Plm rev5 innovation 2012


Published on

PLM implementation approch.

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hello Everyone, Today I’m going to speak about how to set up a successful business transformation through implementation of a PLM platform.
  • Cover topics
  • Wide variety of products for both Medical and Dental Imaging
  • We are a global company and have development and manufacturing sites world wide. Built from mergers and acquisitions so we have a wide variety of corporate and geographic cultures.
  • General Picture of the inefficient and ineffective information sharing and utilization within Health Group PCP related information has been grouped into 4 major categories – Project Related Information (DHF - schedules, risk management, gate deliverables, meeting information, discussion databases and so on) Product Design Information (DMR – Parts, BOM, specifications, configurations, change management, packaging, labeling, service procedures and methods, production procedures and methods) Product Manufacturing Information (DHR – build information, serial numbers, verification records, receiving records, inspection records, supplier CAPAs, inventory, purchasing info, shipping information) Product Service Information (Customer problems, service call information, product installation and service history) Global - Information sharing examples: Global design transfer (214, Columbia to Shanghai) Production transfer (214, Columbia to KEPS)
  • We inherited a mess. Caused by the IT cost center mentality, under investment causes many point solutions to be implemented and little architecture consideration.
  • Demands on key knowledge workers are ever increasing.
  • Left text box – Removed extra space before “knowledge” Left text, 3 rd bullet – Was “Home” intentional? If so, no prob. Right text, 1 st bullet – Changed “Ensures” to “Ensured”; removed cap from “scalability” 4 th bullet – Changed “Leverages” to “Leveraged” – Unless you want all of this text to be in present tense. If so, everything needs to be changed to present tense, i.e., allows, focuses, ensures, improves, leverages… Nice bridge.  I said this on my first pass. Now that I am reviewing the slide show – this is YOUR photo? It really is GRAND!
  • 1 st line – Inserted “the” before capabilities and removed “that” 2 nd line – Removed extra space after “platform” 3 rd line – Applied apostrophe to “partners’” and added a hyphen to “long-term” 4 th line – Inserted an en dash before “fully” Last bullet – Added a hyphen to “high-level”
  • Title – Changed the hyphen to an en dash; capitalized to “Yourself” Bulleted text – The title indicates “advice” – present tense; changed “Looked” to “Look”; aligned text Text within boxes – Centered all text left to right and to to bottom; also initial capped primary text. Moved bottom arrow up a bit Bottom line of text – Recentered.
  • Left text – Initial capped all necessary text. 6 th bullet – Inserted an en dash to be consistent with 5 th bullet formatting. Right text – Removed underline, applied bold font; applied bullets; reduced space between bulleted text; made all ellipses the same length. 5 th bullet – Changed to “tags”; last bullet (models) are the “gifts” that “keep on” vs. “gift that keeps”
  • NOTE: There is something wrong with the transition from slide 19 through 20. I checked the original slide show and the same thing happens. 19 stays on screen, use down arrow, it zooms through slide 20, and sticks to slide 21. I’ll let you deal with this. Moved text box to the right. Nice cheesecakes… ;o) 2 nd line – Inserted a serial comma after “estimates” 3 rd line – Inserted “and” before “maximized”; set off “along the way” with commas. 4 th line – Added a hyphen to “third-party”; nice way to get advice 5 th line – Inserted a serial comma after “drivers”; “deeply understand” is excellent Last line – Inserted a serial comma after “risk”
  • Left, 2 nd gray box – Removed extra space before “Definition” Centered things; made the boxes equal in size; lined things up, indented text, added spacing, etc.
