Explore solutions to problems from the development experience of industrial software
Before delving into issues related to industrial software, let's take a look back at the arduous development journey of industrial software represented by CAD. At that time, no one had the omniscient perspective to clearly see the path ahead at a glance. Everyone was like groping forward in the dark, having to cross the river by feeling the stones. In this process, every step was filled with uncertainty. It was like stepping in a turbulent river, where every foothold might end up being empty. However, if we can try our best to avoid such missteps and make each step firm, we are actually on the right development path. This steady - paced approach allows us to accumulate experience in the unknown territory and gradually find a development direction suitable for ourselves.
Current situation and responses to Party A's requirements
The limitations of Party A's thinking mode
Many enterprises are deeply constrained by rigid thinking patterns when undergoing digital transformation. Some corporate leaders are keen on shouting empty slogans, such as "conducting full - process effective control through the five elements of man, machine, material, method, and environment, and forming long - term quality monitoring to achieve a closed - loop quality management". These slogans sound high - end, but they lack practical operability, and the leaders don't care at all about the details of specific implementation. They are accustomed to using seemingly professional but actually meaningless words to package requirements, and these requirements cannot be directly implemented when the project is delivered.
Focus on details to solve problems
Taking quality management as an example, when a project is delivered, we need to focus on every single detail. If the key issues affecting product quality arise at the incoming materials end, then a detailed analysis of the specific situation is required. First, it's necessary to clarify exactly which materials have problems and which suppliers these materials come from. It's also important to determine when the problems occurred and what the specific problems are, whether they are appearance issues, dimensional problems, or other aspects of problems. After clarifying these issues, we can further analyze the solutions. For example, should we strengthen 5S management to optimize the production site environment? Or should we upgrade the machinery and equipment to improve production accuracy and efficiency? Should we improve the process parameters to enhance the stability of the production process? Or should we strengthen the performance control of raw materials to ensure product quality from the source?
Problems and Choices of Party B's Solution
The pre-sales issues and solutions are not clear
In the pre - sales stage, some contractors (Party B) overly rely on PPT presentations to secure projects and tend to hype up popular concepts such as industrial Internet, artificial intelligence, intelligent manufacturing, and dark factories. However, this approach often leads to a nearly 100% probability of subsequent project failures. This is similar to the situation where the requirements of the client (Party A) are unclear. The solutions provided by Party B also lack clarity.Take the currently popular MES (Manufacturing Execution System) in the market as an example. Although it covers various aspects including personnel, equipment, materials, warehouses, logistics, processes, production, planning, and quality, few people can clearly state what specific functions it can actually achieve. The introductions of each module are only superficial and lack professionalism. Although there are claims of 10 functions in the promotion, only 1 - 2 functions may actually be implemented in the end. Moreover, it is said that there are more than 10,000 MES suppliers in China. The market is highly competitive, but the quality varies greatly.
The improper behaviors of consulting companies
There are also some consulting companies that have coined a whole bunch of seemingly professional terms, such as holographic modeling, process re - engineering, and management closed - loop. However, they only care about collecting money and have no concern at all about how to actually implement these solutions. Once they get the money, they simply leave without a care. This kind of behavior seriously undermines the interests of enterprises and also has a negative impact on the healthy development of the entire industry.
Party B's project selection
It is always the most difficult to implement any matter down to the details. Different factories have different production models and management requirements, just as there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes when it comes to factories. This poses a huge challenge to the second - party (the service - providing side).For the long - term development of the enterprise, the second - party must abandon many unsuitable projects. If it takes on projects randomly from all directions, it will not only disperse the enterprise's energy but may also drag the company down.From historical experience, it is very difficult for product - based software and project - based software to coexist in the same company, because there are significant differences in their development models, management methods, and market positioning.
