Is PLM Dead? Part 1 — The Case for the Prosecution

Episode Summary

The episode titled "Is PLM Dead? Part 1 — The Case for the Prosecution" delves into the ongoing relevance and challenges of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) in modern manufacturing. Hosted by Michael Finocchiaro, the podcast features a distinguished panel including Martin Eigner, Julianne Grant, Brian Carroll, Patrick Hillberg, and Oleg Shilovitsky. Each guest brings extensive experience from various facets of PLM—from founding companies to leading digital initiatives within large corporations like Rockwell Automation.

During the discussion, key insights emerged regarding the integration challenges between PLM systems and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. Martin Eigner highlighted that while connecting data across these systems is feasible when numbering systems align, significant issues arise from legacy systems lacking proper bridges for requirements management. Additionally, the panel emphasized the importance of pragmatic approaches over technological solutions in addressing silos within organizations. They agreed that bridging technical gaps and fostering interdisciplinary training are crucial steps towards effective PLM implementation.

The key takeaway for PLM and engineering professionals is the necessity to adopt a holistic approach that combines robust technical solutions with practical strategies and comprehensive training programs. This episode underscores the enduring relevance of PLM while also highlighting areas where improvements can be made, encouraging ongoing innovation and collaboration within the industry.

---

Full Transcript

Michael Finocchiaro

Welcome to the Future of PLM podcast. My name is Michael Finnecaro and I've got a humongous, awesome panel today of professionals and thought leaders in the industry. ⁓ We're pretty numerous, but we'll try to go around the horn anyway. ⁓ As far as I can see, I've got Martin Eigner on the top. So I'll Martin introduce himself and then Julian, Brian Carroll, one and two, Oleg Yass, Christine, Rob and Jim. How's that?

Martin Eigner

Okay, thank you. And I would start. So I made it short because I guess I'm the eldest. My name, my DNA is PLM. founded the first PLM company worldwide, 85. And I did PLM my whole life in companies and university and in my own company. That's my life. Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

hahahaha

Juliann Grant

Thank

Christine Longwell

you

Juliann Grant

Great. Good morning, afternoon, everyone. I'm Julianne Grant. I'm the head of global marketing at Raise Relief. I've been at Raise Relief about 10 years. Been in the manufacturing software industry for a majority of my career, which is more of the years than I want to admit. ⁓ And I'm glad to be here today. It's going be a great conversation. Thanks for inviting me.

Michael Finocchiaro

Julian?

Christine Longwell

you

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha You're welcome. Mr. Carol Wan.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, so name is Brian Carroll. I've been in PDM and PLM since ⁓ like Martin, the mid 80s. ⁓ And so my DNA, as Martin said, is PLM all over, ⁓ even to the point where Brian Carroll too came out and became PLM. that's validation of DNA migration.

Christine Longwell

Thank you. Thank

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha

Christine Longwell

Thank

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ Patrick or Brian too. Sorry. So we haven't even seen him yet. He hasn't popped up on these screens. Apparently you're limited to nine areas. Hey man. ⁓ I don't think we've, we thought you were two different people. Like you couldn't actually be in the same universe. Who's he never seen you in the same room. So this is the first time I think for any of us to see you both existing in the same time space continuum. So that's pretty amazing.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, no, that's fine. That's fine. So Brian Carroll too. That's the first time I've used that in any kind of production. But yes, ⁓ so.

Juliann Grant

You

Patrick Hillberg

you

Brion Carroll

That's good.

This is the first time, yes, Mike Lee.

It actually

Congratulations,

is the first time

Vukul.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha!

Brion Carroll

we started a company together in the nineties. And then part of the sale in 2005, but ⁓ this is the first time that we've kind of been in a large group together, my father and I. it's thanks for pulling it together, Michael. I appreciate that. So Brian Carroll, ⁓ I am the senior digital executive for Rockwell Automation. So all of the digital that Rockwell does internally and all the digital that Rockwell does

Michael Finocchiaro

That's awesome.

Brion Carroll

with our customers and that is PLM for Rockwell. So everything that is left is to the left, say of manufacturing. That's my responsibility. But in the industry for about 30 years, worked in many, many different industries. So it's great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Michael Finocchiaro

And he also makes some of the funniest videos in the PLM industry, but that's it. None whatsoever. Yeah, it's weird. Patrick, why don't we go with the academic view over there? How's Dr. Hilberg?

Brion Carroll

Thank you.

Oleg Shilovitsky

it

Juliann Grant

Very creative.

Patrick Hillberg

you

Brion Carroll

with no support from AI, which is really weird. mean, none at all.

Patrick Hillberg

Yes. Hi, Pat Hilberg. I started my career in vision guided robotics back in the eighties, switched into PLM in the early two thousands, ⁓ worked for both the S.O. then Siemens. I retired into teaching in 2019. I now teach a course called product life cycle management, but really underneath the covers, it's about managing product life cycles, which is a much, which I'll get into later as a much larger scope than PLM technology.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah. Awesome. Let's see, Christine.

Christine Longwell

Well, while I was getting my engineering degree at Maryland, I got an internship that ended up being a startup SolidWorks company and ⁓ got on that bandwagon pretty quickly and came up through the SolidWorks channel. And I've been in the industry for 25 years. I have become an analyst. I've been following the market for 25 years. I'm all about how people sell software these days. ⁓ But with 25 years, that makes me a junior analyst. So it's kind of fun.

Michael Finocchiaro

Jim, taking of junior analysts.

Jim Brown

Thank you. Yeah, I I did. I had to dye this beard gray every once in a while just to keep up with you guys.

Brion Carroll

You

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha!

Brion Carroll

have to.

Jim Brown

You know, my background actually was engineering, University of Maryland Goat Tarks, Christine. ⁓ But then I actually went out into enterprise systems and DDRP and supply chain for a good amount of time. And ⁓ so naturally I ended up back in PLM because enterprise systems ⁓ meets engineering and it just made sense. ⁓ run Tech Clarity, we're an independent research firm making the business value of technologies like PLM clear.

Michael Finocchiaro

Bill Gators. ⁓ Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here, Jim. I think we also have Rob and Oleg to be introduced.

Rob Ferrone

Yeah, hi. So Rob Ferroni, I'm the baby in the group. I've only been doing this for 25 years and I...

Michael Finocchiaro

You

Brion Carroll

Yes. Yes.

