A few months ago, André Radon succeeded Sebastian Grams as chief information officer (CIO) of SEAT S.A. and the CUPRA motorsports brand. In an interview with the PROSTEP newsletter, he explains the IT strategy that the VW subsidiary is using to master the digital transformation from a classic carmaker to a software-driven mobility provider.
Question: Why does SEAT need a CIO or, to put it another way, how much freedom does the subsidiary have in defining its IT strategy?
Radon: IT at SEAT is firmly integrated in the Volkswagen Group’s IT. We help define the strategy and even take the lead here and there. We use services that our colleagues at Audi or Volkswagen provide, just as they use services that we provide. But you still need someone who is responsible for IT locally to ensure that you’re able to respond to the specifics of the markets. Staffing policies and distribution channels in Spain are a bit different to those in Germany, and then there is also a factory where a lot of cars are manufactured, and which has to run reliably. You need someone to take care of IT on site, especially when, as in the pandemic, you suddenly have to upgrade the entire IT infrastructure within a week to ensure that, from one day to the next, over 6,000 employees can continue work in the same way as usual, but from home.
Question: How does restructuring the Group’s IT impact on SEAT and CUPRA?
Radon: We define shared system landscapes or “platforms”, to use a word that is very popular right now. Our company is well known for this in terms of vehicles. But there is also a platform strategy in the context of IT. We currently hold a prominent position here with DPP, our digital production platform, which we are developing together with AWS and other partners, and which is intended to link all the factories that manufacture vehicles. Again, you have to tailor it to the individual factories with their legacy systems. At the same time, there will also be a global engineering platform that we’ll help shape with our specific requirements.
Nowadays, manufacturing industry uses highly complex IT systems to develop equally highly complex products that include an increasing number of electronic and software components. However, the attempt to cast out the devil of complexity with complex PLM solutions is increasingly being stretched to the limit. If users are to get to grips with this complexity, they need applications that are as innovative as they are easy to use.
The key to mastering complexity is end-to-end digitalization from development to manufacturing through to operation and back again. This means that the operational data that is normally collected and evaluated on IoT platforms needs to be linked to the development objects and manufacturing information. Only then can the interrelationships and dependencies be made transparent for all the domains involved at all times.
The ability to weave this digital thread without allowing it to break during the product lifecycle is an essential prerequisite for the traceability of deliverables and development processes. Without this traceability, companies are unable to respond agilely to new market and customer requirements. This means that the digital thread is becoming key driver of competition in times of global unpredictability, which is characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.
Manufacturing companies must position themselves strategically if they are to master the digital thread. To succeed, they need a strategic overall concept for ensuring end-to-end digitalization, which is or should be an integral part of any sustainable PLM strategy.
As a result of the pandemic, this year’s prostep ivip Symposium was once again held on screen. PROSTEP was nevertheless able to make a major contribution to the virtual event with its many offerings relating to digital product development and manufacturing. Our experts showed what they are made of with a wide range of presentations that have been made available to view on-demand on the symposium’s virtual platform.
Colorful shoes, passion and 100% commitment are what characterize Steven Vettermann, our expert in the field of traceability, a topic that received particular attention during the symposium. In recognition of his valuable work in ensuring the successful development of the Association and the symposium, he was made honorary member by the board. For many years, Vettermann was general manager of the prostep ivip Association and contributed greatly to driving its expansion in Asia.
But Vettermann’s involvement was not limited to accepting this honorary membership. In a humorous “Late Night Innovation Show”, he and other speakers gave participants a better understanding of his favorite topic, traceability, and explained how they can help make the complexity involved easier to manage.
Despite the pandemic, PROSTEP has gained a large number of new customer projects in recent months and steered other projects to a successful conclusion. Some examples of these can be seen on the symposium’s digital platform.
In his presentation, Frank Brandstetter, accompanied by a speaker representing the customer, explains the reasons for implementing an agile process model in the development of Daimler’s PDM landscape and describes the associated challenges, in particular with regard to harmonizing working methods.
Carsten Zerbst reports on the implementation of a new toolset for designing complex cruise ships at the MEYER Werft shipyards in Papenburg and Turku, which combines the Dassault Systèmes 3DEXPERIENCE platform and the CADMATIC shipbuilding software. Our technology works in the background to ensure seamless integration of the system landscape.
In his presentation on “PLM Cloudification”, Mirko Theiss presents a project for migrating an existing on-premises data supply solution to the cloud. It is based on the new version of our OpenPDM integration platform, which is made available on the AWS cloud stack. This is the first example of a customer using OpenPDM in the cloud.
On the digital platform, we present not only interesting customer projects but also report on our involvement in research projects and the project work performed by the prostep ivip Association. For example, Josip Stjepandic familiarizes participants with a fully automated tool for creating digital twins for production systems, which can be used for the planning and analysis of facilities or for in-process monitoring. The solution was developed as part of the DigiTwin joint project. It is based on the use of 3D scan data, which is analyzed using object recognition and converted into simulation data.