Dilemmas and Misunderstandings in Party A's Software Selection
The distribution of market software is uneven
Faced with a wide variety of software products in the market, Party A often looks utterly confused when selecting software. General - purpose management software such as low - code platforms, CRM, e - HR, and expense control and reimbursement systems are severely over - saturated in the market. However, there are very few management software solutions that penetrate deeply into the factory end, such as APS and QMS. Moreover, the vast majority of them are custom - developed for specific projects, with MES being particularly prominent in this regard.This is because suppliers of factory management software require a large number of talents who understand various aspects such as production, process, quality, operations, and IT. These talents not only need to have years of experience as front - line factory managers but also hold relatively high - level positions so that they can view problems from a broader perspective. Meanwhile, different industries are like different worlds. Even highly excellent talents only have in - depth knowledge of a few industries they are involved in. To make the software universally applicable, one also needs to have strong inductive and summarizing abilities. Such talents are extremely rare in the market, and most software suppliers cannot afford to hire them.
Selection preference and actual situation
When many corporate managers are selecting products, they tend to focus more on their personal positions and career prospects. As a result, they prefer to choose products from large companies, such as software giants like SAP, Siemens, and PTC. However, they fail to realize that many of the solutions offered by these giants in vertical fields are products acquired from small companies. After these small - company products are acquired and branded with the giants' logos, their prices may increase several times, while the service quality is significantly compromised.
Blind worship and false perceptions
In addition, there is also a phenomenon of blind worship of European and American countries in the market. For example, the AMR organization that proposed the MES concept is the Advanced Manufacturing Research, Inc. (abbreviated as AMR), which was founded in 1986 by American Tony Friscia. However, Baidu Baike translates it as the American Advanced Manufacturing Research Institute. In fact, the United States has few restrictions on company names. This is a private consulting company aiming at making profits, but almost all domestic MES manufacturers have put it on a pedestal. Moreover, most of the company's business focuses on supply - chain research rather than MES research, and it was acquired by Gartner in 2009.
The misunderstandings of the scale theory
Many enterprises tend to judge by scale when selecting software, believing that more people mean more strength. However, in fact, industrial software is a highly intellectualized product, and having more people is not necessarily a good thing. Abstracting a common product from the diverse management models of various enterprises is an extremely painful process. If dozens of people gather for a meeting to discuss, they often end up in endless arguments, resulting in low efficiency and even potentially disrupting the normal operation of the enterprise. As some people say, the SAP system has reached the philosophical thinking level, which also indicates that it is difficult for SAP to abstract the diverse enterprise management models into a universal product. For this reason, many large Internet companies prefer their employees to work the "996" schedule rather than hiring more people.For example, when the APS giant Preactor was acquired by Siemens, it had only 70 employees; when Q - DAS was acquired by Hexagon, it had only 80 employees; and the QMS software Sparta, which was acquired by Honeywell for $1.3 billion, had only 200 employees. In contrast, some large domestic IT outsourcing companies may have a scale of tens of thousands of people, yet even some IT practitioners think that working for such companies would stain their resumes.
Key Points and Suggestions for Industrial Software Implementation
The essence and common problems of implementation
The essence of industrial software lies in the abstraction of industrial production activities, while software implementation is the restoration of this abstract knowledge within an enterprise. If project personnel lack a profound understanding of manufacturing, they will be like the man in the fable who carved a mark on the boat to find his lost sword during on - site investigations, requirement sorting, and implementation. They won't be able to accurately grasp the actual needs of the enterprise. Almost 100% of enterprises have had such painful experiences during software implementation. The engineers sent by the service provider (Party B) may have no understanding of the client's (Party A) business at all. They can only rigidly fit Party A's requirements from an IT perspective. In essence, this is just labor outsourcing, and Party A has to handle all the core business logic. Due to limited time, if Party A fails to consider comprehensively, the future expandability of the software will be restricted. Moreover, suppliers usually aim to meet Party A's current needs and rarely make relevant contingency plans for future business development. This is also the fundamental difference between project - based software and product - based software.
Selection suggestions
Therefore, when selecting software, enterprises are advised to give priority to product - based software. Although it can't be said that this kind of software is perfect, it is at least not too bad. Enterprise managers may think that it is very difficult to find product - based software suppliers. However, since industrial software giants like Siemens and PTC can continuously select excellent companies from numerous software vendors around the world for acquisition, our enterprise managers should also have the confidence to find suitable product - based software for themselves.