Is PLM Dead? Part 2 — The Case for the Defense | Future of PLM | DemystifyingPLM

Episode Summary

The episode "Is PLM Dead? Part 2 — The Case for the Defense" delves into the ongoing relevance and evolution of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) in light of technological advancements and changing market dynamics. Hosted by Michael Finocchiaro, the podcast features a panel comprising Rob Ferroni, Oleg Shilovitsky, Brian Carroll, Martin Eigner, Jos Voskuil, and Juliann Grant from Razor Leaf. The guests discuss key drivers behind PLM platform upgrades or replacements, emphasizing the urgent need for companies to adapt to new technologies and regulations while maintaining distinctive competencies and innovation.

The panelists highlight that while many manufacturers are planning to replace their legacy systems due to market changes and regulatory pressures, they do not necessarily view this as a complete replacement but rather an integration of modern tools into existing processes. They stress the importance of leveraging advanced technology to break down silos within PLM systems, enabling seamless communication with artificial intelligence and other enterprise resources for end-to-end engineering processes. The discussion underscores that companies should focus on solving specific business problems by understanding where product data resides and who needs it, rather than treating technology as a one-size-fits-all solution.

The key takeaway for PLM and engineering professionals is the necessity to adopt a holistic approach that connects data across various stages of the product lifecycle, leveraging modern technologies without disregarding existing legacy systems. This approach ensures that companies can innovate more efficiently while maintaining robust processes, ultimately driving better outcomes in a rapidly evolving manufacturing landscape.

Full Transcript

Michael Finocchiaro

Welcome everybody to the, I think we're edition, ⁓ episode six of the Future of PLM podcast. I am joined by slightly the reduced from last time and yet much bigger than my ⁓ original panels. And I have with me ⁓ Rob Ferroni, I've got Oleg Shilovitsky Brian Carroll's one and two, Martin Eigner, Jos Voskuil and the wonderful and amazing Juliann Grant of Razor Leaf

Rob Ferrone

you

Juliann Grant

Ready?

Michael Finocchiaro

Hello

Juliann Grant

Glad to be.

Michael Finocchiaro

everybody, how's everybody doing today?

Martin Eigner

Okay.

Brion Carroll

Good fine.

Rob Ferrone

Super.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Good, we go with voting, you see.

Juliann Grant

Excellent.

Jos Voskuil

I it.

Brion Carroll II

Happy Halloween.

Juliann Grant

Ready for an interesting conversation.

Jos Voskuil

Okay. Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah. So last time we talked about if PLM was dead and we had quite a lot of debate on the name of PLM and the scope of PLM. In fact, we've even started a subgroup of this conversation to talk about a manifesto about PLM. So, you know, lot of things about PLM. I wanted to start out the discussion on saying that we found that more than half the manufacturers plan to replace or upgrade their PLM platforms because too many market changes, regulations, technology driving the ⁓

Martin Eigner

Thanks.

Rob Ferrone

you

Martin Eigner

Okay.

Michael Finocchiaro

need to develop distinctive competencies and innovation. So what key drivers are forcing companies to move away from legacy systems? And how urgent is this transformation ⁓ for survival and smart manufacturing, especially considering all the new stuff and how manufacturers are very anxious that a volatile outlook threatens their ambitions? Who wants to pull on that thread first? Go ahead, Josh.

Rob Ferrone

you Okay.

Jos Voskuil

Can I start? I've been saying 20 years already that people need PLM, otherwise they will be out of business. I mean, this is the way you sell PLM. But I'm also, I don't agree with the fact that it's going to be a replacement. I really see in companies, people are trying to involve new modern tools in their legacy processes. And it's not, I would say, a top level plan yet to...

Rob Ferrone

Jos Voskuil

replace. think that the days of the big booms are over and the big technology shifts. So yeah, there is awareness of new possibilities at some people, but in my environment it doesn't catch up. People look at it, it's fancy stuff. So yeah, I don't see them replacing yet.

Martin Eigner

you

Rob Ferrone

So So

Michael Finocchiaro

Everybody else wanna chime in on it?

Martin Eigner

⁓ okay.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, so I'd like to raise my hand. I'm not sure how you're going through this process, but I think that what Yos has talked about really is the technology adoption should

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Brion Carroll

take advantage of or should be taken advantage of by what is considered the profile of PLM, right? In the old days, PLM was a single source system. I remember in the 80s, it was one megabyte per minute transfer rates of CAD data. was holy crap. I can't believe I'm still here. And it's evolved, right? So now you got agents, you got all these things, you got a whole range of technologies. And I think PLM should grow up with that advanced technology

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Brion Carroll

availability, meaning that PLM should no longer be considered a system that is siloed within its own walls. And hopefully people speak to it and hopefully it does its thing right. And hopefully it talks to ERP and hopefully, and hopefully, and hopefully I think what PLM should be is lifted up and broad span across everything from ideation and commercialization and back, meaning I have an idea, I'm going to design it. That's PLM. Well, that's CAD. No, that's PLM. It goes into something to divide and expand the as designed and as manufactured as service bomb. Well, yeah, that's PLM. It sends that bomb into manufacturing. Well, that's PLM. It finds that that bomb in operational use has an issue. It loops it back into engineering. Well, that's PLM.

Rob Ferrone

Okay. So

Brion Carroll

You want to put AI on it to find out how to better ⁓ enhance the way you flow data and find things that are issues before they become issues in the field? Well, that's PLM. So PLM should be the umbrella. AI should infuse on top of it. It shouldn't be restricted to a system. It should be access of all systems unified. And so that's my pitch.

Rob Ferrone

Martin Eigner

Yes, but

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yeah.

Martin Eigner

there's contradictory trend in Germany or in Central Europe. I made questionnaires in my... I had a lot of keynotes the last month and I asked, what is your...

Rob Ferrone

you

Brion Carroll

Yeah.

Martin Eigner

PLM and why, what do you try to install? And we have a huge amount of ⁓ SRP, a very close PLM system, close to SRP. And I asked these guys, why are you going back from the original PLM standalone approach and said, we would like to have common holistic engineering processes. for me, it's interesting.

Rob Ferrone

you

Brion Carroll

Yeah.

Martin Eigner

It's especially the upper medium-sized customer base. And they said, okay, we forget all the nice ⁓ functionality of PLM. We get rid of this functionality. We prefer or we value higher the integration to ERP. And that is quite different, Rente.

Brion Carroll

Well, that, so Martin, I don't mean to jump in and have a dialogue between just the two of us, but what you just said is ⁓ an actual reinforcement that PLM should not be a single system. PLM should be a broader set of tools and technologies that manage the product throughout its life cycle. ERP or SAP being a piece of that, CAD being a piece of that, right?

