Simplify, simplify

I’ve been talking with a lot of engineers and scientists outside the typical PLM realm about their work, the processes the use and the IT tools they rely on — and the answers are forcing me to redefine how I see enabling tools.

It’s all about perspective. I’m a naval architect and marine engineer by training. That means I (used to) know all about steel, marine engines, why things float, how to keep propeller cavitation at bay and so on and am used to a certain way of looking at technical problems. Engineers like me do things in teams and need to collaborate. We are held accountable for every ounce of weight or other critical measure in the design, and need to source the component parts for our designs from third parties. We often shepherd a product from conceptual design through production, and take maintenance and support into account when we design rev 2.0. We rely on CAD, simulation, data management, reference databases for material properties, collaboration tools and manufacturing planning solutions to get our work done.

But what if we didn’t do our jobs this way and didn’t, therefore, need those tools? What if those tools are too complicated and expensive for our work processes? How can PLM suppliers tailor their solutions to meet these new user communities? Can it even be done? I think so.

I’ve been talking with very smart, experienced people who create photovoltaic cells, the coatings that make glasses change color when exposed to sunlight, and other exciting new materials that will make our lives better — and their processes are completely different from what I’m used to. These people are often lone rangers, the only ones doing their particular function at multi-billion dollar enterprises. They publish articles in scholarly journals, not to a data management system. They are mystified when I ask about data management for collaboration or handover because they don’t do that. They keep notes in paper lab books that are stored in honest-to-goodness metal vaults off-site, not digital vaults. They don’t always have databases of material properties and often start with fundamental chemistry. Imagine starting with F=ma for every engineering problem and you get the idea.

Yet these are cutting-edge scientists and the very people that solution providers would love to have as clients, given the saturation in established PLM territories like auto and aero. How can the solution providers tailor solutions to these users? By making 5 fundamental changes, which I think would benefit many other PLM users, too:

• Simpler. Very few people need a CAE solution that can solve every possible problem. Each analyst likely solves a variation on the same problem every day. In addition to offering a full-up version, create subsets of solvers, pre- and post-processors to make them easier to use for a specific type of problem. Along the same theme, most data management solutions are overburdened with complex workflows and processes. Pare these down so that initial implementations are less intimidating and solve a specific problem; let the installation grow if needed and desired, once the initial problem is solved.

• Sharper. I’m hearing a lot that users perceive their favorite solution suppliers as moving away from technical solutions on to gain a greater presence in their customer accounts. It seems that the more technical the user, the more focused they want their key solution suppliers to be.

• Cheaper. Creating subsets should also have the added benefit of lowering costs to the user. Time and again I hear that the main obstacle to an implementation of is cost.

• Easier to buy. Tied to “expensive” is “hard to justify” and “can’t get approval for”. Many people have told me that it’s pointless in this economy to try to sell anything at the divisional level, let alone corporate. But if a specific user can make the case, they can often buy a piece of software and get reimbursed. One user can turn into 2, then 10 …

• Friendlier. Solution suppliers are fiercely competitive and believe that their products are the best. But the reality is that no customer company today is homogeneous; every user must move data between applications. Create mechanisms to allow data to flow among and between CAD, CAE and other solutions — and perhaps these scientists who today see no use for tools like ours may be won over.

I think the current trend for tools that purport to solve all possible problems is typical of technology. Look at Microsoft Word. Enormously powerful, can create reports/letters/brochures/you name it — but is almost impossible to use for simple writing. Maybe it’s time to step back and reflect on how to simplify what the user really needs, package and price it accordingly, and let them buy it in a way that suits them.

Of course, this is all easier said than done. What do you think? Send a comment!