Monday, January 21, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
2 great quotes to get your day in gear from #Lifehacker / #BrainPickings
The quote above is from painter Chuck Close, who says he's never had "painter's block" in his life. The "just show up and get to work" motto is a great creed to live by, especially if you want to be prolific and creative.
Brain Pickings highlights an interview with Chuck Close published in Inside the Painter's Studio:
Inspiration is for amateurs - the rest of us just show up and get to work. And the belief that things will grow out of the activity itself and that you will - through work - bump into other possibilities and kick open other doors that you would never have dreamt of if you were just sitting around looking for a great ‘art [idea].' And the belief that process, in a sense, is liberating and that you don't have to reinvent the wheel every day. Today, you know what you'll do, you could be doing what you were doing yesterday, and tomorrow you are gonna do what you [did] today, and at least for a certain period of time you can just work. If you hang in there, you will get somewhere.
Close's attitude reminds me of another inspirational quote from Pablo Picasso: "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working."
For more on Close's work ethic and thoughts on creativity, head over to Brain Pickings.
Chuck Close on Creativity, Work Ethic, and Problem-Solving vs. Problem-Creating | Brain Pickings
via feeds.gawker.com
2 great quotes to get your day started:
“Inspiration Is for Amateurs—The Rest of Us Just Show Up and Get to Work” - Chuck Close (see article)
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working." - Pablo Picasso
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Gympact for Android Puts Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Makes Sure You Stick to Your Fitness Resolutions
Android: Last year, Gympact for iPhone encouraged you to go to the gym by paying you real money for going, and charging you for skipping out. Now the app is available for Android users too, just in time for the new year.
The Android version of the app works the way the iOS version does. Instead of metaphorically throwing away money with a gym membership you don't use, Gympact actually lets you put a small amount of money on the line that you'll be charged if you miss too many days at the gym. When you do go, you check in to the gym via GPS, and the app won't penalize you for missing your date with the treadmill. Periodically, the money pooled from people who don't go is distributed to the people who do go.
The team behind the app note that the majority of the people who signed up using the iOS app are still participating in the program, so if you sign up now you'll have even more people to compete with. It's definitely drastic to put real money on the line, but if you need a better way to make sure you get to the gym, Gympact can help.
GymPact | Google Play
Android: Last year, Gympact for iPhone via feeds.gawker.com
Nice way to ensure you do what you plan to do. 1 obvious downside...you need a wifi-spot @ your gym or use your mobile internet service.
FW: #VirtualDutchman 's take on #PLM in #2013: Will the PLM soap continue in 2013 ?
“Confused? You won’t be after this episode of Soap. “Who does not remember this tagline from the first official Soap series starting in 1977 and released in the Netherlands in 1979?
Every week the Campbells and the Tates entertained us with all the ingredients of a real soap: murder, infidelity, aliens’ abduction, criminality, homosexuality and more.
The episode always ended with a set of questions, leaving you for a week in suspense , hoping the next episode would give you the answers.
For those who do not remember the series or those who never saw it because they were too young, this was the mother of all Soaps.
What has it to do with PLM?
Soap has to do with strange people that do weird things (I do not want to be more specific). Recently I noticed that this is happening even in the PLM blogger’s world. Two of my favorite blogs demonstrated something of this weird behavior.
First Steve Ammann in his Zero Wait-State blog post: A PLM junkie at sea point-solutions versus comprehensive mentioned sailing from Ventura CA to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico on a 35 foot sailboat and started thinking about PLM during his night shift. My favorite quote:
Besides dealing with a couple of visits from Mexican coast guard patrol boats hunting for suspected drug runners, I had time alone to think about my work in the PLM industry and specifically how people make decisions about what type of software system or systems they choose for managing product development information. Yes only a PLM “junkie” would think about PLM on a sailing trip and maybe this is why the Mexican coast guard was suspicious.
Second Oleg in his doomsday blog post: The End of PLM Communism, was thinking about PLM all the weekend. My favorite quote:
I’ve been thinking about PLM implementations over the weekend and some perspective on PLM concepts. In addition to that, I had some healthy debates over the weekend with my friends online about ideas of centralization and decentralization. All together made me think about potential roots and future paths in PLM projects.
It demonstrates the best thinking is done during out-of-office time and on casual locations. Knowing this from my long cycling tours in the weekend, I know it is true.
I must confess that I have PLM thoughts during cycling.Perhaps the best thinking happens outside an office?
I leave the follow up on this observation to my favorite Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel, who apparently is out of office too.
Now back to serious PLM
Both posts touch the topic of a single comprehensive solution versus best-of-breed solutions. Steve is very clear in his post. He believes that in the long term a single comprehensive solution serves companies better, although user performance (usability) is still an issue to consider. He provides guidance in making the decision for either a point solution or an integrated solution.