Rob Ferrone

you

Martin Eigner

Nope. No, Yes. Yeah, I fully agree with you, but I think we have to be pragmatically. In the next years, we will have fragmented, isolated systems. And I see two trends. The one trend is modern medium-sized customers going directly to ERP. And the other trend may be what we call the digital threat, the umbrella.

Brion Carroll II

But that's only good.

Michael Finocchiaro

It sounds sort of like

Brion Carroll

Yeah. I you

Jos Voskuil

But.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Woo!

Martin Eigner

the umbrella on top, however we call it. And I think I see two trends. But the reason...

Brion Carroll

I know. Well, what I was saying earlier,

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

and then I'll step back into the balcony and I apologize, is that we are leaders in the industry, right? That's what we are. Take it or leave it. You you took on this role just by doing what you do, right? So we have to guide the industry towards lifting its eyes on what PLM is. We can't wait for it to tell us it needs to do that. We need to help guide it into that arena. Otherwise, it will stay sitting confused

Oleg Shilovitsky

Okay.

Rob Ferrone

you

Martin Eigner

Yes.

Brion Carroll

in a single system saying, but I want to be more, but I want to be more. And we say, shut up, we're going to take from you. And says, it gets confused. We need to lift it up and allow them to feel the freedom of, oh, okay, PLM is bigger than what I remember it to be. We need to help them. That's all I'm saying. So I'm in the balcony now.

Martin Eigner

Go. Go.

Michael Finocchiaro

You had your hand up?

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, I have my hand up. So three comments on this. First, think I want to echo what you said. I'm not sure how. But the second thing that I think that the companies like the existing market already bought at least one or two or some of them bought three PLMs. So there are a lot of systems. So, and that's why the growth will be going based on the market. So we need to figure out what market will be and what the market will be buying. And then once we understand what the market will be buying, then for different markets, we can decide how to call it.

Rob Ferrone

Okay. So

Martin Eigner

Hmm.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Because in general, people don't care if it's called PLM or if it's called by some other three-letter acronyms. For example, if you come to SOLIDWORKS customers at PLM, they might not like it name. Okay. And you come to some other people, it's a rather specific name. They actually like to call it this way. So, I mean, I'm less concerned about the name, but they're more concerned about how to position to particular market that has a potential to grow. Because I feel like PLM is like focusing on this particular traditional industries, the particular...

Rob Ferrone

Thank you.

Oleg Shilovitsky

two, three systems that already exist. ⁓ like we are selling to the same space and some other places might bring a potentially huge, huge, huge, huge potential to grow. That's just my take.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think Brian too was up next and then Julianne and then Rob before I ask another question.

Brion Carroll II

Okay, yeah, and I was trying to get to the question. I was looking at what you actually asked and ⁓ So if we look at why companies are evaluating their PLM solution is because they've been asked to save Revenue, right? We got to save 50 million dollars this year How do you do that? Well this PLM system and all of its people are costing money The product where it lives is in the PLM system. So how do we save money in our product and how do we reduce revenue? We have to look at PLM. So I think ⁓ when it comes to conversations that we have, it's good to talk about, you know, talking the overarching thing, but the reason why is because they have to save money. People are being put in a position that normally do not look at PLM systems.

Rob Ferrone

Shh.

Brion Carroll II

and asked to save money. So we can have good conversations, but people are being tasked with this. I'm saying in med tech, there are companies that have been loyal to a PLM solution for many years that aren't loyal anymore. And they're getting off it because they're like, Hey, we stuck with system, whatever, because it was a people business in 2000 and the nineties. It's not a people business anymore. So people are like, all right.

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll II

These are my operating procedures. This is the problem I have to solve. I need to find a new solution. Let's talk, right? So that was the question I was just getting back. I think, you know, I'll say this and then I'll stop. This is really funny. went into my mother-in-law was going to get a loan at a bank, right? And she's like, Brian, I'm to go get a... And she's like, I've been at this bank for 40 years and whatever. So she's sitting across from this young manager that's there and she's pleading her case why she needs this money. And she's like, I've been here that that girl over there is the granddaughter of so-and-so. And he just turned to her and said, listen, I don't care how long you've been here. You don't qualify for the loan. And we're not going to give you the loan. It's the same thing with the PLM industry right now. A lot of companies when they started off.

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll II

They had people in that organization that were loyal to that brand and people right now are being challenged with, find me the right solution. has to be AI, digital twin, model-based systems engineering, cloud-based, right? Has to be able to live in the cloud. These are all the things that people are being

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll II

tasked with and they need a solution that meets their requirements for their product. Not what they're loyal to or were loyal to at some point. So I don't know if that all made sense, but.

Brion Carroll

So, so

Oleg Shilovitsky

So, mean, just... ⁓

Brion Carroll

I'm sorry. just jumped, I just jumped out of the balcony just for a second. ⁓ you know, we, every, you know, I've been doing PLM for a long time, like since the 84, right? So if somebody came up to me and asked, so how long do you think you'll be able to do consulting in the PLM industry? I said, as long as people are going into kindergarten, I'll be able to do consulting in PLM. Why? Because

Brion Carroll II

⁓

Jos Voskuil

Thank

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ It's Julian after you, okay?

Juliann Grant

Okay.

Rob Ferrone

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

Every single two, three, five, seven, 15 years, somebody goes, don't like that PLM system. Give me a different one. What we're trying to discuss as a team is not, the evolution of PLM coming in and out of companies something that will, is something that's heightened or normal? I say it's normal. Every single PLM transition causes companies to say, I want a different PLM. I don't like that one anymore. But we as a team, we as an industry leader set, have to say, what is PLM? Because that's the issue. It's not, will PLM transition into other companies? The answer is yes, that'll always happen. But what is PLM as we take on new technologies?