Rob Ferrone

I run a successful ⁓ large consultancy company that also provided services. And yeah, I call it product data management across the life cycle, but shorten it to PLM just to keep things easy.

Michael Finocchiaro

Nice. think Oleg is the next one. And then Yas, I think.

Oleg Shilovitsky

. Yes. Thank you. My name is Oleg Shilovitsky. Thank you for inviting me, Michael. I've been in the PLM business working for several companies, Autodesk, Daso. Started my blog about PLM, finding a way beyond PLM already for 15 years and currently at OpenBOM. And I tried. I tried to calculate, do we have 300 years of PLM experience in this chat? I it's the highest concentration of PLM that I remember on these webinars.

Patrick Hillberg

you

Michael Finocchiaro

I think it's closed. ⁓

Brion Carroll

That's very possible.

Michael Finocchiaro

It

Brion Carroll

You it.

Michael Finocchiaro

might not be a good thing, I don't know. Yes.

Christine Longwell

We'll add it up later.

Patrick Hillberg

huh ⁓

Jos Voskuil

Okay, I'm from the Netherlands as you see from my last name and my company's name Tessit is actually the company I started in 99 with a focus on knowledge management. But I was dragged into the world of PLM again by a team and there I became responsible for methodology and training. And then we started this blog and the beauty of blogging at same time with O-Ring is that it forces you to think about PLM from all different angles. My angle was very much also the human angle of PLM, the organization, the change and less the technology. And thanks to my coaching role, I'm now working with a lot of companies, but also sometimes with vendors and implementers. And I'm continuing to learn what is happening in the field.

Martin Eigner

Thank

Jos Voskuil

and share it.

Michael Finocchiaro

And we've got another Martin Melcher that joined the call as well. I'm not sure how he got this thing.

Martin Melcher

switch on my phone. ⁓ Martin, the other Martin invited me. ⁓ Yeah, my name is Martin Melka and Michael, we've got a common history at HP. A lot of years ago, I started in the early 90s with the topic EDM, PDM, and now still with PLM.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha! Yeah. Hmm.

Martin Melcher

working for German software vendor in the SAP ⁓ environment, ⁓ bringing real PLM to SAP. Yeah, that's about me.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, we got a bit of diversity then. We got a couple of countries represented. ⁓ We wanted to talk today about redefining PLM. Is the LooWords product, life cycle management, are they still relevant to what we do? Because there's people on this call that are analysts, some are more consultants, some are more practitioners. ⁓ We have a software vendor, right? Because all that kind of ⁓ splits the thing between the two. Um, I don't know who wants to start. Rob, you're pretty good at this, uh, ice breaking thing. Do you want to jump in real quick, Rob? Who with your thumbs up or thumbs down like you like to do.

Rob Ferrone

No, I mean, this is tricky. mean, let me tell you my story. I for probably of those 25 years, for at least 15 years, in fact, for the first five years, I didn't even know we were doing product data management. And then for the for the next 10 years, I don't think I'd even heard of PLM, even though we'd grown the company to over a hundred people by then doing product data management across the life cycle. So I was wrestling with this the last few days because I think that you've got, you know, engineers, manufacturing, purchasing service and all the people along the life cycle who are working with product data. And if, and if you ask them about it, I don't know if they would use the term PLM. I think PLM for me seems to be something that we, you know, from the outside talk about. And it'd be great to find a word that, or words, sorry, that unify, you know, not just ourselves on the industry side, but then also internally on the customer side as well. Because I think PLM is too closely aligned to a system.

Michael Finocchiaro

Brian is, God, it doesn't say which Brian. So one of the Brian's races. ⁓

Brion Carroll

that's me. Yeah, sorry. Sorry, that's me.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

⁓ So, so Rob, you bring up a good point because product lifecycle management really is ideation to commercialization and then back. Right. And, and yet most vendors have PLM as the pre steps to ERP. And yet product lifecycle is all the way through to commercialization, market acceptance or not market adjustment back to engineering flowing back through.

Martin Eigner

Thank

Brion Carroll

And so if we take PLM and put it to what it means, then the service of PLM products has definitely not met that challenge, right? But if you take what is evolving, which is the intimation or what I call intelligent integration, intimation of systems, and then put AI above that, which we know, know, and gentic ⁓ AI is going to be something that's a crafting, then you can kind of see where. PLM could stretch and become something that is more an information of all of these systems, whether it's engineering, ⁓ ERP, purchasing, EECOM, loopback, adjust, go back through, So PLM, think if we keep that term, we should make it be what it actually is, or is not what it's been serviced as vendors products, but what it is. and then begin to chant or champion the stretching of PLM to be ideation and commercialization in the back.

Patrick Hillberg

.

Michael Finocchiaro

Interesting. What do you think, Jim?

Jim Brown

All right. So I'm going to be the dissenting opinion, perhaps. And I think Rob was onto something when he, when he said that, you know, he mentioned customers, right? think the people that use PLM don't care what we call it. It's, it's, it's just a name. The time that I see, you know, is PLM a strategy? it a process? Is it a system? Tend to be in groups like this where it's consultants and academics and, you know, and analysts. And so my opinion is.

Martin Eigner

Thank

Jim Brown

It doesn't matter what we call it. It's about what are the business problems that need to be solved? Yes, it's more important about the strategy first and about the business processes. And then I think we all recognize here that what, what the vendors are calling PLM systems today isn't enough to fulfill that. So I think it's a, I'm not sure what's important about the conversation other than the fact that we all just acknowledge that let's start with business first and a PLM strategy. and then recognize that PLM systems are only a small part of how to fulfill that.

Juliann Grant

Well, think though that the problem is that there's a bit of an identity crisis, Jim. think that PLM doesn't really get its rightful due when it comes to looking at the C level. So the C level, you know, when you think about ERP, people know exactly what that is and they appropriate the right money and the right resources for that. But when it comes to PLM and the data and all the data that it touches, I think that it becomes more complicated because it touches so many places from, you know, incoming marketing to, from the sales side into to design side. And then goes all the way through service. So I just think it's a little harder to put their finger on, well, how should I plan and appropriate resources and budget for this? PLM is, it just typically gets put in the bucket of an engineering system, and it's actually a lot more.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Thank you.

Jim Brown

I'll only say one quick thing and then give the floor. ERP as a name is terrible. have tried to change it before and it doesn't change anything. It's just not the name. Joanne, super respect your comment.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah.

Christine Longwell

I couldn't agree more, Julian.

