Configuration Management: The Unsung Hero of PLM

Episode Summary

The episode titled "Configuration Management: The Unsung Hero of PLM" delves into the critical role configuration management plays in product lifecycle management (PLM) and engineering software. The panel includes regular contributors Rob Ferrone from PLM Next, Brion Carroll from Digital Solutions Group, Jim Brown from OpenBOM, and Oleg Shilovitsky also from OpenBOM, along with special guest Eric Schrader from Propel. These experts discuss the essence of configuration management, emphasizing its importance in maintaining high-integrity product definitions across various stages of a product's lifecycle—from design to service asset. Key insights revolve around the need for upstream and downstream integration to ensure consistency, the challenge of achieving a single version of truth due to multiple systems managing variant data, and the critical role of robust data governance and quality. The episode underscores that configuration management is not just about controlling product definitions but also ensuring accurate and consistent information across all stages of the product lifecycle, which is essential for effective PLM implementation and successful engineering projects.

---

Full Transcript

Michael Finocchiaro

Hello and welcome to the Future of PLM podcast. I think we're live now. ⁓ I've got this great panel as always with regulars, Rob, Brion Jim and Oleg and a special guest, Eric Schrader. Everybody say hello. ⁓ Let's quickly go around the horn and in terms of the round robin, when you say configuration management, what are you actually controlling? Go Rob.

Rob Ferrone

So I think it's you're controlling product definition across the life cycle or so across time. So it's important that the product definition is high integrity. So everyone knows what you're building and at what stage.

Michael Finocchiaro

Boom, Mr. Brian.

Brion Carroll

Yes, I'm Carroll, CEO, principal consultant at Digital Solutions Group. So, configuration management as Rob said should be everything. It should be what it started out, a new product introduction and how it went through its process, it had iterations. And that's configuration management, evolution. And then as it gets through to manufacturing or sourcing, that should be consistent. And if somebody changes something, a vendor or whatever, that should be applied. And as it goes down to MES and ERP and so on, in those instances, if there's any change that gets required because of a sourcing limitation or a factory limitation, then that should be rippled back into PLM. So configuration management should be the life cycle of that product configuration throughout its variant life.

Michael Finocchiaro

Good, good summary. Mr. Brown.

Jim Brown

So I would say that it's definitely about controlling the definition of the product from design, hopefully all the way through the service asset. But I think the should be is a little bit different depending on the scenario, right? I mean, you you have to look at the difference between a fighter jet where you're looking at, you know, configuration management by tail number and managing every little bit versus a consumer product like a washing machine, right? And so the should be is very different for each of those scenarios.

Michael Finocchiaro

Right, it's gonna change quite a lot depending on that. Oleg?

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, so I'm Olek Sielowicki and CEO co-founder of OpenBOM. ⁓ For me, configuration management is the product data on the record. So what we have on the record, what is ⁓ recorded has history and can be controlled. This is for me the configuration management. I still follow this year, I don't know why someone called the use word configuration for this, but... Configuration management, it's all the data on the record that they have.

Michael Finocchiaro

Awesome. And Mr. Eric Schrader, our special guest from Propel.

Eric Schrader

I look at it as the complete product truth. So item identity, revision, structure, quality of state, and even commercial definition connected in one record, not files, not documents, just the product.

Michael Finocchiaro

Wow, that was the most succinct of the five. That's great. ⁓ Okay, so I'll throw this one open. Anybody can grab it. And we'll, give it, let's do two minutes on what is the most common false belief companies have about CM? Who wants to go first? Go ahead, Brian. And then like.

Brion Carroll

So I think the false belief is that it's accurate. I hate to say this, but the fact is you've got PLM, you've got ERP, you've got sourcing, you've got MES, and all these systems have a variant of what the bill of materials is. And if you don't have upstream and downstream intimation, which I call intelligently integrated, right? Not just push it, but intimate it, then you can have variances that

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha

Brion Carroll

One version of the truth, there is no version of the truth. Because by the time it goes everywhere, it's been changed so many times that what it originally was, it's like the whisper around to each individual in a room. By the time it comes back to you, you said, can you pass me the water? And by the time it gets back to you, it says, you killed your little brother. And it's really kind of like a weird transformation. But I think that's the thing is they believe it's true when actually it's not.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, so it's sort of the single closest source of truth and single source of change like Mr. Hushmand would say. Oleg, you wanted to raise your hand too.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, right.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, for me, the story of configuration management is like we are running out of words. That's why we use the word configuration. And many people jump in conditions saying, it's about product configurations. And this is where you start. So this is like the entire story of me around this configuration management. It's always like, how your configuration management is managing my configurations. There you go. That's in my eyes the confusion and problem.

Michael Finocchiaro

Let me ask out one, common misbelief.

Rob Ferrone

Yeah, I think I was next in

Eric Schrader

I think.

Rob Ferrone

the hand cue. So I think the one of the biggest false beliefs is that it's a burden or that it's administrative, it's bureaucratic. And you see this a lot with, you know, the post from Martin where he talks about a lot about the perception of CM. However, it's actually a business performance enhancer.

Michael Finocchiaro

Interesting. Eric, I think you wanted to speak. No?

Eric Schrader

I was going to say, think a common false belief is that the right methodology will save you. It won't. Companies with the most rigorous CM processes also often have the most chaos because of either poor rigor or manual process that people aren't using. So I think the enemy is non-adoption, I think, not the perfect methodology.

Michael Finocchiaro

Thanks Eric. And Jim, you had a last comment.

Jim Brown

Yeah. I mean, I think, I think mine is, ⁓ one, one size does not fit all. mean, configuration management means a lot of different things to different people. And I think that for some people, you just need to have a tight control from getting engineering to manufacturing, or especially if it's outsourced manufacturing. ⁓ but you know, so many companies are waking up to the, you know, the potential in the service life cycle and really staying with their product and making money on the backend. And in that, in that case, you need to really connect it out to SLM. that I think it's just a very different thing depending on your business needs. So one size does not fit all.

Michael Finocchiaro

So let me segue on exactly that comment. Thank you, Jim, to the next section, which is more on like the object model, right? When we're trying to model this in our PLM and our MES and our API, our system, obviously this group is going to be favoring the PLM vision of the world. What is the minimum set of primitives for doing configuration management? Item identity, configuration rules, effectivity, baseline, traceability. What's like the minimum? that almost every industry we're gonna touch is gonna need. Anybody wanna grab that one first? Go ahead, Brian.