Brion Carroll II

That's a different question,

Juliann Grant

Well, I was going to just comment on the fact that, know, Michael, you mentioned that half the companies, the stat was half the companies are going to be transitioning. And, of course, digital transformations and driving some of that, you know, a cloud and all that stuff. But you got to wonder, you know, ⁓ there are a lot of failed PLM implementations in legacy form. And, you know, to what extent are there going to be continued success if the attitude and the approaches stay the same in the new platform? So you got to wonder if, you know, the thought process needs to really be about, being data centric around products and being able to provide data across the business, you know, not just in engineering, as we talked about, but across the whole digital thread to engineering, to manufacturing, to the supply chain. It just seems that there's a thought process that's missing about how to, you know, originally PLM is really designed to, you know, control engineering data, keep it all in one same place. Well, you know, some of the problems we see at Raise Relief are that when people are trying to make some of these changes, that the data's so dramatically different from one system to another. It's not an easy lift to get something from one system to another, right? So we do a lot of integration. I don't want to make this an integration conversation, but we also look at a lot of PLM systems. And I think to Brian's point, you have to really orient your company around what your company is trying to accomplish ⁓ around the industry. at the end of the day, sometimes when we're looking, we do a lot of PLM evaluations too. And it's like, when you're looking at one company compared to the other, compared to the other,

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Juliann Grant

There isn't a whole lot of difference in terms of functionality, except maybe in some industry specific things. If you're trying to do change management, there's change management in every platform. So how do we make change management more important than, how do we make the outcomes of change management, which are really important, which is all the downstream data changes that have to happen? And how do the consumers of the data have to, how do they need to get the information? I just think that there's just a little bit of a, people put PLM in this box, it really needs to be broadened out to, what are they trying to do and how are they gonna try to take their product data and make it accessible across the enterprise? I think that's where PLM needs to go. And it's just, it's not quite there yet based on where data is.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think that so the next question was maybe a Rob ish. All right. Well, they'll go with the leg and then Rob. Go ahead. Oh, Yeah.

Jos Voskuil

Rob.

Rob Ferrone

de,

Brion Carroll

Oleg has his hand up, Michael. Oleg has his hand up.

Martin Eigner

you

Jos Voskuil

Rob was still waiting. Yeah.

Oleg Shilovitsky

So from my perspective, in a nutshell, we just need to go to the next level. Every B2B business, every B2B solution, it's looking to solve three problems. Either increase sales, cut costs, and the risk.

Jos Voskuil

Sweet. speed.

Oleg Shilovitsky

No, you either want to sell more or you save cost or you reduce risks. Like everything can be classified based on this. So answering Julian, your question, if you go down to the next level of problems that can be classified as one of those trees, then companies can start buying this. It doesn't matter how we call them, but if that's the problem that's solved, then the companies will be buying it. coming from the what is named PLM or not, I don't know how it will solve the problem.

Michael Finocchiaro

Go ahead, Rob.

Brion Carroll

I'm sorry, I jumped back out of the balcony and it's because you left the rope near me. could do that. What is it with this guy? ⁓ So, I think what's going on in my head is that we're jumping between what a vendor can offer as a system and what the industry needs as a solution. And you're not going to find a vendor to provide a multi like what

Martin Eigner

you

Oleg Shilovitsky

My God, what is this balcony?

Michael Finocchiaro

Poor Rob, he can't get a word in front of us.

Jos Voskuil

Yeah. Yeah.

Brion Carroll

What Julian said, I want to be able to see change management across a range of manufacturing service, blah, blah, blah. There is no system that's going to holistically encompass all of that. PLM is not a system that encompasses all of that. And I know Oleg, you say, well, call it whatever you want, whatever three-letter acronym you want. I'm saying if we keep product lifecycle management as the heralding term and enable it to encompass all the things, not a vendor provides PLM, but PLM is a solution. Then we get rid of the contradictions of it can't do it. I don't have a system to do it. All that rifling disappears. So I'm

Oleg Shilovitsky

Hup Hull. Hup

Michael Finocchiaro

Rob, go ahead.

Rob Ferrone

I like Julianne's comment. think she summed it up well. We're 20 minutes in, so let's go to question two, Michael.

Michael Finocchiaro

So Rajesh ⁓ Bhola Praghada of AWS actually does a nice job here because he says, well, PLM, I would define it as a practice or a collection of strategic practices. It's enabled by technology implementation partners. And I think we should reframe the question of legacy PLM technologies are dead. ⁓ Then the dinosaurs needs to die or be shot. He said the implementation partners still live in the old age of methodology and should be asked to retire. But yeah, maybe think that Brian, maybe what, if I reframe what Brian's saying, or what Brian one is saying, it's about the practice of PLM and it can go across multiple systems. actually jump in and I know Yoss's friend, Dr. Hushmani would say that it's, it is a single source of change rather than a single source of truth, right? It's gotta be one place where you actually manage the changes.

Rob Ferrone

you you

Michael Finocchiaro

And speaking of changes, one of the discussions we had internally before this call was around OCM about organizational change management. And I know that's something that's at the forefront of what Yas and Rob have been working on a lot. So would you guys like to talk about how OCM could be an enabler for doing regression analysis on why certain projects fail, why this legacy is dragging us down, why we can't move forward?

Jos Voskuil

Rob, I start review. ⁓

Rob Ferrone

Yeah, thank you.

Michael Finocchiaro

Go ahead, Rob. You've spoken to least so far.

Rob Ferrone

I get some air time. ⁓ I mean, I personally think Julianne said it all in the last statement where people might switch from one technology to another and they try different experiments,

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Martin Eigner

you

Rob Ferrone

but they have to work on themselves. And that's fundamentally what OCM is all about. is a transformation of the people, transformation of the organization, a change in the way they work, a change

Brion Carroll II

Thank

Martin Eigner

you

Rob Ferrone

in mindset. And ultimately, if you can do that and you can change your company, then I think it doesn't matter what technology you apply. I think you'll get the outcomes that you want.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay. Yoss, you wanna add that?

Jos Voskuil

Yeah, think it's the human side is so important because people can make it or break it. And that means you cannot solve it just in your department. It's always an enterprise solution that you have to bring. So organizational change management comes with technology change. You can't treat them separate unless maybe it's a usability tool for a single user. I think we liked email because it was fast. Now we are suffering from email, but I mean, it's used for exception and maybe a sneaky preview. I will talk about one of the major inhibitors for modern PLM at the PLM roadmap next week. I did a discovery which I can only publish next week, but it's the human that is the problem for product lifecycle management.

Michael Finocchiaro

and heiress. Brian, I think that...

Rob Ferrone

for the enabler.

Martin Eigner

No, it's not only the human. I agree, it's the human. On the other side, I have so many problems to convince the sea level for PLM. Normally, the R &D costs are less than 10 % of the company. We forgot that R &D is responsible for 70 to 80 % of the planned costs and that is missed on the sea level. I have the problem with

Jos Voskuil

Yeah

Brion Carroll II

Hmm.

Jos Voskuil

Yeah. Yeah.

Brion Carroll II

Okay.

Martin Eigner

Our employees, do not accept PLM and I have problems with the C level. They do not accept the value of PLM. And that are the two things which throttles me.

Jos Voskuil

But the sea level are also humans,

Martin Eigner

That's your... You alright? Thank you, thank you.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah.

Brion Carroll II

Yeah. Yeah. And so when I,

Brion Carroll

You know.