Juliann Grant

It's true.

Christine Longwell

I want to follow up on what Julianne had to say.

Juliann Grant

bit fair enough.

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ Christine's turn, think. Go ahead, Christine.

Christine Longwell

And that I want to follow up with what you had to say, Julianne. And I think it's really important as long as PLM is considered a PLM tool from a vendor, it will never get the corporate attention that it needs to get funding for that information to break out of your engineering system. You need PLM to go through your services group. You need it to manage ideation. You need it to listen to what the customers want. In order to have an actual cross-functional multi-domain PLM system, you need budget for that. That is above and beyond what somebody wants to spend on King Center.

Michael Finocchiaro

And it seems to me that one of the issues though is that we're not on the balance sheet of the corporation, right? ERP is, because it's inventory. We're just cost, we're just engineering costs, which makes it challenging. Which is one of reasons we want to the debate. What about in academia? How do you look at it, Patrick, when you're talking to your students and you're preparing for the real world?

Oleg Shilovitsky

.

Patrick Hillberg

Um, my, my, started teaching a, um, PLM technology class was all team center, but, um, actually in the midst of teaching about the second or third year, there was the GM ignition switch, um, problem and I teach in Detroit. So was big news here. Big news everywhere, but it's really big news here. A few years later, I was in the midst of teaching the ignition switch and the two 737 maxes went down. So I became much more interested in the fullest extent of the product lifecycle. ⁓ Both GM and Boeing use PLM technology, but still they couldn't solve these multi-billion dollar, hundreds of lives lost problem. So we need to look much, mean, the fullest extent of the product lifecycle really is the extent of all of the as models and not just as designed and as required.

Martin Eigner

Thank you.

Oleg Shilovitsky

it.

Patrick Hillberg

but also as built and as serviced and as operated and as disposed. So ⁓ one thing I teach in my classes is an article titled PLM is dead along with the thread. So if we're looking at a technology that's going to extend across the entirety of the product life cycle, thank you, Jim. If we're looking at the entirety of a technology is gonna extend across the product life cycle, we need to look at the digital thread. And in order to do that, we...

Jos Voskuil

Thank you.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha!

Patrick Hillberg

We can't be siloed into PLM, into ERP, into MRO, into MES, and these sorts of things. We need to integrate that across the life cycle. And realistically, we need to change business models in order to accomplish that. So, and I'll just briefly kind of wrap up with this. The first 737 Max crashed due to a design problem and one service problem and another service problem.

Martin Eigner

Okay.

Patrick Hillberg

and a pilot training problem and another pilot training problem. So there's some digital thread that could pull all that together and save those planes from crashing. That thread would probably cost a billion dollars, but Boeing spent $20 billion in adjusting to the crashes that happened. But we don't have business models that... can bring all of that stuff together. There's thousands of suppliers upstream of Boeing and there's hundreds of users downstream of Boeing. How do we bring all those people together? But I think there's a real business need in doing so in which we save planes from crashing and we allow airbags to work when airbags are supposed to work. So in any event, I take a much larger view of the product lifecycle than just the PLN technology.

Brion Carroll

Yeah. Well, you know what the question I have is. So I remember when and I kind of grew up in upstate New York where there was used to call someone on a phone and tell them who you wanted to connect with. You'd be like, hey, Susan, can you connect me with the gas station of the thing? And they even had a rotary phone that is not this phone. Right. But we still call it phone because but it's so much more part of who I am. Right. It's my wallet. It's it's.

Michael Finocchiaro

So. you

Christine Longwell

you Thank

Brion Carroll

My identity, right. It's my kids. It's my wife. ⁓ so I think as we begin to say, what is PLM for me and in Rockwell Rockwell is a manufacturing company. Me coming in here was like, what the hell do you do? And it was just trying to tell them what we do. ⁓ and it's still learning process for them. PLM is engineering and bomb development, right? It's CAD. It's the actual design. It's the model for them. It's starting to create some planning process, planning and variance, but it is not manufacturing. It is not anything to do with manufacturing. So I think, then looking at retail, it is only tech pack development, right? PLM is tech pack development, assortment planning to a degree, but PLM is not a merchandise tool. So.

Martin Eigner

Ahem. you

Brion Carroll

I think when we talk about where are we to Jim's point, ⁓ when we come into an organization and we say PLM, what is the business case? Who are the people that we're affecting, right? The engineers and the quality people. We're not affecting always the regulatory people in med tech. And there's a whole bunch of different things, but I think it's, we use PLM as a focus area to say, this is where we're focusing. It is not a digital threat to me. I usually say E-PLM if I want to say digital thread and pushing all those things downstream. But I don't think PLM is the entirety in our context because it's not the entire life cycle of the pride. isn't. That's not, that's some I theological conversation that's above anyone's ability to learn. And you'd have to be really old men than women like we are, or, you know, to know all of that stuff.

Oleg Shilovitsky

and ⁓

Brion Carroll

Because if someone coming into the industry, need it. Where's my focus? And I talk to a lot of people, where's my focus, Brian? And your focus is cat right now and bomb. That's where your focus needs to be.

Christine Longwell

I want to hear what Martin has to say.

Michael Finocchiaro

So

Brion Carroll

No.

Martin Eigner

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

yeah, I'm looking for a DeMartin's opinion here.

Martin Eigner

Yeah. I think I provoke a little bit. So sorry. I think when I founded my company, I asked SAP because it's only 50 kilometers far away from my home. Would you like, or do you intend to build something for administration of engineering? They said no. And that I have founded my company. If SAP would have said yes. I never would have founded my company. once again, when we talk about product lifecycle management in the real term, not looking into the system, but what is product lifecycle management meaning. It's management, the product data, the process data along the product lifecycle. And I think an MRP system is covering much more than what we call the PLMO PDAM system. So for me, I think I didn't care of the names or whatever. ⁓ What is PDM? What will be PDM? Think about a customer, a single cat customers with Onshape and MRP. This customer don't need PDM or PLM because Onshape takes over some functionality, SRP takes over the other type of functionality. So there's no room in the middle. On the other side, we have Customers are doing everything in PLM, even the assembly, planning, the digital factory. Customers from Dassault and from Tiefencenter especially. Most of my customers, would like to say 80 % of my customers are using PDM, whether as a PDM system. So they are doing DBOM, EBOM and transfer to MRP. And more and more there's a trend in Germany, Switzerland and Austria because SRP is in a strong position. more and more customers are using SRP for PLM functionality, especially in the medium-sized companies. So I think we should not care what is the real expression of the systems. I think that's very different. I would like to discuss about the philosophy. And when we discuss about end-to-end process, my problem is I made change management five years worldwide in Bosch. It was a crazy job. because we ever failed, because we did a little bit in the engineering, a little bit in manufacturing, a little bit in logistics. My dream, my really dream is to build up a data model, a symmetrical data model. I call it digital threat above all the legacy system. And I would like to position all the end-to-end processes like release management, change management, configuration management, quality management on top of these process. Right now we are doing a survey about all companies working on digital threat, extended digital threat. I think there's about 15 companies worldwide and I think that's an interesting fact. That is really product life cycle management for me right now.

