Seeing the Big Picture

Today’s topic is seeing the big picture why connectors are essential for enabling the digital thread. So just during this webinar, everyone is on a global mute. If you have any questions, please submit them on the questions panel on the right hand side of your screen within the webinar platform. And we’ll where we will answer as many as possible in our Q&A session at the end.

This is being recorded and when the recording is available, you will receive an email with the link so you can share it with your colleagues or review it again for future reference. With that, I want to introduce our three presenters today and a warm welcome to Bernd Zimmermann from XPLM. He is a VP of Strategy and Technical Operations.

Nathalie from T-Systems. She is the PLM lead there. And my colleague Andreas Grave from Aras, who is our director of regional sales in Central Europe. Andreas, do you want to get us started? Sure.

Thank you for the introduction. Our agenda overview of today. I will briefly introduce the topic as such and talk a little bit about the typical digital thread ecosystem that we often see at our customer base. Give a couple of examples, real world examples that we’ve seen. And then we will directly head into a panel discussion with Nathalie and Bernd on the topic.

With that, let’s directly get started. And with that. Well, in general, why does interdisciplinary collaboration matter so much? You’ve heard all about this disaster in Boeing 737 Max, and there are many reasons to it. As always, if there is a disaster, there were many reasons usually. But again, here you can see there are many reasons that in the combination led to the disaster.

First of all, well, the seven, three, seven is a decades old design. The landing gear was not tall enough to host the big engines that are typically used today to have a better performance. That’s why they had to do something here on a mechanical side, finding a new position for the engines. That, of course had an impact with applied physics.

So next discipline flight physics had a huge impact on electronics within the whole aircraft. And to still get control about all the different systems, they introduced a piece of software we saw called MCAS system, which finally led to that disaster year. But all in all, it was a multidisciplinary disaster. That was by combination of many topics here that led to these results here.

And of course, yes, at the end of the day, it was also part of commercial reasons trying to hide the new software piece in avoiding new pilot trainings. But in general, it was from the beginning, well, collaboration between many different disciplines that were important and has led to this scenario. So.

To come to the different topics here, we often see that we try to connect different systems along the lifecycle, being in authoring systems like MCAD or ECAD, being enterprise systems like ERP or CRM, manufacturing systems, or service systems later on. All these systems connect not only data, they also connect people in an organization. And as you all know from your own organization or from your own experience, connecting people is a challenge.

And while technology can help and will help and does help, but it is also part of the organization that needs to enable collaboration. And if that is achieved, if this interdisciplinary collaboration really exists, by connecting all people and tools and systems, you have the chance to be way more efficient in development, thus being faster. Go to market and the time to market is way better.

And of course there is way more traceability. And in many industries, of course, aerospace, but also medical device traceability is extremely important to have that full traceability so that you can find design design decisions that made something and why something was decided this way and not the other way. That traceability is key to many, many industries. And of course also the wasted effort here.

If all designs are collaborating from the beginning, there is way less effort in redesigning, reiteration, having more iterations as typically needed if they all collaborate from the beginning. That, of course, results in total cost and total cost of product development cycle, and maybe also cost in wasted paths. Change processes across all these systems could cost a lot of money.

So therefore this is all about connecting people for connecting to at the end, achieve a better cost for the products that you develop.

But the digital thread as we see today, many cases, it is not that one single digital thread. We see many data silos over and over. We see data silos in different disciplines, different parts of the organization, and they are not well connected. This data in the center needs to be somehow managed. It doesn’t have to be data authored or created just in the backbone.

In many, many cases, we see that we have authoring tools like the ECAD or MCAD tools. We do have other tools, enterprise tools like requirements management systems, systems engineering tools. All these contribute to the digital thread, but needs to be orchestrated and combined in a certain place. And PLM is a natural place to make use of all the different data and connect them and establish the digital thread in your organization.

What we’ve also seen is that the, let’s say, level of integration or the maturity of the different integrations is completely different. As you can imagine, MCAD and ECAD is a decades old topic. To integrate that with PDM, which has matured into PLM at many companies. And therefore this kind of heatmap here shows that the MCAD and ECAD this is what we see in many companies is well established.