Jos Voskuil

you

Brion Carroll II

So the one thing that we do when we come in is kind of pump the brakes, right? Because there's a, again, the cost line item at a company. But then the, all of your point, right? If we don't know what process we're trying to fix and what people will be impacted, there's a lot of tribal knowledge to talk about R and D.

Brion Carroll

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Brion Carroll II

A lot of the engineers are being laid off, right? Teams of a hundred are now deemed teams to 20. So this, this change, you know, every time we come in, it's like, Hey, pump the brakes. What problem are we trying to solve? What is the impact value hypothesis? So we're trying to get back and then move forward. But if you don't know who you're impacting, doesn't matter what you do next. Right.

Rob Ferrone

you you

Brion Carroll

So, so Michael, just wanted... Go ahead.

Jos Voskuil

Maybe one point, Brian, I'm sorry. I don't think companies are only looking at reducing costs. mean, many of the discussions I have now is about generating new types of revenue from service. It's one of the most fashionable things.

Martin Eigner

Yeah.

Brion Carroll II

There's a massive playbook that comes down to why change needs to occur and it isn't just cost savings. I agree. Yeah.

Rob Ferrone

you

Jos Voskuil

I think you read Oleg's latest post about expanding the reach of BLM.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah. ⁓

Brion Carroll

So, so I want to bring up, I want to bring up one thing that, that, gets into OCS, right? Which is humans get aligned with something they use and they feel comfortable using it. And if they can stay in that place and use whatever tool they're using, and it's suffices for what they need to get done, then they will adopt, ⁓ things that need to happen as long as they can stay in their safe space. Right. And what I find happens is when PLM comes in, as was previously defined.

Rob Ferrone

Okay. Okay.

Brion Carroll

When I was in the eighties and the nineties and the thousands, PDM and PLM were anchored right into the engineering community. And if somebody was asked to come into the engineering community because their role had to now include activities that pertain in PDM, they became distraught. They became, Hey, I want to use my normal system. I don't want to go into that other thing. So OCS a lot of times has to take into account the fact that

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll

People would rather remain in the silo they're in, in the world they're in, and if you got to bring in change activities that can be handled in that silo system, they're fine. So my statement again, I'm an old chronic little pestering little bitch, right? Is that PLM really is a broader, should be a broader solution. So if you go into a PLM initiative, you should look at each silo system and say, if change management has to occur,

Martin Eigner

I'm excited to be I'm excited to be here. I'm so to be to be here. I'm so to be

Brion Carroll

If the influence of something happening has to ripple back or forward, let people stay where they are and let the PLM magic happen. Let it send things to where it needs to be. Let them stay where they are. So PLM needs to raise above. It doesn't, it cannot demand people come into

Martin Eigner

I'm so to I'm I'm I'm I'm here. I'm so be I'm so to I'm so to be here. so to be so be I'm so to be

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll

it. It has to be able to go to them. So I'll do that pitch. I'm back in the balcony. Catch you on the next round.

Rob Ferrone

But I'm ⁓ just not going to save you there. If the technology is rubbish and it's painful to use and it annoys the users, it doesn't matter how much change management you do. It's not going to save you from the technology. So it has to be both. It has to be OCM and good solutions that actually maximise the value of the people that you're paying to do the work.

Martin Eigner

But we should not, I think we are not on the level right now in this group to discuss very deep in technology, OEM, MCP or whatever. I think we should come to a common agreement. And what Brian mentioned, and I think we all of us think the same. PLM systems are vendor oriented, they are niche oriented. They are not sufficient to bring end-to-end processes.

Michael Finocchiaro

That's a good one.

Brion Carroll

Right.

Martin Eigner

they are not able to feed artificial intelligence, and they are not able to break silos. So our common understanding is that we use PDM PLM as a niche solution

Brion Carroll

Exactly.

Rob Ferrone

you

Martin Eigner

as a fragmented, but we need something on top of that. I think that is right now, it's my common understanding from this group. And then we should think about how we can proceed in this. My actual feeling, I mentioned it, one special group of customers

Brion Carroll

Right.

Martin Eigner

They are frustrated, they use SAP as a common tool and the other group really thinks about this umbrella. And I just made a survey, we found 10 companies worldwide working on the digital threat concept. So it's not only our group who are discussing digital threat. I found out 10 companies working on an offer for a digital threat concept. There are PLM companies and there are standalone companies. Oleg is one of these companies.

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

Right. Oleg, I think Oleg professes the whole thing of being able to tentacle out as if OpenBOM is a system, but it's not really just a system. It's an enabler of continuity of data. Right? So he's taking, and I'm saying this to you, Oleg, you need to tell me I'm full of crap and that's fine. OpenBOM, ⁓ OpenBOM is the closest I've seen as the duality of

Oleg Shilovitsky

Thank you for promotion.

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

checks on them.

Brion Carroll

a system and a solution approach both at once, right? So he comes in with, I'm here, but I'm going to tentacle out to wherever I need to be. So PLM begins to be raised up as an umbrella where he is an enabler of what I call digital fluidity from mind to market, right? So I think he's the closest I've seen that comes to an offering that doesn't say, these are my boundaries. Instead he goes, I have no boundaries. I'm just going to sit here and work with everybody. And so that I think is a movement as Martin brings up of digital thread enabled and still vendor supported. So, uh, again, this is the evolution that I think we have to get into. And I could be just some dumb wit, but I really think PLM needs to come up. We can't throw away the term. People are used to it. If we come up with something else, they'll go, what the hell's that? So we have to bring PLM up and enable it to flow regardless of the niche system or silo. Okay, so let's back in the balcony.

Juliann Grant

I just wanted to comment on getting back to the OCM challenge that I think many companies suffer from it. We see it as well. I feel like it suffers from the same thing PLM suffers from it. People have an idea of what it is and it's got a cost to it. And then when it's in the course of ⁓ looking at a whole project or, and I don't mean to just talk about technology, but it usually comes up in the course of a project and people go, well, we'll do that later. but we all know that adoption is a key

Jos Voskuil

Okay.

Martin Eigner

you

Juliann Grant

factor in success. I think part of our job as we're consulting with our clients is to really build in the whole change management process right from the beginning and in the way we do it. So it's not something that you could just scratch off on the contract and say, I'm not taking that out because that's like so many more dollars over budget. So we're not doing that because it's so essential. think when you think about how we all go through a change of

Rob Ferrone

you

Brion Carroll

Right.

Rob Ferrone

Thank you.

Juliann Grant

changing our mind or adapting to something or adapting to change. It takes 10, 12 times to hear something over and over again that you want to latch onto. You want to believe in your first year, you're like, well, no. Then you hear it again, you hear it again. So we really need to build in the repetition of making that and driving that level of change in the organization so people can be ready and want that kind of change. But you're right. mean, engineers typically don't want change. So there has to be a way to bring those two things together.

