Page 1 - Welcome Page 2 - Update Page 3 - News Page 4 - Brief lines |
* Welcome * Welcome to this issue of 2PLM, an e-zine distributed every two weeks on a free subscription basis. This week's lead article "IP Management Process Presents Many Opportunities" is from Bradford L. Goldense, President and CEO, Goldense Group, Inc. (GGI) and Anne Schwartz, Director of Publications, Goldense Group, Inc. * IP Management Process Presents Many Opportunities * In the January 17, 2005 issue of 2PLM, we highlighted recent research on product development, intellectual property, and top corporate metrics by Goldense Group, Inc. In this issue we present the fourth in a series of six articles, which focuses on results in the area of "Intellectual Property Management Process." Next month, look for results on "Intellectual Property Management Tools." With the development of the knowledge economy over the past 15-20 years, companies have increasingly begun to recognize the value of their "intangible" assets, such as technical innovations, R&D, patents, trade secrets, information technology, and the like. Many knowledge assets are legally protected, by a patent, copyright, trademark, or other means. Some are not, for example, trade secrets. All are "intellectual property (IP)." IP values as a percent of the current valuation of most corporations are 5-10%. Experts in the field predict IP valuations will rise to as high as 90% of corporate valuation in the next two decades. Clearly, IP is becoming more important to companies large and small. What is unclear is the process that companies use to make decisions regarding IP management, for example, the number of steps, who is involved, the formality, or when in the product lifecycle companies choose to protect their IP. With this in mind, GGI's 2004 Product Development Metrics Survey investigated the IP management and decision-making process. The 2004 Survey was sent to a broad distribution of product development professionals, and replies were received from 202 companies in a range of industries including industrial and medical products, aerospace, defense, electronics, and chemicals. Respondents were asked to identify the number of steps in their IP management process, the number of people involved, and the frequency of registration of IP throughout the product lifecycle. Results were compared to those for the Product Selection process to investigate the relative maturity of both processes. As was the case for the product selection process described in the February 21, 2005 issue of 2PLM, an IP decision-making process might consist of multiple steps or just a single decision step. Most IP management processes would likely include an initial idea capture and screening decision, a valuation assessment, and a decision regarding whether or not to formally protect the IP. Survey respondents reported the use of 2.5-Step, 2-Step, 1-Step and No-Step processes about equally for IP decision-making, which indicates the lack of any best practice commonly followed by a majority of companies. This contrasts to results for the product selection process, where 47 percent of respondent companies are now using the most rigorous 2.5-Step (also called 3-Step) product selection process. The maturity of the IP selection process is lagging the portfolio selection process by 10 to 15 years. The decisions involved in IP management could be cross-functional or handled within one department or by one individual. Today, various organizations contribute their knowledge to decisions regarding the valuation and/or registration of IP, but a cross-functional process is clearly not the de facto standard process in 2004. With regard to the actual decision making during the process, for 20 percent of survey respondent companies, IP selection decisions are made by just one person. Again this practice for IP lags the maturity of the product selection process, which is inherently cross-functional. For both product and IP selection, cross-functional commitment of resources throughout the rest of the product lifecycle is necessary to ensure success. With regard to the frequency of IP registration, IP was registered "frequently" or "almost always" at some point in the product lifecycle by 75 percent of survey respondent companies. This result confirms the press reports of the increasing role of IP and shows the recognition companies are currently giving to the protection of their valuable intellectual assets. GGI expects the frequency to reach almost 100 percent in the years ahead. In summary, as the importance of IP grows we will expect to see maturation and developments in the process companies use to make decisions about protecting their valuable IP. We anticipate these developments to parallel those of the product selection process over the past 20 years to the current multi-step, cross-functional best practice process. Companies will continue to take advantage of the opportunities to derive the most value from their intellectual assets, while protecting their competitive advantage. For more information about GGI's 2004 Product Development Metrics Survey, the research and the available reports, go to GGI's web site. * Feedback on PLM Strategy Development (1) * Further to the article in the previous issue of 2PLM about PLM Strategy Development, Don Frank offered the following thoughts and experience of how PLM Strategy is addressed. "The issue of developing an overall strategy for PLM, in my opinion, is both critical and overdue, but has to be broken down into key elements, such as:
Perceiving PLM as an engineering function is an inhibitor of developing a real enterprise level PLM strategy set. People overload and funding are really separate issues. I have found in recent experience with US defense contractors that people overload will only be solved by implementing (not just installing) systems that eliminate the current huge amount of non-value-added activities. People must be sold on the idea that the only way out of the current morass is to change the business processes and the mindsets together. Real integrated PLM is not a silver bullet, but a way to achieve long term reduction in people overload. Getting management to commit the funds to develop and implement a PLM strategy is a hard sell, but we must move away from selling the 'technical' benefits to selling the bottom line cost/benefit approach along with defining the risk of losing out in the global marketplace by maintaining the current NVA approaches to PLM." * More on Development of PLM Strategy (2) * In the previous issue, we described, in several paragraphs, the PLM situation of many companies. In one sentence .... they need a PLM Strategy - but have difficulties finding the resources to develop it. One way out of this problem is to change mindsets so that resources are made available. Another way, that we are working on, is to develop a new lower-resource approach to developing PLM Strategy. In the previous issue, we asked three questions about PLM Strategy to help build this approach. From the answers we received, it looks as if a fourth question would be useful. So, for readers who did not reply, please let us know your answers (Yes or No) to the following questions. This will help the development of the PLM Strategy Generator. The answers will be considered as confidential, and will not be communicated to any third parties. Q1. Do you expect an overall PLM Strategy (addressing multiple components - such as applications, processes, techniques, interfaces, data, - across the product lifecycle) will be of use to (or needed by) your organization before the end of 2006? Q2. When your organization decides to develop its PLM Strategy, will lack of resources (e.g. key people already overloaded, funding not foreseen in budget) slow it down? Q3. Is there currently a top management PLM Champion in your organization with a clear vision of the future of PLM? Q4. If your organization is developing, or planning to develop, or will need to develop, a PLM Strategy would you like to know more about our knowledge- and experience-based approach to PLM Strategy generation? Please send your answers to John Stark. Thank you in advance for your participation. * EDM and PLM * Engineering Data Management (EDM) was a leading-edge technology in the early 1990's. A monthly publication called the Engineering Data Management Newsletter first appeared in 1991. A copy of the first issue can be read here. It's interesting to see what the concept of EDM looked like 14 years ago. Since then, the leading edge has moved forward to Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). Companies currently implementing EDM should read "Product Lifecycle Management: Paradigm for 21st century Product Realisation" (details) to understand the concept of PLM, and see what the future holds for them. 
* PDM and SCM * PDM and SCM have evolved in parallel, and almost independently, in their respective domains. Yet in the 21st Century, many products, such as cars, telephones, medical equipment and machine tools, are built with tightly integrated hardware and software components. The result is a complex situation in which different, sometimes conflicting, approaches are taken to managing the data and processes linked to different parts of the same product. The resulting challenges for those responsible for managing the lifecycles of products with tightly integrated hardware and software components are already significant, and are expected to grow in coming years. The PLM and SCM Workshop to be held in Gothenburg, Sweden on April 28-29, 2005 will identify:
For more information about participating, contact Roger Tempest. * PLM Best Practice * This is one of a series of meetings in which the PLMIG is collaboratively defining PLM Best Practice. This meeting will:
* PLM Research 2005 Meeting * Due to the wide scope of PLM, it is likely that PLM researchers will need to form international consortia to define and carry out coordinated programs of PLM research. With PLM covering so many issues, it will probably be difficult for individual researchers to achieve significant results working alone. One of the main activities at the PLM Research 2005 Meeting, which is being held at Sweden's Chalmers University of Technology on April 27, 2005, will be to create consortia, and prepare proposals, for EC FP6 Calls with closing dates in September 2005. For more information, contact Roger Tempest. |