The Association’s working groups have not been idle over the last months, as the presentations from the live event and the contributions available on the platform make clear. Our employees have made a major contribution to these efforts.
Together with other participants from the DDP project group, Torsten Schmied informs participants about the development status of the digital data package. DDP is a type of metastandard for the exchange of configured, linked engineering data and is intended to permit the creation of a cross-enterprise digital thread.
Andreas Trautheim and his colleagues from the Project Schedule Management (PSM) project group provide an overview of the progress being made in the field of cross-enterprise project management. The group defines processes, methods and interfaces for schedule management synchronization for companies that use waterfall, agile or hybrid project methodologies.
The aim of the Production Lifecycle Information Management (PLIM) working group, of which Stefan Just is a member, is to bridge the gap between the heterogeneous data sources involved in production process planning using a generic information model. In another presentation, Just reports on the work of the Additive Manufacturing Interfaces (AMI) project group, which is developing a specific data model and uniform semantics for the transfer of data for additive manufacturing processes.
The activities carried out by the Integrated Collaboration Framework (ICF) project group are explained by our colleague Tamara Hofmann. Among her other tasks, she is concerned with the development of a cross-domain ontology for interdisciplinary collaboration together with guidelines as to how this shared conceptualization can be implemented in companies.
The presentations from the live event and the specialist contributions in the platform’s on-demand library will be available online to symposium participants until 30 June.
What does PLM strategy look like in a world characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA)? This was the key question addressed at the first PROSTEP CONSULTING DAY. In three live sessions, those participating learned how our capability-based PLM strategy consulting helps them master the challenges posed by digitalization.
It was the first time that we had organized the PROSTEP CONSULTING DAY. The coronavirus pandemic meant that the premiere had to take place online. We consider the high level of participation confirmation of our concept. The participants attended three sessions with different topics that were held at different times and professionally moderated by Julia Bauer. A quick online survey indicated that approximately 35 percent of those attending were from the automotive industry, followed by 16 percent from the mechanical and plant engineering industry.
In the first session, Dr. Martin Strietzel, head of Strategy and Processes, discussed together with colleagues the topics of the future that are of interest to the manufacturing industry and the challenges that digitalization poses to companies. The hype surrounding digitalization stems the fact that we now have at our disposal the technical capabilities required to utilize it in engineering, in the context of Industry 4.0 and for service purposes. However, an effective digitalization strategy is needed to respond to unforeseen events in an appropriate manner, said Strietzel. “The best answer to VUCA is VUCA, in other words vision, understanding, clarity and agility.”
PROSTEP believes that the digital product lifecycle, with focus on the digital twin, is a key element for getting to grips with the challenges posed in these times of VUCA. One of these challenges, especially for midsized companies, is the internationalization of development and production, said lead expert Peter Wittkop. Without a digital thread, there will always be incompatibilities due to the fact that the changes made to products and tools locally are not communicated systematically. This is why configuration management is becoming increasingly important. “In this context, configuration management refers to the traceability of product information, both horizontally throughout the product lifecycle and also vertically in terms of analyzing the impact that changes have on other domains.”
Companies are not only wrestling with internationalization but also with the transition from what was once a mechanical product to software-based systems, which entails further challenges such as interdisciplinary collaboration or digital validation and verification. Traceability is a key capability that makes it possible to start testing against product requirements early, said senior consultant Christian Buehler.
Complexity as a driver of digitalization
Increasing product complexity is a major driver of digitalization, as the customer presentation by Theegarten-Pactec made clear. The packaging machines for confectionery that the midsized company manufactures have, over the course of the past few decades, developed into complex mechatronic systems with a high proportion of electronics and software. The company is tackling topics like requirements management, systems engineering, agile software development and traceability to ensure that it can maintain its productivity and flexibility in the face of increasing complexity. PROSTEP is helping Theegarten-Pactec improve interaction between IT systems and processes and find an appropriate development plan for the application landscape.
Not only security but also PLM and ALM (application lifecycle management), the digital twin and digital continuity are the topics that are currently of greatest importance to companies. Digital business models are a key driver for the implementation of digital twin concepts, as senior consultant Dr. Lars Wagner explained using a number of different examples.
Digitalization also presents the IT organizations in the companies with new challenges. They have to provide the best possible support for the development of smart, connected products and interaction between disciplines by means of a shared development space, as senior consultant Marc Dreesen pointed out. To do this, the role played by IT in companies needs to be expanded. It must be seen as a proactive innovator that provides new solution concepts rather than merely a reactive service provider.