Brion Carroll

Right.

Martin Eigner

you

Jos Voskuil

Engineers want change, but they want the change they like.

Juliann Grant

There we go. I want the blue car. I don't want the red car.

Brion Carroll

Right, right, right.

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Rob Ferrone

I mean, it's like, I mean, we don't want to do stuff in our lives that makes our lives harder, do we? I mean, no one does. I think we shouldn't paint a negative picture of engineers and say that they're stubborn or that they... No, you. No, Julian, this is, think just in general, like the group, think engineers get a bad rap a lot of the time. And, you know, like any of us, we want, like you just said,

Brion Carroll

All right.

Juliann Grant

That's right. ⁓ I'm editing.

Martin Eigner

So, thank

Rob Ferrone

If it's better, if it makes our lives easier, if it makes us more effective, if we can add more value more effectively, then it's a no-brainer. No one's going to fight it. Anyway, Michael, question three.

Michael Finocchiaro

Question three was, ⁓

Juliann Grant

Rob's keeping us on track.

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

somebody's got to do it because I'm not hurting the cats today. Step one involves overhauling practices like needing to decompose engineering artifacts to documents, to data to boost concurrent design. What are the most crucial platform capabilities technical leaders must prioritize today, including support for multidisciplinary change management, which we already discussed, open API specs. and ⁓ support for scalability and arrives to integration. So this is more like what capabilities ⁓ are the most critical in order to decompose engineering artifacts into data, because of course, AI cannot exist without good data. So how do we do that?

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Brion Carroll II

Yeah. But hard to answer that question without speaking to a technology. If we're speaking the theory, right? What features your questions and spirit are very platform and technology focused. But I think the major push for everybody is cloud, right? We don't want major support staff supporting this large, again, tool technology. ⁓ So how do we.

Rob Ferrone

Okay. Okay.

Brion Carroll II

do that, we do it with the cloud. the one thing that I'll, know, the cloud has its challenges. It's not like cloud right now can support a massive R &D team, right? And companies.

Michael Finocchiaro

And we saw one of the challenges last week and it really, yes, went badly up, right?

Oleg Shilovitsky

Really?

Brion Carroll II

Yeah. I think, ⁓ but it needs to, and then when it says, when you're in your question, what are the features? It needs to be ⁓ composable, right? I need to be able, if I can't access the core of this tool, which that what cloud means is I, I don't need this huge IT organization supporting this tool. How can I build, you know, a composable app, just like my phone, right? I have a whole bunch of information in here. But I have particular apps that get me to that information and tailor it to my experience. I think that's the big one that people are seeing as far as PLM goes in the cloud and saying, I want it cloud hosted, but I want it tailored to me, but I don't want to customize my solution so much like our last solution that was completely customized. How can I make it a composable PLM solution tailored to my users in the cloud?

Michael Finocchiaro

Hmm.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Quite honestly, I think this is solved problem because the cloud, like why cloud is a problem? You want to use any cloud you want, including this one that your infrastructure put in in different data centers. Why it should be a problem? I mean, I'm quite sure I'm not, I don't understand because like you can use any clouds today. So what is the real problem in my view is that ⁓ the fight for application, my application can do everything and log the data. They should stop because if you stop applications from locking data and allow the people to disconnect data from application and use it, like I said, on your phone, you get data, you want to use this data regardless what happens with this phone tomorrow. So those are things that will turn it in the open state where people will be able to use. So that's the reason, mean, thank you for previous promotion. That's the reason why it's open, it's the first name in Open. But you need to disconnect data from the applications or unlock data from application. Otherwise you will say, if this goes to this application, goes to that cloud, it's locked, I will not be able to access this. So this is kind of problem, yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha ha!

Brion Carroll

Hahaha

Brion Carroll II

Thank

Martin Eigner

So, I'm going it back over to you, and I'm it back you, and I'm it you, and I'm going turn you, and

Jos Voskuil

Yep.

Brion Carroll

What? Yeah, you're locked in. Even though you're in the cloud, you become locked in. Now realize, by the way, a cloud means nothing other than someone else's technology being used to host your application. It literally means nothing. Exactly. So if someone has an on-prem, if someone has an on-premise solution, if someone has an on-premise solution, they're using, as Brian, you said, their own IT team to manage that CPUs and GPUs and whatever else, and electricity and connectivity.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, that's why I think it's solved problem.

Brion Carroll II

Well, it's access to the IP, right? So, yeah. ⁓

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll II

days.

Brion Carroll

When they go to the cloud, they're just saying, I'm arresting, getting, getting rid of that on-premise system. I'm shutting it down. I'm turning off the electricity and I'm plugging into this system that's out here that someone else is managing. And to Michael's point, AWS kind of tripped on its own face last week and the week before causing a whole ton of applications of people who go, whoa, what happened? And what happened was everybody trusted the cloud would support whatever they need.

Rob Ferrone

I'm

Brion Carroll

It's a big, huge, big, big, big. I can connect from anywhere. I feel good about myself. And all of sudden, bam, everything went to crap, right? That's because all these companies that have utilized AWS, instead of bringing it on-prem, they put it in the cloud. Instead

Martin Eigner

Brion Carroll

of managing the IT stuff themselves, they put it in the cloud and the cloud failed. It'll always happen. It's technology. It's never going to be a hundred percent. Suck it up, right? So.

Martin Eigner

But.

Rob Ferrone

Thank

Oleg Shilovitsky

And it can fail on the pram as well as it can fail on the cloud side.

Brion Carroll

I know that's what I'm saying. It fail. It'll fail on prem. It'll fail in cloud. It's just more impactful if cloud is affecting many, many, many, many companies because now it's not one and done. It's everybody's done.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha ⁓

Brion Carroll II

Yeah. I think, I think the, just to be clear, there's two different types of clouds, right? There's a SaaS cloud and then there's all, so that the, when I speak to cloud, I'm speaking to a born in the cloud solution, not hosting my applications on AWS. Two different things.

Oleg Shilovitsky

That's not true,

Michael Finocchiaro

Right, at

Brion Carroll

You're talking about SAS.

Michael Finocchiaro

the end.

Oleg Shilovitsky

that's not true. Brian, if you're...

Martin Eigner

But we have to be clear about what's going on in the market. The market leaders call their PLM system PLMX. They took a monolith into the cloud and it's a single tenant solution. And the single tenant solution is not able to be customized because it's based on API. So that is stupid. That is really stupid. So we have to make a clear separation. Single tenant, private cloud, multi-tenant, public cloud.