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ Brian you had your hand up, but I just want to give Oleg a chance to also to time in because Oleg hasn't been able to.

Brion Carroll

Yeah. look, you can go, I've already talked.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Thank you. No problem.

Brion Carroll

Well, I'll follow you.

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

He's trying to say something based on my statement, I guarantee you, right? I triggered something. That's why we don't own a company together.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Alright. Possible. It's impossible. Okay. Everyone is so passionate about PLM. It's hard. you know, you need to be very careful to say something like not for PLM, but I will try to bring it. I've been thinking, you know, how digital transformation happened with other industries and how many new companies were created. So if you think about this, all of them were created around nouns and vowels. So basically a company that created something in music and something in food and something in transportation. Like all these industries, all these different things that are happening around. So companies, people were going and starting a company and saying, do I need to do something in transportation? no, Uber already got it. So, and so on and so on and so on. So now I'm coming back to the business. I think 25 years, I've heard a joke that said it's very simple how you make a business software. You just take a name of the department with the budget, add to the name of the department, the word management, and you get a software because they have a budget and they're buying the software that does every department name management problem solved because you cannot sell anything that doesn't have a budget. So they just forget about this if you're doing business after. So that's kind of, but now I'm coming back now. are, and Michael brought the point about the Gentic and language. I think the next transformation, and this is where I see a long support, like we are doing something with the either like nouns or vowels. Like we go into parts, assemblies, we go into the process of release. We go into the process of reviews. Like we can bring in our domain, we can bring...

Christine Longwell

Yes.

Oleg Shilovitsky

I don't know, 30, 40, maybe 50 different things that people are working on. Essentially, a person who works on something wants to solve a problem related to this thing. For the lack of better name, this is the thing. If someone works on the part design, that's what he will be working on parts. Someone will be working on something else, he will try to solve the problem. I think Jim is spot on, people don't care. If I have a problem with the part design, I will try to solve a problem with part design. And now here is the brilliant thing that I think is happening now with the agentic is that the agent will solve the problems. And I will have an agent that solve the problem of part design. We have an agent that solve the problem of the design review, like every task. Okay. I have a bomb costing. Here's an agent that will solve the problem of the bomb costing. I have a bomb checker. I think it's a real person role. Like I've seen it in some companies. So I have an agent for bomb check. That's my perspective. think the names and the three letter acronyms essentially dead. That's why we cannot invent a better one because we already invented one and some people like it and hate it. And I can tell you like one, one story. when someone like back in the blogging time, when we started, Joss and myself, I was thinking about the name. I said, okay, there are two groups of people. Those that like PLM and those that hate PLM. And both of them will be Googling for PLM. So we are OK with the name. Sorry it took a little bit longer. ⁓

Jim Brown

Yeah.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think Brian

Brion Carroll

⁓

Jos Voskuil

Yeah.

Brion Carroll

So, yeah, so you guys speaking on this really kind of opens my eyes to, you can either expand what PLM does or you can shrink to what PLM does. I mean, what PLM needs to be versus what PLM does. PLM product lifecycle management by its definition is ideation and commercialization in back. That's it. Which means,

Michael Finocchiaro

and then Yus.

Oleg Shilovitsky

.

Brion Carroll

It harmonizes all of the functional operations, all it was talking about, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And it loops back to create a corrective model so that as per the airplane guy, I can't remember his name. I don't remember his it's with a crap. Yep. If that was able to be product lifecycle management, then that loop back would have repaired and then gone forward and not been the service issue.

Michael Finocchiaro

Peter, Dr. Hilberg.

Brion Carroll

the service issue would have became a design change issue, which then would have resolved the service issue in the first place. That's what product life cycle management should be. But because we're all siloed in our own functional world, as Oleg said, I only care about parts, I only care about bot check, you only care about whatever, it's almost impossible to say you all belong to product life cycle management, because then they go, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. So either we say, Product lifecycle management is engineering only lifecycle management, engineering lifecycle management, or we take on the huge, unbelievable task of saying product lifecycle management as Oleg brought up with Engentech agents floating around. see these little orbs floating around. It's really kind of scary and strange at the same time.

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha

Brion Carroll

Or we take on that full product life cycle management and bring bring everything up to that I don't think we can do that because I think people's brains would explode and Nobody will know what's how you're talking about. So we probably have to say we're gonna do engineering life cycle management and shut up ERP is gonna do that stuff. Shut up Let service lifecycle management is gonna do that stuff. Shut up and nobody will do anything except the systems and the roles, but what we have to have is the conduit to connect these different things together. And that becomes product lifecycle management in the end.

Michael Finocchiaro

Interesting. I think Jas was first and then Christine.

Christine Longwell

Okay. If I can. ⁓

Jos Voskuil

Yeah, I was trying to react on Martin's story. yeah, I think the reason that we are sitting here with PLM is that's our general term, but we're all specialists in a different way. And when I worked with a software vendor, the purpose of mentioning PLM was selling software. They were not selling concepts because that's where they didn't make money. Consultants see PLM as another way of business. Recently, I'm working a lot with companies and I don't mention the P word anymore. I also wrote in my blog about it because I think we all agree we have to solve business issues and those business issues because of digitalization can become now end to end business issues. It's no longer we solve one thing in one silo. We want to have this horizontal flow of information. Still, The organization structure is blocking this horizontal flow. It cannot be done by just adding data in databases and systems and then the information is there. The reasoning is not there. And that's one of the discussions we also currently have in the world of AI. So PLM is a nice name for us here as a group. Everyone knows where somehow I would say our specialism lies, but reality is much broader and has so much. dimensions for industry. I enjoy it.

Michael Finocchiaro

Christine.