Customers’ specific needs, product features and business models are increasingly software-driven, as Dr. Steven Vettermann, Manager PLM VV, said during the second CONSULTING DAY session. “Therefore, if you want to be a winner, you need to master the creation of value with software.” The key achieving this is the combination of MBSE and ALM. PROSTEP is familiar with the strengths of the individual solutions and provides customers with support during strategic realignment and the introduction of new tools for ensuring traceability.
Concepts for end-to-end digitalization
In the second session, we presented solutions and concepts that help customers get to grips with end-to-end digitalization. PLM is not an entirely new technology, but it is the key to end-to-end digitalization and provides the basis for the digital twin, said principal consultant Dr. Mario Leber. An important aspect of the PLM concept is managing the different types of BOMs. In addition, cross-domain issues such as project and change management also need to be taken into account. And there are hot topics such as requirements management, which according to the survey is an important part of their PLM concepts for three quarters of the participants, as well as the topic validation and verification.
The challenge when it comes to requirements management is ensuring end-to-end digitalization both vertically between customer requirements and technical requirements as well as horizontally between the requirements of the individual disciplines, as the presentation by consultant Veronica Haber made clear. Her colleague, Kim Steinkirchner, explained the different steps involved in verification and validation from component through to system level. Relationships can only be identified if the relevant data sets are linked together consistently. That is the main purpose of PLM.
“The cloud, low-code, ALM – just how disruptive is PLM?” This is this question that Martin Strietzel attempted to answer. The biggest disruption is caused by PLM itself, he said, because the product lifecycle now encompasses a number of new topics, such as the Internet of Things for example, which plays an important role in the context of connecting service and feeding back information gathered in the field. But is that still PLM? Many PLM vendors have recognized the importance of IoT and have acquired companies or developed their own IoT platforms, said Strietzel. The increasingly dynamic nature of the market is due to the fact that the IoT market, for example, is ten times the size of the PLM market.
When it comes to SaaS or multi-tenant applications, the cloud is still underrepresented in PLM environments. This is gradually changing because companies’ confidence in terms of security has grown, said senior consultant Marc Dreesen. At the same time users have become more willing to adhere more closely to standards, while vendors have improved the adaptability and integration capabilities of cloud applications thanks to low-code and integration-as-a-service offerings. Almost everyone now has a cloud strategy, but their offerings are sometimes difficult to compare, which is why PROSTEP has created a corresponding checklist.
Capability-based procedural model
In addition to the ability of companies to change, also with regard to new business models, the future viability of their PLM architectures will be a major challenge in the coming years, said Peter Wittkop at the start of the third CONSULTING DAY session. The strategic combination of a methodological approach and PROSTEP’s wide-ranging PLM-specific know-how will be helpful when it comes to mastering these challenges together. Capability-based strategy development is used to achieve medium and long-term objectives, but it must also be able to respond in an agile manner when the objectives change.
Martin Strietzel and consultant Manuel Ratte explained to participants what PROSTEP’s capability-based procedural model looks like and how it relates to corporate strategy. In the context of enterprise architecture management, PROSTEP understands the PLM architecture to be a multi-layer model that examines processes, data integration and the applications based on a company’s objectives. The consultants use the construct ‘PLM capabilities’, which maps all the PLM-specific topics relevant to the product lifecycle, to make it easier to address the requirements on the three levels. The participant survey indicated that the PLM capabilities that pose a particular challenge to companies are requirements management, product structure management, configuration management and change management.
The capability-based procedural model is one of the core elements of PROSTEP’s consulting approach. As Manuel Ratte explained, the consultants define the actual and target statuses based on the PLM capabilities and in combination with the maturity model. They provide the basis for developing overall concepts regarding the required PLM capabilities, which are then merged to create a target architecture. Based on this vendor-neutral architecture, the consultants evaluate the potential systems and recommend the suitable solutions to the customers. During roll-out planning, they then determine together with the customers how the transition to the new world should be implemented.
Clear documentation of the requirements
Using a number of different examples, Mario Leber explained the work results and the concrete benefits that a capabilities-based consulting approach offers. Of particular value to customers is, on the one hand, the digital maturity analysis, an efficient methodology for classifying the individual subprojects and defining the digital roadmap. It is based on an assessment of the actual and target scenarios or a gap analysis of the PLM capabilities. On the other hand, customers could use PROSTEP’s requirements specification template to document and communicate all their requirements efficiently, individually and transparently.
One customer that has taken advantage of PROSTEP’s capability-based PLM strategy consulting services within the framework of a comprehensive PLM and SLM (systems lifecycle management) initiative is thyssenkrupp Presta AG. In an interview, project manager Klaus Brandner explained the project’s objectives and the challenges it poses and how PROSTEP is helping the company tackle them. The external consultants were particularly important during the orientation phase, when the diverse requirements of the departments involved needed to be harmonized. Their support, he said, made it possible to get to grips with this demanding task. “The most important contribution that PROSTEP made was to put an end to the stakeholders’ anxiety regarding the new topics.”
