See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289522250

A Review of PLM Impact on US and EU Aerospace Industry

Conference Paper  in  Procedia Engineering · July 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.595

CITATIONS READS

31 5,284

6 authors, including:

Fernando Mas Rebeca Arista

M&M Group Airbus
67 PUBLICATIONS   774 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Manuel Oliva José Ríos

Airbus Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
23 PUBLICATIONS   355 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   1,532 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ARIADNE Project: Value chain: From IDMU to Lean documentation for assembly View project

microinjection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rebeca Arista on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060

The Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference, MESIC 2015

A review of PLM impact on US and EU Aerospace Industry

F. Masa,* , R. Aristaa, M. Olivaa, B. Hiebertb, I. Gilkersonb, J. Riosc
a
Airbus Group. Carretera A8010, km.4, 41020 Sevilla, Spain
b
The Boeing Company. M/S 723-02. PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207
c
Dept. of Mechanical Eng., Univ. Politécnica de Madrid, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain

Abstract

This paper shows a general review, from the authors’ point of view, on how Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) impacted in
Europe and United States Aerospace Industry development. The review focuses on the most relevant companies that have shaped
the aerospace Industry at both sides of the Atlantic. The review is performed following a set of representative key topics, not
intending to be exhaustive. PLM is a business solution that aims to streamline the flow of information about the product and
related processes throughout the product’s lifecycle. PLM facilitates the availability of the right information in the right context
at the right time can be made available. The initial concept of PLM appeared at the end of the 90’s, in a context where
Automatically Programmed Tool (APT) and Computer Aided Design (CAD) software solutions were already in use since the
60’s and 80’s decades respectively. PLM started to integrate information generated with such CAX (Computer Aided
Technologies) solutions. Critical requirements in the aerospace industry, market changes and arising technical solutions have
forced leader companies to adapt their way of working to secure their leadership. PLM evolution has taken a fundamental role in
these transformations.

©©2015
2016TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. Ltd.
by Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of MESIC 2015.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of MESIC 2015

Keywords: PLM trends and vision, state of the art, aerospace industry, methods and processes, information model technology.

1. Introduction

This paper is written using the PLM experience of the authors in the scientific and academic world and in two
major aerospace manufacturers in United States and Europe: Boeing and Airbus Group.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 619 215 699

E-mail address: fernando.mas@airbus.com

1877-7058 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of MESIC 2015
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.595
1054 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060

The objective is to describe a general review, from the authors’ point of view, on how Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM) affected the aerospace industry in Europe and United States.
Boeing and Airbus Group design and manufacture commercial airplanes for a global market since the mid of the
20th century [1], [2]. The design and the industrialization of aircrafts is a complex process. A modern aircraft is
composed of about 700.000 parts (excluding standard parts like rivets, bolts, etc.). Parts are joined into assemblies,
aerostructures and major components, which are designed and manufactured in countries all over the world [3].
The complexity of an aircraft as a product is not only at functional design level. The complexity is also related to
the industrial design of the aircraft and the generation of the manufacturing documentation. The lifecycle of a typical
aircraft could be more than 50 years. The number of versions, variants, customer customizations, modifications due
to flight security, improvements, etc. and the need to develop and implement them is another important source of
complexity.
From the starting point of this review, the 60’s, until today, the aerospace industry has increased the product
functionalities and therefore the complexity has also increased. The complexity not only in terms of product, but also
in terms of processes and resources involved in the manufacturing and assembly and in terms of further commercial
exploitation, maintenance and retired at end-of-life [4].
Figure 1 shows that aerospace industry is characterized by heavy up-front investments and an exceptionally long
programme lifecycle. The first part of this long programme lifecycle, between the launch of the programme and the
entry of service or first delivery to the airline, is considered in this paper as the development cycle timeframe. The
average for this development timeframe is typically around 7.5 years for a commercial aircraft [5].

Fig. 1. Indicative example of a major civil aerospace lifecycle [5].