Brion Carroll

Yes, hear, hear.

Christine Longwell

Yeah, so I agree with what Brian said, but... who owns the product within a product development organization? If engineering is responsible for owning that product, I'm an engineer, I know engineers, we will make the strangest stuff that nobody will buy. And we'll make it for a lot of money, it will have very high quality, but nobody will want it. So within a product or a company, engineering should not be defining the product that goes to market. But then also, if PLM is an and everything defining the product is confined within the engineering organization. Even if we're talking about the models, the CAD models, we will never get to the point where you can have a model-based enterprise when you have that 3D held within the PLM, small P, small PLM inside of the engineering organization. In order for everybody to have access to those models, you do need to raise it up to, you know, to go across the sideways. us.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, that's a scary thought, you know, as you think of it, if we were to talk about PLM as it means in term, then we're wrong saying it's the engineering system, right? And to Brian's point, Brian too, you know, you've got merchandising, which is saying what's out there needed in the market that should feed engineering. Engineering should loop back to what's needed in market. At some point it should be pushed in the ERP. And I think the reason most people spend a lot of money on ERP, it's almost like an athlete that becomes fully capable of doing a given thing, like running a race. And all the work they do to become fit, to run the race, is ignored because it's only focused on the race they run. And so ERP tends to be the race they run, meaning We've got product, let's get it out the door. Damn it, let's get money. And so that's where the business goes, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. And they start pumping money into this thing that generates revenue. And they forget about the only reason they can do that is because engineering did what it did. And so you can't really, you know, put 80 % of your op cost or capital cap, capex into ERP and forget about PLM or excuse me, engineering. because then you won't have any products next year because they won't have systems to do their job. But it's again, an athlete being honed and capable is the engineering side. The ERP is the running the race and everyone seems to worry about running the race. ⁓ I'll stop talking. I could go on forever.

Michael Finocchiaro

I think Patrick was... Sure.

Rob Ferrone

Michael, I put a question to Martin? Because Martin mentioned these 11 to 15 companies who are building the digital thread. And I'll be interested to know that that's obviously a company that's doing PLM. So what is it? How do these companies define it? And who owns it in those companies?

Martin Eigner

We should love you. We are just finishing the survey. So we made a questionnaire. We sent it out to the company. made, I think, different factors or separators. like Amazon, companies like Microsoft, Nvidia, with Fabric, the small companies, SP Vision. In Germany, we have a lot of companies. They define digital thread as a data set.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Okay.

Martin Eigner

of connected semantic out of the legacy system. So typical, we made analyzers, we talk about, I don't know whether it's the term configuration items. I always, when I made an analyzer in a company, select or I identify as the so-called configuration items in a high-tech company, mechatronic, interdisciplinary working. It's round about 300 configuration items spread along the ⁓ product lifecycle. It starts with requirements, with concepts, with system architecture development and goes to manufacturing planning, execution, logistics, service and so on. is ISO norm 100007. So, configuration items. Configuration items are all information spread along the product lifecycle, which are included in change management, release management, configuration management, and quality management, for example, impact analysis. And that is all our dream is the same. We built up a data model of this configuration items. think 80 % of the configuration items are very similar in different kinds of industries, 20 % may be individual. And when we have this information connected, I think that it is a graph. I think we will all agree that this is a graph. should realize it's based on a knowledge graph. ⁓ graph database. And then it's very easy. started with this. think the level of development of all these companies is very the same. Right now, it's more or less, and it's a pity for me, it's a warehouse. So they are able to get the data out of the legacy systems. They are able to show the data in the graph. They can build up a snapshot and they can feed, for example, an LLM model. When my dream is to use it for processes, that means I run a problem report. I run an engine change request all about the configuration items, the 300 configuration items. Then I find out the potential affected items. Then I use artificial intelligence agent. And I will find out from the potential affected items the real affected items. Then I put these affected items into the change request. And then I execute small ECOs and change orders to the legacy system. That works perfect. Now the ECO will be executed on the legacy system level. Fine. And now the problem happens. But we can see all the companies are not able, when we change on the legacy level, to synchronize back the digital thread. That is the problem right now. So right now, what I have seen right now, most of the systems working in the field of digital thread are able to build up a snapshot, a baseline, ⁓ a passive warehouse. They are not able to synchronize the digital thread level with the legacy level. That is a problem right now. But the idea is still the same.

Michael Finocchiaro

Thank

Brion Carroll

So Martin, you have just said exactly what I was talking. Let me say something. And I'm sorry, I'm saying a lot of shit and I apologize for that. But in 1984, when we built PDM, the computer vision, I led the team where it was based on an IBM VMCMS system using PL1. Transfer rates were one megabyte per minute. There was no TCP IP, right? And it was integrating CAD to PDM. Technology has advanced, so it became PLM. And I think we as leaders, and I don't mean to say that I'm probably not a leader, but as a team, we're leaders. PLM really needs to raise up to the technology level that's now available. And Martin, you just talked about putting a layer on top of everything that's going on below and using that to manage all of the interactions between the silo systems and the need of the business, right? which is exactly where I think technology has enabled us to begin to go. So I think we as leaders should begin to talk about PLM, raise it up, not from the IBM, VM, CMS, PL1 piece of crap, one megabyte per minute, no TCPIP world. We're now in a world where you can have digital thread. You can have siloed systems that could be in the talk. As Oleg said, you can have an agentic orb floating around looking for things to do. Technology is there.

Martin Eigner

Yes.

Patrick Hillberg

Thank Thank

Brion Carroll

we should be moving PLM to its rightful state. We should be heralding PLM to become something more than just engineering lifecycle management. We should talk about it as what it truly is and begin to promote that. And remember, if you're a leader, people follow because they don't know what else to do. And so what we should be talking about is, yes, you are here now, but where we need to go as an industry is to raise up above the siloed system. intimate all of this content and enable the business to get value from all the systems rather than each one fighting for budget, for their own siloed system, for their own task. We should be talking about product lifecycle management versus engineering, ERP, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? As leaders, that's what I think we should be doing. So I'll stop.

Martin Eigner

That was the new thing for you.

Oleg Shilovitsky

I

Michael Finocchiaro

So there.

