Last 4 Standing

My previous article covered the newer and smaller Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) vendors and the strengths and weaknesses and what Westeros Kingdom they most closely resembled. This article will focus on the larger more established vendors in the space. Three of the four vendors have their roots in Engineering and Computer Aided Design while the other was one of the last free standing from scratch PLM companies before they were acquired by Oracle. On some level Enovia, Windchill PDMlink and Teamcenter resemble each other closely. When you get into the details there are some significant differences but all three mostly draw their customer bases from their CAD customers. Agile PLM benefits in a similar fashion from Oracle’s ERP and CRM clients but there are certainly times when all 4 companies compete directly. This article will attempt to provide enough perspective on the different capabilities and visions for these companies and of course most importantly which company is currently sitting on the Iron Throne. Although do keep in mind the past few sitting in that position did experience untimely and violent ends.

House Tyrell

Jim Brown, a known pundit on PLM and President of Independent Research and Consulting Firm Tech-Clarity wrote a series of articles recently on PLM Vision that reveals a lot on where each of these companies stand. Obviously, given my background and my company’s first-hand experience with Agile PLM and Windchill PDMlink, I have a lot of first-hand knowledge but I think it is worth leveraging these articles as well to better understand how each company positions itself in the market. In Brown’s article titled “Oracle’s Vision for Agile 2014” he discusses the history of Agile and how it was one of the first stand-alone PLM tools and had “a jump start on other vendors for product cost management (PCM), supplier management (SRM), and product compliance.” In today’s market these areas continue to offer Agile PLM a competitive advantage over other vendors due to the comprehensive nature of their solutions. Agile PLM particularly dominates high tech electronics and medical device market segments because of their robust feature in supply chain, product cost and compliance. Brown quotes an Oracle leader in the article as stating “We have CAD data management and so do they (the competitors). If you like yours, keep it, but if not, we can do that for you too.” As a primary resource for Oracle for Engineering Collaboration I can agree that Oracle does indeed have solutions in this area but I will also acknowledge that the native application for CAD data management usually offer superior capabilities for managing the output from CAD tools. Because of this Agile PLM does not dominate Industrial markets like Automotive, Aerospace, and Industrial equipment. Their coexistence strategy that Brown discusses in the article along with their tight integration to ERP systems like EBS and SAP is creating more opportunities in these markets. I would be remiss if I did not mention Zero Wait-State’s contribution in this area. Our DesignState platform was specifically developed to allow companies to utilize enterprise systems like Agile PLM alongside PDM centric tools like PDMlink/Intralink and EPDM and even Teamcenter Engineering. Another potential game changer for Agile PLM is their new Innovation Management Module. This application is built on Oracle’s Fusion platform and is fully integrated with Agile PLM while leveraging analytic technology from other Oracle applications. This solution has the potential to move up the window of PLM to include early iterative activities in product development and to allow companies to make better choices about where to spend their innovation investments. Engineering data management is one of the weaker links for Agile PLM mainly in contrast to their competitors. The products Agile PLM offers do work and in comparison to no system at all they work well but obviously the developers of the CAD tools will always have a built-in advantage. Oracle’s overall size and their breadth of offerings give Agile PLM an enormous advantage in most situations and this dynamic to me most closely resembles the kingdom of the Reach and South ruled by the House Tyrell. They obviously do not rule but as we learned this season they have substantial resources to make things happen and typically get the things they pursue. The Tyrell’s are known for their political cageyness and certainly Oracle parlays their position within companies to further promote their technology.

House Baratheon

A telling quote from Brown’s article on Dassault titled “Dassault Systemes PLM Vision 2014” reveals the puzzle that is Enovia. The quote reads, “Today, DS talks more about “3DExperience” than PLM.” Given the acquisition history of Dassault and the various platforms they have merged to create Enovia, I am not sure we are even comparing apple to apples anymore with Enovia. Brown does reassure his audience with this statement, “The only time that existing customers should grow concerned is if DS appears to be moving away from supporting, enhancing, and growing the core technologies. DS shows no sign of that, and my conversations lead me to believe the DS execs are keenly aware of the value of their existing assets and customers.” Assuming this is true companies who are heavily invested in Catia and buy into their vision of the “3D Experience” should be well served into the future. It seems however they have less to offer those companies that intend to leverage a variety of design and enterprise tools to generate their product data and wish to leverage this information throughout their organization. Dassault’s vision seems somewhat comprehensive and singular and breaking off pieces of it to suit a specific business need might be difficult. Another interesting dynamic is the customer base at Dassault given their ownership of SolidWorks. Catia, Dassault’s flagship design software is widely adopted in Aerospace, Automotive and Defense industries. Typically, the companies that use this software are larger organization like Boeing or Airbus or their suppliers. Enovia is ideally suited for managing the output from Catia but somewhat less so for SolidWorks. SolidWorks thrives as a product due to its ease of use and attracts a larger variety of companies than Catia and a large number of these companies are smaller than Catia’s typical customer. EPDM is widely recognized as the data management tool of choice in this space and there is no integration that I am aware of between EPDM and Enovia. There is a SolidWorks connector for Enovia but most of the feedback I have received on this product is that it pales in comparison to EPDM. The fragmentation creates vulnerabilities for Dassault in that other PLM vendors can step in and offer better solutions to SolidWorks clients which limits Enovia to a smaller user base. Dassault’s hope I suspect is to grow up their SoidWorks clients and move them to Catia and Enovia but this is not happening. They have deliberately limited EPDM’s technical growth and there is no integration between the two products which forces companies to choose. If Dassault’s 3D Experience resonates then companies will move toward the Enovia platform. If it doesn’t it will open the door to competitors. CAD neutral vendors like Agile PLM, Aras and Arena benefit from this dynamic. It seems that Dassault’s strategy is to transcend PLM and embrace a broader context of product development and this could yield more substantial returns. It is possible their higher end customers are driving them in this direction and the benefits will either trickle down or there will be fractures in the adoption of their PLM tools. This high risk gambit reminds me of Stannis Baratheon’s attempt to seize the Iron Throne. High risk High rewards. Like Stannis and his kingdom of the Stormlands Dassault pushes the envelope in an attempt to redefine product development and the technology needed to support it.