Brion Carroll II

single tenant. Thank you, Mark.

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Martin Eigner

I think ⁓ there are only a few systems and Oleg has one of the systems. They are able in a public cloud and a multi-tenant cloud to make customization. And I have

Brion Carroll

Right.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah.

Martin Eigner

never seen a PLM customer without customization. I think what the market leaders are doing right now is lying. It's really lying. They label their product cloud native, but it's not cloud native.

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Michael Finocchiaro

Well...

Brion Carroll II

Thank you.

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Brion Carroll

Right. By the way, there is another to take Oleg's, ⁓ fantastical system, right? Which you now Martin are selling and pitching. There's another company Vibe IQ, right? They're actually created by Brian Lindauer and the team that built Flex way back in old days. They are to your point, Martin, in the cloud, multi-tenant, excuse me, SaaS, multi-tenant, customizable or configurable.

Brion Carroll II

⁓

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, Brian and I was...

Brion Carroll

So that each one looks through their view of what this backend system is, even though the backend system is uniform for all, how each company gets into it is unique to it, right? So that to the point, like ⁓ OpenBOM, these things have to be something that comes in and says, show me me, let me manage mine. And the key is to not be harnessed into a wall that's superficially built. Like Oleg says, you're going to get... Everything out of me, but I'll get anywhere you need to go. So that has to be the platform of PLM. has to be something that raises above system boundaries or silo environments. It has to be something where there's cloud on-prem. I don't, I don't give a crap. It has to be able to access all of these things and enable AI. This is the thing we're,

Rob Ferrone

Brion Carroll

forgetting about AI is the next level. If you don't have uniformity of all these silos for product life cycle, AI will not work.

Martin Eigner

Yes.

Brion Carroll

It will not work. You can give little things, but you can't do business things,

Rob Ferrone

I don't think we're answering your question, Michael. I don't know where got, where cloud came from. But I think for me, PLM is about communication to enable collaboration. So it's like what information needs to be created by which people and be fed to which people in which format at which time in order to get the right outcomes. And ultimately, if you start there and you figure that out for the whole business, then you can start thinking about how you solve that with technology.

Brion Carroll

Mm-hmm. Right.

Michael Finocchiaro

Great. ⁓

Brion Carroll

Right.

Rob Ferrone

Question five of

Jos Voskuil

You

Rob Ferrone

Orion IV.

Brion Carroll

Four, you got to keep track of me. Four, five, six, what? Where are at?

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Well, felt like because I think we touched on it once or twice. I think there's also this disconnect with

Martin Eigner

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ the fact that you've got these ⁓ people having conflicting mental models. You've got the CFO just pushing efficiency, efficient efficiency. VP of sales wants revenue growth. ⁓ We want innovation. How can we as the thought leaders in this field of PLM, how do we reconcile those conflicting ⁓ vectors of change, right? How do we do that?

Jos Voskuil

I don't think they are conflicting. think the challenge is to build a vision that combines them all. And I think that's the part I'm always working on. You need to have a story. Make our company big again, you could say.

Rob Ferrone

you

Brion Carroll

Right.

Michael Finocchiaro

One ring to rule them all.

Juliann Grant

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha ha!

Brion Carroll

Oh god, please help me, me, help me, please help me.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Wait a second, how it works for small companies? Big again? That's a contradiction.

Martin Eigner

Yeah.

Rob Ferrone

You

Jos Voskuil

Keep

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah.

Juliann Grant

⁓

Jos Voskuil

our company small again.

Juliann Grant

Yes. Well, you they spent a lot of time figuring out to make sure that the ERP systems are in place. They know how to get the money. They know how to capture the money. They know how to take the invoices and build and order materials. Now we've got to focus on the innovation, the product and making product the center of the company if possible. That's what's going to drive everything else. And if we could shift that mindset, that would be that would be great because then it wouldn't just be PLM, it would be product. So.

Rob Ferrone

Michael Finocchiaro

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Jos Voskuil

Exactly, the product is the heart of him.

Brion Carroll

So Julian, I want to take what you just said. want to take what you just said. Nobody invoices for nothing. The invoice for product that gets sold, right? Nobody orders materials for nothing. They order it for the product they're about to build, right? So if you

Juliann Grant

Exactly. Exactly.

Brion Carroll

look at the comment thread, as you just said, it's product. I don't give a crap where the product is being harnessed and managed in. What silo is being used, whether it's SCM. whether it's ERP, whether it's VOC, voice of the customer, I don't give a crap. I'm saying that every place that where you see product has its place, that should be part of product life cycle management. We have to as leaders, and Michael, thank you for reinforcing, we are the leaders. We have to as leaders bring everybody up and say, it used to be technology that harnessed and bordered what we call PLM because guess what? That's what we were living with, suck it up. Now, technology has enabled like Oleg is initiating with OpenBOM, right? Is the windows are open, the doors are open. PLM is now raised above all that. It should be wherever product is referenced, that's product lifecycle management. Back into the balcony.

Michael Finocchiaro

So ⁓ what emerging ⁓ market like component economics, procurement, intelligence, ⁓ presents the most significant long-term growth potential? Why is it essential for the next generation of tools to unify engineering, procurement, ERP, all into a data-driven loop? Because I think that's what you're talking about, Brian. You're saying all these things should be in one loop, but we're not sure how to get from here to there, right?

Brion Carroll

Right. Well, that's the, and I put my hand up trying to, jumped out of the balcony. Okay. Put my hand up. Um, is that AI is the next technology that will go for the next 10 plus years. Period. AI will never stop. People fear it and want it. It's all that weird digestive, you know, will that buddy be my friend or will he kill me in the end? You know, all that stuff is, part of that.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha ha!

Brion Carroll

process. But if you say you want to take and as Brian has brought up and as Martin has brought up and you also has brought up the fact is make what the companies need. You have to have AI be able to look across all where product is involved and have its insights be inclusive of all of those silos regardless of what they are. It has to be raised up to the level where it says I know everything. I homogenize all this data. I don't give a shit. Excuse me. I don't give a crap what each Silo is doing, I'm pulling that data in, and at some point I'm going to say, G company, you should do this with this region for that product because revenue is going to increase by opening that market to that product. And so we have to have AI be the friend and the benefactor is the business in the next 10 years. Back to the balcony.

Oleg Shilovitsky

I hate to disappoint, but before it was ⁓ SQL relational databases and before it was a cloud and before it was social and each time it came as a new technology. The thing that the thesis that I wanted to stress is that ⁓ without market any technology will fail. And I think one of the challenges today with BLM is that we continue to sell it to the small... group of very large companies and the rest of the companies or the rest of the verticals on markets might not be addressed. My best example is American Tobacco. They sold cigarettes to men and they said, enough, they will not smoke more. Let's sell it to women and quadruple their revenues in the next three years. So PLM can do something similar, just focus on the market and the problems.

