I would like to thank those who took the time to attend my recent Webinar. You can find more information on the session here. While I answered quite a few questions during the session, we ran out of time. In the post below, I endeavor to answer the remaining questions. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me at:
Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein!
. We will also explore the topic of the Digital Thread more in our upcoming PLM Road Map conference.
Jim
Ontologies (data models) can help to promote the Authoritative Source of Truth by increasing tools interoperability to enable the Digital Thread full capability.
Data architecture and data governance are key prerequisites for enabling a digital thread strategy. As explained in the presentation, the digital web is an architectural view that lays out the various product structures (i.e., data categories) that are within scope and the connections between them. What are the data elements and attributes within each of these data categories? These data elements are often found in multiple systems. Which system is the master? And who is the owner of that data element? These are questions answered by data governance, and these questions must be answered to have an authoritative source of truth.
Is Digital Thread an application for plant design?
Absolutely, yes. Systems engineering and digital thread principles apply to a wide range of systems. The subject system may be an end product, such as an airplane or an automobile. Or a manufacturing plant. Or a maintenance facility. Or . . .
Is automation a key concept needed to make the digital thread work?
In CIMdata’s view, automation is the key characteristic of a digital thread. Defining and maintaining linkages between multiple representations of a product has been and, to a large extent, still is a manual process. But now, with recent advances in commercial PLM solutions, the digital thread, with automated linkages and traceability, has become a practical possibility.
What are some examples of the “standards” that need to be defined for digital thread/web?
This is an excellent question. The AD PAG Digital Twin/Digital Thread project team is currently working on their Phase 4 position paper which is a comparative analysis of industry standards. It will be released within the next few months.
You need to include the Logistics/ PS BOM.
Totally agree.
So, what explains the big difference between “Actual” and “Desired” usage? Could it be the culture of change? Or the resistance to the culture of change?
Our research supports your suggested explanation. “Complexity of organizational impact and cultural resistance” was the second highest-rated inhibitor to formulating and executing a digital thread strategy. Nearly 75% of respondents rated this as either a major inhibitor or the most significant inhibitor.
Tier 3 will be critical to connecting the digital threads for improved analysis, M&S that will affect the digital twin.
Totally agree.
What has the adoption of Digital Thread been in the Energy, Utilities, and Chemicals Industries?
Sorry to say, we do not know. As mentioned in the presentation, the survey was open to all industries but promoted most heavily in A&D. As a result, 57% of responses were from A&D, 13% from Automotive, and only a few responses from Industrial Equipment and Utilities. Not enough to provide industry-specific insights. CIMdata’s direct client experience leads us to believe that digital thread investment in the named industries is substantial.
How are Intellectual Property Rights protected?
That is an excellent question. IP protection has been a major issue for years with the extension and automation of collaboration across the value chain of customer-to-OEM-to-partners and suppliers. Digital thread implies even greater levels of automation and access to data across the value chain participants. IP protection will require greater levels of data governance, where authority and ownership are unambiguously defined and enforced, with security attributes assigned at a very granular level.
A fully realized digital thread requires processes and integration of data, not just a “mapping” of data or requirements. Has there been any study on the results of either converting to new software and iterating upon discovered connections vs. attempting to anticipate a future state in advance and then building to that design?
We are unaware of any study, but we know people are doing it. Companies that seriously pursue an enterprise architecture management philosophy do both top-level definition of a desired future state and bottom-up documentation of the current state, emphasizing the current state more. Once the current state is documented, they define a target state, which is a pragmatic reach from the current state toward the desired future state.
Great presentation, Jim...I still see that Lifecycle BOM Mgt, Requirements Mgt and Change Mgt are still not implemented at these A&D companies you have interviewed. These concepts have been drilled into those companies for at least 25 years! Why is it that the implementation is still not complete at these companies?
Partly because, until recently, the technology has not been up to the job. And now, these companies find themselves saddled with extremely complex and deeply embedded compromise legacy solutions.
Lack of standards....Can CIMdata, the A&D PAG, and solution providers get together and develop standards for interfaces and interoperability?
Interoperability standards are the subject of one of the A&D PLM Action Group’s project work streams. We are in early days with this one, but hopeful. Stay tuned. For the project teams work to date take a look at https://www.cimdata.com/en/aerospace-and-defense/publications/standards.
How do you differentiate or relate the terms “PLM” and “Digital Thread?”
We consider Digital Thread to be at the core of PLM. PLM is broader in that it encompasses all aspects of the creation and consumption of product-related data. Digital Thread refers to the automation of linking multiple representations of a product; each tuned to the needs of various creators and consumers along the lifecycle.
What are the most common areas of digital thread and digital twin convergence?
This is a good question, and people have divergent views on the topic. At the most basic level, the concept of “twin” implies two renderings of a system that are related to each other. The association between these two renderings, including relationships between elements and attributes of each, is enabled by a digital thread.
How about applicability to process industries like Oil & Gas and EPCs?
Digital thread applies to any complex system. It definitely would apply to process industries’ manufacturing, storage, and distribution facilities, i.e., systems.
Assume complete ignorance on my part. Would a reasonable analogy of digital web and digital thread be a map (digital web) and the route taken (thread)?
Analogies of analogies are difficult to discuss. I would offer another way to look at a digital web and digital threads. In the digital web diagram I showed in my presentation, the ellipses are product structures or data categories, and the lines between them are cables or bundles of threads. The threads connect to specific product data elements within one of the product structures. Within the other product structure, each of those threads connects to a data element that is related to a data element in the first structure.
What would be a good way to approach this initiative? Will it be based on the individual use cases (pieces)? Is there any framework /platform approach that can be implemented and use cases dynamically enabled as needed at different points in time?
Yes, use cases are the pieces or building blocks. For planning and program execution, use cases can and should be organized into groupings in a way similar to an enterprise process decomposition. This will be very helpful in defining a solution architecture that rationalizes existing and planned systems and platform technologies.
Hi Jim, Thanks for a great presentation. My question is related to Slide 48: Could you please name some players in Tier 2 and Tier 3?
Examples of Tier 2: Integration bus - Oracle Service Bus, Prostep Open PDM; Data lake - Microsoft Azure, AWS Lake Formation. Examples of Tier 3: Data linkage traceability - Jama Connect; Low code - eCube, Mendix, ThingWorx Navigate.”
How are Tier 2 and Tier 3 differentiated? Could you please provide more information on the approach of Tier 3 compared to Tier 2a.
Tier 2 technologies are packaged as a service or utility. Tier 3 technologies are packaged as a specialty application or language for building data linkages.