Brion Carroll

So you put out a list and I like the list. know that if you configuration rules, effectivity baseline as built traceability, ⁓ it depends on as as Jim brought up what you're trying to manage. If you're to manage the clothing, then there's a little more looseness on what happens because you're know, outsourcing the manufacturing in most cases. But if you're doing something that you know enjoins you with manufacturing, then all the aspects of the

Michael Finocchiaro

colorways and all that stuff.

Brion Carroll

configuration, even the rules by which a change variant can be applied, or how that data gets conformed to fit manufacturing, and that coming back up as something that is, you know, a purchasable thing during like grease or machine oil, right. So I think all those things that you mentioned are required if they apply to, as Jim brought up, the business that you're running.

Oleg Shilovitsky

you

Michael Finocchiaro

Rob, you had your fan-dub.

Rob Ferrone

Yeah, so in terms of MVP, I think there's things that people always associate with configuration management, like effectivity and baselining. But ultimately, think Eric touched on this earlier on when he talked about the methodology. actually need, like PLM, you need people, the culture, the human component of this. You need the technology component of this in terms of where does the data exist and how are you capturing it. You need the workflows and the processes associated with it. And then obviously the data itself. So it's the usual kind of holistic challenge that we see with PLM too.

Michael Finocchiaro

Great. Anybody else want to jump in or do I move on to the next part of this one? Go ahead Jim.

Jim Brown

I'll sort of jump on to what Rob said. I think data governance. You I think, you know, you need to have processes, you need to understand what you're doing, but you also need to understand the data across the spectrum of the systems that you're using and how things fit in. What a revision means and what an effectivity date means in engineering versus what it's going to mean in your ERP versus what it's going to mean when you dispatch it to MES can be very different. So I think that, you know, in addition to the people in process, you need to really understand. how the data flows across.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, exactly. yeah, think there's quite a... There's a lot of industry specific stuff here, right? Whether you're doing engineered order or built to stock or configured order or anything in process industries is gonna be quite variable. That said, where should it live? Like should it live on the bomb, in the side of the parts? Should it live inside the bomb structure? Is it just live in the rules? Is it just in the requirement management system or the software feature flags? It's just kind of all over the place, right? That's one of the issues that makes it kind of an ugly, sticky, messy, hard to control kind of monster, right? Sort of a big octopus ends up touching almost everything in the system.

Brion Carroll

Ha ha ha. So I'd like to just note that I think any system, we call them silo systems like PLM, ERP, e-commerce, whatever. All of those that have an effect to need to see the configuration have right to be configuration management delivered, right? So if you're manufacturing something, the configuration should go into your ERP system and based on the line structure, your MES, right? If you're outsourcing manufacturing, they may just need level assembly or content like fabric if you're doing garments. So it just has to go wherever the ⁓ visibility of that configuration is necessary for that silo system to function.

Oleg Shilovitsky

⁓ I would jump and say that whatever can be on the record, I agree with Brian, like whatever on the record, we can store this information as information formally represents the product. That's where it will be storing. And if it's a document management system, like some companies do, and if it's BLM system, it's any other system, where the system will be on the record, it will give you a configuration item and baseline, it will be fine.

Eric Schrader

Yeah, I would add to that basically that it's everywhere that it's needed, but anchored by one ⁓ item identity. I it's a bit of a mistake to make BOM the configuration truth. But I think that feature flags and software versions are now configuration items too. So if CM can handle that, a ⁓ firmware version, then ⁓ there's a gap.

Michael Finocchiaro

the other comments.

Eric Schrader

Right. And so I think we're having it challenged by how whole product is defined across mechanical, electrical, and now software. And I think that is a challenge in CM.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, let me just jump in here. You said if software can't find its way into a mechanical bomb, then we have a problem, right? And that's where I think you said that the firmware rev, right Chip?

Michael Finocchiaro

Quick quickly Brian

Eric Schrader

Well, I just said that there's feature flags ⁓ and software versions that are configuration items, and those aren't necessarily always handled ⁓ in a change order and in a revision. Sometimes they're handled and expressed in a specific ⁓ instance that the customer has, right? So it is a more complex problem as you add in kind of the complexities of software.

Brion Carroll

Right.

Eric Schrader

Over there are updates, know, feature flags that you can turn on and off. These are all ⁓ they all go into ⁓ kind of system design, but but also ⁓ You know kind of make it a bit more complex from a CM

Brion Carroll

So let me just add one thing, Michael. I just want to bring Jim and Eric together. Jim was talking about as service, right? Service bond. And the more we get into SAS regulating what's going on in a delivered product, like a lawnmower or a car, and the firmware needs to be downloaded to update it on this car, but not that car, blah, blah, blah. that software should find its way into the as-service configuration management side. If it does, then what you're talking about begins to fall away as an issue and become more amalgamated, right? Combined as a solution, right? You would think.

Eric Schrader

Sure, if your system can handle that, right? So if your process is, yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

Have a good day.

Brion Carroll

Yes, great, great. Gotcha.

Michael Finocchiaro

So.

Brion Carroll

I think what we're doing is we're talking about what is and then what should be right. The as is to be. So sometimes you need to make clear it's the to be we're talking about, which many people don't have. And the as is is what they're struggling with.

Rob Ferrone

It be.

Eric Schrader

Yeah.

Rob Ferrone

One thing I just wanted to...

Eric Schrader

Exactly.

Michael Finocchiaro

Rob, you wanted to get a word in?

Rob Ferrone

Yeah. Excuse me a minute. Do we, do we all agree that the, let's say the lens or the view of, um, configuration shifts over time, according to where we are in the life cycles. that, you know, when, for example, we, the, the development is done and the manufacturing is running and the products are in field, then the focus is more about what's the configuration of the products in the field. Um, so that there's.

Brion Carroll

Sorry.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha ha ha ha!

Brion Carroll

Right.

Rob Ferrone

you know, kind of peaks of fidelity where you need to be really, really accurate at every stage. And for example, while you're doing your engineering, maybe the manufacturing definition doesn't have to be absolutely perfect because you're not there yet. However, when you get to there, you do need to be bang on.

