PLM은 사람과 프로세스와 비즈니스시스템과 정보를 통합한 개념부터 폐기까지의 확장된 전사적 제품의 정의 정보를 협업적 생성하고, 관리, 사용하는데 있어서의 비즈니스 솔루션 구성군을 적용하는 전략적 접근이다[CIM Data 2002].
PLM은 산업 생산제품과 관련정보를 개발하고 관리하기 위한 체계적이고 제어할 수 있는 방법이다. PLM은 제품의 전 주명주기, 초기 아이디어부터 폐기까지, 제품의 신제품개발과 판매 프로세스와 주문납품 프로세스를 동시에 제품관련자료를 관리를 수 있다고 주장한다 [Saaksvuori 2004].
또한 PLM 개발 업체들과 컨설팅 업체들은 자신의 관심사항을 중심으로 조금 다른 관점으로 PLM을 보고 있다.
PLM Development Consortium (University of Michigan ):
PLM은
제품 설계 개념에서부터 제조, 전개 및 유지 보수, 그리고 서비스에서 마지막 제품 폐기에 의한 제거까지의 제품의 수명주기의 모든 면에 통합된 정보 위주의 접근 방법이다.
Datamation: 기업의 지적 재산의 사용과 효율적인 유지를 위한 비즈니스 접근 방식이다. 기업 지적 재산은 기업의 목표를 달성해 가는 과정 속에 축적한 지식의 총체 (Product Definition, Product History, Best Practice)이다.
CIMdata: PLM은 협업적 창조, 관리 유통 그리고 인간, 프로세스, 비즈니스 시스템, 정보를 통합하는 제품의 정의정보를 확장된 기업에서 기획에서 폐기에 이르기까지 사용하도록 지원하는 일관된 비즈니스 솔루션의 집합에 적용되는 전략적 비즈니스 접근방식 이다.
Gartner: PLM은 기업과 협력 업체들에게 가장 큰 비즈니스가치를 전달하기 위해 개념에서 폐기까지 제품을 가이드 하는 프로세스이다.
SAP: PLM은 PDM의 확장된 형태로 이해할 수 있으며, 단순한 제품 정보의 통합 관리가 아닌 제품 라이프사이클의 지원을 위한 각종 진보된 기능들과 함께 설비/자산 및 품질, 환경/안전/보건에 대한 비즈니스 프로세스를 지원한다.
IBM: PLM이란 기업이 목표로 하는 저비용, 고품질, 개발기간 단축에 대한 요구를 충족하면서, 제품에 대한 설계, 생산, 유지보수에 이르는 전 공정에서 필요로 하는 모든 어플리케이션과 그에 따른 다양한 서비스를 함께 제공할 수 있게 하는 하나의 솔루션이다.
UGS: 포괄적인 PLM솔루션은 제품을 계획하고 출시하고 고객을 지원하는 동한 제품 수명주기에 관여하는 모든 사람이 협력할 수 있도록 함으로써 대규모 기업의 공동 작업을 편리하게 하는 것이다. (2007년 Siemens PLM Software로 사명 변경)
PTC: PLM은 제조업체와 그 파트너 회사들, 그리고 고객들이 제품의 전 라이프사이클에 걸쳐 협업을 통해 제품을 개념화, 설계, 제작 및 관리할 수 있도록 해주는 종합적인 기술 및 서비스 프레임워크 이다.
HP: 기업 내 혹은 연구개발부문의 정보관리에 그치지 않고 최신정보기술을 이용하여, 기획, 설계, 구매, 영업, 마케팅 및 A/S에 이르는 제품의 Life Cycle 전반에 걸친 업무의 협력체계(Collaboration)지원 및 정보의 Global한 지식화에 초점을 둔다.
PLM정의가 왜 이렇게 다양한 것인가? 이러한 것은 때로는 PLM 초보자에게는 혼란을 준다. 그러나 자세히 관찰을 해보면 모두 정확하게 정의하였으며 같은 것을 다양한 시각으로 정의한 것 뿐이다. 여기서의 다양한 시각이란 실제의 세계(Real World), 개념의 세계(Conceptual World), 그리고 전산환경의 세계(Computing World)를 통해서 본 시각 차이인 것이다.
PLM 컨설팅 업체는 PLM 비전과 가치와 개념에 대해서 관심을 가지며, PLM개발업체는 구체적인 구현과 시장성에 관심을 가진다. 그리고 경영학계는 실제 세계에서 일어나는 PLM의 실용적학문 관점에서 관심을 가진다. 이러한 다른 시각차이가 다양한 PLM정의를 가져왔다.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)