House Arryn

Siemens Teamcenter can trace their origins back as far or farther than any of the companies I have analyzed. Originally, Teamcenter was the CAD data management platform for SDRC Ideas which was eventually merged into UGS which was then acquired by Siemens. Brown’s article on Teamcenter titled, (can you guess) “Siemens PLM Vision 2014”seems to contrast Enovia. He describes it as “a broad but focused PLM suite, offering customers more of the same”. He also claims that Teamcenter may be the most CAD centric of all the PLM platforms possibly managing more CAD data from different vendors than any of the CAD based PLM systems. My experience may be limited but at least in the US I am not sure this is true. While there are probably more instances of Teamcenter being used by non UG companies than PTC or Dassault I suspect the vast majority of their client base is still driven by the ownership of their CAD platform. Because of that they seem to put a lot of their energy into making this part of their product most robust per Brown’s article. They have developed complimentary solutions in compliance, mechatronics, shop floor/ manufacturing instructions etc. and all of this increases their appeal to the engineering centric companies that own their design software and makes it very hard to displace them. They are still dealing with the consolidation of the different platforms they have acquired but Brown seems to think that most of the issues around their multiple technologies are becoming less problematic. The area where I think Teamcenter struggles is when you start to look beyond engineering and manufacturing and take a more enterprise centric perspective at product development. Integrations to CRM and ERP and leveraging analytics across the enterprise are areas that Teamcenter tends to lag. Supporting other CAD tools is also something they would struggle with in spite of Brown’s assertions to the contrary. I would imagine going head to head with PTC in a Pro/Engineer (I just can’t bring myself to call it Creo) environment would be tough sledding. Overall Teamcenter is a solid solution with a lengthy track record of success in engineering oriented companies. They are leveraging their ownership by Siemens to provide better and more comprehensive manufacturing support at the shop floor level. Given the history and the focus of the company I think they most closely align with the Kingdom of the Mountain and the Vale ruled formerly by the House of Arryn and now in the hands of Littlefinger. The Vale can trace their roots back to the First Men and they are extremely secure in their well- defended and geographically protected area. They are not necessarily able to project their power outward but would be tough to displace.

House Lannister

By process of elimination we are left with PTC and Windchill PDMlink. A pioneer in both Solid Modeling and the management of the output PTC has an impressive customer list and an aggressive business model. As one of the last freestanding CAD companies they have a “grow or die” mindset that drives their approach to PLM. In Brown’s article on PTC’s strategy titled, (wait for it) “PTC PLM Vision 2014” he coins the term “adjacency”. He defines this by describing how, “PTC has always looked to solve more problems for their existing customers as opposed to looking for brand new markets to serve.” How this plays out is that they focus their development and acquisition strategy to add complimentary capabilities like technical document publication (Arbortext), or service lifecycle management (SLM, Servigistics). In contrast to Teamcenter, they don’t necessarily go deeper they go wider but unlike Dassault they try to stay close to their existing footprint. The nice thing about this approach is that they are always adding complimentary solutions that their existing customer base can benefit from. The downside is that their enhancement of current solutions does not get the focus it might need. Brown’s article also describes how with these new acquisitions PTC is content to coexist with other solutions in the enterprise. If this is true then it is a softening of previous strategy where PTC was extremely aggressive in attempting to own all aspects of a company where their technology was available and strongly discouraging any integration. This might have been limited to Windchill itself but given PTC’s position in the world they could benefit from a more collaborative business model. Much like Siemens and Dassault, PTC derives a majority of their customers from their CAD user base. Their ability to manage engineering information continues to be their core strength. Configuring Windchill for enterprise users and addressing enterprise requirements for configuration management and change management can become quite involved and even though they have made strides in their user interface it still presents a formidable learning curve for casual users. This is also true for the other CAD oriented PLM systems. Most engineering users don’t take much notice but there is always significant pushback from others. Given the size of and quality of their engineering customer base PTC had a significant head start on other PLM vendors and this shows in their numerical advantage in PLM. But their lack of an enterprise footprint and the financial backing of companies like Siemens, Dassault, and Oracle certainly puts them in the crosshairs. Also their strategy of adding complimentary tools can cause some disenchantment among existing customers which could lead to defections from both CAD users and PLM clients. This is why I associate PTC and Windchill PDMlink with the Kingdom of the Rock and the Lannisters of Casterly Rock. Like the Lannisters they are on top but “uneasy rests the head that wears the crown”. The other Houses have their sights set on leadership and PTC must step up the quality of their existing products in order to hold off the competition.

A Game of Thrones

This was fun to write and hopefully to read and while obviously somewhat tongue in cheek there is useful information here to evaluate the vendors in the PLM market space. While all of the companies mentioned have worthy offerings it really depends upon an organization’s circumstance to decide which is best for a company. There seems to be a sentiment that the current vendors have reached some sort of plateau and that PLM is limited but I think among these vendors companies have good choices for PLM technology. Making sure your processes are well defined and match your company’s needs is a far more important process that the implementation of a technology. It is easy to get swept up in the latest technology trends and jump at gimmicks like social media or cloud but ultimately whatever technology is selected needs to well suited for a company’s culture and business requirements. Aligning your PLM platform to your business issues will pay far more dividends than any ROI from a software purchase.