Recently i noticed two different discussions. One on LinkedIn in the CMPIC® Configuration Management Trends group, where Chris Jennings started with the following statement:
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) vs CM
An interesting debate has started up here about PLM vs CM. Not surprisingly it is revealing a variety of opinions on what each mean. So I’m wondering what sort of reaction I might get from this erudite community if I made a potentially provocative statement like …
“Actually, PLM and CM are one and the same thing” ?24 days ago
It became a very active discussion and it was interesting to see that some of the respondents saw PLM as the tool to implement CM. Later the discussion moved more towards system engineering, with a focus on requirements management. Of course requirements management is key for CM, you could say CM starts with the capturing of requirements.
There was some discussion about what is the real definition of PLM and this triggered my post. Is the definition of PLM secured in a book – and if so – in which book as historically we have learned that when the truth comes from one book there is discussion
But initially in the early days of the PLM, requirements management was not part of the focus for PLM vendors. Yes, requirements and specifications existed in their terminology but were not fully integrated. They focused more on the ‘middle part’ of the product lifecycle – digital mockup and virtual manufacturing planning. Only a few years later PLM vendors started to address requirements management (and systems engineering) as part of their portfolio – either by acquisitions of products or by adding it natively.
For me it demonstrates that PLM and CM are not the same. CM initially had a wider scope than early PLM systems supported, although in various definitions of PLM you will see that CM is a key component of the PLM practices.
Still PLM and CM have a lot in common, I wrote about is a year ago in my post: PLM, CM and ALM; not sexy ! and both fighting to get enough management support and investments. There is in the CMIP group another discussion open with the title: What crazy CM quotes have you heard ? You can easily use these quotes also for the current PLM opinion. Read them (if you have access and have fun)
But the same week another post caught my interest. Oleg’s post about Inforbix and Product Data Management. I am aware that also other vendors are working on concepts to provide end users with data without the effort of data management required. Alcove9 and Exalead are products with a similar scope and my excuses to all companies not mentioned here.
What you see it the trend to make PLM more simple by trying to avoid the CM practices that often are considered as “non-value add”, “bureaucracy” and more negative terms. I will be curious to learn how CM practices will be adhered by these “New Generation of PDM” vendors, as I believe you need CM to manage proactively your products.
What is your opinion about CM and PLM – can modern PLM change the way CM is done ?
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 18, 2011 at 3:21 am
beyondplm
Jos, interesting debate. I think, CM and PLM are partially overlapping. I’m talking from time to time about PLM definition on my blog. Here is the last take – consumer vs. corporate definition —>PLM definition: next round (http://beyondplm.com/2011/03/21/plm-definition-next-round/).
In my view, CM is a wider discipline. PLM is focusing on product development and manufacturing. However, vendors expanding PLM to other verticals and manufacturing products become very complicated these days.
At the same time, important to listen to customers first. They don’t care about definitions and looking for a tool to get a job done – PLM and COFES Israel: People just want to drink a beer! (http://beyondplm.com/2010/12/18/plm-and-cofes-israel-people-just-want-to-drink-a-beer/). Hope it helps! Best, Oleg
Thanks Oleg, I think the challenge remains to manage complexity and still be user-friendly. And this is not the same for every product or industry. The impact and cost related if a requirement is not implemented (or not correct implemented). I believe both in PLM we generalize our systems too much to make them work for every industry – therefore losing the user.
Best regards
Jos
LikeLike
July 18, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Ilan Madjar
Jos,
As always an interesting topic. I believe that academically CM is and should be a part of PLM. That being said most PLM tools today do not provide a comprehensive solution, which results in heavy customizations and very involved implementations. For me PLM is not defined by the applications and or available tools, but by the concepts and CM is an integral part of product life cycle manufacturing.
Thanks Ilan – your opinion for sure heathens the debate – Jos
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Gerardo Diaz
Jos, I saw the CM as a series of disciplines and PDM/PLM as the tool for implement them.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Richard Semmes
Jos,
Theoretically, CM and PLM address the same scope of functions. Practically, today, CM is the broader scope because it typically refers to the practices which includes all existing business processes, some of which are now covered by PLM software solutions and some that are still done on paper or only in one’s mind.
From the old MIL-HDBK-81, “Configuration management is defined as a process for establishing and maintaining consistency of a product’s performance, functional and physical attributes with its requirements, design and operational information throughout its life.”
hmmm – sounds pretty similar to most PLM vendor’s definition of their solutions. In my mind, the defacto definitions are:
CM is the practices
PLM is the software
Richard thanks for your input – indeed PLM came from the vendors, but with the software also non-CM related practices came, which I consider as PLM practices – so PLM started as software and provided practices (my opinion)
Best regards
Jos
LikeLike
September 27, 2019 at 4:17 pm
Daniel Cabezas CM
Hello Jos,
Here is my contribution, even 8 years later:
The name PLM is confusing since stands for Product Lifecycle Management; but… all the cycle? only the development cycle? Design data? Production Data?… Finance & Logistics data for sure not.
On the one hand: PLM tools are usually focused on the virtual product development (including product production methods, otherwise “PLM” would be just a PDM tool in combination with a CAD tool and an Industrial Configuration Control tool).
On the other hand: ERP and/or MES tools are dedicated to handling the physical components and products data; from sales, passing through procurement, up to product attestation, and later on in customer support (also in other arrangements, depending if MTS or MTO/ETO/CTO). This other part is known as Supply Chain Management (SCM).
It seems companies around the globe are concurring in using the term PLM for referring to PDM + CAD + Product Production Methods tools, and forgetting about the rest of the product data related with the actual and complete lifecycle (SCM & Finance data, mainly). I personally would change the word PLM, in that context, to: Product Development and Data Management.
Well; surprise; there is Configuration Data all along PLM and SCM Processes; you need both in order to deliver correct products to final customers and keep traceability during the in-service operation of the product; no matter if we talk about your TV or an aircraft. Furthermore, processes out of PLM and SCM are also dealing with configuration data.
– Hello, Finance, are you controlling the costs of developing each configuration?
Having said that, I think there is a clear answer to the ‘Configuration Management (CM) vs PLM’ topic, but we need to bring other concepts, commonly unknown by PLM experts, to the table: SCM, finance…
From my experience, I can proudly state that: Configuration Management (what) is the area of expertise in which:
– Product configuration views (As-Contracted, As-Designed, As-Built…),
– Product identification data (inputs/outputs from each product view), and
– Product configuration rules (who & how to handle config. data),
are defined and operated. While PLM is covering only some of the views, rules, and product data, CM is covering all.
In conclusion: the Configuration Management is a combination of processes beyond PLM, along lots of departments from several organizations that must be defined and synchronized with robust consistency, accuracy, and reliability, including, of course, the maybe wrongly named “PLM”.
Any comments would be very welcomed.
—————————————————————————
@beyondplm: I watched some of your short videos; quite good stuff about PLM, but they may lack a wider view of Configuration Management; the topic of Product Structure was not precise, for example; PS is absolutely different than BoMs (but just naming issue, of course). For me, it is not potato/ potahto, but more like potato/watermelon… 🙂 Thanks for your contribution to this world.
—————————————————————————
Thanks Daniel and a long comment after 8 years as you state. I will come back to you by email later – or perhaps as a blog post – to respond to the many points you mention. Thanks again for the feedback – it gives a reason to response. Best regards, Jos
LikeLike