  • 1 st subject – Inserted “both” before “internal and external” and placed a semicolon after “external” Changed all hyphens to en dashes with a space on each side. 2 nd subject – Removed period after “Responsibilities” 3 rd subject – Inserted a serial comma after “Clearquest” 4 th subject – Changed to “Clean-Up” Last subject – Changed to “Back-Up” Last line – Stretched and centered
  • 1 st check mark, center – Indented text. Upper right text – Placed a serial comma after “Nets”; changed hyphen to en dash after “Dashboards” Bottom left, 2 nd text box – Changed hyphen to en dash after “CM” Bottom, right yellow text box – Removed Period after “Services”; removed extra spaces after “Management”
  • Title – Changed hyphen to an en dash. Note: Top line within flowchart – “Proce..” Process is cut off. Key Points – Removed underline; applied bold 1 st subject– Added a hyphen to “use-case” 3 rd subject – Added period after “vs.” 4 th subject – Added “are” after “Lanes” and removed capitalization from “organization” and “independent”
  • Streamline flow of data between functional organizations and across sites. Remove the gaps (inefficiencies and ineffectiveness). Enables cross-site standardization (collaboration with Shanghai, Oakdale, Rochester 214)
  • Recentered mid graphics, but during slide show the pointer does not settle back down at center…
  • Title – Added hyphen Moved text box to the left and increased space between bulleted text. 1 st bullet – Removed capitalization to “process”; changed the comma to a semicolon; removed period after “adoption” 3 rd bullet – Removed the underline in the space after “process”; inserted an en dash before “not”; removed cap to “technology” 5 th bullet – Added a hyphen to “self-paced” and fixed the rest of the formatting; added a comma after “deliver” and inserted “it’s” after “but.” Photo – Moved to the left a bit.
  • Applied bullets because it is easier to read. 2 nd bullet – Capitalized to “Source” Last bullet – Change “Learnings” to “Findings”
  • Title – Changed the dash to an equals symbol and changed the “and” to an ampersand so you can keep the normal title text. 1 st bullet – Inserted a serial comma after “locations”; replaced ellipsis with en dash; changed “key to ubiquitous access internal and external” to “key to ubiquitous internal and external access” 3 rd bullet – Changed the ellipses to the regular three periods. 4 th bullet – Removed period at the end of the statement. 5 th bullet – Changed to “e-Signature Help” and moved it to the second line; 2 nd to last bullet – Changed “, that” to “, which” Last bullet – Placed an en dash after “Core” and changed “its” it “it’s” (it is) Stress subscription based model, crazy spreadsheets, Subscription is Predictable. What is the true financial risk? Open source gives maybe the SW for free BUT not free to implement so we needed a win win partnership Once implemented its ours… free to scale!
  • Yikes!! Title – Fixed up with en dashes and spacing changes. Top section, 2 nd left line – Added hyphens Last line – Removed space after forward slash Top section, right text – Added periods to all abbreviations of “Mgmt.” Right, last line of red text – Capped to “Phase”; removed extra space after “Dropped” 2 nd to last line of text – Removed extra space before the symbol and centered. Bottom text, right – Fixed all of the en dashes. Last line – “PLI” or “PLM”?
  • 1 st line – Capitalized to “Points” Moved text box to the right; moved bullets to the left. 1 st bullet – Change “worker than” to “worker that” 2 nd bullet – Removed all of the extra spaces; inserted an en dash before “verification…”; also – Do you mean “Part 11” or “Phase 2”? 3 rd bullet – “OOB solution”? Is this correct? If so, cool. Table, right column, first line – Fixed spacing in text by removing extra spaces. 2 nd line – Removed space before “$165” 3 rd line – Changed to “Closed-Loop” with a hyphen Cover the cost model benefits
  • Title – Removed extended ellipsis to three periods and added a question mark. Moved text box up and to the right. 1 st line – Moved to flush left. Bullets – Changed font size and spacing
  • Plm rev5 innovation 2012

    1. 1. Global New Product Commercialization Product Lifecycle Management Implementing Successful Transformational Change David G. Sherburne Director Global R&D Effectiveness And Engineering IT (and PLM simple license model advocate)
    2. 2. Topic Outline- The PLM Journey <ul><li>Snapshot of Carestream </li></ul><ul><li>Globalization –The forcing function </li></ul><ul><li>Insights for setting up a successful transformation </li></ul><ul><li>Carestream Case Study </li></ul><ul><li>Take- A – Ways </li></ul><ul><li>When to consider an upgrade to a PLM system </li></ul><ul><li>Forming a PLM project and choosing partners </li></ul><ul><li>Benchmark data for estimation purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Another PLM friend for your network </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>An independent company with a proven track record and $2.5 billion in revenue </li></ul><ul><li>A world leader in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical imaging … digital and film </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Healthcare information solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dental imaging and dental practice management software </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Molecular imaging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-destructive testing </li></ul></ul>Carestream Health – Who We Are
