Who really owns the Bill of Materials?

Pat Hillberg: Yeah. Fino: And we're live. So welcome to another edition of the ⁓ future PLM webcast. ⁓ today we're doing sort of a part two of ⁓ one we did, was it six, eight weeks ago, about ⁓ Bomb that was lively to say the least.

And in fact, we never actually got to the end of it. So we decided to do it all again. ⁓ I don't have the exactly the same host of ⁓ well, group of characters ⁓ and peanuts and wise guys and wise women on this call. David Schultz: All right.

Fino: ⁓ in fact I have two new people, so I'm w welcoming Christine Longwell and ⁓ Gus Quaid ⁓ on this call. why don't you two introduce yourselves first and I'll throw out the first question and we'll get started. So Christine, do you wanna start? Christine Longwell: Sure, Christine Longwell.

I am a mechanical engineer, been following the industry since 1998 when I got started with SOLIDWORKS and became a blogger and worked in the industry, worked in the automotive industry, worked for Ford, worked for Chrysler as a powertrain engineer, and I've started up some electric bus companies, which was super fun. ⁓ But I've really I've been studying the industry as a competitive intelligence analyst. I've been behind the scenes ⁓ up until the point that I was the director of research.

And now, you know, out here having some Gus Quade: And ⁓ my turn. Hi, I'm Gus Quaid. I'm a solutions engineer at Autodesk. I I cover anything inside of data and process management for our manufacturing customers here, ⁓ which PLM is probably the the biggest one I get to touch on.

⁓ my background as a mechanical engineer. I I worked ⁓ in biotech and robotics, ⁓ designed ice machines for a little bit. That was cool. Haha.

⁓ but I used a whole bunch of different design and data and process management tools, experienced companies that were Christine Longwell: Yeah. Fino: No. Gus Quade: Pretty buttoned up and others that were maybe a little messy. And now at Autodesk, I get to meet with companies like the ones I used to work for and about 200 a year.

And I get to hear what's good and bad and where they want to get to. And I help map that to our solutions and by way of PLM a lot. And ⁓ bombs come up a lot too. ⁓ bombs come up a lot too.

So I I'm excited for this conversation. Fino: I suppose that ⁓ soon you'll have a little bit more on S bombs thanks to the awesome acquisition you did of Maintain X. Congratulations. That is an absolutely fabulous company and ⁓ you're lucky.

Very cool. Gus Quade: Yeah. I don't know what I'm allowed to officially say yet about that, besides just like good move. I'm excited about that one.

Yeah, maintain X is aw They're they're number one. They're number one and ⁓ I guess the price tag shows. Fino: You paid a premium price for it, we can say that. Because it definitely wasn't worth three point six, but but it was worth a lot.

Yeah. No, it was exciting because I I was had the privilege of meeting them and interviewing them at ⁓ Prove It in February and I was fairly blown away by by what they were doing already. So congratulations. I just wanted to get that out there.

⁓ so today we're gonna talk about the ⁓ bomb. Already there's been controversy on the ⁓ on on the chat for this call because our our Mutual friend, because a lot of us ⁓ know ⁓ Mr. York Fisher, this guy. ⁓ and he's already ⁓ throwing in the No, he's always you know, he's always like this with all his photos, you know, like this.

⁓ and he threw out there that ⁓ this is old school, ⁓ bomb doesn't exist. What you usually refer to is MCAT bomb. And the relevant only ⁓ bomb, of course, this is ⁓ SAP guy talking, the only one that exists is the R MRP ⁓ bomb. David Schultz: and that's Fino: Which is bomb segments that have to be supplied to the correct locations in the IP system.

That's the correct structure. No discussion needed. ⁓ anybody react to that? I think that's a bit Pat Hillberg: And and that comment, I mean that post got fifty comments.

The post that said we do not need to discuss this got fifty comments. I got seventeen hundred interactions. Right? Fino: Yeah.

Yeah. ⁓ David Schultz: Yeah. Fino: Wow, that's a lot. So who wants to who wants to pick who wants to debate virtually Mr.

Fisher? 'Cause I invited him. Let's I invited him on the podcast. He did not answer, but we did invite him here.

So it's it's just not locking him out. He was teaching right now? ⁓ okay. Pat Hillberg: He said he was teaching.

He was teaching today. Yeah. You gotta you gotta put students in front of everybody else, right? Oleg: Yes.

Fino: All right, well we'll ⁓ we'll bring him on ⁓ for part three. If if any of us survive after ⁓ Rob's supposed to be here, the one that took the fixture of all us fighting and headers. So anyhow, I don't know. ⁓ do you wanna start, Christine?

Do you think it's Brion Carroll: Yeah. Christine Longwell: Well, I I totally agree with them, so I could just drop off right now. No, ⁓ I David Schultz: Yeah, you know, I'm gonna raise my hand and take the stab at it being the ISA95. So I wanna preface my answer by the fact that I don't really run into the concept of an M-bomb very often.

It's something that appears to be very discrete manufacturing oriented. So if I'm in batch or any kind of ⁓ a continuous process, if I'm using or doing something that's similar to an M-bomb, we're gonna call it like... Fino: Continuous. David Schultz: ⁓ there's a recipe that's associated with it or a specification or a SOC.

There's not a different way that it gets answered, but the short version of this is, yes, the ERP has a certain amount of information, but where all the detailed design occurs out on the plant floor and what's actually going to happen, that's gonna be in something that exists like the M-Bomb. So my position is if you think of all of this is gonna exist and they say, P, I got a whole load of MES software to sell you that disagree. Fino: Specification, right. Christine Longwell: Yes, and and and you the important thing that you said is what is going to happen.

What is going to happen is an action. It it doesn't deal with the materials. So what manufacturing cares about is how we put this whole thing together. What engineering cares about is what the thing is, what the recipe is, what the product looks like.

David Schultz: There's my parting shot. Go ahead, Christine, I'm sorry. Christine Longwell: ⁓ and in between those two things, of course, you you can't have this conversation without going through the supply chain. You can't create the action to make the thing unless you have the stuff to make the thing.

David Schultz: Yeah, yeah. And so within, when I say just the action of that, it's, know, S95 or ISA95 has what's called the definition land or, you know, the definition. This is the what. It includes the materials.

It includes the equipment. Those are the, it's the role-based of equipment, where I'm going to do that. They often get conflated or what the CMMS would call the asset itself. But ISA95 has something called a physical asset.

It's more like the tooling. So if I'm making pizza dough and every time my stamp cycles, I make four balls of dough or five balls of dough. That's the physical asset that's done on the equipment. And then finally there's personnel.

So yes, all of the materials are there. Even though there's an inventory component to S95, we're really looking at when does the material hit the shop floor or what does that look like once I get into the action. But absolutely that entire bill of process, MBOP, all of the work instructions, all of that is contained. And I've just never seen that level of granularity that's required in an ERP.

And frankly, I don't think it should. So I'm going to disagree that the M-bomb needs to exist, but that's my take. Fino: All right. Good fit.

Pat Hillberg: Wait, wait, you're saying that the ⁓ bomb does not need to exist or you're saying that it David Schultz: No, no, the EMBOM absolutely needs to exist. Correct, yes. ERP is gonna provide a lot of the guidance, but this is when I go to actually the definition of what things get made. I just don't think the ERP should contain it.

It's more of your enterprise resource planning. Christina gets back to your supply chain comment of where am I getting this material? What are the specifications for it? When I receive the material, what are the quality tests?

Fino: No, he says it doesn't it's something but not just an ERP. It cannot be only owned by ERP. It has to be outside of ERP. That's what he said.

David Schultz: anything that is of that nature. Yes, that is part of that supply chain, but once I am now, I still have to define how it's going to actually flow through that, the material process, what are the quality checks that are internal to the manufacturing process that has to go along with it. So, yes. Fino: Well another side c ⁓ debate that we had, ⁓ and and Brian, you come from this background of of fashion.