Michael Finocchiaro

I'm going to change to the next section because we're a quarter of the way in and we still got four sections. Let's talk about variance options and effectivity, sort of the core, the DNA of configuration management. ⁓ Round Robin, what's the hardest configuration management problem in the real world? Is it options? Is it effectivity, alternatives to substitutes, supplier changes, or software and firmware, which we just talked about a second ago? Thank you, Brian. rapid fire. why don't we go, we go the other way. Eric and then Oleg and then Jim and then Brian and Rob will go there. Cause that's how my screen ended up. So go ahead Eric, what's for you? What's the hardest one?

Brion Carroll

Thank

Eric Schrader

Yeah. I mean, think PDM certainly answers what files exist and who has the latest. And CM is really about what's the approved product definition, right? And when is it valid? ⁓ I think the variant ⁓ management is which configuration is right for a specific customer, the market, or an order. So I think that's a slightly different question. And I think most companies have PDM. Some have CM.

Michael Finocchiaro

the effectivity.

Eric Schrader

almost none have variant management in the context of both. And that's where bomb chaos, I think, actually lives.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ooh, someone got the title of the podcast and that thing. He definitely gets extra points. Good job. like.

Jim Brown

No, you get extra points for that, don't you?

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, I think the biggest challenge is discrepancy between different... definitions of the product and we come in from the three directions here. Engineering is simple. If I have revision A, I know what is included in the structure. Manufacturing is getting more complex because if this is a date, but I'm still using the previous revision and this is where all the place of effectivity. Now, when we go into variants, it's getting more messy because sometimes the config variant, the effectivity use the same words. This is where people are getting like, it's a unit effectivity, it's variant effectivity, it's data effectivity. But then it comes to variants and we say there is different configurations of the product. So some people use variants. Now you cannot definitely say what is included because you can have configured structure and you can have a resolved structure. I think all these things together enough to create chaos. So you ask to use word chaos. think when you trying to put them all together, you're getting chaos.

Jim Brown

It's just chaos. I mean, that's all.

Oleg Shilovitsky

You

Jim Brown

So, no, I don't know. No, think the key thing is actually people, and all of the issues that everybody bringing up are true. I mean, there's the software, mechanical, electrical. Eric, I love that you brought up the actual in-use configuration switches, like feature switches and stuff like that. It's gotten incredibly more complex.

Michael Finocchiaro

Why are you on this call, man? Come on. ⁓

Oleg Shilovitsky

Someone needs to manage it.

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓

Jim Brown

But as it's done that, you've got so many different domains that are responsible. You you've got, you've got a service domain, you've got different engineering disciplines. And then on the backend now, you know, as Eric, you start talking about that, that's sales, right? That's somebody subscribing to a service. And all of a sudden you've got sort of a sales oriented CRM ERP system that's involved in it. And so trying to get those people to all align on doing something the right way.

Brion Carroll

You

Jim Brown

⁓ and not owning their part of it and having it expand. I think it's the carbon, it's the carbon, not the silicon.

Michael Finocchiaro

Nice, that's a good quotable. That'll show up on my viral quotable list. Check, check, check. Brian, keep it short, keep it short.

Jim Brown

And it's chaos. And it's chaos.

Brion Carroll

bookends you just bookend that.

Oleg Shilovitsky

You're getting what you asked for, Michael. ⁓

Brion Carroll

So, So it's about a 20 minute statement I want to make. So I hope you can handle it. No, I'm kidding. So the thing is, I think it all depends on the PLM and ERP system and so on that you have. We've talked about in prior sessions that overloading the link is a way in which to exclude or include a parent-child relationship, right? So if you're able to do variances in PLM associated by CAD.

Michael Finocchiaro

god.

Brion Carroll

Variants could include color, could include location, channel, anything, effectivity, If you're able to do that, then all of these, depending on who you are looking at it, whether you're the, I'm the ERP person or I'm the supply chain management person, or I'm the sales configuration management person, any of them would have the ease of being able to look at what is their content and ignore all other content. So if that exists within the PLM system, then none of these become issues. If it doesn't exist, then depending on what it is, I'd say variance, especially by channel, ⁓ would be the hardest to maintain ⁓ of all those things you just brought up.

Michael Finocchiaro

Rob.

Rob Ferrone

Yeah, I think, ⁓ effectivity is a really big challenge, depending on which industry you're in, whether it's washing machines or fighter jets. But, if you, I think the real challenge is, ⁓ status accounting, ⁓ for, for products that need to be, ⁓ managed and serviced for many, many years, especially where you haven't maybe had the technology all those years ago to document what's on the product. So you have, you know, battleships coming back into. be maintained and they don't even know what's on there. And so you have to spend two years first of all understanding what the product is before you can even then think about making repairs and overhauling it. So I think, and whether it's wind turbines or cars, cars, doesn't matter so much if you change the tires, but there's certainly things that do need to be controlled. ⁓ maintenance people aren't incentivized by properly documenting the changes they make. In the case of the fence, they've got bombs flying over their heads and they just need to get this thing back on the ground and fighting again. So they're not going to like fill out forms to say what they swapped.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, I wanna try something different. I wanna have a mini debate, two minutes max. Let's just say Rob and Jim on effectivity. Should you do effectivity date-based, lot-based, unit asset-based? Boom, two minutes. Who wants to go first?

Jim Brown

Rob, you start and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Michael Finocchiaro

Go for ⁓ it. 30 seconds for Rob, starting now. Go.

Rob Ferrone

Yeah, so I think it has to be a business based decisions based on the type of products that you're manufacturing and the types of costs involved. So and the sensitivity. So for example, if you need to use up the stock in all the places where it's being used, you probably want to then make it about the production. Cut in point, I don't think dates ever work. ⁓ And in most cases, think, especially where you're tracking the assets, then it has to be serialized. That's my perspective.

Michael Finocchiaro

Jim, your rebuttal.

Jim Brown

Yeah, you made it hard to argue with you, Rob, but I'm going to say that dates are. I know exactly. No, think dates are, but I'm going to pick on the one thing. I think dates are important. I think that they're just the guideline. think you need to think about when you're going to try and cut into change, know, understanding, understanding when you may want to, cause not all changes are quality issues, right? Some of them are actually introducing new features. ⁓ So I think there, the date is a good place to start. But as you said, for the business is going to drive.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha

Rob Ferrone

I tried to cover as many bases as I could.