Oleg Shilovitsky

think, Brian, there is one interesting perspective that I just listened to you say. I think the fight of who is on top, it's permanent years after years, like everyone wants to be on top. So like, let's create another layer, another layer, another layer. But in fact, we can just flip the story because of what I absolutely agree, it's about technology, it's about data technology. If you remember... You just said you develop systems with a different technology. SQL was invented as a technology to provide simple access to information. If you want to go, it really was created because of that. It's that now we have a standard, now all information will be available. And then we brought all other layers. We brought cloud, we brought social, we brought all these things. It's like we've been trying to say we need to bring a technology that solves the problem. So here is an opportunity. What we have now can be a universal data hammer because everyone is speaking about data and language models. So just put it on the ground, say everything can be organized as a model. And Mark Martin speaks about graphs and I very much agree about this, but it's all it's a new model. Now, if this model can absorb the entire data sets, the problem will be solved. And then.

Patrick Hillberg

Thank

Michael Finocchiaro

I

Patrick Hillberg

So.

Oleg Shilovitsky

that technologically solving the problem.

Michael Finocchiaro

think we got Patrick, Patrick and Julianne. And then I wanted to have a question from the audience. So go ahead, Patrick and then Julianne.

Patrick Hillberg

So based on what this, dozen people on this call know about PLM, do we know enough to solve the 737 MAX problems? mean, two of the planes crashed due to autonomy, which was not resilient to an external, an emerging action. Sorry, two of the planes crashed due to autonomy. One of the planes had a door plug incident due to bad work instructions.

Juliann Grant

you

Patrick Hillberg

Do we absolutely, I mean, we talking about let's raise PLM to the level where it can solve business problems. Can we solve this? Can we save the 737 max?

Brion Carroll

Yeah.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Absolutely, if you put it in the ground.

Christine Longwell

Are you saying PLM is a system or a business process?

Brion Carroll

PLM is the solution.

Patrick Hillberg

I'm saying the dozen people on this call who are experts in PLM, is that enough knowledge to save a 737 MAX?

Oleg Shilovitsky

the entire data set in a graph, he will solve the problem. But how...

Michael Finocchiaro

Whoa.

Brion Carroll

Well, the only way you...

Jim Brown

I know.

Brion Carroll

But let me just point out

Patrick Hillberg

Say that again.

Brion Carroll

one thing, ⁓ Patrick, let me just point out one thing. The plug or bad instructions by the human or human failure, you can't solve human failure because that's at the moment. They're incapable, they didn't do the right thing, bam, right? But if it's engineering.

Patrick Hillberg

So hang on a second on that one. So 15 years before the work instruction failure in Renton, my team installed a work instruction solution in North Charleston. So in that 15 years, if the technology is so hot, why couldn't it make it from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one company?

Oleg Shilovitsky

because of people.

Brion Carroll

Well, that's because that company didn't have.

Patrick Hillberg

Right, so does PLM matter or should we be talking about organizational change?

Michael Finocchiaro

Interesting.

Brion Carroll

It's both. can't have PLM across organizational boundaries unless organizational boundaries begin to have layers, not layers, but plug holes that allow them to talk between each other. You can't. It's impossible.

Jim Brown

Yes.

Michael Finocchiaro

Please.

Patrick Hillberg

So back to Oleg's comment

Oleg Shilovitsky

One people, one person.

Patrick Hillberg

of we're going to build software for each department. Aren't we just reinforcing the decomposition, the siloed approach? Aren't we just reinforcing the siloed approach by creating independent solutions?

Oleg Shilovitsky

No. No, put them on the same data set.

Brion Carroll

No, independent solutions exist. What we're talking about is intimating those siloed solutions so that it becomes in the business a holistic flow of content. That's the magical digital thread that aligns with the business model. You've got to be able to have organizational change or openness, just as you have siloed system intimation or openness.

Juliann Grant

Yes.

Martin Eigner

Ahem.

Brion Carroll

And through that, you get a solution called product life cycle management, which includes the best of the best being available to all rather than to a select set.

Michael Finocchiaro

Can I jump in? I want to let Julianne talk. And then I've got a question from the audience. OK, Julianne.

Juliann Grant

I think that... Yeah, just a couple of things. mean, think Patrick, we've had conversations on our podcast about the product that is. And I think every manufacturer wants to prevent that. Nobody wants to have a big problem on their product or affect human lives at any level. But I think the issue is that a lot of manufacturers don't have all the capabilities they need to actually do this digital threat. we talk about that if you get some PLM vendors, I'm just going to talk about systems, have some level of, integration across the products. But most companies have a myriad of types of systems in there that aren't prepared for the full integration capability they need for digital threads. So, you know, I'm wondering, you know, if we can think a little bit more about the AI, you know, capability coming in, how will that help people build a digital thread? Do you guys think I think I'd like to ask this group, do you think that the AI will help us will help manufacturers build a digital thread? Because I think that there's some agentic pieces that will help workflows and help bring workflows to life and pass data around and help people make better decisions. ⁓ when trying to build large language models and trying to build all the data elements for a digital thread, ⁓ does anyone see some overlap between how AI can help support that and help these manufacturers take chunks of digital threads and start building those pieces out to actually get to a point where

Rob Ferrone

Based on the time constraint, Michael, and I know you've got a question, we could do the famous thumb up, thumb down indication here to answer Julia's question. To what extent, I'd say, if we think AI is gonna enable the digital thread, then it's a thumbs up. If we think that AI has got no chance and we still won't do it, then it's thumb down.

Juliann Grant

It's not a multi-million dollar project. It's actually something that they can build out.

Michael Finocchiaro

Hahaha!

Juliann Grant

Yeah, that's fine.

Martin Eigner

No, no, Rob, that is wrong. I think this is wrong. That is the wrong direction. The digital threat enables AI and not vice versa. I think, I believe at the end of the 90s, when we have had a big problem, we said, ⁓ great, internet is coming. I feel right now the same procedure. If we have a big problem, ⁓ nice, AI is coming and we will solve it.

Michael Finocchiaro

You

Juliann Grant

Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I probably phrased that incorrectly.

Martin Eigner

AI will not save everything. But we have to prepare AI. The digital threat is the real basic idealization for long, for the AI approach. I think this is the right direction. I would like to say yes, yes, yes, digital threat. I know it together. Let's go.

Juliann Grant

yeah.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, the thing about AI is AI is really based on history, right? Yeah, I'm gonna put a thumbs this

Michael Finocchiaro

You

Oleg Shilovitsky

For years, I was like, should I put

Brion Carroll

way.

Oleg Shilovitsky

this in?