PROSTEP not only provides customers with advice when defining their PLM strategy, but also helps them with implementation. At the end of CONSULTING DAY, Peter Wittkop explained the further course of action to the participants. The aim is to implement the project objectives step by step to quickly achieve partial successes and exploit the benefits. This is why PROSTEP believes that an agile approach has proven its worth. Personal relationships and mutual trust provide the basis for collaboration in consulting projects.
If you would like to learn more about the challenges posed by digitalization and PROSTEP’s capability-based consulting approach, you will find the videos of the three sessions here. (Please note, the videos are only available in German.)
During the last year, PROSTEP gave a boost to the development of the OpenPDM SHIP integration platform. The functionality was expanded in several areas, such as interfaces with CADMATIC and ShipConstructor or NAPA and NESTIX conversions. Continuous development of expertise in shipbuilding-specific software solutions remained high on our agenda.
OpenPDM SHIP is an integration platform designed specifically for the shipbuilding industry that connects shipbuilding-specific CAD/PDM/PLM and ERP solutions and mechanical CAD applications via standardized connectors. The product was launched as development evolved from numerous customer projects, where we tackled similar needs from the shipyards. The COVID pandemic slowed down the progress of customer projects but created a unique opportunity for development to leap forward and expand the functionality of the solution.
New connectors to CADMATIC, AVEVA E3D
OpenPDM SHIP connector with CADMATIC WebAPI offers new opportunities and more flexibility for data access. Besides outfitting model data access, it enables hull data accessibility for the CADMATIC Hull COS version. Additional functionality was added for CADMATIC eShare connector to integrate 3D visualization and collaboration platform with data stored in PDM systems, such as approval, procurement, or delivery status information or other data.
Another significant development currently under construction is the new connector to Everything3D (E3D), the successor system to AVEVA Marine. With a customer already using the system productively, we are working on an OpenPDM SHIP E3D connector that will initially cover the transfer of the outfitting data. Further steps will expand the interface to support E3D Hull in the future.
Additional functionality for CAD conversions
We have made significant progress in the native generation of ShipConstructor data from third-party applications such as NAPA. A corresponding API from SSI, which is still under development and is constantly being extended, enables generating or regenerating parts of the hull or steel structure natively in ShipConstructor.
OpenPDM SHIP supports the mapping of data and structures from ShipConstructor for production engineering with NESTIX, which is used at numerous shipyards for planning the cutting and welding work packages. Previously released functionality for the CAD/CAM process chain worked consistently between AVEVA Marine and NESTIX.
The agile approach to continuous development
The nature of OpenPDM SHIP lies in integration capability between many shipbuilding-specific CAx systems and PDM solutions. It requires deep expertise in exchange formats and integration technology and close cooperation with CAD software development companies. Keeping internal knowledge at a high level is one of the priorities for PROSTEP’s R&D teams.
The robustness and quality of OpenPDM SHIP have further improved because the development of the integration platform for the shipbuilding industry is now more closely aligned with the general development of the OpenPDM platform. We synchronize the sprints of SHIP development with the sprints of the general OpenPDM development. Our integration platform thus fits seamlessly into the product family.
The digital twin is an important, if not the most important, enabler for the digital transformation of business processes and the development of data-driven business models. This is why it is the focus of numerous digitalization initiatives in a wide range of industries. Companies however face a number of challenges when it comes to implementing the digital twin. One of these challenges, albeit not the biggest, is the fact that their existing PLM capabilities are most likely insufficient for this purpose and need to be expanded.
Everyone is talking about the digital twin, or perhaps I should say almost everyone. At CLAAS, a manufacturer of agricultural technology, this term is not used to avoid alienating users with grand terms, as Kai Korthals explains in an interview with the PROSTEP Newsletter. For many companies, the term digital twin is still a buzzword that everyone takes to mean something different. Even in the shipbuilding industry, despite its many digital twin projects, there is still no common industry-wide understanding of what a digital twin is, as indicated by a recent survey conducted by PROSTEP.
A concept study that we prepared together with 3DSE for Airbus Defense & Space significantly sharpened my understanding of the digital twin. The findings have been incorporated in a white paper that I recommend you read. A key insight is that there is, or should be, something along the lines of a generic digital twin that accompanies the product or production system throughout all the phases of its lifecycle – from its as-designed/planned/manufactured through to its as-operated/maintained state.
The phase-specific configurations of the digital twin have a shared data basis, which is also used to derive configurations for the use cases to be supported. Creating a special digital twin for each use case would not be a viable solution as it would create isolated solutions and data silos. The aim must be to keep the digital twin as redundancy-free as possible across all products and variants, which is why it places much more demanding requirements on configuration management.