Michael Finocchiaro

You

Jim Brown

If it's safety critical, ⁓ you're going to do it right away. You're not going to care about the inventory implications of it, right? But if it's something that's either a minor enhancement or a minor defect or something like that, you know what? You're going to push that out at a time where it's low risk. The supply chain can catch up. You can use up your inventory and that sort of thing. it's got to be just a collaborative decision. But I do think data is important as a starting point, especially if it's a feature.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, let's do the same thing this time between Eric and Oleg. This will be interesting. No, no, no, we're gonna move on, because we gotta keep it moving. ⁓ No, but I was gonna give you a different question. I'm gonna give you the question. So you guys got to debate, and it was a great debate. mean, there was a lot of good input. So now between Eric and Oleg, it's gonna be on configuration rules.

Jim Brown

you didn't get a rebuttal. That's good.

Eric Schrader

I'll be happy to start. mean, I would say that that that ⁓ different question. All right.

Brion Carroll

He's gotta give you the question.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Ha ha ha.

Michael Finocchiaro

Do you go with 150 % BOM, explicit variant BOMs or model based approaches, model based engineering, whatever? Which configuration rules do you prefer? Go, Eric.

Eric Schrader

I mean, I think the 150 % bomb plus rules approach is a powerful, it's pretty powerful in theory, but in maintenance, it's basically a nightmare from a practice perspective. The rules drift and nobody owns them. And in two years, the rules engine says, here's what the product is, is valid. And then the shop floor knows that it can't be built that way. Right? So I think ⁓ tying the variance to commercial skews is a way to align a commercial team and an engineering team with what is being sold. And I think ⁓ if you can do that, that helps prevent chaos.

Michael Finocchiaro

Oh good one. Oh leg. This could be a tough one to debate, but I'm sure you can do it with all those gray hairs.

Oleg Shilovitsky

No, think it's actually very simple to debate. First of all, I don't think there is a right or wrong. Second, it reminds me the old debates about first, second, and the third normal forms in databases. And which one is right? you know, you can go to third normal form, but then you will have a nightmare in everything else. And then you can duplicate your data and then you go with some other data modeling. approaches and it will work fast. So which is the right one? You go based on what your data is, how you want to configure and how would you want to maintain. If you will go away with the options, great. If you go away with 150%, great. If you need rules, you need rules. Just only remember what Albert Einstein said, you need to make things simple, but not simpler. I don't know if it was a debate or agreement, but that's where I think it is.

Michael Finocchiaro

That's a good one. Let's talk about digital thread reality. So when we talk about configuration management across the thread, you started touching on it because you mentioned duplication because there is this problem that we're duplicating the universe across CMMS, PLM, ERP, MES. We've got tons of copies all over the place. So what do you think is the cleanest handshake we can do? between these different systems that are always going to exist so that we don't end up with several copies of the truth. So we end up with a single source of change. Brian.

Oleg Shilovitsky

.

Brion Carroll

so Passing data from PLM to say ERP, there is core key data that is identical. It should remain identical as it goes into ERP. And ERP has its own need for data for its operating function in the way that it wants. Same thing with PIM, where it outputs to EECOM or to big box stores or wherever, ⁓ or supply chain management if you're trying to regulate ⁓ purchasing or trying to get around tariffs or whatever you try to do. So the data, there's a core set data that's always the same. And I think we brought up the, I think OLA brought up this thing, product memory, which I really liked because it becomes the instance of data that is from all these systems aggregated correctly so that you can put AI on it. That kind of form is if you're sending it to ERP, there's a core set of data, then let it add what it wants. If you're sending it to CMS or some other place, there's a core set of data plus whatever they add. And so It really isn't a lot of repeat data, but it's aggregated together. It's a whole group of data. The key question is, if you were to take that data like ERP and CMS and PIM and whatever, how much unique data would you really want or need to put into product memory so that overall you show the life cycle of a product as it goes everywhere and are managing that change? That's a minute, 30 seconds.

Michael Finocchiaro

Who's up next?

Rob Ferrone

I think if when you've, when you've got a left to right flow, when it goes in that direction, it's not too bad because you're kind of cascading information and like I say, the focus will shift and the fidelity will shift. I think when you are, you know, whether it's, ⁓ you know, making changes, et cetera, launching new features up, continually updating product, then you need really, really robust control.

Jim Brown

Good job,

Michael Finocchiaro

Go ahead, Robert.

Rob Ferrone

But ultimately, the baseline is the product data model that you've all agreed and you say, we know what information has to exist where and which systems, et cetera. And then it's just about making sure that you're not just doing change control to the product itself, but also to make sure that the information flows to all the different places in the organization where it needs to.

Michael Finocchiaro

Nice. Anyone want to add to that?

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yeah, I just want to jump. I just want to, think

Jim Brown

I would add just go ahead.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Brian hit a very important point is related to identifications. I think like systems can go out of sync, but if you focus on identification. That will prevent it. will give you one just simple example. One day we get a customer that came to us and said, why you cannot do the materials? I said, because you don't have part numbers. He said, but my CAD system can work without part numbers. Why do you need it? Everything called part one. He said, the CAD system can work with this. I mean, the great for CAD system, but we cannot do anything without this. That's the point. So you need to identify things that they can go connect if you don't have it. Eventually things will be disconnected.

Michael Finocchiaro

So when we talk about this, also, we always have this idea of the different phases, right? As you go from as designed to as planned, as built to as maintained. Anybody want to pick, let's get one of each of you to pick, to defend as designed, as planned, as built, as maintained. And then let's talk about which is the most fragile and what energy, what should the industry standardize on? Who wants to take as built?

Brion Carroll

Ha

Oleg Shilovitsky

It's a chaos now.

Michael Finocchiaro

No, I had to do as as design. So I was sort of as design. Is that more of a Rob one or more of a Jim one?

Brion Carroll

Would it be as planned? Isn't as planned, then as designed, then as built, then as maintained? Isn't as planned first?

Michael Finocchiaro

Well, as planned is ambiguous because it's, there should be actually as, ⁓ as required exactly. There should have been required in the front. ⁓ anybody want to pick up on that to just, ⁓ I thought that would be fun to have each person depend on that one. Okay.