And I am aligned with what Steve is proposing.
Oleg is coming from a different background and in his current position he believes more in a distributed or network approach. He looks at PLM vendors/implementations and their centralized approach through the eyes of someone who knows the former Soviet Union way of thinking: “Centralize and control”.
The association with communism which was probably not the best choice when you read the comments. This association makes you think as the former Soviet Union does not exist anymore, what about former PLM implementations and the future? According to Oleg PLM implementations should be more focused on distributed systems (on the cloud ?), working and interacting together connecting data and processes.
And I am aligned with what Oleg is proposing.
Confused? You want be after reading my recent experience.
I have been involved in the discussion around the best possible solution for an EPC contractor (Engineering Procurement Construction) in the Oil & Gas industry. The characteristic of their business is different from standard manufacturing companies. EPC contractors provide services for an owner/operator of a plant and they are selected because of their knowledge, their price, their price, their price, quality and time to deliver.
This means an EPC contractor is focusing on execution, making sure they have the best tools for each discipline and this is the way they are organized and used to work. The downside of this approach is everyone is working on its own island and there is no knowledge capitalization or sharing of information. The result each solution is unique, which brings a higher risk for errors and fixes required during construction. And the knowledge is in the head of experience people ….. and they retire at a certain moment.
So this EPC contractor wanted to build an integrated system, where all disciplines are connected and sharing information where relevant. In the Oil & Gas industry, ISO15926 is the standard. This standard is relative mature to serve as the neutral exchange standard of information between disciplines. The ideal world for best in class tools communicating with each other, or not ?
Imagine there are 6 discipline tools, an engineering environment optimized for plant engineering, a project management environment, an execution environment connecting suppliers and materials, a delivery environment assuring the content of a project is delivered in the right stages and finally a knowledge environment, capitalizing lessons learned, standards and best practices.
This results in 6 tools and 12 interfaces to a common service bus connecting these tools. 12 interfaces as information needs to be send and received from the service bus per application. Each tools will have redundant data for its own execution.
What happens if a PLM provider could offer three of these tools on a common platform? This would result into 4 tools to install and only 8 interfaces. The functionality in the common PLM system does not require data redundancy but shares common information and therefore will provide better performance in a cross-discipline scenario.
In the ultimate world all tools will be on one platform, providing the best performance and support for this EPC contractor. However this is utopia. It is almost impossible to have a 100 % optimized system for a group of independent companies working together. Suppliers will not give up their environment and own IP to embed it in a customer´s ideal environment. So there is always a compromise to find between a best integrated platform (optimal performance – reduced cost of interfaces and cost of ownership) and the best connected environment (tools connection through open standards).
And this is why both Steve and Oleg have a viewpoint that makes sense. Depending on the performance of the tools and the interaction with the supplier network the PLM platform can provide the majority of functionality. If you are a market dominating OEM you might even reach 100 % coverage for your own purpose, although the modern society is more about connecting information where possible.
MY CONCLUSION after reading both posts:
- Oleg tries to provoke, and like a soap, you might end up confused after each episode.
- Steve in his post gives a common sense guidance, useful if you spend time on digesting it, not a soap.
Now I hope you are not longer confused and wish you all a successful and meaningful 2013. The PLM soap will continue in alphabetical order:
- Will Aras survive 21-12-2012 and support the Next generation ?
- Will Autodesk get of the cloud or have a coming out ?
- Will Dassault get more Experienced ?
- Will Oracle PLM customers understand it is not a database ?
- Will PTC get out of the CAD jail and receive $ 200 ?
- Will SAP PLM be really 3D and user friendly ?
- Will Siemens PLM become a DIN or ISO standard ?
See the next episodes of my PLM blog in 2013
Great post by Jos Voskuil for those confused with the PLM hype in 2012 and it's continuation in 2013.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
FW: SP1 of Vault 2013 and SP2 of Vault 2012 released
« Error 155 Illegal Null Parameter during Assign Item in Vault Pro 2013 | Main
December 13, 2012
SP1 of Vault 2013 and SP2 of Vault 2012 released
I am happy to announce that the SP1 for Vault 2013 and SP2 of Vault 2012 is now released!
Highlight besides many fixes is the reintroducing of Purge.
Please read the instructions in the readme carefully about Purge.
