John Sperling, a seasoned expert in engineering and enterprise software development, recounts the history of technology in manufacturing and how developments in CAD and PLM operations has propelled the industry to where it is today.
The ’80s are also when I came into what would become the PLM market, working as a CAD support engineer in aerospace. Between then and now, I’ve seen my fair share of technology transitions. For example, in hardware from mainframe to minicomputer to a workstation to PC. Or for CAD graphics from wireframe to surfacing to solid modeling to parametric (or variational). Or CAD Data Management from hard drive to shared drive to PDM to PLM. What drove these transitions? Did the old idea run out of steam or was a new idea fundamentally better? Was the Peter Principle in operation here?
When it comes to computing hardware, Moore’s Law has reigned supreme over the last half-century. Progressive miniaturization at the IC level led to smaller boards, to smaller enclosures, to smaller rooms (and then no special rooms) needed to house the devices. But when you look at each of these devices along the way, they’re pretty much doing the same thing, converting inputs to outputs using digital logic. They just got smaller.
With CAD graphics, those smaller hardware devices also became a lot faster. As a result, you could deal with more complex mathematical representations. But surfacing isn’t just wireframe done faster, just as solid modeling isn’t surfacing done faster. There are different paradigms involved; the old way just wouldn’t be able to cut it at the next level. It’s a step-change, not a curve.
Learn More: VPN Leak Test: Is Your VPN Working? If Not How to Fix ItOpens a new window
What about CAD Data Management?
In the 80s, the focus was on files. Data, not metadata. How much metadata did a DOS file have? Not a lot. And about the only difference between local hard drives and shared drives was that A) you could see other people’s stuff, and B) there were some permission controls to prevent you from deleting that stuff. The focus was still on files, with most information locked up inside the file and only useable by the person authoring it. It was when PDM first came along that we saw higher-level, metadata-driven considerations needed to be accounted for—versioning. dependencies. lifecycle state, and reserve for edit. But it was still focused on the primary element, the file. For CAD vendors, the invention of PDM systems wasn’t just a step change but a whole new separate product to solidify their market position for their CAD system. As the 80s became the 90s, we saw the golden years of PDM, of purpose-built systems to do one thing and one thing only: manage CAD data really well.
Now the mechanical engineers didn’t want to admit it, but they knew all along that 3D CAD design didn’t exist in a vacuum. Sure, the average car didn’t have a single line of code, but disciplines like systems engineering, quality management, and manufacturing process planning all existed back then. When the engineers realized PDM systems had to broaden their horizons, the road to PLM began. But vendors with a CAD background couldn’t very well throw the baby out with the bathwater, so the focus remained “CAD first.â€
Learn More: Creating Business Value with Intelligent AutomationOpens a new window
Some disciplines could certainly be forced to fit within a PDM construct. A part’s BOM is like a CAD assembly without files. Managing an Office document has a lot in common with managing CAD files. But some things don’t fit. Quality FMEAs? Process Plans? Simulation models? Often the vendor acquired another tool—the PDM of another domain—and sold it separately, integrated on PowerPoint but not in reality.
The reality is that PLM is a very different animal than PDM. It’s not all about CAD and it’s not all about files. The goal isn’t to optimize a single domain, but to optimize a business process across many constantly shifting domains. Once you realize there can’t be such a thing as “best practices†in the product development space without sacrificing competitive advantage, you’re left with providing flexibility. Flexibility to define data management functionality that fits what your company needs to achieve across those multiple disciplines. Flexibility to preserve customizations when you upgrade to the next version of the software. PLM systems designed from the ground up upon flexibility and upgradeability are what can truly deliver results, both today and through the transitions to come.
It seems pretty clear to me that while PDM software excelled at one level, it became a failure when “promoted†to the higher-level undertaking of PLM—a classic example of the Peter Principle.
Let us know if you liked this article on LinkedInOpens a new window , TwitterOpens a new window , or FacebookOpens a new window . We would love to hear from you!