Oleg Shilovitsky

No, it's as designed as first. required.

Brion Carroll

Yes, sir. I'll take as required. I'll take the first one. Somebody take the second one and the third, and then somebody else is going to say chaos. Okay, so as required really is something that has to take in the normalcy and the activity of what is ⁓ applied to the kind of products they build. If it's motor, like the fan above my head, hey, yo, that fan, Hunter fan, that has a certain motor size, a certain blade size.

Jim Brown

I'll take the caboose on the back end.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, go for it. Go, go, go. 30 seconds.

Brion Carroll

and housing and material types. So as required, should, as best they can, comply with what may be derivable from what a company already has or already exists within the part structures or sub-assembly structures of what a company already has. So that's as required. Ding. Next.

Michael Finocchiaro

as built, was that you Jim or is that Rob? That's his own, sorry.

Brion Carroll

as designed. Me

Michael Finocchiaro

Nobody was a good one.

Oleg Shilovitsky

I can take as design, it's not a problem at all. mean, this is how engineers see the system design. So that's the structure.

Brion Carroll

I'm not sure you're as designed, complied with my as required though. I'm really having a hard time finding that as designed and fitting with my as required.

Michael Finocchiaro

That was pretty, that was very, that was So I guess that between the two of those, you've got your model-based system engineering that should be the digital thread between them, right? You should be able to go from requirement, logical, functional, ⁓ logical, physical to get that. ⁓

Brion Carroll

You should, yes.

Oleg Shilovitsky

That's a different one, Michael, I think. It's not this required design engineering manufacturing.

Michael Finocchiaro

Right. But I'm saying that if you're using an MBSC approach, you get the requirements flow into the design, right? The design is the functional logical, physical piece, in my opinion. And then you go up the other side of the V, which is the as planned for the process planning and then as produced, When you build it. I, and the, there's actually a lively debate in the comments and our friend Patrick, our panelists most of the time is saying, remember manufacturing planning. And I think that's what I think of as planned. think of that.

Jim Brown

Thank you.

Brion Carroll

Right.

Jim Brown

think you need to look at it. mean, you know, model-based, you have to think about model-based enterprise, right? It's not just about the design. It really is that life cycle. And how do you take that information and, you know, expand it down the life cycle, but then open it up for change, right? And I think that the further away you get from engineering, the harder it is to keep data under control. And I love the example of, you know, I think it was Rob that said, you know,

Michael Finocchiaro

Mm-hmm.

Jim Brown

you missiles going off above your head, you're probably not filling out that service form. But that's true everywhere. When you get to as maintained, a lot of that information is still on paper, right? A lot of it is service tickets that people are supposed to put in at the end of their shift and that sort of thing. And, you know, as companies are trying to eke money out of that service life cycle, ⁓ there's a lot of value and a lot of potential of fixing as maintained. But I do think it's the hardest. It's chaos, Mike.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha. But I

Rob Ferrone

Sorry.

Michael Finocchiaro

do see the hands up. just wanted to throw in that I think that that's one of the reasons that ⁓ data and IT have to be separated organizationally. Because if it's IT, then it's going to be PLM owns it. No, no, no, ERP owns it. No, no, no, it's not about the data anymore. It's just about ownership and power. But if you're just talking about data and each organization has a data custodian and a data owner that's making sure that the data is flowing and it doesn't end up piled on a desk as you were saying, Jim, then I think that goes a long way to fixing that. whose hand was up? it? Good. I think Rob has his hand up and then Oleg and then Brian. Sorry. Go ahead, Rob.

Oleg Shilovitsky

The biggest challenge in this system is to connect them.

Rob Ferrone

This has all got a bit chaotic. Where are we now? Michael, what is it we're doing?

Michael Finocchiaro

Well, we were talking about the as design stuff and we had like one more minute to wrap that up and then we're going to go on to the future of configuration management.

Rob Ferrone

Okay, so it's this am I picking as produce and I'm saying why it's most important one. It's as built and I'm saying why it's the most important or anyway, so it's the most important because everything else ⁓ up until then has been a dream. It's a fantasy. It's a desire. It's an aspiration. But until you actually make it, that's when physical things come together. And that's when you see the magic of the product coming into the real world and

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, you'd be as built, you're in the manufacturing side already.

Rob Ferrone

and either functioning in the way you thought it would do or not. ⁓ these products are going to go out to customers. that is the most important phase for configuration.

Michael Finocchiaro

And Eric, you want to pick up the as serviced?

Eric Schrader

⁓ Yeah, I mean, I agree with Jim that the as built to as maintained is the most fragile ⁓ and that as maintained is it's not really under governance. It's that field asset record that can be changed ⁓ over the course of time. And so, you know, as we think about how to ⁓ kind of control that, it's understanding what updates have been done over the course of time at a specific

Brion Carroll

.

Eric Schrader

⁓ you know, serialized ⁓ number of product that's out in the field, and then how that can be linked back to the product definition so that it can be understood. that is, think, where it's a fragile transition because you're starting to lose control. But if you can manage that work order process from a service perspective, that's where, as Jim was pointing out, more and more product companies are getting most of their revenue post initial PO. And understanding this service problem from a configuration perspective and maintenance perspective and how impact ⁓ of current designs is going to ripple out to your customer is kind of a key problem to solve. But it is, I think, the most challenging.

Michael Finocchiaro

Awesome.

Brion Carroll

So, so Michael, I just want to bring up a point since we've gone around the horn and we've gotten into a service. Data governance, I think is the organization that you were talking about that owns the data, right? And I think let's go back to requirements. I require that it be A, B, C, E based on what's reasonable. If it does not to, you know, to Rob's point, it doesn't run at a certain speed. And that requirement was not met, which means you should send that back and say, check because it didn't work, which would tell the requirements world, don't ask for it again, or you're to get the same answer as the definition of stupid is doing the same thing twice for the same reason, expecting different results. So if it bounces up and down, data governance being the organization, if it goes from what Eric was talking about through to what Jim was talking about, to what Oleg was talking about, to what Rob was talking about, to what I'm talking about, then data consistency, data governance, maintains the accuracy of that content to the level possible in the system it's coming from or going to.

