1. Product Level
Information
(PLI)
The PLM Journey
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

2. 2
Abstract
This presentation outlines the implementation of Product Level Information
(PLI) utilizing Aras Innovator at Carestream Health, Inc.
Topics include:
• Snapshot of Carestream Health
• Why implement now? Current state drivers…
• Timelines
• Deployment Strategy
• Challenges
• New Development Plan
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

3. 3
ACE Attendees from Carestream Health, Inc.
Chris Kapell
Hardware Commercialization Process Platform Manager
R&D Effectiveness
David Sherburne
Director
R&D Effectiveness, Engineering IT
Eli Tuber
Process Re-Engineering
R&D Effectiveness
Rich Graham
Platform Architecture
R&D Effectiveness
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

4. 4
Carestream Health – Who We Are
An independent company with a proven
track record and $2.5 billion in revenue
A world leader in:
• Medical imaging … digital and film
• Healthcare information solutions
• Dental imaging and dental practice
management software
• Molecular imaging
• Non-destructive testing
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

5. 5
Who We Are
Approximately 7,300 employees
serve customers in more than
150 countries worldwide
We hold more than 1,000 patent
for technology and
intellectual property
Our products are at work in
90 percent of hospitals worldwide
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

6. 6
Technology &
Innovation Centers
Where We Are Rochester, New York
Genoa, Italy
Shanghai, China
An independent, global company with 17 manufacturing and R&D and
R&D locations, including three Technology & Innovation Manufacturing Sites
Centers… Paris, France
Rochester, New York
Ronkonkoma, New York
Shanghai, China
Yokneam, Israel
R&D Sites
Atlanta, Georgia
Baltimore, Maryland
London, England
Oakdale, Minnesota
Ra’anana, Israel
Woodbridge, Connecticut
Manufacturing Sites
Berlin, Germany
Guadalajara, Mexico
White City, Oregon
Windsor, Colorado
Xiamen, China
Public …supporting sales and service teams in 150 countries
© 2012, Carestream Health

7. 7
Business Challenges
Globalization was required to meet the business needs of our
company
• Desired access to global talent
• Needed a balanced cost structure
• Presence in emerging markets
Impact of Globalization
• Collaboration became more time consuming via email; uncontrolled
data sharing with partners
• Complexity in the organization increased as projects globalized
• Knowledge-workers’ time was drained, impacting innovation
• Productivity of NPD remained roughly flat
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

8. 8
Demands on Staff are Ever Increasing
• Quality and Compliance must be maintained in our business
• Project teams are split across several locations
• Platform development adds complexity
• Iterative methods require faster information transfer
• Faster prototyping cycles are needed for hardware
• Design for manufacturability and supplier IP capture are critical as ties
to the supplier base weaken
• Access to historical data is needed to improve planning, compare
reliability, and drive improvements to the development cycles
• Engineers are required to do deeper analysis to ensure product quality
• Requests for metrics are ever increasing and are difficult to produce
• Disjointed IT and non-standard process environment kills collaboration
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

9. 9
Non-Standard Commercialization Process
Innovative people innovate Site C “AIR GAPS”
many local processes. between blocks
Site B
represent
Site A inefficient
Project Information – manual sharing
Processes and Tools
FDA - DHF
of information.
General flow of product information
Local
resources Product Design Information –
Processes and Tools
focus on FDA - DMR
product
families. Product Manufacturing Information –
Processes and Tools
FDA - DHR
Complexity
Product Service Information –
increased as
Processes and Tools
FDA - QS work required
flow between
Public
© 2012, 5/17/2012 Health
Carestream
sites.

10. 10
Point Solutions worked but lacked proper architecture to enable global productivity
Authoring PDM Enterprise
No Confluence
MCAD Tools Part MQDS
Teamcenter Integration
Data
Excel
NX No SAP
CAD Files PDF’s Integration MS
Pro/E Project
BOM
No Integration Lotus Notes DB Team
SolidWorks Intralinks Room
EQDS CAPA Sys 9K RoHS,
CAPA
CAPA
AutoCAD Electrical Part
DoC,
No SOP MSDS
Data, RoHS Integration (no
File Shares DA home)
ECAD Tools MMR
Mentor DX EE File External
CIDx
Lotus Domino Systems
Cadence
No Shares, No Integration
Integration library Standalone
OrCAD cache DocManager Systems
CAD Files PDFs CQuest
Altium
Version Control Tools
Problem was Information
No
Software Integration Defects caused by an “IT Flow
Clearcase ClearQuest
Authoring Cost Center”
PVCS Subversion Enhancement mentality and Manual
Desktop Tools Requests Integration
(Browser, StarTeam non- coordinated
MSOffice, etc) local efforts . Automated
Quality Center DOORS Requirements
Integration
Management Tools
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