It's also sort of industry specific, right? I mean, David, you just said that in the process continuous world, it's a different thing because you're dealing with recipes, formulations, specifications. In the high in the fashion world, we may or may not be manufacturing. We might just be sending a spec and some third world country is actually making whatever it is.

you know what Brion Carroll: Yeah, f yeah, fee Michael, I think, you know, I listen to this stuff and it does differ based on industry, right? If we can't agree it differs based on industry, you might as well unplug the electronic devices and go home. So if you're if you David Schultz: F. Fino: No, but you'd risk having your head cut off by the fan against we w don't want to do that quite yet.

⁓ Gus Quade: Th there are there are similar similarities though. They are all different. Like the the recipe versus M-BOM in the process versus discrete manufacturing. That one's a really easy line to draw.

And if you can't agree on that one, let's unplug everything. Fashion and let's say like a consumer product, like, you know, on an electric toothbrush. Or the fan above your head. There you go.

Watch out. ⁓ they they both might actually have pretty s ⁓ Brion Carroll: Yeah. It's hot. It's biggin'.

Pat Hillberg: Mm. Brion Carroll: Like the fan above my head. Exactly. Gus Quade: actually similar like ways of managing the the definition of the product where they just kinda draw something up and throw it over to something overseas and they manage that bomb.

Yeah. Brion Carroll: Yeah, they do. But but let me just add one thing. Let me let me just add one thing, then you guys can carry on down the road.

Is that when you get into fashion and you get into retail as in the garments we're wearing and the ones that Pat just swapped, right? Is that yeah, I know, I know. You went into the Studio X and you did whatever you gotta do. So the thing is that the fabric is key as an ingredient to the design.

So you would never have Pat Hillberg: For those not aware, I just took off a T shirt and put on this. Gus Quade: Ha ha ha Fino: ⁓ Off camera. Off camera. Brion Carroll: A designer plus developer of a of a garment, ignore what the material was right down to the feel and touch, which means it is like a recipe, except the fact is that you know you're not giving freedom to the factory to do anything they want.

You're saying this is the material, this is the supplier, this is the color. Don't screw it up. Fino: It's a button or a zipper, it's this season, this size, with this collar or not. Brion Carroll: Now they may say, now Fino, to your to your point, they may say, I don't care what zipper.

Gus Quade: Okay, z this little plastic part here though, I'm gonna give that same definition to my contract manufacturer though. I'm gonna say, like, using this material, I'm sourcing, you know, my raw pellets from that person over there. I wanna have this sort of like glossy finish on it. I chose from a catalog of like a hundred different little glossy finishes.

So that it I'll actually say like there's probably more similarities too. Brion Carroll: Yeah, yeah. Well, the thing is you can say it's factory sourced if you have trust in the factory. And it could be like a zipper, as Fina was saying, you know.

I can always tell a product by its zipper. The zipper goes I know the product sucks. So the the fact is the fact is that each industry may have freedoms and non involvement by ⁓ suppliers in the definition in the e bomb. Gus Quade: True.

Yeah. Brion Carroll: 'Cause if I'm looking at somebody doing apparel, those sources are right in. If I'm looking at somebody doing footwear, that factory is right in the PLM system. They're right in there, forming the whatever around the last and they're determining yield in the e bomb.

And then it comes through as a spec, as Fino said, it becomes through as spec that is a tech pack that could be off to other factories, right? So there are so many different Christine Longwell: Okay. Brion Carroll: ⁓ methodologies that are used, whether it's a recipe that delivers batches and then gets logged so that you can recall a batch if something screws up, or it's things like the product above my head that's spinning that has only variances on the blades and maybe the housing color.

And that's it. But that means a different blade because it's painted differently for the black one versus the brown one versus the silver one. Right? So MBOM has to exist.

And it is different than the E bomb, because the E bomb may be only one for that fan, and the ⁓ bomb is five different fans. It could be that way. Okay? So I'll I'll back off and get back into the balcony where I generally belong, but Oleg: Thanks.

Fino: S so Oleg: But what if someone will come and say, no, no, no, no, no, I want to have five configurations of this fan and I want it in the engineering. I I'm not saying it. Oh, here you go. Thank you.

I rest my case. Okay. Thank you. Fino: I wanted to come to Oleg.

Brion Carroll: Well then you then you have it in engineering. I I believe you Oleg, you and I have had this discussion since eighteen ⁓ four, right? I think that I think the PLM system should have the E bomb, the ⁓ bomb, the as manufactured, the as serviced, the as shipped. All of them should be in one system based on different views.

Okay, overloading the link. Christine Longwell: Brian. Oleg: I don't know, I'm just asking a question about... Christine Longwell: Brian, can yeah.

Brian, can I ask you? Having worked in fashion, I didn't find that a lot of the suppliers were actually in PLM, but everything that got conveyed was conveyed inside the tech pack. The tech pack was really that the thing that by which you would contract against and somebody would then send the things back. Oleg: Okay, good.

Brion Carroll: Yeah. Yeah. Christine Longwell: What's in the tech pack is a bill of materials, but it's also a mist material specification. But who owns the tech pack?

Sourcing. Brion Carroll: The thing is the product that my group built, Flex PLM. Christine Longwell: Yeah. Brion Carroll: Suppliers were right in there.

I mean, right in there. When it came to lab dips, when it came to fabric, ⁓ you know, shipments of samples, they were right in there. They were going bing, bing, bing, being, bing. So by the time that tech pack went out, it wasn't sourcing figures it out.

Sourcing was in the system sorting it out. So different products have different limitations. Ours didn't. We had factories in, we had material suppliers in, we had Christine Longwell: Sure.

Yeah. Right. Right. Brion Carroll: You know, the tech pack was done after developers and designers sometimes validated that that supplier was gonna actually do the right color on the right fabric based on its construct and blah blah blah blah blah.

I don't want to get into that detail, but I'm just saying PLM should, I use that word should include everyone. Otherwise, you bifurcate, meaning rip apart the E bomb from the ⁓ bomb. And it could be multiple ⁓ bombs if you're manufacturing in multiple factories. Holy crap.

You're like a you know chasing the rabbit in the yard. If you make a change in e bomb, you gotta go, ⁓ yeah, right, I gotta update all these people. Well, I hope they got it. If they didn't, you don't know what you're shipping until it gets returned because it's crap.

So Fino: Well Well to that point I wanted to ask Oleg there's actually a question in the chat from Kirchhat Oksu. I hope I didn't pronounce your name wrong. ⁓ in the future of PLM, if the future of PLM relies on an absolute digital twin continuity, or as Oleg you like to say, product memory, right? ⁓ why are we still treating the ⁓ bomb as a separate downstream static package rather than a real time algorithmic mutation of the E bomb driven directly by production floor kinematics and tooling constraints?

Not a bad question, I think. Brion Carroll: Here, here, ten four niner. Pat Hillberg: Yeah, same here. I like that.

David Schultz: Hahaha. Gus Quade: Yeah. Fino: ⁓ there, do you want to pick that one? Oleg: I don't.

I think what I wanted to mention again, maybe we can take this question later. I think what I was listening now and also I think it was very good comment from Jost this morning, speak about two different dimensions. Brion Carroll: Ha ha ha ha ha. Oleg: I will come to product memory ideas, but the two different dimensions.

One of them is people and organization and the, the secondary systems. So in every place where I've seen the, ⁓ I would not call it fight, but I appreciate the kind of marketing works. So you need to call it fight, but in every place I've seen those discussions and I've seen many implementations. all comes around what people, how people want to work.

and then what systems they have in place. So, and that's very connecting to Christine what you said about, you put it in startup in one way and you put it some companies in a different way. And I think Brian, it goes to the point of, you know, if a tech park or if it sits inside of your FlexPLM system or some other systems. And it's also related, I think, to the questions about MES.

and some others that were asked. think those are great questions. To me, what I've seen in many implementations, people coming and saying, I have engineers wants this, I have my procurement wants something else, and I have someone else in maintenance wants something third. And those are kind of introducing the organization and responsibilities and people really wants to own it.