Michael Finocchiaro

Great. Oleg, you go ahead. You had a statement on pilot charge.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, I think the biggest challenge here, that's where I think I disagree with the question. I think there is not a question of what is more complex because every organization or person or responsible can organize structure in the way they want. And this is where it all comes like who wants requirements, organize them, who wants engineering, organize them, who wants maintenance to organize. Whereas the problem is, when you need to connect them together. This is where it

Michael Finocchiaro

Ahem.

Oleg Shilovitsky

hits the nerve because everyone is trying to put it in the same Excel and it doesn't fit. So, and this is where I chaos start because, this is the thing that I see a lot recently because companies are starting as a services and not selling product, but selling services. Maintenance is becoming extremely important for all of them. And I see how people struggling to connect the engineering and maintenance. And there's a really, really, really becoming hard for them because they want to say, I have this tale of my, whatever they produce or whatever serial number. I want to understand what is inside and I'm installing updates there and I'm doing maintenance and I put software there. All these things can start to get connected together. This is where it starts to hit hard everyone. I can make my Excel of everything, but start connecting it's very hard.

Michael Finocchiaro

Well, let's talk about connections and talk about the future of configuration management. We've had Eric on because I think I give a propel credit for having been the first agentic PLM to at least to announce right back in March of 2025 if my memory serves. So how Eric have you looked at that in terms of, I know you're leveraging the agentic platform of Salesforce called AgentForce and how are you using this? modern approach to using agents in order to resolve some issues. I just want to understand how that works.

Eric Schrader

I mean, I think a great example can be kind of change impact analysis. So having AI basically scan your entire bomb to understand all of the open quality issues, any sort of supply chain data and surface those things so that, you know, and understand that this change is going to affect, you know, 47 downstream assemblies, you know, or, you know, what active customer orders might it impact. So this is where I think AI can really help us. So the engineer doesn't even have to ask, but can take these ⁓ elements into consideration on corporate change and making the best decision for the company. I think that's a great example of where I think AI can be used from a configuration management perspective is to essentially inform and look around the corner, because it is a mountain of data. that ⁓ needs to be processed ⁓ when you're trying to affect any sort of change.

Michael Finocchiaro

I know you've got your hands raised. I wanted to ask Oleg because Oleg also has a product called OpenBOM and he's made some AI announcements as well. How is OpenBOM using AI to resolve some of these issues that we've just talked about on configuration management?

Oleg Shilovitsky

Again, Michael, I probably will disagree with the question. But let me just bring a little bit history. The AI is just technology. So like 30 years ago, we got SQL databases that were brought with the same idea, make analysis of impact and data and connections and everything. And today we say AI can magically do it. mean, AI can do something that relational database cannot do.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha!

Oleg Shilovitsky

And there are a of technologies in between that we are doing different things, some of them different way. So I think the real thing is not if you have a magic technology, if you can make a data adopted to technology and work. ⁓ to fulfill the needs so technology can work with the data. Let's put it this way, AI is amazing technology, but if you cannot tokenize your data, your AI is pointless. Now, if you can dump all your bombs in the text file, but you won't understand the relationships, the AI scanning these text files will give you nothing besides it will hallucinate and will tell you very confidently that something that you will... have to disagree. So will AI solve this problem? yeah, if you will structure the data so AI will understand it and you will create a model that will be able to fulfill it, then yes. Will it be possible to do it? This is where the key is. ⁓

Michael Finocchiaro

Mm-hmm.

Eric Schrader

Yeah, plus one to Oleg on this one. Because I think that data governance is a big part of getting the right answer out of any sort of agentic work that you do. so, ⁓ I mean, this topic ⁓ feeds right into readiness from an AI perspective ⁓ for a lot of companies, I

Michael Finocchiaro

Yep, we had Brian and Jim that had their hands up.

Brion Carroll

So I'm just going to jump back in on the product memory just for a second. I'm starting my little time, my little stopwatch here. so AI, as Eric brought up, to kind of go through and look for oops, oops, oops, and report those alerts so that people can take action. That's a very important thing, right? So it is, as Oleg said, depending on the structure of the data, can AI actually traverse it and find things

Michael Finocchiaro

Clear,

Brion Carroll

that have cause and effect relationships. But one of the things that I see AI agents doing in the CM world is as people are doing things, as they are having ECR meetings, or as they're doing things in relationship to email back and forth, or messaging back and forth, or even on a phone call that can be transcribed, this data being brought into both PLM and as it makes value product memory. When we talk about product memory as this area of the world and anything can go in and AI can lay on it, those agents can come right out of this product memory pool and go into ERP, PLM, PIM, and so on and pull data as it's actually delivered, affected, and put it into product memory so that in the end, AI and product memory and all of your silo systems are all working in a cooperative way.

Michael Finocchiaro

Well, in the same graph, right? Essentially from Alec. Hey Jim, your turn.

Brion Carroll

I saw a thumbs up bro. I'm telling you right now, I saw it. It was a response by those out there.

Jim Brown

Thank

Oleg Shilovitsky

you

Jim Brown

Yeah. So, I mean, I think a lot of what our data is showing right now is in terms of AI, the value is coming and keeping it simple. There's definitely room for agentics. There's definitely room for a lot of other things. ⁓ But some of the low-hanging fruit around configuration management is being able to pull that information together across the different systems and across the different stages of a life cycle. And I think that's where you can find information, consolidate it. and look for errors and inconsistencies, that might be an easy place to start. I've got an answer for what does it look like five, 10 years down the road that's very different. But right now, I think just being able to pull data, put it in one place together so you can identify errors is a big issue.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think on our list for the, call we had configures of classification part, normalization. Nobody mentioned that yet. Option compatibility checks. didn't mention that either. Configuration, validity, auditing. That's sort of what Eric said, right? Impact prediction. ⁓ it was also an one Eric mentioned and then automatic, automated baselining reconciliation between systems. That's the one you just talked about, Jim. So anybody want to mention the other two? ⁓

Brion Carroll

So, so Mike, I'd like to have part classification just for a second. People talk about smart numbering and I know Oleg, you know, with all due respect, he talks about part, intelligent part numbering. But I think that part classification is one of the most powerful ways to make it so that you can find what you've done. You can find based on characteristics and you can only do so much with numbering that gets you to the point where it's not an 85 digit number. like a VIN of a car, right? And so part classification allows you the ability to search for and to respond back with and to find data about ⁓ parts, sub-assemblies and top level assemblies based on characteristics, not based on a number structure. So I just want to put that out there. It's out there in the field, the abyss, here, part classification is good. Part numbering is not there. So we're done.

