The Death of PLM

So, what comes to mind when you hear someone talk about PLM? Nothing, more than likely. There can be no experts because it cannot be standardized!! It is just a broad obscure term many PLM Gurus toss out there to impress other PLM Gurus. They have huge seminars babbling their obscure unattainable concepts, mostly focused on the future of PLM, since it's basically unworkable today. Communicating in mysterious acronyms only they know. Not one of these PHD's, yes most are PHD's, has one hour working in the engineering process, yet they are experts on how engineering works. Beware, these pedantic frauds are going after manufacturing. Luckily, manufacturing must get things made and have no time for this nonsense. I am wondering if a PLM PHD can even be taught?

"Find the best Product Lifecycle Management Software for your business. Compare product reviews and features to build your list."

"(Company) has decided to install "3D experience Catia V6". This entails CAD and PLM integrated system. As a design engineer, I loathe this. The package deteriorates the design productivity by at least 50%. It is not completed, it is full of bugs that we are being promised by DS "the next" upgrade will fix. Which it does, with about 50% success and introduces a new batch of bugs...

In short, if anybody was to listen to my engineering experience, I would rather work on the drawing board than with this, unfinished, slow, pretentious, software that has no place at a facility like this."

This answers any question why the major aircraft companies have not moved to Catia 6?
It has only been out since 2008. 11 YEARS???

"The revolution devours its own children," once claimed the French revolutionary leader Danton when he was sent to the guillotine by a 1794 tribunal; an institution he helped to set up. This applies not only to major social upheavals, but can symbolically represent major PLM decisions. If you fail to land a big PLM bet, the response tends to "eat" those who were responsible.

For Swedish telecom giant Ericsson, that image has become a reality today: virtually everyone who had some responsibility for the company’s 2016 decision to invest in the 3DEXPERIENCE (3DX) platform, from French PLM developer Dassault Systèmes, as the replacement for its old mainframe solution, has resigned, been fired or switched jobs. The installation is, globally, one of the largest in the PLM area and impacts around 25,000 users.

I have watched as the PLM folks try to convince us that this is some sort of proven science. It is nothing of the sort. I have seen article after article questioning the state of this industry. I have come to the conclusion that “PLM” is a "catch all" name for what used to be call "Project Management". We all know that PLM is overly complex, demanding self-defined "experts" to implement, use or consult. Driven by the popular CAD vendors, trying to lock the customer into their product, forever. The basic problem with PLM and its ugly step child MBE is that it is impossible to standardize. We have a very easy document control system concept that is not based on the CAD system.

PLM & PDM Defined

The Data Management Mess

PLM is trying to utilize the native 3D CAD data as the engineering documentation deliverable to other departments or outside suppliers. It really can only be used within the CAD system by the experienced "CAD Operator" (don't you hate that term, LOL). But to deliver our information to the outside world we need an easy to duplicate, accessible and usable "standard" engineering documentation format.

I have actually talked to a engineering manager that was sending dxf's of their drawings to their suppliers generated from Microstation instead of a PDF print. I have no idea how the supplier utilizes this. DXF is hardly a standard, it is bad enough coming out of Autocad. I as sure the suppler just prints them from Autocad or even worse a 3D CAD package.

The basic 3D MCAD operating paradigm shared by all of the popular program was developed by PTC with Pro/e in 1988. All of the 3D CAD programs in those days were sold as a better and faster way to create the drawing. But these were not drawings they were, what I have coined, AIDs (Associated Information Documents). Much, much different than a manual or electronic (Autocad) drawing that is created by generating non-associated orthographic views.

For the life of me, is this so hard to understand?

Until the late 1990's, actual paper prints of these completely detailed AIDs along with the 3D model was the only engineering deliverable. Now, enter the data management folks with the "prime directive" of eliminating the paper print. It was funny this was when Catia 5 was being released and Boeing was quite instrumental in implementing the PLM and MBE.

Their solution was only could be called a "3D drawing". They called it the PMI (Product Manufacturing Information). This was to replace the AID as a paper document that travelled with the 3D model.

2. Managing a single engineering file

But at what cost, it created a multitude of new problems. Since it was the native CAD file it had to have a native viewer. It cannot be standardized for obvious reasons, but I will tell you: "There are 5 very popular incompatible 3D CAD systems".

Today's popular 3D MCAD program are made up of separate part, assembly and AID files. PLM thought this was the only 3D CAD format. There were a few programs that had the AID integrated in the single part/assembly file. Imagine if Boeing would have standardized on that functionality. I guarantee you there would be no MBE or PMI or even a PLM.

Today the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is trying to create a STEP format that would include the PMI and each system would have to create. But remember this is MBE (Model Based Enterprise) which means the model is the authority. Boeing takes this quite seriously, demanding the suppliers purchase a validation program to assure the native 3D model is the same as the model that goes into the CAM system if they are not using Catia. Apples to Apples? of course. But those in charge do not create parts, they have no idea of how parts are created. So a STEP translation would not satisfy Boeing. But the supplier works around this by having Catia 5 translators in their CAD or CAM program. That is the purpose for the validation programs.

Here is another interesting 3rd party add-on that brings the bizarre MBE concept full circle.

Two of the popular CAD vendor have show an incredible ignorance of the MBE or MBD (Model Based Definition). They are even confused on what it is called, but we can't blame them, neither can I!