So this is where it first comes on the point like why I want to own And then systems. And this is where Mr. Fisher, ideas and I had this conversation with him a year ago already who owns what I mean if SAP needs to own everything I'm fine I mean this is this is this is okay like put everything in SAP if it works with your organizations so those are those are two dimensions and the US argument about convey law that you know everything is following the organizational structure it's absolutely right if organization I have engineering and manufacturing and manufacturing wanted don't move my cheese I want the same bomb to structure like this and engineering saying Don't touch it because I made this structure for the sake of this conversation in SolidWorks.

And that's how they want to do it. This is fine. These two dimensions always, I've seen them in all conversations. And how to call them?

know, call it orange, black, and blue. When we're our examples of different bombs, we're saying call it yellow bomb, blue bomb, red bomb. Just to make everyone live in peace. I mean, that's just my perspective, maybe simplify it.

Now, the questions that are coming around product memory. Christine Longwell: Okay, so ⁓ Oleg: And I certainly take a blame and saying that everyone understands word memory differently. So I need to probably put a little bit more explanations. But this is a context that can connect between them.

So we somehow we need to connect because something that exists in engineering and how reasoning engineering and why they put their things needs to relate it to somehow to logic that exists in manufacturing. And this is where Dr. Fisher came completely right. said, without without details of manufacturing and logistics, you cannot do it, but you need to respond and correlate it to, ⁓ to engineering.

And then I've seen many questions, many comments to this morning in the LinkedIn. People say like, how you connect those transactions together and how keep them, how you keep them together. So it just what product memory just don't, don't argue the term, but this something that connects all these pieces together. and the logic together should exist.

Otherwise people will keep fighting. Brion Carroll: So Oleg, let me let me I want to add to what you just said. Okay. So product memory in my mind should not exclude anything about the product.

What that means is the E bomb as formed, our transactions, when ready, go to product memory. MBOM, in my mind, should just be a different view of the same bill of material. So you don't say, I didn't know what engineer had. Because it's in the friggin' engineering bomb.

So if you can set up the view for the ⁓ bomb, then you're adding additional components or adding sourcing content or adding ⁓ some type of operational thing. Fino: Mm. Oleg: You see Pat already want to disagree with you. just see the...

⁓ Pat Hillberg: Yeah, I think I think you're making Yeah, I you're making I think Brion Carroll: I know I see him. He's going, You stupid sons, bitch, I tell you now. David Schultz: Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Fino: I don't agree either.

David ⁓ nobody agrees with that one. Yeah. Pat Hillberg: All of our all of our boxes turn blue 'cause we're all talking. David Schultz: Hahaha Pat Hillberg: I would go with what Brian just said.

If we get rid of the E bomb, we need to adopt design for manufacturing and we need the engineers to design their product such that the manufacturing system can build it. Okay, there we go. Brion Carroll: Why? Yeah.

I agree. So but but that still doesn't mean that's not the E bomb. It just happens to be the E slash ⁓ bomb, right? I mean, what what why we're building walls that have a letter and as Oleg said it could be the blue and the yellow and the red.

I don't give a shit, right? But the fact is that it should be that everyone that can use the utility, now it depends on the system. Pat Hillberg: Yes. Brion Carroll: Some systems don't allow you to do variances ⁓ like Oleg system, Open Bomb allows you to put up different views, wrapping it around like it's a thr three sixty view of the bomb.

Gus Quade: Ooh, is it is a different bomb a different view or is it its own thing? I had this debate for like five hours once. It's its own thing. Yeah.

What or is it a view? Pat Hillberg: No, I think it there's well I'm not Brion Carroll: It's its own thing by turning on a different view. It it it is its own thing, but that means you turn down the view for ⁓ bomb. Why why I don't get I you know, I'm totally lost in what people say, I want my cheese over here in this package.

Pat Hillberg: The the customer hey what the customer wants certain capabilities in their product. The customer wants certain capabilities in their product and the manufacturing system has a different set of capabilities. And somehow we need to align those things. Brion Carroll: ⁓ no.

Yes. And it can be I'm gonna talk I'm gonna talk about Oleg's gone. Oleg: Do you do, let me out. Fino: And and those people don't talk to each other.

The engineers are sitting in their office, the other guys are on the shop floor. Yeah. Pat Hillberg: Right, yeah, absolutely. Or else they all talk at once.

Brion Carroll: But I'm gonna talk about Oleg's bomb, open bomb. I'm just gonna give him a plug. Why not? He's sitting right there.

His system, as it is defined, allows you to turn on different views. It's what I call overloading the link. Saying the relationship between this parent and this child exists only for manufacturing visibility. Why?

Because I want it, I don't give a crap. Engineering said no, screw that. I'm gonna use it. Pat Hillberg: So let me, I'm sorry, let me expand on this a little bit because I think I think we're moving into a new.

So first our manufacturing methods were largely div, I mean, they're originally developed kind of for the Model T, and then they really took off during the World War II arsenal democracy. And we're still doing stuff that's about 75 years old. But customers and society, and I'm I'm going to that level, are beginning to ban to demand you new things. And we kind of talked about this in the 737 Max and the idea of a digital thread.

Brion Carroll: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Pat Hillberg: Where customers and society are presuming that the OEM will maintain responsibility much deeper into the life cycle. Now, in the case of apparel, who cares, right?

Once it's out the factory door, we don't, you know, even even the customer doesn't care about even the as a customer, I'm not that concerned with the OEM maintaining my shirt, right? But in my aircraft carrier or my airplane or my car. Brion Carroll: Yeah. That's why you got a 65% return rate.

Fino: It's on ASQ. Pat Hillberg: Or more than likely when you start getting down to home appliances, yeah, the microwave, I might just throw it away, but the washer and dryer, I want it repaired, right? There's some, there's so there's a spectrum here, and there's something in the middle of that. But as we move toward this world, and if you start looking at ⁓ circular economies, so even in apparel at that point with circular economies, we need the OEM needs to pay attention throughout the entirety of its lifecycle, all the way into disassembly and disposal.

Brion Carroll: Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Pat Hillberg: So at this point, we need just of we the the World War II methodology where we really didn't care what happened to the airplane after it left the factory. That's no longer viable.

And we're going to need something new for this. And I'll and I'll move into this and say that, and and a big piece of that is the service bomb. There's a disposal bomb that we got disposal something or other that we got to talk about. But a big piece of this is the service bomb.

Okay, I'll stop with that. Brion Carroll: Yeah. I agree. Oleg: Yes.

Brion Carroll: Yeah, he has maintained. Oleg: And we need to have a feedback loop from the service to the engineering. Pat Hillberg: Yeah, right. Right.

Brion Carroll: But but that becomes so Pat, I'm just gonna say that that becomes the as maintained. And one of the things that remember we talked about the aircraft, I don't remember the exact name and the number, how many people died. But the fact is, if the as maintained changes something in order for it to continue to work, that should ripple back, that should go back, that should fly back to the engineering bomb to change every future and it should also tickle all the other serial numbered.

planes to say infield replacement, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. Right. So there are some things in the as maintain that should come back in because they just save people's lives, right? Pat Hillberg: Yeah.

And there are there are examples of that. That and I use this one in my class. The TWA eight hundred, ⁓ the fuel tank exploded 20 minutes out of ⁓ this is in the 1990s. Right.

And the they were able to to pull it out of the sea, and because they were able to pull it out of the sea at a great deal of expense and work and and some risk, they realized that this problem, I think it was the MD eighties. ⁓ Brion Carroll: Not a good thing. Not a good thing. Yeah, yeah.