For the purposes of this paper, eight representative commercial aircrafts launched by Boeing and Airbus Group in
the last 50 years have been analysed. The Figure 2 shows those aircrafts and the development cycle timeframe,
considered from the aircraft official launch to the first delivery to the airline [1], [2]. Despite the size of each aircraft
is different, a general view shows that the average of the development cycle timeframe is around 6.5 years. This
value is in line with the average of 7.5 years for a typical commercial aircraft presented in the literature [5].
A second conclusion is the fact that the development lifecycle timeframe has also increased along time but in a
slight way. A primary reason is complexity: aircrafts complexity has grown more and more over the years. However,
the increase in complexity is larger than the growth of the development timeframe. One of the reasons is the
introduction of PLM methods, process and tools that let the engineers to shorten development timeframes [3], [6].
 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060 1055

Fig. 2. Boeing and Airbus Group representative models and development cycle timeframe

The dream of a single monolithic PLM system that can handle all the aircraft related information along the
whole aircraft lifecycle seems to be a wish that will remain as such for a very long time. Despite the claims
that some PLM vendors make about fully integrated, end to end PLM, the real situation on the aerospace
industry is far from such integration [7].
PLM is a business solution, which aims to streamline the flow of information about the product and related
processes throughout the product’s lifecycle. PLM is able of managing large amounts of data generated during
the product lifecycle in such a way to support efficiency, flexibility and efficacy in the business processes [8].
Based on the previous definition, the product and its lifecycle are the key for the full integration. The
aerospace product’s lifecycle has some key characteristics: complexity, long lifecycle and high volumes of
data, which determine the different PLM developments and challenges along the time.

2. Aerospace PLM key topics and characteristics

With the aim of simplifying the review about PLM impact on US and EU Aerospace Industry, the authors have
selected a set of PLM key topics. Table 1 shows the listing their main characteristics. In this table, the characteristics
are defined for four different PLM generations that cover the time period from 60’s until present time. The last
generation column, Generation 3, describes from the authors’ opinion the trends and needs in each characteristic for
a near future PLM generation.
Methods and processes is the first set of key topics identified by the authors, which takes into account
characteristics described at the table that could be skills from the users of each generation, engineering definition
method and product configuration according to each generation methodology. This topic also considers
manufacturing processes and the mock up usage as part of the process evolution.
The second set of key topics identified is infrastructure and PLM tools, which considers the software tools and
the hardware infrastructure that supported each generation.
1056 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060

Table 1. Aerospace PLM key topics

Personnel/Skills
Engineering definition
Product configuration
Mock Up
Manufacturing
PLM Tools
Infrastructure
Information Model
Data model format
Data exchange format
Long Term archiving (LOTA)
Generation 0 Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3
1960 1990 2005 Future
Concurrent Engineering
Loftsmen Engineers Collaborative Engineering
teams
Product Data Master Product Integral Digital Mock-up
Forms based data entry
Management (PDM) Definition (MPD) (IDMU)
Configuration by specimen
Explicit configuration Multi-configuration Mono-configuration
(Tail Number, MSN)
Physical mockups Basic simulations Advanced simulations Full virtual manufacturing
Extended Enterprise
Manual work, templates Automation, NC, CIM Digital Factory
(EE)
Customized commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), in- Software as a Service
In-house applications
house applications (SaaS)
Personal Computers Indifferent: PC, Tablet,
Mainframe systems Workstations (UNIX)
(Windows) Phone, virtualization.
Basic surfaces and 2D 3D wireframes, surfaces Solids, Model Based Knowledge Based
drawings and 2D drawings Definition (MBD) Engineering (KBE)
Native:
International standards
proprietary format
Native: proprietary
Limited data exchange IGES, SET and DXF International standards
formats
None exists, paper
STEP (ISO 10303) International standards
based

Information model technology would be the third and last set of key topics, which takes into account information
models between generations, data model and exchange formats, and long term archiving strategy.
These three sets of key topics, based on Table 1 contents, are close related and will be discussed briefly in the
following sections, not intending to be exhaustive.

