It doesn’t seem like it was that long ago when we started hearing about Simulation Lifecycle Management (SLM). But blink your eyes and its five years later.

When software providers first started talking about this type of solution, I remember there was quite a bit of confusion. What exactly does it do? Is it like PLM? Fast forward to today and I think there still is a good bit of confusion.

I plan to write a good bit more about simulation here in the coming months, including topics about SLM. So before I add to the confusion, I figured the appropriate place to start is to provide some sort of definition for it. Because, as you may or may not know, there is no definition for it in wikipedia.

Simulation Data Management: The Foundation

If you’re going to talk about Simulation Lifecycle Management, you have to start by talking about Simulation Data Management (SDM). What is it? Essentially, it fulfills a role similar to that of Product Data Management (PDM). More specifically, it is similar in how some PDM workgroup data managers track and control the versions and iterations of MCAD models, drawings and other deliverables. SDM manages and controls the artifacts that are used to execute simulations as well as the results of those simulations. There are terrible complexities that need to be managed there as there are interconnections between simulation artifacts and MCAD design models as I have published in a post titled The Pitfalls of Multi-Disciplinary Simulations: Divergent Model Abstractions. Furthermore, there is also complexity in terms of managing the ‘who does what’ scenarios amongst a team of simulation analysts or engineers and designers executing a simulation driven design initiative per a post I published titled Is Teamwork the Key to Simulation Driven Design? This stuff is no joke. In many ways, managing the simulation model, all of the simulation cases and the results in addition to their connections to abstracted as well as original MCAD models is far more difficult than simply managing MCAD models through their progression towards design release.

So is this a part of SLM? In my eyes, no. I apply the same logic that applies to PLM and PDM, which I see as two separate types of systems per a post I published titled PLM: The Debate over the Troubled TLA. SDM can and does need to stand on its own so it can be assessed for value independently.

Simulation Lifecycle Management: Technology Automation, Not Process Automation

Many people take the position that SLM is a parallel to PLM except applied to simulation. But I fail to agree with that logic. And here’s why.

PLM (whether you define that as process enabling technology or process and data management technology) is mainly used to automate business processes. That includes things like a change management process that could be executed with paper forms, email or a PLM’s workflow engine. That includes things like a portfolio management process, which again, could be executed using a number of technologies. The same is true of requirements collection, breakdown and allocation. The same is true of design release, manufacturing planning, service planning and so on. Each is a business process that needs to occur regardless of what technology (or lack thereof) enables it to be done more quickly or efficiently.

SLM, on the other hand, is mainly used to automate procedural activities for simulation software. There are powerful capabilities to tell new users exactly how to perform a complicated analysis step-by-step on their own. There are great tools to automate mundane and laborious tasks for expert simulation analysts that are required for complicated multi-disciplinary simulations. I believe there is a lot of value to the individual as well as the organization in these tools and capabilities. However, the process-like capabilities focus on how to use the simulation software, not business processes. The analogy, if any truly fits, to the world of CAD would be step-wise guidance on how to put together multi-CAD assemblies  or engineering automation systems that generate complex models based on a few inputs instead of PLM’s automation of a new part introduction process.

A Better Suited Name?

From my perspective, Simulation Lifecycle Management is a poor and misleading description of what the system actually does. I think this may unfortunately have contributed to the lackluster adoption of SLM over the years. Trust me, I strongly believe there is a lot of value in this type of solution above and beyond Simulation Data Management. But if I were to pick a better description of this solution today, it would be something like Simulation Procedural Automation (SPA) or the like. But let’s admit it, that ship has sailed. I think as long as we understand the scope and application of this type of solution, we’ll be fine.

Conclusions and Questions

Let me go back and quickly summarize my points here.

  • Simulation Data Management (SDM) is a system separate from SLM that controls and manages simulation artifacts. It’s parallel in the MCAD world is CAD PDM. However, managing simulation artifacts is an order of magnitude more complex than managing CAD models and deliverables.
  • Simulation Lifecycle Management (SLM) is a system that assists in the procedural of simulation software, whether that is in the form of guidance or automation. It’s equivalent is not PLM, which automates business processes, but more like engineering automation solutions that generate complex CAD models with a few inputs.

Well, I’ve shared my thoughts. What are yours? Did I miss any major categories of capabilities for SLM? Do you feel that SLM truly is equivalent to PLM? I have no issue with professional disagreements. In fact, I like those types of conversations because it only lends clarity to complicated topics like this one. So please, don’t hesitate to let me know you don’t agree. I look forward to the conversation.

Take care. Talk soon. And thanks for reading.