Everyone is under pressure. Supplier contracts often have penalties for late delivery, and OEMs are fighting with emerging competitors. An OEM\u2019s ability to deliver quality products on a tight schedule relies on the ability to efficiently collaborate with suppliers and partners. What can Siemens PLM do to help OEMs streamline their supplier collaboration processes and avoid costly mistakes? <\/EM><\/P><\/p>\n In this supplier collaboration series, Darby O\u2019Reilly explores the challenges OEMs face with this process. In part one, he examined the difficulties OEMs have<\/A> managing critical supplier deliverables. In part two, he highlighted how OEMs are improving their physical products by validating their digital products and how increasing standards-based product collaboration<\/A> can reduce complexity. <\/EM><\/P><\/p>\n Here, he discusses collaboration challenges and opportunities from the supplier\u2019s point of view.<\/EM><\/P><\/p>\n OEMs heavily rely on suppliers that can play a bigger role in product definition, optimization, validation and manufacture. We see that suppliers now contribute a majority of the manufactured content for products in the aerospace and automotive industries, for example. <\/P><\/p>\n Generally, there are four supplier collaboration paradigms for product development. <\/P><\/p>\n 1. Suppliers are physically or virtually co-located.<\/STRONG> Suppliers use a remote product data management<\/A> (PDM) display to work full-time in their OEM customer\u2019s application environment. They can\u2019t save data locally, so data is never replicated. This paradigm works when the supplier retains no intellectual property related to their deliverable: for example, a contract engineer. <\/P><\/p>\n Physically co-located suppliers incur travel expenses and are less likely to leverage their peers\u2019 expertise. Remote suppliers need suitable application and network performance. Poor system responsiveness, especially during peak use near program milestones, is a risk with this paradigm. <\/P><\/p>\n 2. Suppliers work at their location, but use a PLM client to log into their OEM\u2019s environment.<\/STRONG> These suppliers have eyes in the system. PLM clients can have a number of capabilities, including basic part query, data import and export, workflow participation, design authoring, CAE analysis, full 3D digital product visualization<\/A> and testing. <\/P><\/p>\n In this scenario, access permissions are enforced to avoid compromising intellectual property. Many OEMs prefer this collaboration paradigm for trusted suppliers. <\/P><\/p>\n 3. Supplier is PLM synchronized with their OEM.<\/STRONG> The supplier has a local PLM environment which seamlessly shares data with the OEM\u2019s PLM. Individual files and complex data structures update with minimal administrative effort. <\/P><\/p>\n This collaboration paradigm is appropriate for large, long-term suppliers that frequently exchange high volumes of data<\/A> or complex data structures. This collaboration paradigm is often used in conjunction with a PLM client like the one in option #2. <\/P><\/p>\n 4. Supplier collaboration is sponsored.<\/STRONG> The supplier can request information, but someone at the OEM facilitates the actual sharing of information. Suppliers might have browser-based access to a file sharing application, which also tracks transaction history. <\/P><\/p>\n This collaboration paradigm is appropriate for smaller suppliers or suppliers that don\u2019t require frequent collaboration. This is also common for supplier sourcing<\/A> where no supplier-side IT footprint or investment is required. However, most file sharing applications aren\u2019t integrated with PLM, which requires administrative effort and includes the risk that changes won\u2019t propagate in a timely fashion. <\/P><\/p>\n The easiest way to ensure suppliers have current information is to avoid replicating product data. So, the easiest solution for supplier collaboration is virtual or physical co-location. With this approach, suppliers can always access current information, and the OEM has immediate access once suppliers create deliverables. <\/P><\/p>\n American writer and journalist H.L. Mencken once wrote something<\/A> that applies well to supplier collaboration challenges: \u201cThere is always an easy solution to every human problem \u2013 neat, plausible, and wrong.