Pat Hillberg: They realized that this problem could exist in other aircraft. And they did at that point, the FAA did at that point go back and say, you've got to fix all these wiring harnesses in these planes because of this problem that we happened on the first one. And a little after that, when I was working at Boeing, I learned that the FAA then began to require what was what we would now call a digital twin on on all aircraft manufacturers. So in the process of manufacturing, the example that was given to me is.

Brion Carroll: Okay. Christine Longwell: Right. Brion Carroll: Yeah, yeah. Pat Hillberg: If a forklift runs into the aircraft while it's being assembled and you have to take a piece of skin off and put a new skin on, you've got to record that information.

So Oleg: Thank Brion Carroll: Ha ha ha. Yeah, that's that's not a planned event either. Right. Pat Hillberg: Yeah, right, exactly.

Yeah, you gotta c cover all these emergent events. So in any of it, I'll I'll kind of wrap up by saying it I think we're into this, I think we're moving. Well, let's see. First, there's a difference between durable and non-durable goods.

So apparel is a non-durable good. We probably don't care the OEM doesn't care about servicing a non-durable good. But the circular economy does, right. Yeah, exactly.

Exactly. In particular when you're looking at fast fashion and that sort of stuff, right? You gotta start thinking about the disposal phase. Durable goods, you need to start thinking about the service phase.

Brion Carroll: Unless you look at circular economy. Yeah. Yeah, right. That Pat Hillberg: ⁓ and the first step of the service phase is the manufacturing phase, right?

So so there's there's this continuity that needs to continue. And I I Brion Carroll: Right. So that's what that ⁓ bomb, let's call it an ⁓ bomb, meaning what was done in manufacturing, has to live on as a static state, serialized. And either I have a VIN on my car, right?

Vehicle identification number, that's that says that my whatever the hell it is, Toyota something, has to be maintained individual to any other similar car that's out there, right? And that's that durable goods you're talking about. So that's where the M-Bomb or the becomes the as serviced bomb. And the longevity of all of these should be, and I'll go back to Oleg system, right?

It should be where it just tentacles out. And that gets into the product memory. And that gets into what's been serviced in ⁓ the world, product memory, if you apply AI to it. It goes things are still going good.

Things just ⁓ shit. Sorry about that. ⁓ crap, something happened. I need to do something, right?

And the product memory is the saving grace of all of that. Because it looks that go ahead. Christine Longwell: And and silos exist. Historically, think people think that silos exist because everybody's using a different system.

But guess what? People are using a different system because organizational silos exist because different organizations have different needs. And people like to gatekeep their information in these manufacturing companies. Not sure if you'd noticed this.

But what's gonna happen? Brion Carroll: Yes. Exactly. Right.

Christine Longwell: Or what's happening with AI that I'm seeing is this orchestration layer that PTC and Siemens have both rolled out this year. You know, ARIS is doing it, ARIS has has capabilities. So what AI is going to do is it's gonna chip away at these silos at a higher level and enable visibility into places that visibility's never been seen before in really interesting ways. Brion Carroll: Yes.

Yep. Well that's a Christine Longwell: So let's it. Gus Quade: ⁓ actually that I I I did a presentation on that just like two months ago, talking about PLM and MES orchestration. Because like rarely the people in PLM get to go into the MES.

Like if you look at like really upstream engineering, but there's valuable data there. And and vice versa. Like people who, you know, their primary system of engagement is MES, they don't get to go upstream into like the design tools necessarily, but they have something to learn from each other. Yeah.

Mm-hmm. Oleg: Wait a second. But here's a- Christine Longwell: An ERP? Brion Carroll: Yes.

That's the thing. Christine Longwell: And and the data is is being built out, additional information is being added along the way. And and yes, visibility is great, but by definition of focus, working in a startup manufacturing company was deciding what I don't care about. So tell me what to make and I'll make it.

Tell me what to buy and I'll buy it. Brion Carroll: So so that's the thing, you know. I just started I just yeah, I just right, so Christina, I just started a company, Vivid Nexus, right? Which means clarity in connection.

If you look at Vivid Nexus together it. ⁓ and that is totally focused on the drawing in to product memory from a wide range of silos. Because you to your point, organizations use systems that complete their role. And they don't really give a crap one way or another.

About how the data got in, but it's going to be good for them, and they're going to do what they got to do, and then they're going to ship it off to wherever that next silo is, right? And product memory has to be the orchestration, as you said, of all of these. Product memory has to be drawing in from all of these silos and normalizing that data so AI can look across all organizations. That's where the world's going to go.

But we can't say that product memory is only for this silo. Christine Longwell: Yeah. David Schultz: Yeah, so. Brion Carroll: And PTC came out with Jetstream.

Go ahead, sorry. David Schultz: Yeah, so. No, I was going to jump off of what Christine was saying is that we've looked at how do we do end-to-end supply chain from ⁓ McDonald's in Australia that had the MyMac as app and I could actually scan the QR code of my Big Mac and it could tell me exactly where the bakery that made the bun, the farm that produced the beef for everything that was there. But the same thing applies for Brion Carroll: Ha ha ha.

David Schultz: even my service. And I think when I was first introduced or brought into this call, it was always the challenge of going from E-bomb to M-bomb. And now we want to add in this S-bomb. And this is really where I start to talk about, there just needs to be a standard way to do that.

And well, guess what? There is a standard that allows us to do it. We just always think of it as only purely manufacturing, but there's any maintenance operation. Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah. Pat Hillberg: I'm first I'm sorry, first first things first. What what is your definition of S in S bomb? Gus Quade: ⁓ David Schultz: So that's the service bomb.

is that piece where I've now done some ⁓ work on it on a product after the fact, but that needs to come back. you know, one of these. Pat Hillberg: Do we all agree? Do we all agree on this?

Brion Carroll: Yeah. Gus Quade: Ooh, ⁓ so wait, ⁓ I would say like that's an as maintained bomb, right? Like some people would call that as maintained. Yeah.

I was gonna say for some folks the service bomb like, ⁓ this is the compilation of all the service kits and services and you know, more like a a a a small cut of the bomb plus the IKEA Allen wrench is like on my S bomb. Some Pat Hillberg: Yeah, right. Brion Carroll: Whoops, trying to reconnect. David Schultz: Okay, apologies.

Yeah, it's so it's probably good. Brion Carroll: Something happened. David Schultz: Okay, perfect. Yeah, thanks for that clarification, Pat.

Pat Hillberg: Does anybody think it's the s the software bomb? Christine Longwell: ⁓ or simulation or yeah. Software. Too many S's.

Brion Carroll: The S bomb the S bomb could be soft or but I'd say S W bomb. I wouldn't leave it S bomb. David Schultz: Hahaha Gus Quade: It's italicized, right? Pat Hillberg: Yeah, right.

Okay. David Schultz: Yeah, no, thanks for the clarification. So for me, it's just really anything that happens, you know, regardless of whether it's the service bomber, here's your spare parts material, or here's the software you need to run it, or, you know, regardless, you know, it comes back to what Christine was getting at is we still see silos because not because software exists in silos, it's because companies exist in silos, and we need a common way of exchanging that data.

I think Going back to the very first, premise of this is really hard and now we're trying to add more integrations. And I think we're at this point where we think AI is gonna do all this magic stuff, but the reality is because we're calling, I mean, I just used the term S-bomb and I used it differently and now all of a sudden we wanna apply AI to something. We've gotta standardize on the data that's coming back. Go ahead, Brian.

Brion Carroll: Well, so David, David, yeah, David, what what I'm saying is that normalization of all silos data has to precede the application of AI. So let's say, to your point, by the way, I was driving on the throughway in New York. I was driving on the throughway in New York, I stopped at a McDonald's, and I had the best Big Mac I've ever had in my life. David Schultz: 100%.

Yes, where are my thumbs? Brion Carroll: So I went back to the I did went back to the counter and said, who made this Big Mac? And the guy goes, ⁓ I did. I said, You did the best.