    4. 4. Global R&D and Manufacturing Manufacturing R&D Both Manufacturing and R&D Oakdale, Minnesota Shanghai, China Windsor, Colorado White City, Oregon Rochester, New York Yokneam, Israel Ra’anana, Israel Baltimore, Maryland Atlanta, Georgia Woodbridge, Connecticut Toulouse, France Paris, France Xiamen, China London, United Kingdom Berlin, Germany Guadalajara, Mexico A global company with Manufacturing and R&D locations around the world
    5. 5. <ul><li>Globalization was required to meet the business needs of our company </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Desired access to global talent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Needed a balanced cost structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presence in emerging markets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Impact of Globalization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration became more time consuming via e-mail, uncontrolled data sharing with partners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complexity in the organization increased as projects globalized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge-workers’ time was drained, impacting innovation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Productivity of NPD remained roughly flat </li></ul></ul>The Business Challenges
    6. 6. Non- Standard Commercialization Process 02/29/12 Gaps between blocks represent inefficient manual sharing of information. Innovative people innovate many local processes. Local resources focus on product families Complexity increased as work required flow between sites.
    7. 7. Point Solutions worked but lacked proper architecture to enable global productivity Enterprise PDM Authoring MCAD Tools NX Pro/E SolidWorks AutoCAD ECAD Tools Mentor DX Cadence OrCAD Altium Software Authoring Desktop Tools (Browser, MSOffice, etc) EE File Shares, library cache MQDS SAP Lotus Notes DB CAPA SOP DA MMR Lotus Domino DocManager Version Control Tools DOORS Requirements Management Tools Clearcase Subversion PVCS StarTeam ClearQuest Defects Enhancement Requests BOM Electrical Part Data, RoHS Part Data CAD Files PDF’s Quality Center External Systems Standalone Systems Manual Integration Automated Integration Information Flow No Integration No Integration No Integration No Integration MS Project Team Room CAPA CAPA Confluence Excel Sys 9K RoHS, DoC, MSDS (no home) CAD Files PDFs CIDx Intralinks Teamcenter File Shares EQDS CQuest No Integration No Integration No Integration Problem was caused by an “IT Cost Center” mentality and non- coordinated local efforts
    8. 8. <ul><li>Quality and Compliance must be maintained in our business </li></ul><ul><li>Project teams are split across several locations </li></ul><ul><li>Platform development adds complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Iterative methods required faster information transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Faster prototyping cycles are needed for hardware </li></ul><ul><li>Design for manufacturability and supplier IP capture are critical as ties to the supplier base weaken </li></ul><ul><li>Access to historical data is needed to improve planning, compare reliability, and drive improvements to the development cycles </li></ul><ul><li>Engineers are required to do deeper analysis to ensure product quality </li></ul><ul><li>Requests for metrics are ever increasing and are difficult to produce </li></ul><ul><li>Disjointed IT and Non-Standard process environment kills collaboration </li></ul>Demands on Workers are Ever Increasing
    9. 9. Holistic PLM Approach- Its not just a simple arrow anymore <ul><li>People were Co-located and Focused </li></ul><ul><li>Global Leadership </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focused Organization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Awareness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leading multi-Cultural Change </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solid Partners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Global Applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solid Infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Master Data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Change Management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete Team </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Balanced </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Closed Loop </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inclusive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>End to end integrated </li></ul></ul>1990s PLM was technology driven, supporting local needs Global and Distributed Environment Today PLM must improve organizational performance
    10. 10. CTO Office CIO Office Director R&D Effectiveness David Sherburne <ul><li>Alignment with IT </li></ul><ul><li>Ensured scalability </li></ul><ul><li>Architectural focus and alignment </li></ul><ul><li>Improved on-going services </li></ul><ul><li>Leveraged strengths of both groups </li></ul><ul><li>Vertical Business Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Subject Matter Experts </li></ul><ul><li>Middle Managers </li></ul><ul><li>Finance </li></ul><ul><li>Alignment with R&D and Manufacturing </li></ul><ul><li>Allowed focus on business knowledge and needs </li></ul><ul><li>Focused time to support initiative </li></ul><ul><li>Home for continuous improvement </li></ul>Leadership Governance
