PLM is a popular discussion topic in various blogs, LinkedIn discussion groups, PLM Vendor web sites and for the upcoming Product Innovation congress in Berlin. I look forward to the event to meet and discuss with attendees their experience and struggle to improve their businesses using PLM.
From the other side talking about pure PLM becomes boring. Sometimes it looks like PLM is a monotheistic topic:
- “What is the right definition of PLM ?” (I will give you the right one)
- “We are the leading PLM vendor” (and they all are)
- A PLM system should be using technology XYZ (etc, etc)
Some meetings with customers in the past three weeks and two different blog posts I read recently made me aware of this ambiguity between boring and fun.
PLM dictating Business is boring
Oleg Shilovitsky´s sequence of posts (and comments) starting with A single bill of materials in 6 steps was an example of the boring part. (Sorry Oleg, as you publish so many posts, there are many that I like and some I can use as an example). When reading the BOM-related posts, I noticed they are a typical example of an IT- or Academic view on PLM, in particular on the BOM topic.
Will these posts help you after reading them ? Do they apply to your business ? Or do you feel more confused as a prolific PLM blogger makes you aware of all the different options and makes you think you should use a single bill of materials ?
I learned from my customers and coaching and mediating hundreds of PLM implementations, that the single BOM discussion is one of the most confusing and complex topics. And for sure if you address it from the IT-perspective
The customer might say:
“Our BOM is already in ERP – so if it is a single BOM you know where it is – goodbye !”.
A different approach is to start looking for the optimal process for this customer, addressing the bottlenecks and pains they currently face. It will be no surprise that PLM best practices and technology are often the building blocks for the considered solution. If it will be a single BOM or a collection of structures evolving through time, this depends on the situation, not on the ultimate PLM system.
Business dictating PLM is fun
Therefore I was happy to read Stephen Porter´s opinion and comments in: The PLM state: Pennywise Pound Foolish Pricing and PLM where he passes a similar message as mine, from a different starting point, the pricing models of PLM Vendors. My favorite part is in his conclusion:
A PLM decision is typically a long term choice so make sure the vendor and partners have the staying power to grow with your company. Also make sure you are identifying the value drivers that are necessary for your company’s success and do not allow yourself to be swayed by the trendy short term technology
Management in companies can be confused by starting to think they just need PLM because they hear from the analysts, that it improves business. They need to think first to solve their business challenges and change the way they currently work in order to improve. And next look for the way to implement this change.
Changing the way to work is the problem, not PLM.
It is not the friendly user-interface of PLM system XYZ or the advanced technical capabilities of PLM system ABC, that will make a PLM implementation easier. Nothing is solved on the cloud or by using a mobile device. If there is no change when implementing PLM, why implement and build a system to lock yourself in even more?
This is what Thomas Schmidt (VP Head of Operational Excellence and IS at ABB’s Power Products Division) told last year at PLM Innovation 2012 in Munich. He was one of the keynote speakers and surprised the audience by stating he did not need PLM !
He explained this by describing the business challenges ABB has to solve: Being a global company but acting around the world as a local company. He needed product simplification, part reduction among product lines around the world, compliance and more.
Another customer in a total different industry mentioned they were looking for improving global instant collaboration as the current information exchange is too slow and error prone. In addition they want to capitalize on the work done and make it accessible and reusable in the future, authoring tool independent. But they do not call it PLM as in their business nobody uses PLM !
Both cases should make a PLM reseller´s mouths water (watertanden in Dutch), as these companies are looking for key capabilities available in most of the PLM systems. But none of these companies asked for a single BOM or a service oriented architecture. They wanted to solve their business issues. And for sure it will lead into implementing PLM capabilities when business and IT-people together define and decide on the right balance.
Management take responsibility
And here lies the management responsibility of these companies. It is crucial that a business issue (or a new strategy) is the driving force for a PLM implementation.
In too many situations, the management decides that a new strategy is required. One or more bright business leaders decide they need PLM (note -the strategy has now changed towards buying and implementing a system). Together with IT and after an extensive selection process is done, the selected PLM system (disconnected from the strategy) will be implemented.
And this is the place where all PLM discussions come together:
– why PLM projects are difficult
– why it is unclear what PLM does.
PLM Vendors and Implementers are not connected anymore at this stage to the strategy or business. They implement technology and do what the customer project team tells them to do (or what they think is best for their business model).
Successful implementations are those where the business and management are actively involved during the whole process and the change. And this requires a significant contribution from their side, often delegated to business and change consultants.
PLM Implementations usually lead to a crisis at some moment in time, when the business is not leading and the focus is on IT and User Acceptance. In the optimal situation business is driving IT. However in most cases due to lack of time and priorities from the business people, they delegate this activity to IT and the implementation team. And here it is a matter of luck if they will be successful:
- how experienced is the team ?
- Will they really implement a new business strategy or just automate and implement they way the customer worked before, but now in a digital manner ?
- Do we blame the software when the people do not change ?
Back to fun
I would not be so passionate about PLM if it was boring. However looking back the fun and enthusiasm does not come from PLM. The fun comes from a pro-active business approach knowing that first the motivating the people and preparing the change are defined, before implementing PLM practices
I believe the future success for PLM technologies is when we know to speak and address real business value and only then use (PLM) technologies to solve them.
PLM becomes is a logical result not the start.
And don´t underestimate: change is required.
What do you think – is it a dream ?
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 3, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Siddharth Somani
Interesting article !
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 12:12 am
Jyotirmoy Dutta
Good article – Enjoyed reading it.
Thanks Jyotirmoy – it seems we are in the same business. Jos
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Ton van de Vorst
Good article, Jos! I totally agree, It’s all about addressing Business Value! If one can address and proof business value, most customers (Management), if not all, will be motivated and willing to change. Although, organisational change management will always be a challenge, discussions will less and/or easier.