The integration as well as the processes are working fine. But then if you look into other systems like especially the enterprise systems, it starts to fade away. The maturity level ERP often is already connected in a good way, but not in the same maturity level as the authoring tools ECAD and MCAD. And if you then go into systems architecture tools, systems engineering tools like Cameo or other tools or requirements engineering tools, then you often see that this is not the best integration, that they are isolated, that this data is not well connected to other domains, and without that connectivity, you have no digital thread.

And without that, you are still struggling to get to the efficiency level that you would like to see. And with that. Well, let’s get into real life architecture example, which is an example from one of our customers here. We’ve anonymized it a little bit so that we cannot directly see who that is. But this is an example which could be called also blueprint architecture of what we see in many cases here that we have.

So as an example, we do have the different CAD tools on the top based on the integrations by XPLM. We do also see the systems as a data hub on the bottom, which is able to connect to exam, for example, on or Doors as a requirements engineering system, which can connect to other PDM systems or to NES and logistics systems.

Why do we see there a PDM system? Yes, we do have customers that are using Aras as the big digital backbone, but they still have a PDM system as the storage for other CAD data as well. So it’s not always a direct integration that we see on the top. We often have a situation that customers still use the, let’s say customer own or the own PDM system delivered by the authoring tool, by the CAD vendor itself, and we are integrating them, the PDM system, instead of direct integration to the CAD system itself.

So what are we doing then in the virtual cockpit layer, as we call it, or the backbone? We do take care of the change management, which is one extremely important aspect here, as you can imagine. And you can also refer back to the Boeing 737 example. Change has always an impact across disciplines. If there’s a change in one system, it usually has an impact to other systems as well.

And if this cross discipline change, impact is not managed in a good way. Well, you always see things you don’t have the total overall result that you are looking for for your product. All of that is something that we need to take care of in such an architecture that we are orchestrating changes that we are orchestrating with the full product structure of the mechatronic product structure, and that in case of the manufacturing and logistics aspect, we are also connecting the results of an engineering cycle into the later steps downstream for interface and logistics, as well as service activities on a product that is already in service.

With that brief introduction, I would like to directly jump into a panel discussion so that it’s not only me talking here. And with that, I would like to get into the questions that we have and the discussion that we would like to go along over the next couple of minutes here. So first of all, let’s get it started with the, let’s say, a bold statement here from my side.

From my perspective, integration is not a simple IT task. I’ve leveraged a little bit on that already in the beginning. From my perspective, it is a business capability. Nathalie, Bernd, would you agree that integration is now a strategic business enabler.

Before I answer your question, Andreas, I just wanted to say that I’m really excited to be part of this webinar together with you from Aras and XPLM to address actually a trending topic, because as you said, data is everywhere. It’s in the kid, it is the PLM in the ERM or in the ERP, but it’s rarely connected. And we often see also customer landscapes that are very heterogeneous.

So we should talk more often about it, like how to connect data and business processes and as system landscape to achieve really the digital thread. But coming back to your question, I would say yes. I absolutely agree with your statement. At T-Systems, we see integration not as an isolated IT project or task, but it’s really like a strategic business capability that drives speed, quality and innovation.

So when you treat integration just like an IT task, you focus on APIs and on data formats and on systems. But when you treat it like a business capability, you ask yourself, what business value are we enabling by connecting those processes? This team and or does decision points. And that’s a completely different lens. And it leads to very different outcomes.

So integration influences how fast you can launch a product, how reliable you can ensure the compliance and how well teams across domains collaborate and is are not only technical concerns does are business critical capabilities. For example, we had one client who had like a disconnected PLM and an ERP system, and he was suffering from data silos as engineering and manufacturing use different data, which led to inconsistencies.

He had a lot of manual work to do because and when you have a lot of manual worked, it is more error pain. It’s just a human natural that we make mistakes. And another point is when you have a lot of manual work you don’t use, or the company does not use the time of their experts as wisely as they should do.