Sadly, the PDF was just around the corner but the die was cast. Would we even have a PMI if we could have used the AID in the form of a PDF and became the standard?
Again, of course not.

Please read this article. Realize that the problem of revisions has been solved for centuries.

Topic: E(E): One Revision to Rule Them All

You can see from the article that there is a huge confusion in the PLM/PDM community. I was made aware of this from the complaints I was getting from my Boeing suppliers. They just ended up working around the PLM and MBE (Model Based Enterprise) requirements. Boeing has even developed a Producibility Group that reviews "released" engineering because there was so many bad designs being delivered to the vendor!! Do you know what they eliminated.

The checking process.

I have watched Ed (the author of the above article) complain and complain about PLM. He is very clever and smart yet he never comes up with any solutions. It is very easy to see why, there are so many problems with this system and with no commonality there is no place for persons or groups to start to fix it.

The current PLM experts do not have the applicable knowledge of what engineering has to deliver to Manufacturing. None have ever even created a part/assembly, documentation and released it to manufacturing.

Here is a quote from that article.

“So, typical document (e.g CAD assembly or drawing) will have document number and additional version / revision. One of the common mistakes (especially in small companies) to use document number as identification for parts. This is wrong. The right identification for parts is Part Number. Parts have no versions and revisions.” Oleg Shilovitsky

The above statement must be taken out of context. The document he is talking about is the drawing. The drawing number becomes the part number. There is no part until someone used the drawing to create the part. What would we call it? Oleg must have never thought this through. I am sure that Oleg has never designed and drawn up a part, checked it and released it into the system. He, for sure, has never revised a drawing. Can he really not know that the drawing number becomes the part number? Even today the file number is the native CAD file number. We call it the drawing or file number until the part is made, then and only then, does it become the part number. Of course, he is completely unaware of dash numbers! How could he miss this?

It is common engineering documentation knowledge!

This shows a complete lack of understanding the purpose of engineering. But as you can see in the "SW/PTC misunderstand MBD" articles, this ignorance runs rampant. I can guarantee you that PLM and MBE will "never" fill that purpose. My problem is that these Infotech PLM gurus are like the fox in charge of the hen house. There seems to be no way to wake up engineering management. That is, of course, if they want to be woken up. They can just keep writing these huge checks to keep the system operating at optimum inefficiency.

Engineering’s only purpose is to make available concise, complete and unambiguous documentation to manufacturing.

Please read Oleg articles he seems to be the most outspoken authority on all things PLM.

It truly is quite shocking that those that are defining PLM have never study the standard document control of the past. It is very simple. It is also shocking that so many BSME, MSME and PHD's in engineering have dedicate their careers to PLM, MBE and data management. Didn't they ever dream of designing spacecraft, aircraft even telephones? I have worked on those! I will tell you, the document control of the past was manned by low paid administrative folks working in a very simple and uncomplicated standard system.

What do drawing or part revisions consist of? You can see that the revisions are not explained, just called revisions. They could be for errors, modifications or a new part design. The revision is defined by a letter. The drawing will have a history of the revisions. How could anyone that is devising a new system over look this?

How did we make small changes and communicate them to manufacturing. We didn't want to revise a drawing! We would create ADCNs (Advanced Drawing Change Notices). These were 8.5 x 11 sheets released and attached to the drawing. Today you have to directly change the 3D model. I will tell you the PLM Guru has no idea of what I am talking about.

Most of the revisions affect the dash numbers. Dash numbers are part of the original part number and will be revised for a variety of purposes after the initial release. If you have a released part in the field you have to create a new dash number even if they serve the same purpose if their configuration is noticeably different. Let's say we are lightening the part. You need to have a new dash number and the assembly and any tech pubs have to reflect the change. Engineering documentation was done by the draftsman. Today, many large companies have eliminated drafting. Sadly, many have eliminated the standard engineering process of creating, checking, release and maintenance of the documentation. They don't seem to realize this was the only final product of engineering. I will state this again "The creation of concise, complete and unambiguous documentation."

But remember most projects are released and the engineering is archived. In the past the drawings, as prints, were always available for new projects. Today, all we did was add the 3D model. How can it now be more complex and confusing than when the engineering was based on the manual drawing?

Engineering documentation is not live data.
The faster it is archived the better.

I am sure Oleg's confusion comes from having the 3D model available and thinking that the 3D model is the part. Today, we create the AID (documentation) after the modeling of the part. This can get confusing and, of course, give a different viewpoint of the process. I have found that these PLM gurus are not in engineering but are Infotechs in computer data management and have not studied the past "standard engineering system" as it relates to documentation. Sadly, their ignorance is quite on display to a seasoned draftsman!

"The 3D model is not the part, but a pattern,
it is just half of the documentation"

It is interesting, I am sure that many of these PLM experts do not know that the assembly AID is a schematic delivered to manufacturing to show the assembly process, working with with the finished delivered parts.

Here is an honest comment from a PLM expert on the PLM PDM CAD Network on Linkedin.

It is going to take more than disruption to cure PLM. It is going to take a fresh exterior look at what is really happening with engineering documentation. We need to take engineering out of out of the hands of "Data Managers" and the "Inspection Department" and put it back in the hands of the engineers. Boeing got rid of the Drafting Department and are letting the drafters retire and replacing them with degreed engineers. Drafting was the group that was responsible for maintenance and management of the engineering documentation. Sadly, Boeing did not prepare the engineers for this transition and the added responsibility.