From the very start, we need to think about how we can weave the digital twin from the digital thread. I would even go so far as to turn the tables and say that it is ultimately the digital twin that determines the requirements when it comes to end-to-end digitalization. It determines which information we need to link for which use case and with which level of granularity. In my opinion, approaches based on data lakes do not work. It must be possible for field data collected while a product is being used to be connected to the correct development data in a transparent manner. Establishing relationships at a later date using semantic searches or AI results is, at most, an 80% solution and always prone to errors.
The key requirement for the digital twin is access to the “core data” in its “atomic” form. This means that we need to move away from file-based product lifecycle management toward granular access to all the information objects in the product development process. Freezing a bunch of documents at specific baselines might improve auditability, but it is no digital twin.
Developers need to know the relationships between individual objects, for example in order to understand what impact changing a requirement will have on a particular function, on the costs, on the manufacturing process, etc. Knowing which circuit diagram is affected is of no help because hundreds of functions can be described in a single circuit diagram. No PLM concept today provides appropriate support, neither in terms of technology nor methodologically. Extending the PLM concept to include additional PLM capabilities is therefore an essential prerequisite for the digital twin and one of the challenges that Airbus is addressing with its Shared digital Enterprise Services.
However, the biggest obstacles standing in the way of digital twin initiatives are not of a technical nature. For one thing, the companies have their own “fiefdoms” with separate system structures and methodology, which in the short term enjoy no direct benefit from end-to-end digitalization at cross-domain level. The initiative should therefore be driven forward in a strategic manner by someone above domain level. In addition, many companies today make a lot of money from service-related activities. A digital twin that results in customers needing fewer services is to a certain extent counterproductive. A major problem when it comes to end-to-end digitalization from development through to operation is the change of ownership of the physical product. As a result, manufacturers no longer have access, or only limited access, to the operating data that would allow them to gain insight into product behavior.
Offering your products as a service provides an elegant solution to this problem. But you might not want to wait that long before you launch your digital twin initiative. We recommend that you tackle concrete projects that offer economic added value as soon as possible. PROSTEP can provide you with effective support in this context. We have the required expertise and a wealth of experience implementing digital twin concepts in a variety of different industries.
The products from agricultural machinery manufacturer CLAAS are becoming ever more complex, and this also true of the associated development processes. Talking to PROSTEP Newsletter, Dr. Kai Korthals, Head of Digital Product Engineering, explains how CLAAS intends to master this increasing complexity and looks at the role that PDM/PLM is playing in the company’s digitalization strategy.
Question: How important a role are product-service systems playing in CLAAS’s product portfolio now?
Korthals: That depends on what you mean by a product-service system. If you mean supplementary services such as predictive maintenance as part of the after sales service or features such as software updates over the air, it is an area of growing importance for us and represents a major challenge.
Question: What new requirements arise from this with regard to product development?
Korthals: In particular, we have to take solution-neutral customer requirements as a basis for integrating software development, balancing processes and methods from the very beginning. Which is why model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is a very important topic for us. In addition, seemingly mundane topics such as the quality of master data, which we have been working on ever since the advent of PDM, are enjoying something of a renaissance. Even the topic of the end-to-end use of 3D, which is not in itself new, is taking on a new dimension. Suddenly, we find ourselves collaborating with game vendors like GIANTS, who use our 3D models for their farm simulators and in return provide us with rendered models for our sales activities. The coronavirus pandemic in particular has increased demand for virtual sales meetings and training sessions with customers, for example, where we use animated renderings to show them how to get into the cab.
Question: What does this mean for your digitalization strategy? Where are the key fields of activity?
Korthals: There are a number of pillars to our digitalization strategy: modeling and connecting with MBSE, visualization, i.e. the issue of digital continuity with a focus on 3D, and validation using simulations, which is an aspect that should not be overlooked in the wider discussion about digital transformation. In other words, the basic topics remain the same as they were ten years ago. What has changed is the way in which these topics and, indeed, the data models are interlinked. I can map these connections using MBSE, but I also need the link to the tasks in project management or to the configuration for production. Which brings us on to the issue of traceability.
Question: Is traceability driven more by the complexity of product development or the legal burden of proof?
Korthals: Traceability remains important in the context of functional safety, but with regard to the product service systems already mentioned or to autonomous systems, mastery of the technical, process-related and organizational complexity is becoming increasingly important. You can’t negate the complexity. Instead, you have to make it manageable. For this, we need MBSE and configuration management throughout the lifecycle in order to make the interrelationships easier to understand.
Question: You just said that MBSE is an important topic for you. What do you see as the main drivers of this approach?
Korthals: There are undoubtedly a number of different drivers, but they can be grouped together under the term complexity. Ultimately, it is the growing proportion of software, the interconnected development of cross-product features and globally distributed development that lead to increasing complexity at the product, process and organizational level.
Question: You get the impression that CLAAS is to a certain extent pioneering the use of MBSE. Is this the case?
Korthals: That is for others to judge, but we are of course represented in a large number of working groups and we see what other companies are doing. So I think I have some justification in saying that we have a very holistic approach to the topic and have already made considerable progress.