So I relayed it to the manufacturer of the Big Mac. Unbelievable. Never had it like that. All the patties are usually screwed up and you gotta reorganize.

But nevertheless. Yeah, I sheesh. So but but the thing is, you have to normalize all of the silo data. You have to.

David Schultz: ⁓ funny. So you just need to go where they make the patties sometime, because that is the best Big Mac you'll ever have. Man, I love going to that place. Anyway, go on.

Apologies. Brion Carroll: If you don't normalize it, and you know, this vivid nexus now has a patent map, tag, and transcribe because it has to map tag as it goes into product memory and then transcribe as it comes back out. If you don't do that, nobody knows what the hell you're talking about and AI is useless, right? But to your point, every silo should inject its data and normalize it as it comes in.

And if you apply AI to that, you've got product, you've got business, you've got organizational AI. Pat Hillberg: So going going back to Brion Carroll: And that's where you get value and gain, right? Pat Hillberg: Going back to Yas's comment and today about Conway's Law. So the the idea is that a product will follow the organizational structure, right?

That the structure of the product matches the structure of the organization. Can you get to what you're talking about with, you know, some some value in AI without first breaking down Conway's law? David Schultz: Okay, great. Oleg: Only one side.

Only one side. Gus Quade: Are you kind of saying like if I have a really flat organizational structure, like I have one, you know, everyone operates in one group, that my product structure is also gonna be like very simplistic and it's like there's just one bomb? Whereas if I have many silos, then I have many different records to represent that one product. Is that okay, okay.

Pat Hillberg: Yeah. Right. And and think of think of the words that we use to define a corporate think of the words we use to define a life cycle, right? We have tiers, we have departments, we have divisions.

All these words are divisiveness, right? We we encourage divisiveness in our product lifecycle. So can what's that? Brion Carroll: Yeah.

Gus Quade: Are you a matrixed organization or not? Like are you matrixed? You know, is all of marketing in one group or do you organize yourselves by your mission, right? David Schultz: Ha ha!

Right? Pat Hillberg: No, but but I'm actually my point is the organization's not big enough. But if you're thinking about the life cycle, you can't limit your thinking to the OEM. You've got to think about everything from the supplier out to the user.

So when we talked about the 737 Max, there were failures at there didn't seem to be no, there was one failure. Let's see. There were failures at Boeing, there were failures at one service supplier, there was a failure at a second service supplier, there's a failure in pilot training. So to keep those planes flying, you need a digital thread, in my view, across supply, you know, a thousand suppliers, one OEM, dozens of aircraft, airlines, thousands of pilots, hundreds of service organizations.

And that's the instantiation of Conway's law. So, so how I mean, I did my my point is I don't think a database, I don't think it's any sort of database, artificial intelligence or not. Brion Carroll: Yeah. Yeah, that's all gotta be connected.

That all has to be connected. Pat Hillberg: They can overcome those dysfunctions. Brion Carroll: Well, Pat, I would say that if if you started out knowing the dimensionality as you just went through, and my head was about to go poof, right? Because you got pilots, you got this hour, you got that guy's drunk, and you got all these things, right?

That that affect the operational stability of an airplane, right? Then you got all the humans that are on it or aren't on it because it just went into the sea, right? That whole thing to keep that digitally managed. David Schultz: Hopefully not.

Brion Carroll: It it ain't gonna happen. The reason is there isn't a godlike organization that says never let go, right? Because everybody lets go. Okay, my job's done.

Phew. So to keep it going, you need something above all of that in order to say, I, the above thing, have responsibility for all of that. And until you get that godlike figure, you're not gonna get. What in the case of airline use or even trains, you know, trains are going at seventy miles an hour down a track with a sleeping conductor that's got, you know, he laid down on the ⁓ what is that when your foot falls off, it shuts off the engine.

⁓ he just fell asleep on it and you're fucking going. So the thing is, all these things don't have godlike representatives. They don't. And so we're always gonna have times where there's a distance.

Pat Hillberg: The dead man switch. Brion Carroll: between what you should know and what's really going on and how it's gonna affect everything. And if we try to plug it, ⁓ it may be plugged for some, like a shirt. That was easy.

But for an airplane, whew. I'm letting go. I'm going back into the balcony where I feel safe. Pat Hillberg: So it's Let's let's bring this back to E bomb and bomb.

Are we are we aligning on the bomb which is closest to our own work and therefore are we aligning on the bomb which is in our own silo? And can we ever break down silos? Gus Quade: ⁓ Brion Carroll: I think that's where it's going. Gus Quade: I I I was gonna add I I was pondering this question ⁓ yet yesterday, getting ready to come on here.

Kind of like the E bomb versus ⁓ bomb. ⁓ Oleg's seen a funny picture I made that had ⁓ Dr. Jorg and Yoss on it ⁓ regarding E bomb and ⁓ bomb. it but prior prior to like all these different disciplines where you know we we didn't have electrical electronics and software and all these things.

It was just like purely mechanical. Like, you know, did we make a bomb even that was any e bomb? Brion Carroll: Yeah. ⁓ Gus Quade: Was it just an ⁓ bomb?

Did we just make the bomb once and it was manufacturable and it had all that definition in it? Or did we still have a list? Well look, look, look even earlier though. We used to make, you know, some folks used to make everything in-house.

They still had to source the materials. That's right. Maybe they didn't have like as fine of a magnifying glass as to where they got it. They were just like, get some aluminum.

Get get me a billet from somewhere, right? Christine Longwell: It had to be sourced. Are we gonna make it? Are we gonna buy it?

Where are we gonna get it? Pat Hillberg: Yeah. Christine Longwell: Yeah, yeah. So ⁓ I've I've I wrote a blog a little while that nobody cared about where I said that that's the supply chain is kind of like the story of the Velveteen Rabbit.

The supply chain is where it becomes real. Until you have sourced it and bought it, it's imaginary. This is this is data. Brion Carroll: True.

True. Pat Hillberg: No, it's still puzzle pieces at that point. You've got it you've got to assemble the puzzle pieces together. It's not real until it leaves the factory.

Christine Longwell: Well, I w it it's real. Well, it becomes real through the through through the s the sourcing and supply because that's the point at which the organization going back Pat to what you said, this is the point at which people spend money. Brion Carroll: It can become real. Pat Hillberg: It's one step towards big yeah.

Gus Quade: Let's define real. Pat Hillberg: Yeah, huh? Fino: Ha. David Schultz: Wow.

Pat Hillberg: Right. ⁓ no, that's where the company spends money, but the customers don't spend money until after manufacturing. Gus Quade: Mm. ⁓ that's when it gets real, is when you start spending money.

Brion Carroll: You know, it's kind of Christine Longwell: Before you have spent money. Brion Carroll: No, Pat, I would say I just saw my son post it something. You know, there's a Brian Carroll number two out there somewhere in the world. He just posted something where in the retail community you can actually sell a digital garment to somebody that wants to put it on their avatar so it never, ever, never becomes real.

Never. It's sold as a as a I want to wear this shirt. Boom, you gotta buy it. That's freaky.

Pat Hillberg: Yeah. I give you that. Yes, I I'll I'll absolutely give you that. If you wanna eat food and if you wanna move places though, you need something physical.

Fino: So Christine Longwell: And that's not a product. Products are real. No. A software product.

But that when I when I go to ERP conferences, when I go to ERP conferences and people look at me like, why are you here? I tell people I deal with the making of the stuff. If it doesn't to have to do with the making of the stuff, I don't deal with it. Brion Carroll: A product it is a product.

It is a product. David Schultz: Hahaha Gus Quade: Well it yeah, it's it's software. That's a that's a software product, yeah. Pat Hillberg: ⁓ sure.

Fino: It's a version of software. Brion Carroll: Yeah. Pat Hillberg: Sure, but but if if you wanna eat food and if you want transportation, you need something physical. Brion Carroll: Yeah, well that David Schultz: time with you.