\u201d While suppliers benefit from access to the OEM\u2019s PLM environment, suppliers shouldn\u2019t be treated like employees. A virtually on-site approach to supplier collaboration compromises the efficiency and thus the suppliers\u2019 value. <\/P><\/p>\n Suppliers often perform best when they\u2019re allowed to leverage their local processes<\/A>, proprietary knowledge and systems to optimize innovation. There\u2019s a reason why they prefer and benefit from the \u2018right-sized\u2019 approach to collaboration with their OEM customers. <\/P><\/p>\n Suppliers that service multiple OEMs have compounded collaboration challenges. Precise data is difficult to find, but in our informal discussions with automotive and aerospace suppliers, they\u2019ve told us administrative tasks consume as much as 40 percent of available time for new product innovation. These tasks are associated with sending and receiving data, converting between CAD formats, cleaning translation errors and preparing data to comply with customer compliance mandates. <\/P><\/p>\n Suppliers will use different approaches to support multi-OEM compliance. Large full-service suppliers (tier .5) often have entire business units dedicated to supporting each OEM\u2019s business processes and applications. But these OEM-aligned product development silos reduce the supplier\u2019s efficiency; they restrict design and part reuse, reduce staff usage and maintain costly, redundant IT infrastructures. <\/P><\/p>\n Mid-size suppliers often use \u2018data shepherds\u2019 to perform administrative tasks<\/A> associated with OEM compliance. These shepherds strip out IP-like design history, translate between different CAD versions and formats and clean up any resulting errors \u2013 all without knowing the design intent.<\/P><\/p>\n Other suppliers have spawned a cottage industry of third-party engineering service companies that provide CAD-to-CAD translation and cleanup services. Sometimes, they\u2019ll submit data to the OEM on the supplier\u2019s behalf. These services, however, increase cost, reduce data quality and create delays. <\/P><\/p>\n It\u2019s common practice for suppliers to protect intellectual property<\/A> in their designs. Suppliers often delete design history, which includes the process steps that create the design. They also simplify designs by removing internal parts from the \u2018as installed\u2019 component. They might also remove manufacturing data, making it difficult for OEMs to source alternate suppliers for part manufacture. <\/P><\/p>\n Some OEMs realize that in spite of their compliance requirements, most suppliers don\u2019t provide CAD models containing full design detail. In 2015, we know of a major automotive OEM that sampled the designs their suppliers delivered and found that nearly 80 percent of those designs contained no design history. <\/P><\/p>\n Many OEMs are reevaluating the rationale of managing the massive design detail coming from suppliers. In most cases, the OEM uses design data to validate the geometric fit (called a package study) and to simulate final assembly<\/A> of the product. For this, the OEM requires only a precise geometric representation of the \u2018as installed\u2019 component. <\/P> Suppliers share a common objective: optimizing their internal business processes. They want to standardize on a common set of tools and processes to accelerate innovation, promote part reuse and improve staff usage. All suppliers can benefit from a common PLM information and process backbone. <\/P><\/p>\n JT.<\/STRONG> JT can offer major efficiency gains for suppliers by allowing users across the enterprise to access lightweight, precise 3D geometry, including the full digital product. JT usage is growing for visualization<\/A>, collaboration and core engineering processes: from creating technical publications and simulating manufacturing processes to being a format that delivers precise designs to customers. JT can bridge the gap between CAD applications and free up suppliers to standardize on the design application they\u2019re most proficient with \u2013 all while reducing the need for high-cost CAD seats. <\/P><\/p>\n At a ProSTEP iViP event in late 2016, VW\/Audi discussed how it used JT-based geometry to source all design responsible suppliers. At the same event, Daimler AG discussed how 75 percent of its automotive components have been approved for delivery by suppliers in JT. These are only two of many major manufacturing companies in automotive and aerospace that are evaluating using JT for supplier collaboration \u2013 we\u2019ll see more in the near future. <\/P><\/p>\n Complex interdependencies.<\/STRONG> Another supplier collaboration challenge is complex interdependencies between different data types. For example, requirements or test results often relate to a specific product configuration. Discretely exchanging different product data types creates new risks because so much data is context sensitive. <\/P><\/p>\n Today, it\u2019s possible to exchange data directly between PDM environments so data context can be preserved. With PDM-PDM collaboration, changes can automatically reconcile, which reduces errors and administrative effort. <\/P><\/p>\nSupplier collaboration paradigms<\/H3>
\n![\"Image](\"http:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2019\/09\/Image-1-22.jpg\" "\\"Image")
Suppliers will benefit from a ‘right-sized’ approach to collaboration with their OEM customers.<\/span><\/span><\/P>
\n <\/H3>
\nSupplier collaboration from the supplier\u2019s perspective<\/H3>
\n
\n![\"Image](\"http:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2019\/09\/Image-2-3.png\" "\\"Image")
OEMs are reevaluating how they manage the design detail coming from their suppliers.<\/span><\/span><\/P>
\n <\/H3>
\nSupplier priority: Get our house in order <\/H3>
\n