Michael Finocchiaro

Um, anybody, uh, Rob, you haven't talked in a while. You're usually quite loquacious by this point. when you jump in here.

Brion Carroll

Equatious, that's a good word. Good word.

Oleg Shilovitsky

You

Rob Ferrone

I'm all good. think we've talked a lot about the different use cases within configuration management. It's all good. And we've got 10 minutes left, and I know there's a lot of questions in the chat as well. So I want to make sure we have time to engage with the listeners.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, quite a few. ⁓ Yeah, well, it's a lot of discussion about ⁓ part numbering and data effectively people are greeting with Rob that doesn't work. ⁓ there was one question about MCPs, which makes me want to ask in the last 10 minutes, and I guess you guys each, all five of you at least a minute to expose on it. In terms of, we had the open AI moment. Right. And 20 November, 2022, you suddenly had this incredible chat based at you AI people, even, even your grandma could write down and create a purple elephant if she wanted to, right. Because it was just writing texts. was, it was a, I mean, it was a pivotal moment. It was another, uh, what was the tipping point? It was a tipping point for AI. When will we have a tipping point for PLM and configuration management? Is it coming? Are we there? Are we, is it 10 years away? I'll let, we'll go.

Brion Carroll

you

Michael Finocchiaro

through each of us, we'll get like one minute each. Who wants to start? Brian, you had your hand up.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, I'd like to say that, and I've been tipping on it, grandma being able to talk to an LLM and get an answer back so that she doesn't feel lonely is really good. So that's going to be what we classify as the standard, you know, non-industrial market, right? LLMs being able to keep people company or go to dinner with somebody. It's really weird. But nevertheless, that's happening. I think that if we can move on as industry leaders, this product memory ⁓ profile.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ahem.

Brion Carroll

where we have a meta layer language that says, if I'm storing stuff, like with their agents running around all over the place, I'm stuff in product memory, then it should follow some norm. Like what are key values in the JSON structure or whatever, right? If we can do that, then I think by 2027, we'll have selective companies that have the vision to move forward with. a product memory environment that is a collection of all things coming of relevant value from each one of these silo systems so that the AI can create an aggregative business insight based on this profile data. So that's one minute, seven seconds.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think you have that precision. Oleg is up next, I think. He had his hand up. And then Rob, and then Jim, and then Eric, our special guest. Go ahead, Oleg.

Oleg Shilovitsky

You

Brion Carroll

I'm timing me, man, I'm timing me.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yeah, I think there are two things and I will start probably with your question about chat GPT. I mean, what happened with chat GPT? Simplicity. Hit the nerve. People can do something simple. You said Grand Ma can do it. So, and every Grand Ma cannot do configuration management. It's just way too complex. So, cannot do it.

Michael Finocchiaro

Mm-hmm.

Jim Brown

Yeah.

Oleg Shilovitsky

So when we will be able to deliver simplicity and data is complex, like we cannot, I'm pretty sure we agree that the data is complex. So when we will be able to achieve the simplicity moment, then the adoption will come. Complexity has a very tough time to win in this world. And as many times as we explained that you cannot type on the phone without buttons and everyone believed into this and keep doing buttons. It was nice but for very small group of people. At the moment of time we delivered the tapping on the screen, the problem was solved. So the same is here. Once we will be able, and I promise not to do marketing, so I will not. So once we will be able to achieve the simplicity of Excel.

Michael Finocchiaro

screen. Thanks for that.

Oleg Shilovitsky

then people will start using it exactly like people started to use chat GPT because it was simple. And before that, we got what? Like 20 years of artificial intelligence that everyone was trying to understand what is about and distant from this conversation. I'm not as smart as you know, to participate in this conversation. So simplicity will win.

Jim Brown

Okay.

Michael Finocchiaro

Rob.

Rob Ferrone

So, you saw the Patrick, Professor Patrick's comments recently, why are we having the same conversations for the last 20 years? talked to, you've seen the post from Chad Jackson recently about the research he's done where he said it's not technology, it's the people. Meena Dada, I spoke to her earlier on today, she's pulling her hair out and saying, I can't believe we're still having the conversation around, like, all change management, and why are we not? you know, figured out how to get implement technology. And so really, for me, it's not about the technology, it's about the people. But as we've seen, no one's yet come up with a solution for how to solve the people part of the equation yet either. you know, humans have proved that we've evolved, but we haven't evolved, you know, the human behavior that has been embedded for all these years, and we're still behaving, you know, very individualistic ways. And so I think it doesn't matter how much AI you're going to throw at this, but you need human change and human change is we haven't yet figured out how to make that happen.

Michael Finocchiaro

Jim.

Jim Brown

So Rob, you never, you never watch Terminator. There's a way to solve the whole, and actually it kind of ties into what I'm going to say. You know, of the things that I think is, is, and I don't know it's five years, but one of the tipping points I see is right now we've got all of these companies with big databases trying to track a product and understand what a product, especially once it's out in the field is doing, and you've got multiple systems and then.

Michael Finocchiaro

I will be back.

Jim Brown

this company gets acquired by this other system. So somehow for this product that's running around, you know, my car or whatever it is, it's running out in the real world. ⁓ All of the data is sitting in all of these different places, manufacturer, service people, whoever sold it, a dealer, that kind of thing. Here's my thought. ⁓ Give the product itself information and agency. So there's an agent on the product. ⁓ probably multiple agents and that agent is looking out for the product. Maybe we're getting into a little too much Terminator, but you know, the car knows what it needs to be serviced and it knows its own configuration. Whether you can look it up in any combination of systems, the product knows, the asset knows and asks for a service appointment and orders the right part, orders the right download. So that's that to me. If you want to look at the chat GPT moment. ⁓ I think that's the moment where you're going to say, all right, we're not trying to keep information all around the outside and everywhere. We're putting the information, giving intelligence and agency to the product itself.

Michael Finocchiaro

Unless you're changing a tire, I'm not sure it's going to be able to change its own tire.

Jim Brown

Well, that's why you got the Terminator robot in the trunk.