All right. Brion Carroll: The making of the actual physical asset. Yes. But there are there's there's a market now for non physical assets that you have to buy.

David Schultz: ⁓ Same. Christine Longwell: Of the physical stuff. Yes, that's a product. David Schultz: Yeah, yeah, I might think.

Christine Longwell: Sure, and and ⁓ on the app store. That that's software. David Schultz: So Pat, I thank you. Fino: NFTs and other, yeah.

David Schultz: Yeah. So Pat, I think you hit on something here earlier when you're comment about, we just look at this thing because it's our lens or our view of it? If I'm in, I'm in maintenance, I see things through the maintenance lens and you're absolutely right. And I think this really comes down to the breaking down of the silos is really a people problem.

We have to have dis- people, discipline, thought, discipline, action of we are now going to not just consider what's in my own little eyes in front of me. Yes, I deal with MES, but if I don't know what's happening in PLM, Brion Carroll: Yeah. David Schultz: There's no way I can ever translate what actually is going to happen. If I'm not talking to maintenance, there's no way that I can understand how are we going to maintain this equipment because I can always find a manufacturing engineer and I'm gonna make this just goofball process that nobody can understand or work with.

That's not very helpful. So, it does start from the, have to think broader than just my own little view of the world. And that takes organizational discipline and that's hard. Brion Carroll: Right.

Yes. Yes, it does. Well, there already are there there already is individuals that should think above the silo level. That's the CIO, the VP of data governance.

If you have those humans in your organization, they should be able or see RO chief revenue officer, right? They should be able to go. Everybody get together. I'm sick of this crap.

I want you to talk, and I want you to talk in front of me so I know you're talking, right? David Schultz: And it's, ⁓ And the key word there was should. Yeah, key there word there was should. Pat Hillberg: But still the organization is Brion Carroll: That's the way you gotta do it.

You can't just say I'm the CIO and I guess if since nothing broke, I'm okay floating out in the atmosphere. Pat Hillberg: Still still the the organization is not big enough. Brion Carroll: True. Cause you got for your world you've got all those independent OEM or the manufacturers Gus Quade: Wait, ⁓ Pat, y you've said that multiple times.

The the organization's the organization's not big enough. Do you mean like in compared to Boeing that can kind of run this like godlike system versus like the average manufacturer that's 200 people? Yeah. Pat Hillberg: Yeah, Boeing Boeing was Boeing Boeing was not big enough to control the seven thirty seven Max.

Brion Carroll: Yeah. Because it got separated out from the manufacturing and the p actual execution. Pat Hillberg: 'Cause Boeing sells to airlines and then they assume airlines are going to do the service and they also assume that airlines are going to train their pilots properly. Brion Carroll: Exactly.

Exactly. So they're there are gonna always go ahead, you know. Fino: So it seems to me we still have this Christine Longwell: Yeah. Fino: No, I was gonna say I think there's a bit of background noise somewhere.

Is that I think that the there's a bunch of lines we're crossing there? There's a a problem where we have I think we talked about this last time, like the engineers want to own their data and manufacturing wants to own their data and the service guys and so is an ownership problem because you know, it's my e bomb and then I'm gonna throw it over the fence and hopefully this someone catches it. Brion Carroll: I don't hear. Fino: Even though my P L ⁓ system, which is owned by me, the E bomb guy, can do ⁓ bombs, but screw that.

We don't we know the mayor faction guys don't trust it. And which hits the second problem, which is user experience. And the the PLMs are designed for engineers and they can't it's unusable from anyone outside of engineering, right? The MES, you got your little worker screens, it's little bit easier to understand.

They're sitting on the thing next to you when you're working, that's easy. And then the RP, another d catastrophe if it's SAP. Sorry, York, but You know, they're not known for y a good user experience. And then and then we go back to service and once again you've got maintain X or or service stuff like that, where you've got a relatively easy user interface where I can put stuff in.

And yet these are four different systems that are completely dissociated from each other. I mean, maybe Gus, you're gonna say, ⁓ we're gonna fix all that with the new ⁓ thing, but ⁓ we've been saying that for years. That's what PTC said they were gonna do when they bought service max and thingworks. And what did they do?

They sold ThingWorks. So David Schultz: Ha ha ha ha. Brion Carroll: ⁓ Christine Longwell: The dogs. Fino: Then what do you do?

There's no MES in the middle, right? ⁓ Dasoth said we're gonna solve it 'cause we have a prezo and so we can do ⁓ and nobody uses it. We it doesn't work. You know, you're still using Excel at the end of the day.

So that's why David and I had discussion like since Gus Quade: Yeah. We're we're tr we're trying to take the approach of like having a data model underneath that just has like all these components. So it's like here's a product, and then there's an e bomb, an ⁓ bomb, the CAD bomb, there's every single bomb that you can create permutations under, but it's just a data model. So whatever system of engagement you come into, whether that be the CMMS or the PLM or the MES or the CAD interface, it all just pulls granular data from one data model.

So that that's an approach Autodesk is taking. And I I kind of like it. Brion Carroll: ⁓ Phino David Schultz: Mm-hmm. Brion Carroll: So gas, gas, gas, gas.

Oleg: that Fino: That's isn't that what ⁓ PTC announced last week with ⁓ Orbit and ⁓ Jetstream though? PTC announced yes, asset basically Orbit was the asset lifecycle manager, which is supposed to be multidisciplinary, and then Jetstream was sort of the digital thread thing between them. They're all announced you know pre-announced, coming later kind of thing. But the talk from them, and I'm I'm supposed to have an interview actually with ⁓ Steve Dertin and and and the new head of ⁓ product management about it.

Gus Quade: Is that what that is? Is that what they're trying to do? Brion Carroll: So Oleg: But Gus, what do you... Fino: ⁓ is this sort of ⁓ digital threat thing.

So I don't know. It it Brion Carroll: Well, you know, let me let me just point one thing out. When Flexplm came out into the world, it was built on PDM Link. So PDM Link was the shared data model, and you could jet off and do the fan above my head.

At the same time, you have a different interface for merch or people that wanted to see it graphically, right? That both using the exact same bill of material because you could do consumer products and Retail on the same system. Now, there was nothing that kept Service Max from going into that same world, except they were already engaged in their own system. And so PTC bought them and they brought all their shit, excuse me, their stuff with them.

So it was segregated and separated. But it could have been just go into the same place and put service bomb within that, just like Gus is saying. You know, you could have a unified data model and think of it as you know different UIs that service the you know unique needs of each one of these humans, engineers, manufacturers, service, you know, retail. David Schultz: Mm-hmm.

We got it. Fino: And I would argue you come back to the problem that we're talking about each BU having their budget for their system, who the hell's gonna pay for that? Engineering already spent their budget on PLM, so screw those manufacturing guys and Pat Hillberg: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Brion Carroll: Well, that's where ⁓ Gus Quade: Well Brion Carroll: Well that's where it gets into the whole thing of costing should be at the CIO level, not at the org level.

Pat Hillberg: Yeah. Gus Quade: Well now you need the CIO to put up budget. Christine Longwell: Get getting anybody to spend money on supply chain software is almost impossible. David Schultz: Just need to go to IT and call it a security issue and then you'll get budget for it.

Fino: Well so well, maybe may maybe maybe is it more ⁓ when we do the transformation of having true data governance and having a data organization like a CDO, is that where it's supposed to have? Is that person's budget supposed to have hey, I own the judicial I own product memory to take Oleg ⁓ Oleg's term ⁓ is that where it owns? Is that the problem? Is that the budget should be in that data silo?

Go ahead. Gus Quade: Ooh David. Brion Carroll: Yeah, yes. Exactly.

CIO. David Schultz: Ha ha ha ha Brion Carroll: Right. Exactly. Christine Longwell: organization needs an orchestration layer?

Is that what you're saying? Sure. Pat Hillberg: No, the life cycle does. The life cycle needs an organization layer.