Best regards, Ton van de Vorst
Thanks Ton, agree with your comment. The challenge remains the business value which is often customer specific and this requires a plan to understand and map change before a solution is in place. Best regards – Jos
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Joe Brouwer
The problem to me is standardization. From a past of pencils and prints I look at this and see complexities, not so much in the implementation but the amount of different solutions being offered. It seems to me that once you make a decision you are stuck with that systems. And there is no way to make the legacy data available in a different system. You have to trust that your current solution is going to be enhanced as the technology advances. With a standardized system that is all moot.
It is like Boeing selecting Catia because it ran on an IBM workstation and now stuck with a PLM system that really does not do the job for a multi-year project with many separate groups and thousands of suppliers. Catia 5 can not even read or utilize the engineering data from Catia 4. Catia 5 can not even edit non-native data. Can you imagine working with many different vendors that don’t have the consideration of using your system.
Today we have 3rd party Validation and compare programs to make sure the part you are using is the latest version. There is no Vault for a solid model.
Joe thanks for your feedback and indeed you are touching a topic that none of the vendors like: open data formats. You can blame any CAD supplier for not being open, even to their own legacy. One of the main issues for a vendor is, what will be the value and competitivness of their solutions if it was an open and upgradeable format. They probably would be out of business soon as dedicated point solutions bring more value as they do not have to consider the whole lifecycle. Only in plant design and operations, and in particular in the Nordic Oil & Gas you see a standardization on ISO15926 – will other industries follow ? Best regards Jos
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Joe Brouwer
of course I come to this as a designer doing fit, form and function. It would be interesting to me to follow the standardization of PLM.
Here is an article I wrote trying to get access to the data much simpler and try to solve the problem with data management that Boeing is confronting with its suppliers.
The Embedded Title Block! A PLM Solution!
http://tecnetinc.com/The%20Ultimate%20Part%20Mark.html
Thanks Joe, and as I can see you have your interpretation of PLM (Part Lifetime Management). I believe the complexity for PLM is that its concepts are also applicable for LifeSciences, Consumer Good and more ….
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Stephen Porter
Great Points Jos. I think you can make this same arguement for any enterprise software solution including ERP, CRM and Analytics along with a host of others. It is not about the technology it is about what the technology can do for the business. Sometimes the vendors do a good job in selling the executive team on this but then by the time it gets down to IT the message is so watered down that they miss the point of why they purchased the software in the first place. PLM can be a great enabler as you pointed out when deployed for that purpose. If you spend all your energy trying to alter it to match your current process to appease users you have missed the point.
Thanks Stephen for your feedback. I agree it is probably for every software enterprise solution, however I believe with the wide possible scope of PLM we suffer the most from it – best regards Jos
LikeLike
February 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Jim Brown
Jos, great commentary as usual and a good point to Stephen Porter’s post as well. I love PLM, but it’s not exciting. It’s like asking someone to get excited about how the heat will be distributed, the water will make it to the faucets, and the electricity will get to the lamps, and gas to fire the stove when they are building a new house. It is infrastructure, which by the way, is boring. It is also extremely important.
I gave a keynote to a very design-oriented crowd about data management and I started by asking how many of them love data management? No hands (other than a few being funny). Then I asked how many thought it was important to running a profitable manufacturing company (ensuring quality, preventing mistakes, etc.) and the hands shot up. Then, I talked about how to achieve the business value of PDM (perhaps the most boring part of PLM?). They paid attention. Here is the report that puts it into the perspective of business value. http://tech-clarity.com/pdm-profit/2185
I guess my point is more about the premise of your post than your point. I agree with your point about leading with business needs/value wholeheartedly. But I don’t ask people to get excited about it, I ask them to understand and appreciate the results. In the house example that’s warm lighting, a flame to cook your meal over, a hot shower, etc. In PLM it is higher quality products, more innovation, faster time to market, etc. So get people excited about how much more competitive they will be and how much better their products can become – but don’t expect them to it any more than you love the pipes in your wall.
Jim thanks for your extensive and excellent feedback. I agree the title of the post was meant to create a wake-up moment (and it did). I have some remarks to your analogy when stating PLM is similar to infrastructure and nobody gets excited (a generalization).
Having stayed in different areas of the world, I learned to enjoy the existence and visibility of infrastructure – the fun was derived from that. But even in our world, we see challenges to the infrastructure.
After a severe storm, many inhabitants around the world would be happy if the infrastructure is still there and future proof.
Back to PLM: An IT-approach if often not focusing on the future proof of the business, but automating the status quo.
We need to have business drivers for that. Then when the smartdevice is still working I continue to have my fun 🙂
Best regards, Jos
LikeLike
February 11, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Teppo Salmia (@TeppoSalmia)
Excellent post Jos! Couldn’t agree more with what you write. In my experience driving PLM deployment with the strategy is vital to success. So is the business change. This is also what we have been advocating to our customers over the past five years.
Thanks Teppo, and I hope beside the advocating, customers listen and have a strategy as specially in the mid-market it is more a pain to be solved than a strategy to lead. Best regards Jos
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Colin
Great post Jos. Totally agree with the points in the post. One of the problems with long lifecycle enterprise change products is the continued buy in from the business. They forget that PLM is happening after a while and PLM teams forget to tell the business that is is still going on as they get absorbed into the IT workings. PLM is about business change and communication and business involvement must be as much a priority as is process mapping and user experience modelling and enterprise architecture definition.
Thanks Colin – nothing to add – my upcoming post will focus on this topic again: PLM is a journey. Best regards Jos
LikeLike