Christine Longwell

Now, if you're talking about a real, agenic studio that's managed and governed, then yes. If you're talking about a chatbot, then no.

Jim Brown

It's this way.

Michael Finocchiaro

you

Oleg Shilovitsky

Wait a

Martin Eigner

Yeah

Brion Carroll

Ha ha ha ha.

Jim Brown

Yes or no?

Martin Eigner

and that's unfair.

Brion Carroll

You.

Michael Finocchiaro

Okay, let me take this in a different direction. ⁓ Scott Byrne has a good question. said, general speaking, do you feel organizations view PLM as a necessary evil for security and traceability of IP, or is the view as a plus technology enabler that drives ⁓ efficiency across engineering and business? It seems kind of the hearted our discussion today, right? Is it, it's just something you gotta do or is it something that's like amazing and why aren't you doing it yet?

Rob Ferrone

Okay. Okay.

Brion Carroll

You gotta do it. You gotta do it. I mean...

Christine Longwell

And going back to a SIM data poll that they have run year over year, it seems to be almost like half and half. And PLM was getting less popular for a little while. And suddenly it started getting a little bit more popular as people were starting to look at it as more of a collection of business systems rather than a singular business system. So I think that we are making some change, but we need to change the way that we talk that PLM is not synonymous with a specific package.

Brion Carroll

Thank you. Yes. Thank you.

Michael Finocchiaro

So.

Jim Brown

Yeah, I'll throw another data point onto Christine's from Tech Clarity. of the things, the answer is different people think about it differently. One of the things we did in our benchmarks is we saw that top performing companies that were getting more value ⁓ out of their systems view it as a strategic system. And those that get less value out of it view it as a, you know, view it as a more tactical engineering system. So when you take that enterprise PLM approach, and viewpoint on it, you're going to get more business value out of it. It just, you I think we all know here, you extend the use of it into more processes, more people, more of the life cycle. You're going to get more value.

Jos Voskuil

Great point.

Brion Carroll

So, so

Michael Finocchiaro

We haven't heard from Brian Carroll too in a while. Brian Carroll, do you want to jump in?

Brion Carroll

He left.

Yeah, I I really like the conversation, right? And the one thing I'll say is coming into this in the last three years, I've been heavy in manufacturing, right? And ⁓ introducing the digital thread to people in manufacturing and why they need to look upstream is a conversation I have regularly to find that business imperative to have plant managers and directors, digital manufacturing directors look upstream has been a thorn in my side. for a while, but I'll say that in the digital continuity, they call me a digital executive. And the one thing I find here that it just resonates with me is the people that I run into that are talking in the manner that we're talking in, driving business imperatives, organizational change management, right? Constructs that drive business continuity all the way through from ideation to on the shelf or on the street or whatever it is. are people with the pedigree of PLM. And it's weird that when I see people that I haven't seen from de Sceaux days, from metaphase days, right? They're people that are PLM people and they're sitting in manufacturing or they're sitting in another area, but they're the only ones that actually get it. And it's the whole thing that you guys are talking about. So I think whatever that we've revealed on this call that the leaders, my dad talked about it before, right? We are the people that are going to influence the impact of the future introducing things like AI. We are the people that kind of have that passion in us. So I'm just glad to see the conversations being carried in that regard. I'm just, that's all.

Michael Finocchiaro

Thank you, Brian. ⁓ Oleg, you your hand up and Brian, the father had his hand up.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Yes, I just a reflection on the, if you're building layers or using technology now, if AI is a data management technology, then it has an opportunity. Because if you think about multiple systems, like the idea was we can put multiple systems in the one SQL database and then data magically is connected, didn't happen. So then we said we put the system. and the cloud and magically everything connected, it was even worse because the same disconnected systems came to the cloud. Now AI is taking us down if you think on the foundation. If you think about universal way to create data model, if those models will interconnect without us being involved because the language model has this ability, then we have an opportunity. We still will be with the different systems, but they will be reconnecting based on the technology. It's like Martin, we had this conversation before. We can take two graphs, combine them together without thinking about table formats. This is the power of the graph. So if we can take two models coming from CRM and coming from ERP and coming from PLM, doesn't matter how we call it. And those are language models that will interconnect knowledge, like people interconnecting knowledge because of language, then we have a chance.

Michael Finocchiaro

That's true.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, I would agree. Sorry, go ahead, Marko.

Michael Finocchiaro

It seems to me there's a, go ahead. No, it just seems to me it's almost like ⁓ the organizations, the corporate organizations have gone to these matricial formats where you've got horizontal and vertical reporting, but we haven't done that from a data point of view. We've done these siloed, these vertical silos, and now we're talking about how do we connect the horizontal bit, right? We make our data and our applications catch up with the organizations that are actually using them in a sense.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, so I would agree. I think the AI, to Oleg's point, could be very beneficial in converging content that has isolated use for functional capability for a given organization. If it can bring that into this harmonious horizontal, as Michael said, layer, then that enables, to Martin's point, overseeing, and by the way, when I raise up my hands up, I'm not saying going up. I'm saying laying a top, right? Like an umbrella, right? Okay. ⁓ If we can harmonize content without technology, and I think Christine or Julian, you brought up cost to make it happen. If we can take ⁓ AI and enable it to pull in data into a world where reporting, visibility, business ⁓ insights, then that would really

Michael Finocchiaro

Ha

Brion Carroll

⁓ I mean, that would be smoking because each silo still has its own needs. CAD still has its own needs, MES still has its own needs. ERP and supply chain management still have their own. What's that? Right. So each one has their own need, but if the data that they use can be harmonized into a ⁓ model that is visible at the business level,

Christine Longwell

Supply chain. supply chain.

Brion Carroll

then that's really product life cycle management, right? So we as leaders, you know, we really have to raise our game. We can't keep talking siloed. We got to start talking harmony, right? And if we can do that, then people will begin to think that way as well, that's the new normal. And if they begin to think that's the new normal, then they may begin to act as if it exists, you know, act as if he had faith and faith will be given to you, right? Whatever the term might be. They may begin to say, It's natural that we should be able to do this and by their thinking, the industry may evolve to where it becomes reality.

Michael Finocchiaro

Brian, the sun had raised his hand, I believe. Or that was from the previous time.

Brion Carroll

No, that was from earlier. It was probably like seven topics ago.

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ Well, we're almost at the bell. don't know, Rob, do you have another thumbs up one? Because I was thinking maybe, you know, we started the call with should we change the name of Peel I have a feeling that if we did a vote on that, like, no, we don't change the name. just do it better, right?