Question: To what extent has what you have validated in the Systems Engineering Solution Lab already been implemented in the product development process?
Korthals: The various aspects are at present being rolled out one by one. We are currently rolling out validation management. But we are not migrating all ongoing development projects to the new process and the new tool environment in a big bang, because that would inhibit the projects. Instead, we are introducing it gradually across the projects until we reach a tipping point, as the users in cross-sectional functions have a vested interest in avoiding the use of parallel systems.
Question: Does PDM/PLM still play an important role in your digitalization strategy?
Korthals: Yes, absolutely. Our digitalization strategy has three major pillars. Firstly, we want to digitalize our interaction at the point of contact with the customer and thus make it independent of time and place. The second is the empowerment of our employees, i.e. we want to drive digital transformation as a change process. And the third major pillar is the topic of the digital enterprise, which break down to the level of Industry 4.0. PDM/PLM is in many cases the enabler that brings together the internal view, external view and empowerment. Without this foundation, digital transformation simply collapses like a house of cards.
Question: You are working very closely with Dassault Systèmes to implement your digitization strategy. Is your broad PDM/PLM vision feasible with a monolithic system landscape?
Korthals: Your question is understandable. PLM experts have for years been promoting the idea that monolithic systems are dead. We are aware of the fact that we are to a certain extent placing ourselves in a position of dependency, but we have done very well with Dassault so far. You have to remember that we are not just a customer, but a strategic R&D partner and write user stories for the developers in Vélizy, so our needs are implemented very quickly. Not only that, we don’t source all of our expert systems and authoring systems from Dassault. There are certain environments for software development and simulation that we will not be replacing. At the system level, however, the opportunities offered by a monolithic approach outweigh the risks.
Question: In what use cases are you already using digital twins?
Korthals: We don’t use the term ‘digital twin’ at CLAAS yet, partly because of our experience with the introduction of systems engineering. When we started using it five years ago, we tried to avoid coining some grand, new term without any concrete benefit for the user being apparent, because that simply discourages people. Although we had our strategy in mind, we approached the issue very much on the basis of use cases. And we’re doing something similar with the digital twin. We have plenty of very concrete use cases, for instance moving maintenance documentation to a kinematic DMU to show a service technician in Uzbekistan how to change the oil filter without the need for words. But we don’t refer to this as a digital twin.
Question: How important is the East Westphalia cluster for CLAAS?
Korthals: The cluster is extremely important to us. From our Systems Engineering Solutions Lab, we have started research projects together with Fraunhofer IEM, one of which has been merged into it’s OWL. And then there is the MOSYS project for human-oriented systems engineering, which is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research. Collaboration with other it’s OWL partners such as Miele allows us to discuss our future needs and system requirements. The research projects have also allowed us to hire additional staff for our Solution Labs, which helps us to become faster.
Question: What needs and system requirements do you see in the future?
Korthals: As I have already said, connecting and visualizing information is currently a big driver for us. It is only this combination that makes complexity really comprehensible and thus manageable. In our Solution Labs, we have found out that we can build databases to connect certain artifacts with each other, requirements with test cases, or with architecture models, with CAD models, with circuit diagrams and so on. But the problem is that at the end of it all, no normal person has any hope of understanding it. That’s why we have to be able to pull out these relationships in a way that is specific to the application and the user and, where possible, visualize them in the 3D model in order to quickly make the complexity understandable across different locations, languages and roles.
Mr. Korthals, thank you very much for talking to us. (This interview was conducted by Michael Wendenburg)
About Kai Korthals
Dr. Kai Korthals has worked for agricultural machinery manufacturer CLAAS since 2014 and is currently Head of Digital Product Engineering. In this role, he and his team are responsible for the CLASS engineering system. This comprises the engineering processes, methods, data models and applications for CAD, PDM/PLM and systems engineering. Korthals studied industrial engineering, majoring in mechanical engineering and production technology at RWTH University in Aachen. He subsequently completed his doctorate at the RWTH’s machine tool laboratory in the field of production-oriented product development.
January saw the launch of the joint project “ICT-enabled model-based impact analysis in product development”, or ImPaKT for short, which is being funded with the support of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Within the framework of the project, PROSTEP will be extending its OpenPDM family to include a software module for the cross-domain coordination of changes and validating the functionality of the solution together with industry partners.
The more complex and variant-rich products become, the more time-consuming it is for companies to reliably analyze and evaluate the technical and financial impact of changes. The challenges grow when a large number of partners and domains are involved in the product development process. Impact analyses are designed to help companies identify the possible impact of product changes in advance.
A consortium or research institutes, software vendors and user companies, under the leadership of the Heinz Nixdorf Institute at the University of Paderborn, is developing a model and IT-based approach with the aim of making this type of analysis in product development easier. The joint project, which was launched in January, will run for three years and has a project volume of approximately four million euros.