Brion Carroll: You well realize realize that AI is gonna become a shared budget. AI will become a shared budget, a unique line item at the CXX level, and everyone will be, otherwise it's kind of useless, will be a benefactor of its expense. That's what's gonna happen. AI is gonna become the blended agent.

What's that? Fino: The life cycle does. David Schultz: Ha ha ha ha. Christine Longwell: Yes.

Oleg: Thank Christine Longwell: A benefactor or a victim? Because somebody whoever's in charge of this needs to be compassionate to the needs of the organizational silos and putting organizational change management into place to to make the people and the systems co it's big. ⁓ David Schultz: Yes. All right.

Fino: Ha ha ha. Pat Hillberg: Yeah, right, yeah. Brion Carroll: Well, depending on how you do it, you could be the victim. They have to, they have to be compassionate humans.

Oleg: it Brion Carroll: It's sharing. David Schultz: you Brion Carroll: Sharing sharing like the they're all coming together. David Schultz: There's the people. so Gus mentioned something pretty that I want to get back to it.

Apologies. I always end up coming in two, three conversations after the fact, but it's around that data model. And I'm a big believer in this master data model as a concept I promote of it's something that exists outside any product or system or solution or infrastructure that this is our data model. Fino: Okay.

Brion Carroll: Yes, yes. David Schultz: And then those systems that want to, know, whatever its functionality is, my PLM, my CMMS, my MES, the, you know, fill in all your TLAs, FLAs, there needs to be a common way that we expose that information and there's a common way that we exchange that information. So we're all looking at the same thing, but it doesn't become that model. And it's, you know what, it's a mouthful, but it becomes Brion Carroll: Exactly.

Well see, David, that's where the that's where the product memory comes in, right? Because vendors will never disappear, there will always be vendors. Vendors will fight. They'll reinforce Fino: Okay, Oleg, go ahead.

You're smiling over there, Oleg. You've got something to say. Oleg: if David Schultz: Yeah, no, I just... Gus Quade: It's well it's so d d David, what you're talking about is like ⁓ let's look at it from a CAD perspective.

That's why we have a step. That's why we have IFC for architecture. Like we have one common way of exchanging geometric data between all these proprietary solutions. When do we get that for a product instead of just for a ge geometric model?

Yeah. It Brion Carroll: But that that's the point. Each vendor is going to try to contain and own as much of the organization as they can. It's really a vendor influence to org ⁓ responsibility level.

Vendors are going to be in CMMN or SEM or MES or you know whatever their three-letter acronym or four-letter acronym means. Product memory should, must, has to draw from each of those silos. David Schultz: Bye. But Brion Carroll: and normalize, harmonize that data so AI can rest atop it.

That's what has to happen because you're never going to get rid of the the little rabbit race of all of these vendors, reinforcing organizational confinement. Fino: Okay. Pat Hillberg: So Fino, that was question number one. I see five more questions here.

Fino: So we're Brion Carroll: Ha ha ha. Fino: I propose I I propose that we use the closing question. Everybody gets to sound off on it. The closing question we had was and I I think everybody will have something interesting to say, which is and thank you, Oleg, by the way, it was Oleg that put together this.

⁓ what belief about ⁓ bomb or manufacturing data management does the industry that that's widely accepted today will be proven completely wrong within five years? David Schultz: Yeah, right. Brion Carroll: Yeah, what are you doing on time management, bro? David Schultz: All right.

Fino: And y Oleg, you asked the question, so you get to answer it first, and then we can go around the horn. So what so what is that commonly accepted as gospel thing about the ⁓ bomb or manufacturing data that is definitely not gonna happen in five years it's absolutely not the truth anymore. Go ahead, Oleg. Five years.

I know it's hard to even think 18 months at this point, but Oleg, Oleg, you wrote the question. You got your you get the first response. Brion Carroll: Yes. Five years?

Holy jeez. Ha ha ha. Oleg: Yes, I will give a response. I think what we're going to see is that people will not disagree how to manage data in different departments and the mistakes that they will have as a result of the misalignment of data.

And this happens all the time. But people will not agree how to manage data because they have different departments and they have a different opinion about how to do And this is we come to the second thing. people will never, organizations will never agree and people will never agree. But we need to put something for them to work.

And this is where our systems will come. So, and if SAP wins in one organization, they can manage everything. Like Mr. Fisher said, in some other organizations, it will not happen.

The biggest, from our experience in open bond with customers, the biggest mistake that we see is unit of measures. I mean, a very stupid, simple example. Someone is ordering different unit of measures. Somewhat in many different ways.

It's a simple and stupid mistake. So try to take, pull your bomb, put it in any language model and ask to analyze the unit of measure. It will tell you it's using different unit of measures in the same bomb from different metrics, imperial whatsoever. So horrible mistakes that are happening.

So again, misalignment of data. Fino: Mm. Oleg: is the most visible and impactful mistake. Someone is ordering boxes and in fact someone planning for boxes and ordering pallets.

Someone planning for each unit and then ordering some boxes. I I have a real example of people that I cannot mention their names now that order it pieces and get two pallets or something. Fino: ⁓ I I think the best example is in in ⁓ no I'm I lost it. ⁓ in ⁓ i it spinal tap the the c the the the the stone inch Christine Longwell: This this is a sourcing problem, by the way.

Oleg: Yes, and this is after all it's And this is the sort of thing that's why what I'm saying, mistakes are coming from the place that people will disagree and organizations will run multiple systems. This goes to your comment. You cannot put everything in a single system. You will end up with 3D experience.

No one wants this for the moment. I think unless you buy SAP. I mean, unless you buy SAP. So again, Pat Hillberg: Yeah.

Gus Quade: Ha ha ha. Fino: G Oleg: If you agree an organization on the single piece of software, God bless you. I mean, you can do it. This is fine.

But the normal, like in most of the organization that I've seen, eventually people come into different pieces of software. So it will be very interesting to see, it will be very interesting to see in Siemens and PTC now, because I think they are following some different strategies. my point is, this is where I think Brian, you did a great job explaining product memory better than I did. But you need to have something that connects between those disagreements in order to reason and in order to make decisions.

That's it. Thank you. Fino: Gut. Okay okay, Gus, your turn.

Gus Quade: Okay. ⁓ it's something accepted today. ⁓ it I I'll I'll take more of a stance ⁓ related to a lot of the companies I work with where ⁓ they do discrete manufacturing and a lot of the product definition starts with mechanical CAD. Like 90% of it comes from there.

as far as like the the structure, you know, you gotta then throw in all the supply chain and sourcing and all that. ⁓ and then we have to, you know, make it manufacturable. ⁓ and so ⁓ something commonly accepted is Christine Longwell: Yeah. Gus Quade: There's only two ways this is gonna go down.

Either we're going to optimize the product for CAD design and updates. And then it's going to be really hard to add all of that definition to make you know an ⁓ bomb if we ever got to an agreement on what the definition is, so that we can get it into an ERP and someone's gonna have to just eat that labor. The flip side is okay, we're gonna make it really easy to get into the ERP, and now we have to optimize our CAD for. Christine Longwell: Okay, I just need that.

Gus Quade: The manufacturable structure, which is actually really hard to then update when I want to change one little part of that geometric definition and it just blows up my model. That's the acceptance today is that it's only one way or the other. I think in five years, probably you know, probably just like a year or 18 months, ⁓ it is going to be let's all point to one data model. Let's all point to one place where we can then have this kind of transformation layer so that I can get my ⁓ bomb out of this without having to force some sort of ⁓ you know ⁓ structure or way of working that isn't very good for the the folks designing it or the flip where I'm going to optimize for my upstream design and updating and then downstream they're just gonna have to suffer with whatever updates and transformations.

But rather in the future it'll get really easy to do these transformation activities to be able to have that thread throughout the entire product and that ⁓ bill and material definition. And there there's actually glimpses of it today. I I see like ⁓ in the last month I've seen Four different AI-coded applications to edit or create a bill of material. You know, it doesn't matter what kind of bill of material, but they all do that.

