Here’s the million-dollar question in automotive: How should a best-in-class PLM system be configured for a best-in-class car maker?
Here’s the million-dollar question in automotive: How should a best-in-class PLM system be configured for a best-in-class car maker?
One interesting answer comes from BMW. The iconic German car developer took the diversification path to PLM. By putting together bits and pieces of different commercial software, together with their own solutions, they created a system that is characterized by a variety of software from different vendors.
Generally, this may sound like a path that is far from smooth when it comes to PLM processes, but judging by what they produced with these systems—in terms of world leading cars and technology—it’s a success. Bottom line, it comes down to BMW’s best-of-breed policy in terms of software.
But today there are challenges, as BMW’s SAP-based PLM system ages. In the long term the system will not be supported by SAP, especially in light of SAP’s agreement and partnership with Siemens on the latter’s PLM/PDM suite Teamcenter.
Add to this the effects and dramatic changes that the electrification trend brings to the entire transportation segment, and it becomes clear that BMW has good reasons to reassess its PLM solution and build a new platform that can meet the demands that come with development lines, such as less mechanics, more software, more electronics and autonomous vehicles.
This raises an interesting question: What do BMW’s plans look like? It is clear that they are currently working on the matter. This is confirmed by Dieter Falkensteiner, spokesman for the BMW Group, although there is a limit to what he wants to reveal at the moment:
“Right, we are currently reassessing the strategic orientation of PLM,” he says. “In doing so, we are, of course, examining the entire market and for this reason we are unable to provide any information on this topic at present.”
Can BMW’s PLM history give any clues as to which direction they are leaning? In today’s article, I take a look at what has happened in PLM and sub-PLM in recent years.
Not A Straight Route to PLM System Setup
Historically, BMW has relied on their proprietary PDM and data base system PRISMA (PRoduct data Information SysteM with Archive), which has been hooked into a customized version of SAP’s Integrated Product Process Engineering (iPPE) and Dassault’s ENOVIA VPM for assembly modeling.
As is the case in so many other automotive companies, BMW uses Dassault Systemes’ CATIA as the main CAD solution—generally in its V5 version.
For Digital Mock-Up (DMU), BMW has a Siemens Teamcenter instance in place to manage the lightweight, neutral format JT data, while in production Siemens Tecnomatix plays a key role in manufacturing process planning and simulation.
In the case of the DMU process, Siemens is supporting it and provides JT formats to enable downstream processes independently from the authoring systems. This is one of Siemens’ core competencies and strengths that they are also offering to many other automotive customers.
So, we’re not talking about a straight route to PLM. Furthermore, the route may be a costlier one than would have been the case with a more one-shop delivery setup. According to my BMW sources, just getting the assembly validation to work smoothly, “required investments of around 10 million euros.” On the other hand, there are potential benefits to a competition between several program developers. I will discuss this later in the article.
A Surprising PTC Deal
That being said, many interesting things have happened on the PLM side within BMW since 2018, when they made the unexpected move to bet on PTC’s Windchill.
What BMW chose to do shows that they are going their own way. When several initial assessments expected BMW to select components from a more common commercial PLM platform—for example, from Siemens PLM or Dassault Systemes’ portfolios—in 2018 BMW surprised the market with a decision to add or replace systems for the global BOM (Bill of Material) sourcing and mobile data access with PTC’s Windchill and ThingWorx Navigate, while Aras PLM’s Innovator platform was the choice to supersede a home-grown system in its test organization.
“BMW uses multiple PLM systems, including Siemens Teamcenter for CAD management, SAP PLM for eBOM, and PTC’s Windchill is replacing a mainframe mBOM solution. SAP has announced the retirement of SAP PLM, and like most affected companies, BMW will probably consider consolidating to fewer systems,” says PTC’s CEO, Jim Heppelmann, to engineering.com, explaining that Windchill is the newest system and was brought in to replace an old mainframe solution that BMW wanted to retire.
Exactly what else is Windchill used for in the BOM context? In an earlier article at PLM-ERPnews.se, this is how I have described it: SAP PLM manages the eBOM (engineering Bill of Material), i.e., the configuration of the product variants, while PTC’s Windchill manages the mBOM (manufacturing BOM) and the eBOM to mBOM conversion process. In effect, this is answering the question of, ’what is the process for building that eBOM in this factory.’
On an overarching level, my qualified guess is that BMW would rather have one system than three, and if they have to replace the ageing SAP-based PLM system anyway, it is not too far-fetched to expect BMW to consolidate on a new solution. The decision of which PLM system to consolidate on still lies ahead, but it obviously creates an opportunity for PTC. However, it also means that Siemens PLM’s cPDm system, Teamcenter, will have a good chance at being considered as they too are already represented with important digital product realization tools within BMW.