    11. 11. Technology Partner Selection <ul><li>Examined our business objectives and the capabilities we were lacking </li></ul><ul><li>Examined market options for both the application platform and implementation services </li></ul><ul><li>Started evaluation process early to learn partners’ depth and long-term approach </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasized building relationships </li></ul><ul><li>Contracted the implementation partner to help make the final application selection </li></ul><ul><li>Used a rigorous evaluation process against the high-level functional AND businesses requirements </li></ul>
    12. 12. Partner Selection Model – Give Yourself Time <ul><li>Business Objectives </li></ul>ID Capabilities Missing ROI of New Capabilities Strategies to Obtain Capabilities Business Requirements Write Key Use Cases Final Selection of Partners Request for Information Request for Quote Time ~ 9 months 1½ FTEs <ul><li>Look for a strategic relationship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Share in risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offer flexible terms in line with business ROI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remain a partner during implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Keep costs in line with benefits </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. License Models Proposed During Process <ul><li>Models Proposed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Named User </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Module Based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business User or Engineering User </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geographic Location Based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise – Based on Revenue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subscription – Based on Total Users  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Source </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No Concurrent User Models Offered </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many License Models </li></ul><ul><li>Discourage access to data… </li></ul><ul><li>Are costly to pilot functionality </li></ul><ul><li>Front load cost and risk </li></ul><ul><li>Complex and difficult to predict total capital costs </li></ul><ul><li>Place crazy price tags on document management and simple workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Tanked the ROI </li></ul><ul><li>Cause crazy behaviors </li></ul><ul><li>Are the gifts that keep on giving… </li></ul>Right People Right Information Right System Right Time
    14. 14. Partner Selection Process Benefits <ul><li>Allowed us to refine the requested information and expectations over a period of three cycles with suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>Drove internal understanding, maturity of estimates, and costs through the first two cycles giving credibility to the project with senior managers </li></ul><ul><li>Eliminated suppliers fairly and in stages and maximized the understanding, along the way, of the finalists </li></ul><ul><li>Candidates left in the last cycle deeply understood our functional requirements, business drivers, and expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Process obtained the best balance of functionality, risk, and cost to our company </li></ul>
    15. 15. Technology Architectural Elements <ul><ul><li>Complete view of New Product Development “building blocks” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appreciation of the complexity in the “Layers” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business Process Focus and Balance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application Architectural orientation and familiarity with industry technology </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Product Planning Definition PLM – Product Life Cycle Management Platform PDM – Data Management for Hardware ALM – Data Management for Software Hardware Design Authoring – CAD-ME,EE Software Design – Authoring IDE Project Management - PCP Quality Data Management Portfolio – Dashboards, Metrics, Web Channels Portfolio Management Manufacture and Sustain Service Delivery, Pubs,Training ideas ideas ideas ideas ideas SUPPORTABLE PRODUCTS BOLD = Industry Term Integration of Applications and Master Data Strategy Core Complete View – Understanding the Building Blocks
    17. 17. <ul><li>Application Layer – </li></ul><ul><li>Aras Innovator, Teamcenter, Doors, Clearquest, and Clearcase </li></ul>Business Process Layer – Standard Workflow and Responsibilities (Engineering Change Control, Production Release Process, Supplier Quote Process, Defect Management Process) IT Infrastructure Layer – Networks, Servers, Databases, Storage, Back-Up, Archive Presentation Layer – Web Channels internal and external; Social, Dashboards, Business Intelligence Increasing Architectural Maturity Business Process Maturity IT Maturity Increase Organizational Maturity + Architectural Awareness = Success Data Layer – System of Record for Master Data, Attributes, Field Mapping to Metrics, Clean-Up Appreciated the Complexity in Each “Architectural Block”