They all add some sort of UX to be able to edit it or update it or view it. But at the end of the day, they're all pointing to a data model underneath. No one cares about a data model. They care about the context in which they interact with that bomb.

And so I think that future state is they're all going to point to one place for that kind of system of record, the data model. Christine Longwell: Thanks for the state. Gus Quade: But everyone can go and have a UX that works really well for them. And then no one's having to just like eat all this work to be able to transform or shove it into a system, but rather hopefully things can gracefully flow from one to the next.

To David's point, I really liked what he was saying. You have to agree on how you're transmitting that data, how you're going to structure it within your organization so that you can then pass it along from system to system or person to person. Fino: David, why don't you pick it up then? 'Cause we're running out of time.

David David Schultz: Yeah, so I actually have two answers to the question. One is right now the whole approach that everybody's taking is that we're going to use these abstracted models to exchange data between systems. And that's the conventional wisdom. But what I'm seeing the market do is just the opposite and go back to the way we always did it.

Instead of making these ⁓ abstracted connections, we're going to go right back to point to point because I've now seen so many projects of Christine Longwell: Okay. Fino: Ha ha. David Schultz: I'm just going to take some new piece of technology and then I'm going to build it in one big behemoth application. So I think in terms of what's going to change is that we're just going to go right back to where we were.

What I would like to see change is that we get away from creating these bespoke data models and these bespoke databases and knowledge graphs and start to create what I, you know, one comment or one concept that I was going to bring up earlier is this ontological representation of my manufacturing process. Maybe we can let make that a little bit larger of Now, anytime I wanna know anything about the data that's there, whether it's my as design, as built service, anything that I now not only know where to go get that data in a common system, I know how to interrogate it because I now have a common way.

It's what I talk about in a knowledge graph. If I'm gonna build out a family tree, Oleg: you David Schultz: you already understand the concept of cousin and brother and sibling and et cetera. The same type of relationships need to exist within manufacturing data. So there's my, I think is gonna happen is not the direction we think we're going.

And what I'd like to have happen is let's really be deliberate about what we're doing in the future. Brion Carroll: Yeah, so I'll try to do it in less than eight minutes. So the ⁓ bomb today, and what what really kind of screws up the answer no matter who gives it, is that new technology doesn't mean it's adopted. So people will continue to use old systems because they either don't have the funding or don't think it's worth it, or blah blah blah.

So if you look at the future Fino: Awesome. Brian, quickly. Brion Carroll: There will be, and to David's point, the ontology of all data for all systems, and to Gus's point, different UIs getting at the data based on the profile of role of the human. So future state is kind of like the jet stream PTC or Siemens, whatever tool they have, where it's a layer on top.

Yeah, and you go in, you say, Hey, on this role, it goes, ⁓ here, Mr. Johnson. Fino: Intelligence Center. Brion Carroll: Let me show you what you need to see, which is totally different than Mr.

Robinson, which is totally different the than Miss Longstreet. I was gonna do long well, but you've already used that, so I can't do it. So coming into this shared ontology is the human with the role, and it validates who they are and changes what they see based on who they are. That's where in five years, because five years, I mean son of a son of a gun.

David Schultz: Ha ha ha ha. Fino: Awesome. It's long time. Brion Carroll: That's a long time in technology years, right?

So who's on the front line is gonna say, screw all that crap, all the data's here, just shut up and log in. Thank you very much. Do your stuff. We're taking care of all of this stuff, and underneath it is running AI to say, whoops, we gotta tell that person something different.

So AI is gonna become much more mixed. It's gonna be shared ontology and it'll be variances of the view of how you see what you're gonna ⁓ do. But ⁓ and you'll feel like you're doing it uniquely, but you're not. It's all going into the same data model.

Oleg: you Fino: Patrick. Pat Hillberg: You know, the five years thing, ⁓ to ⁓ to Brian's point, it's a technology moves fast, but adoption is glacial. So I don't think anything is going to change until ⁓ suddenly everything changes. And I don't know what the trigger will be, although it'll it'll be it'll be something COVID or bigger.

⁓ Brion Carroll: Yeah. Fino: Mm-hmm. So p open an open AI moment, right? Pat Hillberg: Yeah, I know, I know it's like 40 degrees where you guys are in Europe.

It's we're 36, 37 where I'm in, I'm in in Detroit. It could be something like that. There'll be some sort of shift. And I think where we're going is a digital thread, which continues throughout the life cycle.

And so the e-bomb m-bomb thing really does just become views into the into the digital thread. And I'll stop with that. ⁓ but I want to add one more thing. Fino: Awesome.

Up up. Pat Hillberg: ⁓ like I wanna give a shout out to the post that you had today on ⁓ e-bombs and m-bombs is kind of a lead into this conversation. And ⁓ this is the highest praise I can give to anything. I just added you to my syllabus.

So my students will be covering it next year. I've I've been looking for, I mean, for years I've been looking for a good conversation about e bomb and end bomb. And you really brought some good stuff in and the stuff that York Fisher brought in, and then I have some stuff I haven't published, but I will publish soon. Brion Carroll: Whoa, whoa, bro.

That that that that that that or you gotta click your fingers or something, yeah. David Schultz: ⁓ Fino: Nice. Pat Hillberg: So anyway, thank you very much for your your your ⁓ post today. Oleg: Thank you.

Fino: So bring us on, Christine. Christine Longwell: Honestly, I I think we're all saying the same things, but we're using different words. As long as a bill of materials means a list of parts, which is a lot of the way that people look at it. A bill of materials is not a list of parts.

⁓ we need more of it is a part of what is the product definition, and people in different organizations have different needs for their view into the product. So hopefully systems are going to are going to see that. In terms of projections, I'm seeing consolidation between PLM and ERP. I I am really seeing that that PLM is going to have to work with modern ERP systems because that's where sourcing and supply chain lives.

And that you can't we have cut them out of the conversation for far too long. Brion Carroll: Mm. Yeah. Fino: Well we'll see what disruptive ⁓ companies come up between now and then 'cause I'm not sure they're but we'll see what happens.

It's gonna be an interesting couple of years for sure. Yeah. Brion Carroll: So Michael Michael, do you think we actually came to some form of conclusion? Fino: Mm no.

Honestly, I think that yeah. Yeah, we might have to Well I you know what? Honestly, I think we we need Jorg on here too to defend his point 'cause ⁓ he was in class. Maybe we can find a time or a day where he's on a class, that would be good.

and Brion Carroll: Ha ha ha. Gus Quade: Part three, here we come. David Schultz: Hahaha! Oleg: We have all PLM people here and no ERP people.

Yeah, is kind of... ERP people will not trust him. Brion Carroll: Where he has no class. Isn't that isn't that a Rodney Dangerfield?

Fino: We no, we have an MES person. We have David. We have David. And David Schultz: That's right.

I speak PLM. Fino: And and unfortunately unfortunately ⁓ we didn't even get to David's ⁓ the discussion he and I had online, which is why can't P Ln s natively speak Isa ninety five so that that discussion becomes pretty much more smooth and less translation required kind of thing. But we'll get to that next time. So I guess perhaps we will have a a part three.

You wanna might want to answer that. ⁓ Brion Carroll: I got it. David Schultz: That's Batman's calling. Brion Carroll: Was my lawyer.

Fino: So thanks everybody. ⁓ thank you to the audience. Thanks to our sponsor Eris ⁓ for this podcast. And we will be back ⁓ after the summer break ⁓ with another one.

I don't know if it'll be in Palm Third Three or we'll come up with something, don't worry. It'll be something entertaining. It'll probably be another some of the same ⁓ usual suspects will probably be other new usual suspects. So we'll see.

⁓ thanks everybody. Cheers. David Schultz: Awesome. All right, thanks, Brion Carroll: Sounds good.