The number of product variants is constantly growing. Every modified detail means changes in the design and production processes of all the partners involved. When it comes to developing complex products, incomplete and distributed data and knowledge bases, media discontinuities in the information flows, a lack of supplier integration and the large number of variants make engineering change management (ECM) a time-consuming and error-prone process. In the joint ImPaKT project, the consortium partners intend to develop a solution that makes it possible to efficiently analyze the impact of changes on the basis of a comprehensive data and knowledge base, while at the same time making the complexity of variant management more manageable using function-oriented impact analyses.
The integration of mechanical, electronic and software components in a single product requires an interdisciplinary development process. A key objective of the project is the development of a reference architecture for end-to-end model-based system development that links the partial models in the existing data repositories created during the development of mechanical, electrical and software system components and creates a common parameter space for changes. The project partners will develop and implement methods for a fully integrated impact analysis using model-based systems engineering (MBSE) and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms on the basis of this integration platform. Standards for integrating impact analysis in process management and cross-enterprise collaboration are also to be defined.
In addition to the HNI, the Institute for Machine Elements and Systems Engineering at RWTH University in Aachen, the software companies CONTACT Software, Itemis and PROSTEP, as well as the user companies Eisengießerei Baumgarte, Hadi-Plast Kunststoff-Verarbeitung, Hofmann Mess- und Auswuchttechnik, CLAAS Industrietechnik, Knapheide Hydraulik-Systeme and Schaeffler are involved in ImPaKT.
The software partners will be implementing a demonstrator based on the ImPaKT reference architecture. The industry partners’ primary task will be to validate the suitability of the project results for supporting impact analysis on the basis of three case studies.
PROSTEP is contributing its many years of expertise with system modeling and the development of reference architectures to the consortium project. Building on this architecture, we will be developing certain basic services for performing cross-system impact analyses using artificial intelligence (AI). We will be using our integration platform OpenPDM, which is implemented at by over 200 customers worldwide, as the basis for implementing the demonstrator. OpenPDM is the world’s leading solution for synchronizing and migrating PLM data and processes in a wide variety of application scenarios and domains.
We intend to expand the software to include essential ALM and ECM aspects within the framework of ImPaKT. Once the project has come to an end, it is intended that the solution, which is designed as a demonstrator, be turned into a commercial product and marketed under the name OpenCLM. Maintenance of the solution is a prerequisite for long-term commercial use of the project results and provides a benefit outside the circle of consortium partners.
By participating in the consortium project, we not only expect to be able to establish interesting contacts with customers and universities and expand our AI expertise. We also hope it will provide important impetus for the further development of our OpenCLM solution in the direction of cross-system and cross-domain impact analysis. This is a prerequisite for being able to coordinate changes to complex products with an acceptable level of effort.
A growing number of companies are relying on agile approaches when developing their PLM systems to enable faster reactions to new market requirements. At the same time, they often want to outsource development activities to offshore partners for financial reasons. Two new white papers explain how PROSTEP supports customers when it comes to using agile methods and introducing agile methods in context of near- and offshoring.
Companies in the manufacturing industry must be ready to quickly respond to changing market and customer requirements. Therefore, they need PLM solutions that support this, for example by making the growing dependencies between software and electronics in connected systems more transparent or ensuring traceability for safety-critical functions. New approaches such as model-based systems engineering (MBSE) or virtual validation of system functionalities by means of co-simulations are needed. The entire PLM architecture must be geared towards change.
IT organizations must also adapt to reduce the time between new requirements and working-functionality implemented in the PLM-Systems. Waterfall or V-model are typically not appropriate to fulfill the dynamics required here. Too much time passes between the definition of requirements and their implementation; time during which the developers do not receive any feedback. They run the risk of developing software that fails to meet the needs of the users. Specifications are often cluttered with requirements and are difficult to change. Then, their implementation is based on the contracts and not on the actual benefits. These and other factors lead to extremely long project runtimes, which can delay the introduction of innovations into productive PLM operations by months and sometimes even years.
A growing number of companies have identified the weaknesses in their existing software development processes and have started introducing agile approaches or are planning to do so. When implementing agile methods, they not only have to decide on a suitable agile model but also find development partners who are able to go along with their agile approach. Furthermore, they have to challenge existing contract models, because in agile approaches, project scope is typically only fuzzily defined at the start of the project.
PROSTEP has been using agile approaches to develop its own software solutions for many years, and as a partner and supplier also brings this experience to bear on customer projects. We are currently involved in agile projects with numerous major customers in the automotive, shipbuilding, and other industries. In many cases, we assume overall responsibility for these projects as general contractor and coordinate subcontractors, be it on site at the customer’s premises or at an offshore partner.