11. 11
2010-13 New Product Development Foundation
PDM Enterprise Systems Knowledge Sharing, Social Nets,
Desktop
Office, HW and Webchannel
Project Webchannel/
PLM Aras Innovator Dashboards –
Social
Closed Loop Engineering Change Metrics
MCAD Tools Development
PDM Upgrade Management (HW/SW)
Supplier 1 Event Tracking and Defect Mgmt
KM
CAPA Management LN DBs
Supplier 2 Platform
Audit Management
Supplier Access/ DFM Input
Supplier 3 Supplier Quote
Authoring Systems
RQMTS
ECAD, MCAD PDM Integrations Manufacturing Transfer
New EBOM, MBOM Management
Modeling New
Costing Raw Material Master SAP
Platform
Commercial Parts Library
ECAD Tools RoHS Purchase
ECAD 1 Requirements Change Control Portals – Integrated As Built
Testing ISDE Integration for SW events ECoutlook Master Data
ECAD 2 Smart source-Ebid
Quality
Platform Established
ECAD 3 (HPQC) Standard
Emerging
Integrated SW Development Environment- SW Environment)
SW Authoring
Standard
ISDE 2012
SW Project Management, Build Tools and Services
MS Visual Studio Core Proposal
Dashboards Test Scripting
SW CM – (Rally) Some No
Build Configuration
XCODE, Other SVN Integration Standard
Management
Key IDEs
End of
Life

12. 12
2010-12 New Product Development Foundation
Enterprise Systems
PLM Aras Innovator
Closed-Loop Engineering Change
Management (HW/SW)
Event Tracking and Defect Mgmt
CAPA Management
Audit Management
Supplier Access/ DFM Input
Supplier Quote
ECAD, MCAD PDM Integrations
EBOM, MBOM Management
Costing
Commercial Parts Library
RoHS
Requirements Change Control
ISDE Integration for SW events

13. 13
2009 – Implement a Globally Standard
Closed-Loop Change-Management System
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

14. 14
2009 Technology Partner Selection Model
Give Yourself Time
Business Objectives Look for a strategic relationship
 Share in risk
Identify Missing Capabilities
 Offer flexible terms in line with
business ROI
Write Key Use Cases
 Remain a partner during
implementation
ROI of New Capabilities  Keep costs in line with benefits
Business Requirements
Strategies to Obtain
Capabilities
Aras Identified as a potential
partner
Final Selection of
Partners
Request for Information Request for Quote
April 2009 Time ~ 9 months 1½ FTEs Dec 2009
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

15. 15
Carestream Health Product-Level
Information Timeline
2009 2010
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
Request for Proposal (RFP) issued for applications
Requirements Development and implementation sent to five (5) suppliers and
two (2) implementers
RFP Issued Potential suppliers reduced to two (2)
Potential implementers reduced to three (3)
RFP Review
Aras added as a potential supplier and implementer
First Cut Decision
ROI Analysis Third Party Analysis
Supplier Capability Analysis
Aras selected as supplier
Second Cut Decision & Corporate funding secured
RFQ Issued Potential suppliers reduced to two (2)
Potential implementers reduced to three (3)
Request for Quote (RFQ) issued
RFQ Analysis
Vendor Selection
Project Start
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

16. 16
Carestream Health Product Level Information
Initial Development and Deployment Timeline
2010
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Framework Development
Change Management
Development
Platform Release Go/No Go
Event Tracking & SAP
Integration Development
Event Tracking & SAP
Integration Go/No Go
EHS CAPA and Supplier
Access Development
EHS CAPA and Supplier
Access Go/No Go
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

17. 17
ACE – Spring 2010
Feedback
• Are you nuts!!!
• That’s really aggressive!!
• Good Luck with that!!
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

18. 18
Project Realization – June 2010
• Requirements gathering and analysis is difficult
• Deployment planning across a global organization is complicated
− Some businesses asked us to avoid 4th quarter deployments of major
changes
• Underestimated training
• Decided to re-plan project
− Deploy base functionality in early Q4 2010
• Retire legacy commercial parts database
• Socialize the environment
• Understand deployment issues
−Deploy core functionality in Q2 & Q3 of 2011
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

19. 19
Resulting Timeline
2010 2011
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
Deploy Basic
Functionality
Process
Close the “Air Gaps”
Verification&
Re-development
Ready to Deploy
Began Deploying
Business by
Business
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