2.1. Methods and processes

Early engineering drawings were often works of art, using a pencil, drawing-pen and ink. Loftmen have the
essential skills in handling shapes and drawings [9]. The major problem was the need to produce accurate drawings
at 1:1 scale for large components of an airplane, since it was not possible to convert smaller drawings into the
templates needed to produce these parts. CALCOMP and GERBER were born around 1960 to produce machines to
plot large drawings.
By 1960, NC machine tools were becoming more commonplace, over all in the aerospace industry, and a way
was needed to economically generate the digital information to drive such machines. Automatically Programmed
Tool (APT) plays an important role with applications like APT360 running on IBM 1401 computers [10]. Large
manufacturing companies, especially those in the automotive and defence and aerospace industries [12], were
slowly recognizing, following Ivan Sutherland’s Sketchpad [11], the need for computer-based graphic systems to
improve the productivity of engineers and drafters.
The earliest CAD systems started in 1969, and they simply handled two-dimensional data, emulating traditional
drafting practices. Methods evolved to surface modelling, which was driven by the automotive and aircraft
industries since manually defining and manufacturing sheet metal parts for these vehicles from which templates was
made, was becoming increasingly time-consuming and costly. Significant work on surface definition techniques was
also being done at a number of aerospace and automotive companies both in Europe and in United States [12].
Generation 1 of the PLM technologies meant the introduction of the initially named Engineering Data
Management, later known as Product Data Management utilities dealing with the tracking, change and control of the
 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060 1057

different files containing product design related information [13]. At that time, CAD/CAM vendors were the main
companies addressing the development of this technology, i.e.: EDMVault from Computervision, CIM CDF from
IBM, Pro/PDM from PTC, Metaphase from SDRC, Optegra from Computervision [12]. A product design structure
could be defined in the PDM system together with a structure of the different types of files that could be link to the
product design structure nodes. The system managed files metadata, but integration of the information contained in
each file was not possible. Product design files could be in the native format of the office suites and
CAD/CAM/CAE applications used to create product related information. 2D and 3D CAD design information could
also be in formats such as IGES, SET and VDA-FS. The 90’s was also the beginning of the ISO 10303 STEP
application protocols (AP203) implementation in the form of geometry translators, competing with the widely
accepted IGES format. An example of implementation of PDM systems is the adoption of Metaphase PDM
software by Boeing in 1994 for its Design and Control Aircraft Configuration/Manufacturing Resource Management
(DCAC/MRM) system. Another example is the adoption of Computervision Optegra PDM solution by Airbus
Group for its Airbus A340 program in the early 90’s. The definition and support of workflows and engineering
processes, the improvement in the PDM database shared access, the integration of geometric data formats for
visualization (JT, CGR, etc.), and the initial web-based collaborative tools were the starting point of the evolution
from the initial PDM systems to the current Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems [8].
Generation 2 shows an optimized functional design area with a clear deliverable: the product DMU (Digital
Mock Up). Boeing and Airbus Group start using Concurrent Engineering (CE) around 1990 [6]. The concurrent
process closes the gap between functional design and industrial design, and is intended to promote ‘Design for
Manufacturing’, ‘Design for Assembly’ and in general ‘Design for X’. The functional design deliverable, DMU,
being a profitable item in the first stages of the lifecycle, becomes of decreasing use with time and meanwhile most
of the industrial design tasks were still paper based [14].
Concurrent Design procedures are based in a well-defined DMU lifecycle made of exhaustively defined maturity
states. DMU maturity states are controls for the industrial design tasks. The different industrial design tasks cannot
be started until the DMU reaches the corresponding maturity state. There are also procedures controlling the
evolution from a maturity state to the next one based on approval of all the stakeholders. This way, industrial design
can only progress on tracks of functional design, and processes and resources lifecycles are less exhaustively
defined [14].