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ turn it into trunk. I got you. That's the new option. Eric.

Eric Schrader

I mean, I will maybe ⁓ take it slightly different. I think the win is now. I think the how is maybe more as a consumer. So I think a lot of this ⁓ information needs to get to 10 times as many people as govern the data. And so I think when you think about ⁓ CEM and making some of this data available, It's really needed across the enterprise. And so I think, I think it's now where you can make ⁓ information available in a chat interface, through a Slack interface, through a Teams interface that says, what's, what's the configuration? What's the active configuration that I need to, worry about now so that you can. So I think, ⁓ I would say now from a consumer perspective and from a consumption of CM perspective. So I think that's. That's really here now. think, you know, it is, you know, we talked a little bit about kind of all the other things that AI can do from a CM perspective. And I think those are on the precipice as well. But I think we should think about it as like making it simple for for ⁓ your mom to do the purple elephant. It's making it simple for the rest of the organization to understand what is the active product, what is the product and in a and a point in time. And I think that is achievable.

Michael Finocchiaro

So actually it's interesting because I remember at Proveit and the manufacturing side, it was all about contextualizing the data coming off the PLCs. And really we're talking about the moment is when do we get all that context that's brought into whatever we're working on without having to explicitly say what lifecycle phase I'm working on. should just be able to give me the context, right? That's sort of what you're saying here. Yeah, we got two more minutes. So I think you had a couple more people. Go ahead, Rob.

Rob Ferrone

⁓ But the challenge of that is you just to interject, I think the thing is you often need complexity in order to create simplicity and so think that's the challenge.

Michael Finocchiaro

Mm-hmm. Brian, had your hand up.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, I think to Eric's point, you should see the product as per your viewpoint. So if I'm a customer and I have a serialized part or a serialized car, I will see that assembly if you show that per my perspective. But if I'm in manufacturing. and I have serialized parts and are serialized products coming off of the line, I should see what is the effective bill of material. If I'm in engineering, I should see what is the engineered material, bill of material. So that goes back to the viewing of a bill of material with the effectivity on the relationship between the parent and child, which I call overloading the link. characterizing those links as traverse me when the following is true. You want to see what's in this serialized part. You want to see what's in ⁓ this source factory. You want to see whatever, right? So I think serializing is one thing, but the key is allowing the viewer to view through that lens that's characterized by the relationship between the parent and the child.

Michael Finocchiaro

Thanks, Brian. Any parting comments? I've just got one thing to say, but I want to give space to Brian, sorry, Jim, Eric, and Oleg.

Brion Carroll

47 seconds.

Jim Brown

I think you said.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Thanks. I think the question about what is active was really confusing here because what is active for me, it's an engineer, is different. What is active for me is in maintenance.

Jim Brown

I would just say data governance again.

Brion Carroll

Exactly.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah, look into context again. Jim.

Jim Brown

Yeah, no, I think it comes down to the data, the data, data governance and data quality. mean, I think the, you know, what you should be able to do and having multiple views and that sort of thing is, is extremely limited by actually the data that's getting into the systems, especially further downstream from engineering.

Michael Finocchiaro

So I wanted to thank everybody. I wanted to say also this is one of our best attended podcasts. I saw up to 30, 35 people live, so that's awesome. Thank you everybody. There are lots of questions. I think all my panelists will be very glad after this to get on, jump on LinkedIn and answer some of those questions, because I wasn't able to bring them all back into the conversation. I also want to say that we're gonna do, the next conversation we're gonna talk about why. ⁓ most E-bomb, M-bomb stuff is still done in Excel and not in an MES or PLM. I think it'll be an interesting one. We'll have a special guest for that as well. but actually maybe I have two special guests. I wanted to get, ⁓ Jeff Noonan of the, ⁓ on the manufacturing side of Rice, a manufacturing hub, and as well as, ⁓ David Schultz who has a very, very deep experience on the M-S side because they, you know, we're the future PLM, but ultimately on the, when it hits manufacturing, PLM and MES. are supposed to be able to work together. And I think there's a bit of improvement that is possible in the current state of affairs. think I see Jim agreeing with me. So I must be on the right track. ⁓ So that'll be the next call. be in a couple of weeks. If anybody's in the UK, I'll be in Warwick for ⁓ Threaded Live, my first AI startup conference up there. ⁓ Anybody else are going to be in visible in the public the next couple of weeks? guys want to pitch anybody? Conference is coming up for you guys. Nope, ace ace in the 13th of April. Yep, several of us will be there. Oleg Shilovitsky (1:00:37) That's it. That's it. Rob Ferrone (1:00:38) with it. Jim Brown (1:00:42) Yeah, looking forward to threading today's, too. Rob Ferrone (1:00:43) There's a- Eric Schrader (1:00:43) and then we'll run it. Michael Finocchiaro (1:00:45) Sorry, Eric? Eric Schrader (1:00:46) Propulsion is May 11th. It's in Denver. Michael Finocchiaro (1:00:48) There you go. OK. Rob Ferrone (1:00:51) I was just going to mention the Pro Step EVIP, which is happening in the next couple of weeks in Frankfurt, I think. Michael Finocchiaro (1:00:58) nice. And their shared PLM coming in the month of May. Yeah, that's going to be fun. OK, well, thanks, everybody. We'll see you guys on the next podcast. It'll be some of the regulars and some new ones as usual. Thank you once again, Eric. It was awesome having you. I really loved your perspective. You're welcome back anytime. Everybody cool with Eric coming back sometime? Yeah. Awesome. Oleg Shilovitsky (1:01:00) That's in May. Brion Carroll (1:01:18) Yep. Oleg Shilovitsky (1:01:19) Of course. Eric Schrader (1:01:19) I'll be Oleg Shilovitsky (1:01:20) Thank you. Eric Schrader (1:01:20) the fodder in these. Yeah, no, it's great. Michael Finocchiaro (1:01:22) Okay, see you guys next time on the next podcast. Thank you. Oleg Shilovitsky (1:01:26) Thank you everyone. Rob Ferrone (1:01:27) Thank you, bye everyone. Brion Carroll (1:01:28) Okay, bye. Jim Brown (1:01:29) Thank you. Michael Finocchiaro (1:01:30) Awesome. ⁓ crap.