20. 20
Resulting Time Line
October 2010 – Released commercial parts requests & database
including the Mentor Design Library
• Implemented integration to Mentor DX Designer
October 2010 – Sept 2011
• Process Verification & Re-development
– Defect Management
– Engineering Change
– Audit Management System (added module into scope)
• Removed Corrective Action (CAPA) Module
– CAPA Development was complete but gains did not outweigh the effort of
getting people to switch off our Lotus Notes-based system
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

21. 21
What Is Deployed
October 2011
• USA & China
– Full closed-loop change process; Defect Management -> Engineering
Change
January 2012
• USA
– Audit Management System Pilot
February 2012
• USA & China
– Engineering Change
April 2012
• China
– Defect Management -> Engineering Change
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

22. 22
What’s Left
May – June 2012 (Three more business unit deployments)
• USA & China
– Full closed-loop change process; Defect Management -> Engineering
Change
• Total users: Currently 450, Projected 750 -1000 by YE 2012
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

23. 23
What Went Right
• Documenting the processes & closing the “Air Gap”
• Sacrificed schedule for quality and completeness
– Limited impact to Product Development
• First deployed basic functionality
– Commercial Parts, Mentor Library Integration
– Allowed us to socialize the environment
– Resolve accounts, deployment, and workstation issues
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

24. 24
What Went Right
• Initially deployed Closed-Loop Change Management to a fairly
self-contained group in Shanghai
– Allowed us to fix any major issues quickly and limited impact
• Concurrent Global deployment went smoothly
• Data migration out of:
– Mentor DMS (electrical symbols, cells, and commercial parts)
– ClearQuest (defects)
– Matrix One (engineering change)
• Training was developed internally and was focused on process
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

25. 25
What Went Right
All of the following were equal to or better than the average, as
identified by a PLM industry expert.
• Costs (implementation and on-going)
• Schedule
– We delayed our schedule but is was average for the industry
• Functionality
• Scale and Scope
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

26. 26
What Went Wrong
Attempted to utilize Agile development methodology from our
consulting partner
• Functionality vs. Schedule was too aggressive
– Developed functionality faster than we could absorb it
– Resource conflicts between reviewing and testing development
code and developing requirements for other capabilities
– SMEs did not have enough time to look at iterations
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

27. 27
What Went Wrong
• The project became a waterfall-type project, and the following
came to light
– Managing change across four development sites is time consuming
– Creating the details up front is too complex and was not effective
– Users not sure what they wanted
– Users cannot really tell you what they want until they touch and feel
something
• So we had to sacrifice schedule for quality and completeness
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

28. 28
What’s Changed
Created our own development team
• 4 FTEs in Shanghai; 0.5 FTE in USA
– Still challenges our ability to keep up with testing, utilizing
deployment, and supporting resources
• Switched the program management to an Agile and Iterative
development methodology
– Continuing to mature
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

29. 29
Waterfall vs. Agile & Iterative
Waterfall Agile and Iterative
• Release driven, with a defined critical path • Based on short delivery cycles
and sequence for delivery
• Estimates are done based on the amount
• Estimates are based on the work required of work the team can accomplish in a set
to meet the requirements period of time (“Time Boxing”)
• Requires clearly defined requirements – The date doesn’t slip; Features slip
upfront – Time box should not be a deadline
• Customer only sees the final
and should be easily met; if the pace
doesn’t work, do less
implementation
• Success is measured by the functionality
• Requirements are expected to evolve, and
change is embraced
delivered
• Customer sees evolving implementation
and can make suggestions/request
changes
• Success is measured by business value
delivered
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

30. 30
Current Development
Six to eight-week release made up of 4 - 2 week iterations (Sprints).
• Maintain a constant pace
• 1-2 weeks planning iteration
– If a user story is not defined thoroughly, it does not get put into the release
• 2 weeks development iteration
• 2 weeks development/QA iteration
• 1-2 weeks validation testing iteration
Up to now, most of our development has been fixes and point
enhancements
• So we release to production at the end of the release
• We still tend to put too much into the box
• It’s hard to strip functionality out if it is not ready, without negatively impacting
code quality
New functionality, such as the revamped Engineering Change
Implementation (ECI) and Supplier Integration, will have multiple time box
development iterations before being released into production.
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

31. 31
What’s Next
Short term
• Enhancement of the Engineering Change Implementation (ECI) with
integration with SAP
• Software Development Environment Integration
• Brush off CAPA and add additional features
• Supplier Integration
• Visualization
Long term
• Requirements Management
• Project Management and Design History File (DHF) incorporation
• Standard Operating Procedures
• Manufacturing Work Instructions
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health

32. 32
Carestream Health, Inc.
Questions?
Public
© 2012, Carestream Health