“Our teams combine PLM expertise and hands-on experience with using agile methods. They know the strengths and weaknesses of Scrum, SAFe and other process models from experience gained in the field and can therefore actively help to shape agile transformation at the customer’s site and drive it forward,” says PLM manager Frank Brandstetter. He is the author of PROSTEP’s new white paper, which provides more detailed information about the challenges posed by agile PLM development. (English version available soon.)
The white paper on agile PLM development is complemented by a second white paper in which Rainer Zeifang, Chief Technology Officer Daimler Projects at PROSTEP, reports on his experience with the use of agile methods in nearshoring and offshoring projects. The main driver for the outsourcing development activities is the increasing cost pressure to which we and our customers are subjected.
PROSTEP has been working together with selected nearshore and offshore partners on both the development of its own software products and on customer projects for some time now. We also make use of nearshoring internally. For the past year, we have been maintaining a subsidiary in Wrocław, Poland, which uses agile Scrum teams to provide the development team in PROSTEP’s Berlin office with support in the context of software development projects for major automotive customers.
Agile approaches are compatible with nearshoring and offshoring, but they also amplify some of the challenges involved. The partners have to create a common understanding of the customer project and exchange know-how that is generally in the heads of the developers. They need to establish a uniform approach to ensure that the software being developed is consistent and enables a coherent user experience despite distributed teams and long distances. And they must break down obstacles to communication or find new forms of communication that are compatible with agile approaches.
As Zeifang explains, personal contact and interaction are crucial for project success. “At the start of the project in particular, it is important that the key players get to know each other personally in order to exchange know-how but also to understand what makes their counterparts tick, what is important to them, and how they work.” In the new white paper, he answers questions like: What advantages and disadvantages do time differences offer when it comes to agile software development? How should the distributed agile teams be structured? Does nearshoring and offshoring work with all agile process models?
PROSTEP’s new series on SHIPBUILDING PLM INSIGHTS was launched on March 16. It was a successful start to the series: Around 150 participants watched the first episode, which focused on the added value of PDM and PLM for users of shipbuilding-specific CAD systems. In addition, our shipbuilding experts explained how shipyards can rebuild their PLM architectures more effectively.
The series is aimed at maritime industry professionals and IT experts who want to know more about how they can use PDM and PLM to manage growing product complexity, shorten time-to-market, and meet the more demanding requirements of customers and classification societies. Here, PDM means a specific application, while PLM describes a broader concept that can be implemented with different applications.
The first episode kicked off with a market overview of the challenges that shipyards face in digitalization. This overview was based on intensive discussions we have had with more than 40 shipyards worldwide over the past few years, from which we extracted their pain points. Pressure to act is caused by the increasing complexity of shipbuilding projects, the many changes to each ship and the growing effort required to manage requirements, documents and certificates.
The market situation is also characterized by smaller shipyards merging into larger groups. Often, post-merger integration is complicated by outdated IT system landscapes, different legacy systems at the various sites, and the multitude of Excel spreadsheets still used to manage non-CAD data. As a result, companies have little foundation to implement complex new requirements.
The most discussed topic among shipyards is what additional benefits a PDM system can offer them if they already use a shipbuilding-specific CAD system. For this reason, we have made this topic the focus of the first episode. Our colleague Jan Bitomsky explained to the participants the special features of shipbuilding-specific CAD systems, which are the reason why most shipyards do not have a PDM. They cover many PDM functions through integrated CAD data management and their focus on the shipbuilding CAx process chain. But just not all of them, which is why there are so many Excel spreadsheets.
PDM systems first caught on in other industries where management of mechanical CAD files was a key requirement. Over time, however, they have been extended to include PLM capabilities such as materials management, document management, product structure management, or partner collaboration, which are also of interest to shipbuilders but are missing from shipbuilding-specific CAD systems. Most importantly, they lack powerful change management, which is one of the key functions of any PDM system.
Combining the PLM capabilities of a shipbuilding CAD system with a PDM system therefore offers enormous added value, as Bitomsky pointed out. There is then only one source of truth. Document management is perhaps related to that with change management. In the product structure, you can see the CAD data, but also other data. And one can always trace which data was sent to which supplier and when.
But how does one get to this single source of truth? In a second topic, Bitomsky explained to participants how they can use the enterprise architecture management approach to develop a PLM architecture that is aligned with their business requirements. These requirements are more demanding in shipbuilding than in other industries because not only the products are very complex, but also the business processes from the time of sale to delivery. This is the reason why there is still no best practice solution for PLM architecture in shipbuilding.
PROSTEP supports shipyards in identifying the bottlenecks in the existing information flows based on the business objects and in determining the required capabilities for their future PLM architecture. An architecture that can combine shipbuilding-specific CAD systems, PDM and ERP systems, for example.
At the end of the first episode, participants were allowed to vote on the focus of the next episode. It will take place in May and will revolve around the topic of Collaboration in Shipbuilding. You can watch the recording of the first episode here. If you would like to receive information about the second episode, sign up here.