A New Stamping Die Design Solution For CATIA
However, there’s more happening in the sub-PLM area at BMW. The latest is a collaboration with Dassault on Body in White development on the CATIA side, as well as another partnership with the simulation and analysis leader, Ansys.
In the case of CATIA, BMW and Dassault have developed and implemented a new stamping die design application.
More specifically, it is about a sharpened process-oriented, industry-ready solution for defining pressed sheet metal parts and stamping die design, which at the bottom line will increase efficiency in both design and production processes.
The goal for Dassault is that the CATIA application for sheet metal pressing and stamping die design will have a seamless and automated development sequence that will also be used by other car manufacturing companies in the production of high-quality Body in White and chassis parts.
“BMW and Dassault have been working in a trusted partner relationship for years, and our co-developed solution has now been implemented successfully in the BMW Group production system. Our CATIA stamping die face design application can help automobile manufacturers and their suppliers to optimize stamped body in white or chassis parts and tooling engineering. Tooling design and manufacturing is a significant part of the development cost of the vehicle, and its optimization is a key competitive factor,” commented Laurence Montanari, VP of Dassault’s Transportation & Mobility Industry.
DS Quintiq to Optimize Production
Another related Dassault Systemes investment is BMW’s bet on DELMIA Quintiq for production planning and scheduling at its European-located E-Drive production sites. The point of the solution is to optimize the performance of BMW’s production facilities, initially in Dingolfing, Leipzig and Regensburg.
With the DELMIA Quintiq environment in place, according to Dassault, it is possible to synchronize demand from vehicle factories for components and increase productivity, while trimming inventories and reducing costs. The system was launched during the second half of 2021.
Ambitious End-to-End Tools Plan with Ansys
Even more ambitious is the Ansys partnership into which BMW has entered. The project is about the creation of the very first “end-to-end tool chain” that is specifically focused on developing safety principles for developing and validating Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and thus automated autonomous driving functions.
The idea is to sharpen the BMW Group’s capacity to utilize the Ansys tools to become one of the first car manufacturers to offer consumer solutions of level 3 (L3) for highly automated driving. “The collaboration is the key to quickly addressing the reliability of ADAS and autonomous vehicle (AV) systems to significantly speed up time to market,” a press release states.
“Achieving level 3 autonomy is a key differentiator for us, and an opportunity to demonstrate our high-level of technical innovation in this area,” asserts Nicolai Martin, senior VP for Driving Experience at the BMW Group.
Where Is BMW Heading on the PLM Side?
To sum things up, it appears that BMW is working hard with several initiatives to develop its sub-PLM areas. But where are they going on the over-arching PLM side?
SAP Integrated Product Process Engineering (iPPE) came into play as early as 2003 – 2004. In the end, they got it to work—but not without massive efforts and costs. Generally, and over the years, there have been some level of disappointment within the BMW organization with what the vendor has produced in terms of software solutions related to PLM support.
But, as I speculate, PLM from SAP appears to be on its way out, possibly to be replaced by a solution that will be wholly or substantially based on solutions from one of the big three: Siemens Digital Industries Software, Dassault Systemes or PTC.
In recent years, Siemens and PTC in particular have shown great progress in terms of functionality, integration and the ability to create solutions that are important in automotive. Examples are about being able to seamlessly handle the complexity that comes with the development of more and more software solutions, electronic systems, online connections, autonomous driving and, of course, the parts that relate to the mechanical pieces.
The Hazards of Being Dependent on One PLM Provider
Depending on a single vendor has its hazards, and it is a predicament in which BMW obviously doesn’t want to find itself. On the contrary, the German auto manufacturer has developed the opposite, diversity, into what some describe as “an art.”
From certain angles, a no-single-vendor strategy can be a wise policy that works to the benefit of the buyer’s independence. Competition to do business and establish a PLM software logo in a leading automotive “star” is not only attractive in terms of marketing glamour and credibility for the seller, but it is also often reflected in lower costs or more software and integration services per dollar for the counterpart.
On the other hand, with several solutions there is a “mountain” of integration work to be done and you can be pretty sure that a more complex working process is a part of the cost of independence. But there have to be tradeoffs. What are they?
I asked Gartner analyst Marc Halpern, and he replied as a general observation:
“Of course, there are tradeoffs, although having multiple vendors increases the data sharing/exchange challenges that can undermine efficiency and productivity,” he says. “Yet, depending on a single vendor increases vendor lock-in over time, and this is also a business risk. So, avoiding single vendor lock-in and hedging the risk that a single vendor will disappoint them ‘big time’ is not a bad thing either. The multi-vendor versus single vendor tradeoffs will persist across many manufacturers for the foreseeable future. Standards (e g. ISO standards such as Part 10303) must play a growing role to mitigate the tradeoff risks and be adopted appropriately to retain re-usable content yet not inhibit adopting new differentiating technologies.”
It will no doubt be very interesting to see what path BMW chooses to take.