And at the end, you also have no end to end visibility of changes and a limited collaboration across your teams. So with an open integration approach, you just get better. It is not that you only get better system connectivity. You reduce, rework, accelerate your time to market and you improve your product quality. So yes, absolutely integration as a business capability.

And in my opinion, companies that realize it early that are the ones that really have also a competitive advantage.

Yeah, I can totally agree to that. So I think the digital thread comes alive when the data is integrated. And also the data can be used in processes that integrate the users basically. So you need to get the organization into your vision so that you can establish a good yeah, a good digital thread. The integrations itself standardize and ensure data quality when data such as of CAD systems and requirements tools must go automatically through the company.

The more we can automate the processes, the more we can save time. What human errors, as you explained. And we can reuse really existing knowledge and experience in the company. So it’s really a strategic advantage if you focus on that.

So that really confirms my topic here. Before we dive any deeper here, let’s let’s stop a minute here and look at the two companies that we have here. So with the XPLM and T-System spend, would you describe XPLM’s focus and strengths in that topic?

So XPLM is over more than 25 years in the market, and we have a long term experience in building direct integrations from ECAD and MCAD applications into PLM systems. So like for an NX, Creo, SolidWorks, Altium. We integrate, let’s say the work in progress data. Aside of those direct integrations, we also integrate engineering processes with PDM tools like a Windchill, like Teamcenter with PLM backbones, and also other domains like simulation, data management tools and requirements management tools.

We can also connect. So that is all focus. So we are do make data exchange and remove the manual tasks to enter data in the PLM world.

Nathalie, what is T-Systems?

So what about T-Systems? I need to first explain that we are a subsidiary subsidiary of the Deutsche Telekom and are one of the European leading IT service providers. So we have around 20,000 employees globally, and we support multinational corporations and public sector institutions with digital transformations. So it’s not about selling cell phones at this point. We also have a very long history in the PLM over two decades now.

And of course, looking back, we have also a strong partnership with Aras actually since August 2010. So Andreas, we are celebrating soon our 15th anniversary. And in PLM we are supporting almost every industry. May it be like automotive, manufacturing, healthcare, aerospace or defense and our services are from consulting, implementation, integration, operation, also cloud hosting including platforms like Aras Innovator but also other PLM platforms.

I think it’s also important to point out that we are founding member of Catena X, that aims for an open and collaborative data ecosystem for the automotive value chain. And that’s I also want to highlight highlight of course, our USP at this level. Here today are our software solutions that support various use cases around integration especially, but also migration or supplier collaboration for various disciplines around SED, PLM, ERP, Ms. and alum and others.

So. So to summarize it, we are not just a service provider. We are a long term partner, PLM partner for our clients with a deep industry expertise and our own software solutions.

Thank you. And with that introduction, many in the audience may wonder, do XPLM and T-Systems compete or collaborate? Or how would you see that situation?

I would say that’s a classic and a fair question. The honest answer is a bit of both. And that is actually also a good thing because healthy competition keeps us sharp. But the moment, and I’m sure, Bernd, that you also agree on that the moment when we are on a joint customer project, we are absolutely on the same page.

When we work together, the focus shifts completely. It’s not about like who’s doing what better. It is about delivering the best possible outcome for our customer. And both companies may be XPLM or T-Systems. We are bringing in years of experience in the PLM area, and the customer can only benefit when when working with us, when working with us, with XPLM.

Of course with us. Bernd, what do you think?

Yeah, I cannot say it better than you did. So we have a lot of mutual customers already. We have some overlap in the product offerings. That’s true. But at the customers, we focused on the solution and work together to support their engineering processes. So the customer is the central thing that we want to make happy with our integration and our knowledge here.

And the customers really benefit from our joint strength. And the customer actually really decides for the best fitting product at the end. Right?

Correct?

Correct. Yeah, yeah.

And at the end, this really reflects our approach, our vision that we are fostering, that we are willing to establish an automated system with our partners, with our customers, establishing the Aras community to have really that kind of environment. And some of you may have seen the recently started Aras marketplace on our website that even accelerates more of this community, of having partner solutions that are valuable in the different aspects of this solution.