Martin Eigner

But that happens just in Germany because of the critical situation of the economy. It's interesting, the industrial users, the discrete manufacturing stocks, and we get totally new customers for some Red Bull.

Brion Carroll

That's why I it's the enterprise.

Martin Eigner

a huge implementation and they are using a PLM environment. I have requests from food industry, from drug markets. They would like to have a digital twin for the drug market story. I think we have different markets. I would like to say we sell PLM to the ladies. think they just using it. we have different. Right now in Germany, new markets are coming up and I like it.

Brion Carroll

Right. Hahaha Well, anyone that produces a product has digital threat as a benefactor and a use. The thing that most people do is they find that because I'm in a certain industry, let's say at CPG, right? They're doing lubricant or they're doing some lotion and they say, well, I'm not PLM. I don't do that stuff. Well, in reality, yes, you are. You have a bill of material, you have a bill of labor. You have an execution in an MES system that manages how you manufacture it. You loop back when you have issues, you do batch management and testing. You are a. PLM enabled company industry. if we, again, we cannot say that PLM is only for manufacturing retail. You're all wearing clothes, right? Aren't you wearing clothes? I see clothes. Come on, say it. Yes, I am. That stuff's managed inside of a PLM system in most cases, which is product colorway size, right? Whole different than I have a product like the fan above my head. It's a fan of a certain color. So the dimensionality of a product

Martin Eigner

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

differs based on industry, but the need of managing all of its activities from ideation to commercialization and back is something that PLM should take. The whole thing, not just this little piece, not something that leaks a little bit, it should take over the whole thing. Let engineering do what they do, let product management and merchandising people do what they do, let manufacturing do what they do, and all of them will be tagged in. talk to what I refer to as the umbrella PLM. And I think you all nodding in one form or another. And I think as an industry leaders, we're all agreeing that PLM shouldn't be harnessed and held into a box. It has to come out. It has to lift to become part of the whole. And then you can put AI on it and the story keeps going. Back to the balcony.

Martin Eigner

No, I'm not. I'm the one who's off the house. I can't even of two days. Oh, I'm sitting here. See you later. Fuck it. I'm I'm going go. I'm going go. I'm to I'm going go. to go. I'm go. I'm going go.

Juliann Grant

But you've to wonder how actually get that done. And I think that's where the problem happens. So

Martin Eigner

I'm going to go. I'm I'm going I'm going I'm I'm I'm going going I'm going to to

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, that's what I was wondering too.

Juliann Grant

the data that exists to actually make that happen is tremendously different from each other. But they're all trying to do the same thing. So vendors do the open APIs, and we try to get data into things and out of things. But there's very little standardization in the way products and things are handled, processes are handled.

Brion Carroll

You're welcome. I know. That's,

Martin Eigner

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

but you hit it right on the neck. So I always talk about, and I think Rob, you brought up, they never get to that point. I used to call integrations to be the third phase of PLM, right? They do data modeling, then they do process modeling, then they go to do integrations. They say, oops, we got to upgrade. Then they do something else. They say, we got to expand. They never get to integrations because why? It's fear. They're afraid. I wrote an article, Overcoming Fear. Right? People are afraid of integration. So when you talk about how are we going to address PLM as something that it can only exist through integrations. It can only exist through intimation or the intimate intelligent integration of a backend PLM and each one of those silos, which has different data for different companies and different tools. Holy crap. We're all going to die. No, we have to look at it as industry leaders, as PLM has to take on the heavy lifting. It has to be brought.

Jos Voskuil

Okay.

Brion Carroll

to where it becomes intimated to all the things that have product participation, all of them, leaving none out. And it's not going to be the same for any two companies. It will not. And so if we take on the PLM is now lifted to something that is a solution, not a system, it doesn't have vendor constraints like which vendors selling it? None of them. Nobody's selling it. It's a solution approach. We as an industry have to send the herds out.

Martin Eigner

you

Juliann Grant

Nope, that's true.

Brion Carroll

to bring PLM to the masses has to be solutioning, not system vendor. Now, some like Oleg's company, right, really facilitate that to be a lot easier because there is homogenization to some degree of content and that makes it easier to put that layer on top. But we cannot walk away from the fact that we as leaders need to say it's time. Technology's here, systems will always be systems. Product will span multiple systems. as vendors, or excuse me, ⁓ intellects in the PLM community need to say, take it on, bro. We got to take it on. Let vendors do what they do. We got to take it on. Back to the balcony.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think that there's also a ⁓ bit of a rub because the ERP systems are primarily transactional and our systems are primarily collaborative, but with some transactions too, which is what makes them more complicated to understand to people that aren't in the industry like us, right? I had this discussion with a startup and he said, well, wait, I don't need a system of record because I've got this collaboration thing.

Brion Carroll

Ha! Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Michael Finocchiaro

Those aren't the same thing. you can't have a collaborative system that doesn't, you you've got to store the bomb somewhere. Someone's got to be able to pick that up and transform it into a manufacturing bomb to build the product. Otherwise you just got a generative design that doesn't help anybody, right? There's got to be.

Brion Carroll

Bye. Did you really, Michael, you realize what you just said though, right? There is a bomb as designed. There's a manufacturer bomb which might have placeholders and factory source crap and everything else. There's a bill of labor on how to operationally set that up which drives an MES system, right? Or MES, right? And then you've got testing that goes on. Then you've got feedback loops on did it pass, did it fail? Did this work, sell work? And so there are many bombs and then it goes out in the field. Let's say it's a tractor or an airplane. It goes out to the field. Now it's as maintained. So now you got three bombs. And if you look at the third bomb, that's evolution, right? Cause as service will change and it could change because when they do something in manufacturing, they find, oops, that's a bad part. So now they kick that new part out into service. So that bomb is influenced by a new design found in manufacturing, sent out to as service, right? So my point is there is no single bomb. There is no single version of the truth. There is a set of things that evolutionarily have to say we own product life cycle, the full life cycle. We don't shut our doors.

Martin Eigner

Just see you in Paris!

Jos Voskuil

Yeah, yeah, I'm jumping now from

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, thanks

Jos Voskuil

the balcony.

Michael Finocchiaro

Martin. See you.

Juliann Grant

Martin.

Jos Voskuil

see you. Yeah, yeah. See you next time. Bye-bye.

Martin Eigner

Brion Carroll

What are you doing? You freaking out there, bro? What's going on?