Brion Carroll

Yes. Yes.

Michael Finocchiaro

Everybody agrees on that.

Brion Carroll

Yeah, we do what it's supposed to be rather than what it has been. Again, PL 1. Go ahead.

Michael Finocchiaro

It could be that the vendors, the big three, have dominated this discourse for so long and then they've been, of course, acquiring until now their vision has become completely muddled. Maybe it's us as the leaders who are supposed to bring that vision a bit more sharper.

Patrick Hillberg

I make the analogy that PLM is to product lifecycle management as IBM is to international business machines. It's where I got it start where realistically the definition of PLM is whatever the big three or four companies decide that they want to provide, regardless of whether or not it expands across the product lifecycle. And I'll add onto this from a technology standpoint, the PLM databases are object oriented and the downstream databases are transactional.

Rob Ferrone

I'm going be a bit little bit bit of a a little bit bit bit a bit bit bit bit little bit little bit a little bit a a little a a bit little bit little little bit little bit little bit of a little bit little little little little little of of little

Patrick Hillberg

So I don't know how you fit these other databases into a PLM database. I think it needs to be a managing product lifecycle strategy. ⁓ I don't think you can... I think the PLM technology is about as far as it's ever gonna get. If we wanna manage product life cycles, we need to figure out how to integrate the different databases with each other to create a digital thread.

Brion Carroll

Exactly,

Yeah.

exactly.

Jim Brown

Pat, say it again, Pat. Say it again, Pat. Your mom is dead.

Patrick Hillberg

Ha ha! Yeah, yeah, look, you can cross the ad models.

Michael Finocchiaro

Long live PLM.

Jim Brown

No, no, what was that straight line? That

Juliann Grant

Thank

Jim Brown

line of all lines. was, Peel him is dead, long live the thread.

Brion Carroll

Yes. That gives you PLM. Right. Long lives the thread that gives you PLM. What would you say? PLM is dead? Long lives the thread that gives you PLM?

Patrick Hillberg

Yeah, PLM is dead along with the threat, right? Yep.

Oleg Shilovitsky

Okay.

Jim Brown

I'm getting a t-shirt.

Patrick Hillberg

Well, I started with PLM is to product lifecycle management, what IBM is to international business machines. It's an acronym that no longer means what it meant when it started.

Rob Ferrone

Okay. Okay.

Michael Finocchiaro

This has been a of fun.

Brion Carroll

Right, well, you gotta understand.

Christine Longwell

Looks like Martin might have a closer.

Jim Brown

And that's just fine.

Michael Finocchiaro

⁓ Martin.

Brion Carroll

Martin you're on mute by the way Martin you're on mute

Martin Eigner

Yeah, one comment, the one is, even now we have problems. I

Michael Finocchiaro

Yeah.

Martin Eigner

think when you think about a graph who is willing to connect all the data, we are doing concrete projects. It is very easy to combine a PDM system with ERP, because when we agree that the numbering system is the same, we can connect the graph from ERP with the graph from PLM. When we have requirements management and have nothing, for example, JAMA, Team Center, and SAP, and we have no bridge between requirements, we have no designed bridge on the legacy system between JAMA and PLM. Then there's the disconnections and the graphs are not coming together. So we have to solve technical problems. But we have to start pragmatically. My feeling is when we combine the existing PLM, I call it the PDM system, with ERP.

Brion Carroll

Yes.

Martin Eigner

We will solve 70 to 80 % of the problems. My customers have the main problem to connect and peel and change management process with the ERP that is based on phone call, on email and whatever. And they failed and failed and failed because they are not able to connect all the affected items. I think we should be practical. On the other side, we talked about silos. I think we are technically guys. It is normally stupid. We should not believe with the technical solutions that we can get rid of silos. we have that's education. are educated in silos. We are working in silos. We try to solve silos with technology that is more that is human behavior. We have to combine all our good ideas with some acceptance management, with training, with interdisciplinary training and system thinking and all this stuff. So I think it's much more.

Martin Melcher

you Martin Eigner (1:00:12) with room for discussion we have to start. Michael Finocchiaro (1:00:17) Thank you, Martin. ⁓ This has been fantastic. Did you guys have a good time? That was a lot of fun, right? Brion Carroll (1:00:21) Yes. Martin Melcher (1:00:22) Yeah, absolutely. Juliann Grant (1:00:22) It was fun. Thank you. Jim Brown (1:00:22) Yeah. Thank you Mark. Oleg Shilovitsky (1:00:23) Yes, yes, very good. Brion Carroll (1:00:23) Great job, buddy. Michael Finocchiaro (1:00:25) bit of echo on here. I feel like we should do it again because I don't think there was enough time. don't think everybody got to say everything they wanted to say. I appreciate Oleg Shilovitsky (1:00:34) We do it live, Michael, next time, Michael Finocchiaro (1:00:36) Yeah. Yeah. But this is awesome. I really appreciate everybody taking their time to share their thoughts and everything. Let's definitely do it again. I apologize. I didn't make it very structured because I thought it would be more interesting to just let the discussion go and see where it went. I think we came up with the, it came out to an interesting place. It's going to launch even more conversations going forward. So. ⁓ Once again, all my friends, thank you so much. Great to see you guys all once again here on the podcast. Let's do this again soon. And to the audience, ⁓ jump on. There's a bunch of comments, by the way, everybody that's here, you're gonna see there's a ton of comments, at least 15, 20 on the post. So go ahead and answer those and check them out. I'll try to answer as much as I can. ⁓ And let's just keep the dog going and try to do this again. And I'm just proud to have all you guys as friends and. and have these kind of really fascinating conversations. So thank you. Brion Carroll (1:01:36) It has been very good. Thank you, Michael. Jim Brown (1:01:37) Thanks for your time. Jos Voskuil (1:01:37) Okay, bye. Rob Ferrone (1:01:37) isn't that sweet? Oleg Shilovitsky (1:01:37) Thank you everyone. Martin Melcher (1:01:37) So, bye bye, Christine Longwell (1:01:37) Thanks. Oleg Shilovitsky (1:01:38) Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye everyone. Martin Melcher (1:01:39) thank you. ⁓ Martin Eigner (1:01:39) Bye. Jos Voskuil (1:01:39) Thank you, bye. Michael Finocchiaro (1:01:40) Okay, have a