Then. Well, let’s let’s think about the presentation. I had a couple of slides back about the digital backbone connecting many different systems. Why do you think that Aras is well-suited as a backbone for these integrations? Could be, of course, different solutions that are creating and building that backbone. What, from your perspective, does Aras do differently?

So let me go first, I would say because and you have shown it also an example. Yeah. Aras delivers exactly what it needs to make the digital thread executable, especially, as you said, in complex and heterogeneous system landscapes. And I have three points how I would answer this question. First of all we have Aras supports open APIs. So not just for data access but for real bidirectional process integration.

That means you can connect best of breed systems across engineering, manufacturing and after sales without being locked into a closed ecosystem. The second point would be that Aras also offers a flexible metamodel like unlike traditional PDM or PLM systems for rigid data model, Aras is built in a more dynamic and model based architecture. That means we can adapt data structures and processes and business logic as the customer also needs to evolve without re-implement the platform again and again.

So it is flexible by design, which is essential in today’s fast changing industries. And last point would be that and we also have seen it in the slides before that you showed Andreas that Aras is supporting multi-domain collaboration across mechanical, electric software and even system engineering and that that’s that makes and that is what makes the digital thread truly cross-functional.

So yeah, I don’t know about that.

So I can I can add to that some additional aspects here. For us, Aras provides a very advanced PLM tool that is ideally suited for the CAD data and engineering data management out of the box. And from my point of view, with the best and greatest performance compared to the competition on the market, whether you hosted on premise or in hosted deployments, it is very easy to embed engineering processes and others itself enriches the engineering with the change, control and the connectivity into European downstream manufacturing areas.

So that is really the complete stream from development up to the production floor, where you connect the data in a good, fluent way.

Yeah, absolutely. Agree on that. Yeah.

And maybe to highlight one topic that I’ve seen recently in the CAD integrations band as well. Aras is known for its low code modeling capabilities. And what I really was pleased to see is that now also the complete configuration of the CAD integrations can be done by using local technologies that all the configurations can be stored within Aras innovator.

So that’s also a thing that I really like a lot when when that came out. And this follows the local modeling and the local philosophy of Aras innovator as such.

Yeah. Absolutely. Yes.

Yeah. But of course that’s a lot of the highlights. But let’s also look into challenges and pitfalls that.

But before you move on to challenges and pitfalls I mean I would also like to ask the other the question the other way around, like XPLM and why T-Systems?

Well, that’s an easy one because well, with most of you, we have a long standing relationship with many successful customer implementation projects. And the technology that you have provided was key to establishing the solutions that we were looking into or our customers were looking into, basically. And as some of you may know, with XPLM even longer history starting back in the days, even with T-Systems, of course, there was also a similar history as Nathalie already mentioned since 2010, and we’ve seen a strong and still unique integration with many systems, especially in CATIA v5 v6 space.

There’s some unique solutions that we still like. So there is a competition between the two of them from time to time. The one or the other solution is the best match, and we often always look, of course, into the best solution for the customer to integrate in their ecosystem. And that’s why I like the openness of both companies to collaborate with, and even mix technologies and solutions here.

That’s a good one.

Thank you. But of course, it’s not always. The sun is not always shining. There are, of course also challenges in projects. And let’s get honest, what are some real world challenges that you have seen in such integration projects?

Well, you explained it already. A pitfall is if it is getting too complicated to install something or to get integration running. So no integration is fully plug and play for many reasons. So you can expect the need for some configuration. While the CAD integrations are mainly standardized and configurable to the customer needs. Still, we have customer specific processes that are very different between many customers and use cases that really bring additional value when we automate that.

So and our products usually bring 80% of all the standard solutions, and then we always have some customers specific processes that we need to support. And this really brings the bigger value. Then when we also attack the last 20%, which is possible in our open platform and also in the open platform from the T-System and in the openness from Aras.

So we really share the areas where we resolve the issues. And that is, I think, the pitfall that we have sometimes not everything is running out of the box. We cover a lot with configuration, but the last optimizations we still can do in the configuration layer in Aras and the integrations.

