3DMojo

You know how when you hear something very different than what you believe is the conventional wisdom, it can make you question your basic assumptions?

That's been my reaction to this blog post from Sramana Mitra on the CAD/PLM marketplace. Of course, you should read it for yourself, but there's so much we agree with that I find myself surprised that we sorta fundamentally disagree with her conclusions.

Ms. Mitra believes that UGS's acquisition by Siemens makes little sense. Check. She also writes that she thought the Dassault/IBM relationship had worked well. No surprise there. So she wonders why it's being "reduced in importance." That's easy: one of the partners thinks it can make more without being tied exclusively to the other.

She goes on to further speculate that high-end PLM has become a commodity. I wouldn't say that...but I would agree that the high-market has become totally saturated.

So far, we are in total agreement, right? Not quite. Mitra goes on to speculate that PTC "suddenly looks stronger than ever." She includes a stock price chart that shows that PTC's stock price has recovered to its late 2002 levels as proof. She also says Autodesk has had a "superb run," something which nobody can deny.

The problem with this is PTC's Windchill is as big and heavy as PLM systems come. Argue it all you like, but Windchill is in the same class as UGS's and Dassault's systems. And no amount of marketing effort will recast it as a "small and medium business" system. It is what it is: a gigantic, heavy, costly infrastructure. It competes in the same dwindling enterprise market Mitra believes makes no sense for the European companies.

As to Autodesk, no less an authority than CEO Carl Bass has said "[t]here are only three companies with a PLM problem: one is Dassault, one is UGS, and one is PTC." In short, Autodesk isn't in the PLM business. So, I don't understand why Mitra links Autodesk in her thinking with PTC. Mr. Bass went on to describe PLM as "...a problem...when 90% of the cost is for consulting, and 10% for the software."

We are in violent agreement with Autodesk on this point: PLM hasn't delivered the kind of end-user productivity it should have for the costs it has imposed. Our vision for Seemage is all about leveraging enterprise systems to deliver that productivity without also forcing end users into a pre-determined PLM box.

So, I remain a little confused about Mitra's article. We agree that PLM hasn't really delivered what it should have (quite apart from the debate if it even can deliver what it promises). We also agree that the "giants" of PLM have a problem growing in the marketplace.

But I think Mitra has inaccurately given PTC a pass on PLM while not recognizing the real reasons for Autodesk's success. In short, the companies that are going to grow in this market are the ones that can avoid the religious wars over PLM infrastructure and deliver new ways of using 3D design data throughout the enterprise. UGS, Dassault, and yes, PTC are all stuck chanting their increasingly shrill PLM dogma to a wealthy but decreasing congregation.

What's really driving Seemage's success in the marketplace isn't PLM orthodoxy. It's focusing on desktop productivity. We think that's the secret sauce for anyone who wants to grow in this marketplace.