    18. 18. MCAD Tools Knowledge Sharing, Social Nets, and Webchannel Desktop Enterprise Systems Supplier 1 Supplier 3 ECAD Tools ECAD 1 ECAD 2 ECAD 3 Integrated As Built Master Data Raw Material Master SW Project Management, Dashboards (Rally) KM Platform <ul><li>PLM Aras Innovator </li></ul><ul><li>Closed Loop Engineering Change Management (HW/SW) </li></ul><ul><li>Event Tracking and Defect Mgmt </li></ul><ul><li>CAPA Management </li></ul><ul><li>Audit Management </li></ul><ul><li>Supplier Access/ DFM Input </li></ul><ul><li>Supplier Quote </li></ul><ul><li>ECAD, MCAD PDM Integrations </li></ul><ul><li>EBOM, MBOM Management </li></ul><ul><li>Costing </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial Parts Library </li></ul><ul><li>RoHAS </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements Change Control </li></ul><ul><li>ISDE Integration for SW events </li></ul>SW CM – SVN Build Tools and Services Test Scripting Build Configuration Management RQMTS PDM Upgrade End of Life Established Standard LN DBs MS Visual Studio XCODE, Other Key IDEs SW Authoring Office, Project Authoring Systems New Platform No Standard PDM SAP Some Integration Quality Platform (HPQC) Dashboards – Metrics Manufacturing Transfer Testing HW Emerging Standard 2012 Proposal Purchase Portals – ECoutlook Smart source-Ebid ISDE Core New Modeling Integrated SW Development Environment- SW Environment) Supplier 2 Webchannel / Social Development Architectural Orientation and Strategic Planning Ability
    19. 19. Key Points Drives deeper “use-case” discussions Refines functional requirement understanding Concentrates people on future state and consistency vs. current state, holding on to today Swim Lanes are organization independent Focuses training development on process not button clicks Focuses test plans for validation on key workflow performance Business Process Focus – Low-Level Architecture  Swim Lanes
    20. 20. Global Standard Commercialization Process (future) 02/29/12 Eliminates barriers to internal sharing of resources Improves enterprise collaboration effectiveness PLM Initiative processes cut across many functional areas & sites Enables Metrics and Reporting Reduces organizational complexity Sets up foundation for continuous improvements Knowledge workers focus on innovation not communication
    21. 21. Structure Carefully Architected Business Process Research and Development Manufacturing and Regulatory Manage for fast idea cycles Manage for repeatability and consistency Understand Process Balance to Increase Productivity Innovation
    22. 22. Process-Based Training <ul><ul><li>Technology and process are complex; skimping on training leads to inefficiency and slow adoption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training helps change the culture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Train in the context of standard business process – not technology “button clicks” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carefully identify the roles that require training and target information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate self-paced training, it’s the hardest to deliver, but it’s most flexible for users </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Complete Teams = Successful PLM Results Business Process and Metrics Development Technology Partners & Application Architecture IT Architecture, Master Data Cleaning and Migration Trained in Leading Change Strategic Vision Careful Communications Coding and Configuration Skills for implementation All skills are critical and equal for success Iterative Project Management
    24. 24. <ul><li>Open Source and Aras Innovator Platform </li></ul><ul><li>Scope and Scale of Phase One </li></ul><ul><li>Benchmark with Industry Expert </li></ul><ul><li>Findings Summary </li></ul>Carestream Case Study
    25. 25. <ul><ul><li>Cost model allowed global scale that’s not tied to modules, geographic locations, or named users – key to ubiquitous internal and external access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexible architecture enabled rapid development – 50% easier than other platforms to configure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upgrades… Guaranteed… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open access to ALL data elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good Technical Partnership – Anti-virus performance, e-Signature Help, Visualization strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some risk (early adopter) but balanced with higher value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community development concept, which we are beginning to leverage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Single company provides the Aras Core – it’s not traditional “Open Source” </li></ul></ul>“ A”ras Innovator = “A”ttitude & “A”dvantages
