Dassault Systemes/ ENOVIA/ MatrixOne/ Synchronicity PLM for EDA

One of my explanations is that a car or plane contains thousands of components that are independently designed, manufactured and often purchased from third parties. In the case of a chip there are millions of transistors but they do not come from independent suppliers.
The complexity is at the design stage as opposed to the assembly stage.

You are beginning to see a little of that with IP. There are not thousands of different IPs on a given chip. But there is an increasing need to manage the data associated with this third party IP particularly, if the IP is to be possibly reused in a later design. The IP itself has a lifecycle with different versions.
That is kind of hard to do if you realize that each of these blocks is in itself maybe millions of files. How do I bring that block together with my block which is also going through evolution? Maybe I have a half a dozen different design teams in different parts of the world, some of them partners, some of them internal. But each of these has its own lifecycle going on that needs somehow to be managed, not as millions of files times a hundred blocks. I have to make each of these blocks a coherent SD and it has to have a lifecycle. I need to be able to tag and manage and do all the things I used to do at the file level. I need to be able to do at the module level. This is exactly what our latest DesignSync release is providing, the ability to have a module-wide lifecycle for all this data and be able to treat it as a coherent entity rather than as millions and millions of individual files.

Does a customer purchase a central server and a bunch of seat licenses?
Most of our customers buy licenses at least for DesignSync on a project basis. They tend to use the TBL model which is very popular. We have many customers who roll that up to an enterprise agreement but it tends to be installed and used on a project by project basis. I would say that the server is centralized from the project point of view because you want a single source of the truth. The software configuration management tools take a different perspective of their space, replication of the vault and forcible merging and things like that if you look at a ClearCase model. This is not appropriate for the EDA world. That being said, we find that all the semiconductor companies do not want a single server across their whole company. They want to put the server near each project so that the mass of data being produced is localized and then design teams might have another server and combine things on a module by module basis. That is how the module aspects of 5.0 bring the value together. We also provide a lot of capabilities that allow you to have that central server and have that data cashed locally. Both caching and mirroring technologies are important. Cache being pretty much what you would expect, just a local cache of individual file versions that are close to the people doing the work. A mirror is more sophisticated. It is a specific configuration, a sort of a specialty cache instead of a pile of versions. This is the gold set of data or the bronze set of data or the set of data that is ready for test or whatever configuration is important. All these things are very important, to be able to share data, to be close and to have quick access for the people doing the work. You have to check into a centralized server so that you are not going to have the designs diverge.

The website mentions semiconductor accelerators. Are these optional add-ons to a core system?
Semiconductor accelerators are the PLM side of the product. They are integrated with DesignSync but these are the enterprise applications. The Semiconductor Accelerator for Enterprise Product Management (epm) is an accelerator that is based upon MatrixOne Program Central product; project management, work breakdown structures, task management. It uses DesignSync data to drive the schedule and automatically update the schedule. The DFM accelerator is one in which the DesignSync data and final product is fit into a larger bill of material as you move forward in how you are going to manage the backend, the manufacturing end of the chip including the GDSII file that is now a piece of the larger BOM. It includes the die, the bonding, the wire and all the steps in the processes at that level. The two new ones Semiconductor Accelerator for Team Collaboration, reuse management and collaboration, uses the team central business metrics products from MatrixOne and it connects to DesignSync data. In this case it is the next generation of our former Synchronicity ProjectSynch product. This is a step towards moving into the larger scalable Java based world. The next generation of the Synchronicity product IP Gear; IP cataloging and IP reuse built on top of library central. Some of these are areas of synergy and some of these are areas of evolution. The product and the various interfaces to EDA vendors’ data are also described on the website.

Those are sold on a per seat basis. We do not sell the server. There is a server on the MatrixOne side which has a little bit different pricing.

Do you sell through a direct sales force, distributors or both depending upon geography?
Primarily direct. But there are some other channels as well. At this point DesignSync is all direct. The PLM products have other channels out there.

Who is the target end user; the designer, manager, librarian, all of the above?
All of the above, especially when you are talking about the PLM product. You are bringing in other parts of the enterprise. Certainly the DesignSync core functionality is still directed at designers, the QE, the people that are touching the EDA data. The other collaboration and accelerator users include the whole enterprise. DesignSync users are a piece of the picture. The whole set of products is directed across the entire company.

In the hard to define typical environment are there a dozen seats, tens of seats, hundred of seats?
It is more like hundreds of seats. We clearly have customers at the smaller end of things. The typical target at a minimum is whatever the number of engineers is. If you are a small company with 10 to 20 engineers, they would be the core users. The rest of the PLM value branches out from that. The big companies with thousands of engineers have that as the core. The PLM value is the entire enterprise. The EDA focus is from engineers out.

Is there a future direction you wish to share?
There are two pieces the digital space and higher levels of system abstraction. System languages are certainly a big part of our direction. The module approach to design is even more key for those kinds of design than for analog and mixed signal design. That is definitely driving our direction as we evolve. A big component of that is that our customers are asking us to manage their software, certainly the pieces that are related and adjacent to the design. I do not mean desktop software. I mean embedded software along with the chip. It is a big advantage to be able to manage the hardware and related software in a single environment. What we have is extremely strong for the hardware. Frankly some parts of the software are easier and have different challenges but managing them together is becoming a big strength for us.

What is the average seat price for the product?
It depends upon the configuration.

Who is running MatrixOne these days?
Dassault Systemes organizes itself according to brands. The one that includes MatrixOne is Enovia. That is managed by Joel Lemke. The piece that is MatrixOne specific is managed by Mike Segal. At the time of the acquisition Mark O’Connell was CEO of MatrixOne.

On the CAD side Dassault has CATIA and SolidWorks (an acquisition) product lines. Dassault has allowed SolidWorks to remain largely independent. You do not see a merging of the product lines under a single brand. On the PDM side you now have three products with different origins under a single brand.
I think that is a good thing for us as we go forward, being able to bring together all the different values form these three solutions and devise them in a coherent way. That might be a better question for Mike or Joel.

« Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  Next Page »


Review Article Be the first to review this article


Featured Video
Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst for SHRA at Sacramento, California
Geographical Information System (GIS) Analyst for State of South Dakota at Pierre, South Dakota
Water Quality Analyst for City of Arvada at Arvada, Colorado
GIS Analyst for Dekalb County at Decatur, Georgia
MECHANICAL ENGINEER for VEi Global, Inc. at Fargo, North Dakota
VP of Marketing for Cosential at Austin, Texas
Upcoming Events
International LiDAR Mapping Forum 2019 at Hyatt Regency Denver Colorado Convention Center, 650 15th Street Denver CO - Jan 28 - 30, 2019
Defence Geospatial Intelligence (DGI) 2019 at Royal Lancaster London London United Kingdom - Jan 28 - 30, 2019
DistribuTECH 2019 at Ernest N. Morial Convention Center New Orleans LA - Feb 5 - 7, 2019
ArcGIS: Introduction at Environmental and Natural Resource Building New Brunswick NJ - Feb 7 - 28, 2019
University of Denver GIS Masters Degree Online

Internet Business Systems © 2019 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
25 North 14th Steet, Suite 710, San Jose, CA 95112
+1 (408) 882-6554 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
AECCafe - Architectural Design and Engineering EDACafe - Electronic Design Automation TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes  MCADCafe - Mechanical Design and Engineering ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy PolicyAdvertise