Martin Eigner

No I-

Michael Finocchiaro

Yes, ago.

Martin Eigner

Brion Carroll

You agree with what I'm saying? Or you going, bye, okay, he's leaving. Sorry about that, I forgot about the time.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, yes, and ⁓ Martin both had to go early.

Martin Eigner

No, ⁓ I did. my comment is we have from 1990s, where the market leader coming from, have a monolithic approach. Then in the 2000s, the web service comes up and now we have cloud native. And in parallel, we have a transactional behavior, we have a transformational behavior. And I predict for the future, we will substitute transaction and transformation.

Brion Carroll

Yep.

Martin Eigner

by AI agents. example, what we are doing right now in a project is graph-oriented. We generate, made an AI agent made a proposal from an E-bomb for an M-bomb. And so that is what I predict for the future. That is my intention.

Brion Carroll

Yeah. But I agree. AI should be something that is a carrying agent between the different silos. Right? So what you just said is what I call ELM, engineering lifecycle management, which is what today, yesterday and before was called PDM or PLM. That thing has generated to Martin, to your point, an engineering bomb. An AI agent says, Hey, you know what I think? I think you should do this for your M-bomb. Bam. Right? facilitating the silo transfer of content or the transformation of data. So why is that not PLM product life cycle management? Why is PLM got to be stuck in the engineering community only? It doesn't need to be engineering life cycle management needs to be stuck in the engineering community, but product life cycle management needs to be lifted above it. Period. Otherwise we're, we're all, and I hate to use this term lying to the market. We're saying product life cycle management is kind of product, maybe not. It's not over here, over there. It's only here, but it's product. And that's an improper statement. Can't do it.

Rob Ferrone

Michael, what would you like to happen in the next three minutes? Have

Martin Eigner

you

Rob Ferrone

you got a closing statement or have you got a question or quick round the panel?

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ Well, there was a last question around what is the fundamental shift from controlling the day to day work? Well, I don't like that one either. think that I'm not sure we had a conclusion. I think there's a lot of differing opinions.

Brion Carroll

I want to suggest a conclusion, Rob. Rob, I want to suggest a conclusion.

Rob Ferrone

How long is that going to take, Brian?

Brion Carroll

For 71 minutes.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha

Brion Carroll

Trying to set a record. The point is, I think we as industry leaders should suck it up and say product life cycle management is not a system. It is not a vendor's offering. Unite Irene, right? It is something that we have to, as a industry, look at as solution, which means our mind tends to shift. Oleg is already ahead of everybody, right? He's already thinking PLM is just a earth, you know, it's an environment where other things leach into.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha ha ha It's, it's, it's damn thorough.

Brion Carroll

He's already taken the first step of open, I'm open, I'm open, right? That's why it's called open bomb. But the fact is the world needs to look at PLM. This gets into the ERP, the CXO, the CFOs authorization of larger dollar amounts. It has to go beyond, we are engineering, trying to automate our engineering. has to go to product life cycle, product life cycle management, the full life cycle. If we do that, it is unique to each, but people like

Martin Eigner

you

Brion Carroll

Vendors like Oleg will say, ⁓ we're living in a new environment where open borders is the key. And I know everybody's into structure borders. I don't give that crap. The fact is, right, right. So.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Bums, not borders. Bums. Bums, not borders.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha ha! Brian too, you've been quiet for a while. you have a closing statement up there, Brian? Brian too?

Brion Carroll II

⁓ No, I don't have a closing statement. I appreciate the time and always thank you.

Michael Finocchiaro

Julianne?

Juliann Grant

You know, this has been a great conversation, so thank you all. I similar, I have, I wasn't thinking of a big concluding statement, except that, you know, companies that are looking at trying to, you know, innovate and go to market faster and better really just need to take a step back and not look at technology as a solution, but look at what they're trying to accomplish for a product perspective, from an, from a business perspective. And then, you know, back into understanding where the product data lives and who needs it and who needs to get it to do things faster and better. So.

Rob Ferrone

you

Juliann Grant

That's sort of my thought process there.

Michael Finocchiaro

Thanks, Julianne. Martin, because I think you had to go.

Martin Eigner

I think what I mentioned, we all agree that we need something like an umbrella, something on top of all the legacy system along the product lifecycle, which breaks the silo, which helps us to communicate with artificial intelligence and this gives us end-to-end engineering processes.

Rob Ferrone

Okay.

Martin Eigner

And I think we all agree, I think that we should not make it too complex, it is much easier.

Michael Finocchiaro

and then Rob and then Brian and

Brion Carroll

No, I'm done. I've used my time.

Oleg Shilovitsky

My conclusion is that...

Brion Carroll

Oleg Shilovitsky

My conclusion is no one is waking up and saying, need this, I need a product. Everyone is waking up and saying, I want to solve a problem. So that's why connecting the data. And this is where I agree very much, Martin, what you said. I think Julian also mentioned like what the problem that we are solving. That would be the first and the data would be second and how to call it will be third or maybe less relevant.

Rob Ferrone

you

Martin Eigner

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Rob, thank you.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Thank you, great, great conversation.

Martin Eigner

He he he.

Rob Ferrone

I love everything that Julianne's been saying in this meeting, so I default to her conclusion.

Juliann Grant

Thanks, Rob.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha!

Brion Carroll

Acquiescing. Holy crap. Good.

Michael Finocchiaro

What is that?

Rob Ferrone

I mean, Julianne, she says a lot of sensible stuff and yeah, it's been a great, session with you all and look forward to the next chat.

Michael Finocchiaro

Glad she's here. Yeah, think next, Ted, we're going to start working a bit offline on a manifesto. So we'll probably talk about that. But there's also a couple of topics around master data management. And we haven't really dove very deeply into the real long-term effects that AI is going to have on the definition of PLN. We've talked about what is PLN today. But in two, three years, I think it's not going to be the same thing. mean, fundamentally, it's

Juliann Grant

Yes.

Michael Finocchiaro

as a system, it'll be different and probably our thinking about it is going to be evolving as well. So with that, I wanted to say thank you very much to the panelists. Thank you to the audience. We had a pretty decent audience today, actually. And we'll organize another one of these in a couple of weeks, like usual.

Juliann Grant

Great. Thanks all. Have great day. Bye.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Thank you

Rob Ferrone

Great. Thanks everyone.

Martin Eigner

Bye bye.

Brion Carroll

Thank you, Michael. Thank you, everybody.

Michael Finocchiaro

Thanks

Rob Ferrone

Okay. Bye bye.

Michael Finocchiaro

everybody.

Martin Eigner

Bye.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay.

Brion Carroll

Very much enjoyed.