2.2. Infrastructure and PLM tools

Hardware and software platforms have migrated from people and paper based systems to highly integrated
computing systems. Starting in the 60’s just a few aerospace companies could afford the cost of a scientific
computer, mainly dedicated to calculate engineering problems (CAE) and to generate tool paths for NC machines
[12]. In particular, PLM hardware starts using large mainframes or host computers, sometimes modified by software
vendors for graphics purposes. As a general trend in the industry, central computer power was transferred step by
step to the user’s desk via workstations, mainly UNIX based. The process continues in Generation 2 with the
migration from UNIX based workstations to Windows based Personal Computer (PC).
PLM software starts as internal company developments in close relationship with the pioneers in the scientific
academia. This early in-house applications became in large external software companies that provided PLM
software in the market. Best examples are Boeing-McDonnell Douglas McAuto sold to EDS and Lockheed
CADAM sold to Dassault Aviation as the seed of Dassault Systems CATIA [15], [16]. In the next generations 1 and
2, customized commercial PLM applications cover the needs complemented with in-house applications.
Many of the legacy processes continue to live within the Generation 1 and 2 platforms. Aerospace companies
continue to use them due to the long lifecycle of the aircrafts. Consequently, legacy hardware and software is still in
use and maintained with the associated cost.
1058 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060

2.3. Information model technology

Since the beginning of the first PLM applications vendors applied their own data model format. It was generally a
protected technology, responsible for the store of the different graphic and non-graphic entities and optimized to
restore the information as faster as possible. Data model format was not a real problem to interchange information in
generation 0 due to the limited data exchange needs. In generation 2 the number of PLM systems in the market
using different data models starts a generation of translator to transfer information from one system to other. Initial
Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES), Standard d'Echange et de Transfer (SET) and Data eXchange Format
(DXF) were widely used [17].
Boeing was particularly active in the late 70’s and early 80’s working on surface geometry techniques based on
this academic research. Boeing was also one of the early proponents of IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange
Specification) based on CAD system interoperability efforts it had underway at the time
The further reduction on PLM vendors in the market during generation 2 and the need to guarantee the data
integrity reduce the use of the translator and Boeing and Airbus Group only provides and receive PLM native
proprietary formats.
During generation 1 the international standard ISO 10303, also known as Standard for the Exchange of Product
Model Data (STEP) was launch as a long term archiving solution (LOTA). Aerospace industry shall archive product
information during long time due to legal and certification constraints. STEP and its physical file has been aerospace
standard for LOTA until nowadays [18].
The Boeing and Airbus Group experience using Model Based Definition (MBD) proves that modern commercial
airplanes can be designed and fabricated with MBD and without drawings. However, the cost of maintaining
thousands of internal plans and the integration into a worldwide supplier network with different production systems
has exposed the weakness in today’s CAD and PLM system capabilities. It is not just the ability to manage CAD
and PDM data, it is the ability to manage all data necessary to run the business in a cost efficient way. These gaps in
the PLM capability are starting to be addressed by the PLM providers offering new versions of their systems that
require data migration and conversion at a significant expense. Massive data conversions and disruptive process
changes to adapt to changes in system functionality can no longer be tolerated with fast production rates and an
integrated supply chain.