    26. 26. <ul><li>Global Standard Business Processes </li></ul><ul><li>Defect Management </li></ul><ul><li>Overall Engineering Change-Mgmt-Closed Loop </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering Change Request (ECR) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering Change Notice (ECN) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deviation Authorization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering Change Implementation (ECI, MBOM) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design Parts Release </li></ul><ul><li>MBOM/EBOM Mgmt </li></ul>Across 4 Major Sites Rochester (DCS, HCIS) Oakdale (DO) Woodbridge (CMI) Shanghai (DCS, DO, CMI, Rayco) + 11 additional Global Sites for CAPA & AMS Requiring Involvement of ~75 Subject Matter Experts <ul><li>Uniting Many Point Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Closed loop Engineering Change (One Example) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defects – ClearQuest (1300 users) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ECR – Spreadsheet, Manual </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ECN – EQDS Retired (450 users) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ECI – Spreadsheet Manual, SAP Integrated </li></ul></ul>Package Parts Mgmt. Commercial Parts Mgmt. CAPA Mgmt. Audit Mgmt Supplier Collaboration Product/Team Mgmt. Feature Function Request Mgmt. PLI Provides the Foundation for Future Process Standardization Dropped from Phase 1 Case Study Goal, Phase 1 – Implement a Global PLM that delivers:
    27. 27. Baseline Comparisons <ul><li>Key Points </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User = Core engineering process worker that contributes to Part Creations, BOM management, Engineering Change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solutions for medical device companies take longer that average to implement, as more effort is required to meet regulatory requirements for Part 11 – verification and validation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most PLM solutions typically require configuration/customization, as the OOB solutions do not fully meet the business needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aras architecture is impressive, flexible and modular, which is more cost effective and scalable, but will take more effort to implement </li></ul></ul>*When suppliers access the system >$75/user Industry Expert (Typical PLM) Carestream PLI- ARAS Schedule (Implement & Deploy) 18-24 months 19 months deliver features 24 months stabilized deploy Implementation Cost $4000/user $3300/user Maintenance Cost $360/user $300>$165>*$75 Functionality for a Phase 1 Engineering Change Configuration/Revision Control BOM Management Supplier Collaboration Product/Portfolio Management Closed-Loop Engineering Change Configuration/Revision Control BOM Management Deviation Authorization Product Defect Management Audit Management SAP Integration # of Sites for Deployment 3 4 Development Sites Internal Resources to coordinate (in addition to implementation) 5.5 FTE 5.5 FTE Subject Matter Involvement 60 75
    28. 28. Strategic Take Away <ul><li>Globalization without standardization will lead to reduced innovation time and flat productivity </li></ul><ul><li>PLM Implementations require a holistic approach that includes; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global Leadership – Leadership Organization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People and Change Management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standard Processes Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standard Technology and Applications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost center IT mentality delivers local proliferation of point solutions and little enterprise architecture </li></ul>
    29. 29. Practical Take Away <ul><ul><li>Carefully craft a balanced team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Set project governance, know key decisions and set decision rights formally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Know your critical mass (how much work your team can handle) and match that with implementation partner’s speed and capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure business-process work leads and functional requirements follow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Take work in small chunks (AGILE development methods work well here) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Turn user interface prototypes early, fast, and review the implementation approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work process in parallel with master data modeling and data migration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Train in context of the business process not in the context of the tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Get involvement of SMEs early and often. Cover all disciplines and phases of the lifecycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Balance “cowboy process” in support of early innovation with regulatory and manufacturing structure required later </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prioritize architecture and code reviews to avoid a poor code base due to rapid cycles and possible turn over of developers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Verify and validate functionality using business-process diagrams as the basis </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. <ul><li>PLM is a complex journey that requires discussion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic Approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benchmarking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process and Data Knowledge </li></ul></ul>Willing to talk more about PLM…?
    31. 31. Contact Information <ul><li>David G. Sherburne – Director of Global R&D Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Linked in: </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Email </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Twitter </li></ul><ul><li>@dgsherburne </li></ul>