In the readme there is for example mentioned how to enable Purge and how to manually repairing references
Downloads:
Posted by Kevin Jaufmann-ludwig at 07:59 AM in File Resolution\Updating, HOT ISSUES!, Vault Basic, Vault Collaboration, Vault Professional, Vault Professional\Manufacturing | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01156eaaf373970c017d3ebf7ec0970cListed below are links to weblogs that reference SP1 of Vault 2013 and SP2 of Vault 2012 released:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:Your comment has been posted. Post another commentThe letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
#Vault users, your service packs have been released! 2013-SP1 & 2012-SP2
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Reading: PLM Cloud Concerns and Dropbox Reality for Engineers
Last week at AU, I attended Innovation Forum – The Reality of the cloud. The presentation made by Theresa Payton of Fortalice LLC caught my special attention. It was about security. Check later here. Security is loaded and complicated topic. Physical security is one of the top 5 concerns of customers related to the decision of using cloud services. Even if consumption of online services is growing crazy, companies are very careful in placing their missing critical data assets to the cloud. Especially when it comes to IP (intellectual property). Navigate here to read what SearchCIO blog is saying about that. You need to register to read full article. The following passage is interesting:
To be sure, some cloud services are pretty lightweight, such as filling out a form to schedule an online meeting. But for mission-critical applications or storing data in the cloud, you need to ask tough questions: “What does their data center look like? Are they willing to show you a diagram? Backup plans? Security documents?” asked Jessica Carroll, managing director of IT for the United States Golf Association, which uses the cloud for business continuity, as well as for collaboration with 1,500 golfing associations nationwide.
Contact any CIO in the industry and his team will drain you down with the endless list of questions about security. However, here is a news for you, Mr. CIO. I don’t know if you are aware, but 34% of your engineering staff is placing data on the cloud in their Dropbox accounts. What is more surprising – half of them are aware they are doing it against the company rules. Navigate to the following link to read more and see some diagrams – Guess what Mr. CIO? One in five of your employees uses Dropbox at work.
One out of five of 1,300 business users surveyed said they use the consumer file-sync-and-share system with work documents, according to new research by Nasuni, an enterprise storage management company. And, half of those Dropbox users do this even though they know it’s against the rules.
However, the fact employees are putting files in the Dropbox is just half of the problem. Since they are using private accounts, the information remains there even after an employee is leaving the company.
“The sensitive data stored in Dropbox is not secure and just as importantly, not controlled by IT. This means that if an employee leaves the company, the information that [a] user has stored goes with them, creating a significant risk of data loss or exposure. Furthermore, as the amount of sensitive corporate data stored in Dropbox increases, the online file-sharing service will become a more attractive target for hackers and other malicious groups.
What is my conclusion? Think about PLM and Excel. Who won the game? I think the answer is clear – Excel. Each time, PDM/PLM software was incompetent to provide a reliable solution, Microsoft Excel won PLM competition. Now, guess what? If company and corporate IT continue to abuse users’ demand to have flexible and easy access to information, the information flow will go from proprietary data and file servers directly to Dropbox and similar “easy to use” cloud services. Companies need to pay attention. Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg
Tagged as: Cloud, Dropbox, Engineering, Enterprise, Stats
via beyondplm.com
Does your IT department have control of the IP? The graph in this post by #OlegShilovitsky hints towards "no". Employees are deliberatly bypassing rules by using their personal dropbox/drive/skydrive/box accounts to be able to work more flexibel or continue an important task at home.
Being aware it happens is step 1, step 2 is controlling and/or providing a suitable alternative.
Monday, December 10, 2012
FW: #Vault 2013 pro bugfix for: Error 155 Illegal Null Parameter during Assign Item
« The database principal owns a database role and cannot be dropped | Main
December 07, 2012
Error 155 Illegal Null Parameter during Assign Item in Vault Pro 2013
In Vault Pro 2012 we also had the issue with the error 155 during assign item and the solution was mentioned in this article Error 155 When Trying To Assign Item on Vault Pro 2012.
However if you have this error "Error 155 Illegal Null Parameter" in Vault Pro 2013 the solution mentioned here (checkout file, rebuild all in Inventor, check back in) usually doesn´t help.
You will need to reinstall the Vault Server 2013.
Before this you should be sure that you have a valid backup of your Vault.
Steps to reinstall the Vault Server:
1. Go to Control Panel
2. Go to Programs and Features
3. Go to Autodesk Vault Professional 2013 (Server) and choose "Uninstall/Change"
4. On the Setup Pick "Repair or Reinstall"
5. Select Reinstall and start the operation
If this was successful the issue with error 155 should be resolved.
Posted by Kevin Jaufmann-ludwig at 10:28 AM in Error Messages, HOT ISSUES!, Vault Professional\Manufacturing | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01156eaaf373970c017ee6028824970dListed below are links to weblogs that reference Error 155 Illegal Null Parameter during Assign Item in Vault Pro 2013:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:Your comment has been posted. Post another commentThe letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Involves backup and repair/reinstall, which could take a while, but will remove the error.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