3. Results and Conclusions: impact of PLM on Product lifecycle in EU and US

The main conclusion that arises from this review is that without PLM, the development of today’s in-flight
aircrafts would not have been possible. PLM has allowed coping with the complexity and the demands of the
aircrafts development with very improved performances. In addition, productivity increase of the development
process provided by PLM has allowed carrying on the development process within feasible times and costs.
A second conclusion is that this history of success has been fulfilled through a continuous evolution of PLM tools
and usage, as summarized in the previous sections. To continue providing all their potential of improvement, PLM
must continue evolving towards what we have called Generation 3 in this article.
At present, PLM is the main enabler of Concurrent Engineering. However, it is necessary to evolve from
Concurrent Engineering to Collaborative Engineering [19]. This requires that PLM systems provide a common
working environment for all stakeholders along the aircraft lifecycle. PLM systems need also to facilitate the flows
of information between all the processes throughout the service life of the airplane [20].
These flows of information along the aircraft lifecycle, at present are managed by means of Master Product
Definition (MPD) systems. PLM will evolve towards what we call IDMU (Integral Digital Mock-Up). That is, a
platform based on a digital mock-up containing all the functional, industrial and services related definition of the
aircraft, and where all the information of the rest of processes along the aircraft lifecycle will be integrated.
A very important issue is the aircraft configuration control. In PLM Generation 3 the configuration control will
be by specimen, i.e. Tail Number or Manufacturer Serial Number. It is necessary that the IDMU contain the
individual virtual definition of each real airplane. Such virtual aircraft counterpart, or avatar, will contain all the
specific information generated throughout the whole service life of each real airplane.
 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060 1059

Regarding the aircraft industrialization, it is necessary to evolve towards the complete validation of all the
manufacturing processes, allowing simulating the complete manufacturing of the aircraft, that is, full virtual
manufacturing capability. For this, PLM Generation 3 will provide also the capacities to build the modelling of the
complete manufacturing plants, or Digital Factories.
At present, PLM is only accessible by means of computers with specific configurations; the PLM Generation 3
must be accessible from any existing device with Internet connection capabilities.
The information model of PLM Generation 3 must implement complete KBE and decision-making capacities
allowing reusing the knowledge generated in previous developments and the operation of previous aircrafts.
At present, PLM have important limitations for information exchange and LOTA. PLM Generation 3 would
eliminate these limitations by replacing native data modelling formats with international standards, solving
information exchange and LOTA.

Cost of ownership
Functionality
Usability

Generation 0 Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3

Fig. 3. Cost of ownership, functionality and usability across PLM generations

When looking at the future availability of the PLM technology, the PLM generation 3 needs to consider a change
in the current commercialization model. The Software as a Service (SaaS) model, currently used in other industry
software solutions such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, will have a significant impact in the PLM
software industry. In addition to the invoicing change, where purchase could be based on the on-demand
subscription of functionalities and could be billed depending of usage time and number of users, the SaaS model
provides a way to avoid the installation, configuration and maintenance of a complex hardware and software system.
Small and medium size companies may find the contracting of a SaaS PLM solution, as an easier, lower cost of
ownership, and better way to make use of the PLM technology. The access to the PLM system by means of a
computer or device with access to internet and a web browser will facilitate the adoption of the SaaS model.
Currently, the PLM cloud-based solutions can be seen as a starting point in the adoption of the SaaS model [21-24].
Figure 3 reflects the cost of ownership, functionality and usability across all PLM generations reviewed on this
paper. At Generation 0, PLM functionality was balanced with its usability and cost due to its early scope. As
product complexity increased during generations, PLM functionality was force to go on an upright direction to
satisfy aerospace industry needs, which is also reflected on the fact that Boeing and Airbus Group products
development lifecycle timeframe was maintained during all generations. PLM functionality increase has
compromised usability of the system itself in terms of complexity brought to the PLM backbone, and in some time,
providing even more functionalities than the one needed or used. The cost of ownership increased in even bigger
proportion than functionality increase.
PLM Generation 3 at Figure 3 shows the conclusions stated before, where all stakeholders must benefit as part of
the PLM strategy, looking to reduce overall complexity and bringing an integrated solution. PLM providers use new
technologies, as an opportunity to include new functionalities, but usability has to be address as a priority in their
strategy, reaching at the end a compromise between functionality, usability and cost.
1060 F. Mas et al. / Procedia Engineering 132 (2015) 1053 – 1060

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to colleagues from Boeing, Airbus Group and Polytechnic
University of Madrid for their collaboration and contributions.