Yeah, yeah, I mean, I totally agree on that as well. I’m just thinking there are like many challenges when you are dealing with when you see PLM integrations and but there are also opportunities that they unlock. So for example, I will see you one challenge an organizational silos and ownership. So one of the most common blockers and is unclear ownership.

Who owns the data. Who decides the process flow across the systems. How do we align engineering IT and operations. So without clear roles and governance, integration efforts often stall, often stall in internal politics. Then you also have the topic around compliance and traceability requirements, especially in regular regulated industries. Traceability isn’t optional, it is just it’s just a law.

But to achieve it, you need to have controlled processes, auditability and consistent data. Otherwise, integration leads to chaos and not clarity. And.

And there is also the topic around one off integrations. So we see like point to point interfaces seem to be quick but they are fragile and they are not scaling. And I believe in open standard based integrations platforms like the ones from XPLM like T-Systems with our products, the PDM web connector or the PDM workbench that actually help you to scale and to grow your businesses business.

But despite the challenges, there are, and I’m sure they are much more, I think they are. Also, there’s a huge potential when integration is succeeding. It turns disconnected systems into a digital backbone for your company. So you reduce the you reduce the complexity, you increase the agility. You are able to make better decisions based on real time and cross-domain information.

And so the digital so it is not just the digitalization, it is more like an operational transformation. And that is where where the real benefit then also lies and where where you. See also. The the biggest chances.

That’s that are my $0.05 on that okay.

I can agree to the statement that responsibility is really something that is a hurdle in especially the bigger companies. So the organization over all departments needs to have an awareness about the value and the responsibility about the generated data. And if you have that awareness, you will install put processes and also the required interfaces and integrations that you need to transport the data.

But this visibility and the ownership that the people have to take really about that this is really important to make it a successful project.

Yes. And it has also a lot to do with change management. You need to really get this awareness. You have to have to buy in from the end users and from the stakeholders. And yeah, and you have to train the people and have feedback loops and so on. Yeah.

Exactly. Yeah.

So what I’m from, from your side is integration is definitely not just about APIs and technology. It’s really about connecting people, connecting processes, and a lot of clarity that is often missing in companies clarity about processes that might not exist. And Nathalie, you said user acceptance or user involvement of stakeholders. I believe if there is such a backbone and connecting many different parts of the organization, it is a topic that cannot be resolved from within one department.

There needs to be a full support from the CEO level that this is a topic. This cannot be resolved from within the single departments. There needs to be someone overarching and which someone who has enough power to really drive this initiative and empower all the departments to collaborate.

Yeah.

Looking at the time, let’s come a little bit to the final thoughts here. Closing this discussion, maybe with a.

Provocative statement. That’s what it that way. Without strategically manage integration. Digital digital thread is an illusion never to be achieved. What do you think?

Well we were speaking already before it. Yes. Or just just about it. Yeah. So yes, systems can be technically connected, but without a common vision and defined ownership and lifecycle governance. You end up in dozens of point to point integration that do not scale, that do not adapt, and that don’t deliver any continuity. So a true digital thread requires just more than API.

So it requires a strategic framework. What are we connecting? Why are we connecting. Who’s owning their data and how do we ensure this consistency across the domains. So just keeping it short. Technology enables integration but only strategy makes it sustainable. That is. Yeah that would be my point of view on that. Yeah.

Yeah I, I would add to that that well-managed integration strategy along with the digital thread can bridge and eliminate data centers in the companies. The digital thread is not only about the data integration, it is integration of real life use cases and people in the organization. And a shallow connection will just lead into a low ascendance on the users.

And this will create a new data silo again. So to prevent that, pick up the people in the organization and make up a common strategy. And then you can really create a digital thread that is your one source of truth that can reach over multiple leaders here. That’s my feeling on it.

Thank you very much, Bernd and Natalie, I think that really reinforces the idea that that integration success is a leadership as much as a technical one. We need to have both aspects here as part of the whole topic, otherwise it will remain an illusion.