References

[1] http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/chronology/chron09.page [Accessed February 2015]

[2] http://www.airbus.com/company/history/the-narrative/trouble-and-strife-1968-1969 [Accessed March 2015].
[3] F. Mas, J.L. Menendez, M. Oliva, J. Servan, R. Arista, C. del Valle, Design within Complex Environments: Collaborative Engineering in the
aerospace industry, Information System Development 2014. M.J. Escalona, G. Aragon, H. Linger, M. Lang, C. Barry and C. Schneider (Eds.):
ISD2013, pp 197-205.
[4] G. J. Harrison, Challenge to the Boeing-Airbus Duopoly in Civil Aircraft: Issues for Competitiveness, Congressional Research Service,
R41925, Library of Congress, 2011.
[5] European Commission, "Aeronautics and Air Transport: Beyond Vision 2020 (Towards 2050)," Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg, 2010.
[6] T. Pardessus, "Concurrent engineering development and practices for aircraft design at Airbus," in Proceedings of the 24th ICAS meeting,
Yokohama, 2004.
[7]V. Ogewell, PLM Systems Cleared for Take Off at Airbus. Available online at:
http://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/6411/PLM-Systems-Cleared-for-Take-Off-at-Airbus.aspx.
[Accessed January 2015].
[8] S. Terzi, S., et al. Product lifecycle management–from its history to its new role, Intl. J. of Product Lifecycle Mngmt., 4 (2010), pp. 360-389.
[9] M. A. Sabin, An existing system in the aircraft industry. The British Aircraft Corporation numerical master geometry system. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (1971), pp. 197-205.
[10] D. T. Ross, Origins of the APT Language for Automatically Programmed Tools. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 13 (1978), pp. 61-99.
[11] I. E. Sutherland, Sketchpad. A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. DAC’64 Proceedings of the SHARE design automation
workshop, pp. 6.329-6.346.
[12] D. E. Weisberg, The engineering design revolution - the people, companies and computer systems that changed forever the practice of
engineering, 2008. Available online at: http://www.cadhistory.net/. [Accessed November 2014].
[13] F. Ameri and D. Dutta, Product Lifecycle Management: Closing the Knowledge Loops, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 2:5
(2005), pp. 577-590.
[14] F. Mas, J.L. Menendez, M. Oliva, A. Gomez, J. Rios, Collaborative Engineering paradigm applied to the aerospace industrialization. Product
Lifecycle Management for Society. IFIP Intl. Federation for Information Processing 2013.A. Bernard, L. Rivest, and D. Dutta (Eds.): PLM
2013, IFIP AICT 409, pp. 675--684.
[15] http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/narrative/n082mdc.page [Accessed March 2015].
[16] F. Bernard, A short history of CATIA & Dassault Systemes. 2003. http://ridwan.staff.gunadarma.ac.id/Downloads/files/8426/history-
catia.pdf. [Accessed March 2015].
[17] B. L. Goldstein, S. J. Kemmerer, C. H. Parks, A brief history of early product data exchange standards-NISTIR 6221. 1998.
[18] J. Owen, STEP: an introduction. Information geometers, 1997.
[19] S.C-Y. Lu, W. Elmaraghy, G. Schuh, R. Wilhelm. A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, 56 (2007), pp. 605-634.
[20] F. Mas, J.L. Menéndez, M. Oliva, J. Ríos, A. Gómez, V. Olmos, iDMU as the Collaborative Engineering engine: research experiences in
Airbus, In Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE), 2014 International ICE Conference on. IEEE, 2014. pp. 1-7.
[21] http://www.arenasolutions.com/resources/articles/cloud-plm/ [Accessed March 2015].
[22] http://www.autodesk.com/products/plm-360/overview [Accessed March 2015].
[23] http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-goes-cloud-with-version-6/ [Accessed March 2015]
[24] D. Wu, et al., Cloud-based design and manufacturing: a new paradigm in digital manufacturing and design innovation, Computer-Aided
Design, 59 (2015), pp. 1-14.

View publication stats