The past month I had several discussions related to the complexity of PLM. Why is PLM conceived as complex? Why is it hard to sell PLM internally into an organization? Or, to phrase it differently: “What makes PLM so difficult for normal human beings. As conceptually it is not so complex”
So what makes it complex? What´s behind PLM?
The main concept behind PLM is that people share data. It can be around a project, a product, a plant through the whole lifecycle. In particular, during the early lifecycle phases, there is a lot of information that is not yet 100 percent mature. You could decide to wait till everything is mature before sharing it with others (the classical sequential manner). However, the chance of doing it right the first time is low. Several iterations between disciplines will be required before the data is approved. The more and more a company works sequential, the higher costs of changes are and the longer the time to market. Due to the rigidness of this sequential approach, it becomes difficult to respond rapidly to customer or market demands. Therefore, in theory (and it is not a PLM theory), concurrent engineering should reduce the number of iterations and the total time to market by working in parallel in not approved data yet.
PLM goes further, it is also about sharing of data, and as it started originally in the early phases of the lifecycle, the concept of PLM was often considered something related to engineering. And to be fair, most of the PLM (CAD-related) vendors have a high focus on the early stages of the lifecycle and strengthen this idea. However, sharing can go much further, e.g., early involvement of suppliers (still engineering) or support for after-sales/services (the new acronym SLM). In my recent blog posts, I discussed the concepts of SLM and the required data model for that.
Anticipated sharing
The complexity lies in the word “sharing”. What does sharing mean for an organization, where historically, every person was awarded for the knowledge he/she has/owned instead of being awarded for the knowledge this person made available and shared. Many so-called PLM implementations have failed to reach the sharing target as the implementation focus was on storing data per discipline and not necessarily storing data to become shareable and used by others. This is a huge difference.
Some famous (ERP) vendors claim if you store everything in their system, you have a “single version of the truth”. Sounds attractive. My garbage bin at home is also a place where everything ends up in a single place, but a garbage bin has not been designed for sharing, as another person has no clue and time to analyze what´s inside. Even data in the same system can be hidden from others as the way to find data is not anticipated.
Data sharing instead of document deliverables
The complexity of PLM is that data should be created and shared in a matter not necessarily the most efficient manner for a single purpose, however, with some extra effort, to make it usable and searchable for others. A typical example is drawings and document management, where the whole process for a person is focused on delivering a specific document. Ok for that purpose, but this document on its own becomes a legacy for the long term as you need to know (or remember) what´s inside the document.
A logical implication of data sharing is that, instead of managing documents, organizations start to collect and share data elements (a 3D model, functional properties, requirements, physical properties, logistical properties, etc.). Data can be connected and restructured easily through reports and dashboards, therefore, providing specific views for different roles in the organization. Sharing has become possible and it can be done online. Nobody needed to consolidate and extract data from documents (Excels ?)
This does not fit older generations and departmental-managed business units that are rewarded only on their individual efficiency. Have a look at this LinkedIn discussion where the two extremes are visible.
Joe stating:
“The sad thing about PLM is that only PLM experts can understand it! It seems to be a very tight knit club with very little influence from any outside sources.
I think PLM should be dumped. It seems to me that computerizing engineering documentation is relatively easy process. I really think it has been over complicated. Of course we need to get the CAD vendors out of the way. Yes it was an obvious solution, but if anyone took the time to look down the road they would see that they were destroying a well established standard that were so cost effective and simple. But it seems that there is no money in simple”
And at the other side, Kais stated:
“If we want to be able to use state-of-the art technology to support the whole enterprise, and not just engineering, and through-life; then product information, in its totality, must be readily accessible and usable at all times and not locked in any perishable CAD, ERP or other systems. The Data Centric Approach that we introduced in the Datamation PLM Model is built on these concepts”
Readers from my blog will understand I am very much aligned with Kais, and PLM guys have a hard time convincing Joe of the benefits of PLM (I did not try).
Making the change happen
Besides this LinkedIn discussion, I had discussions with several companies where my audience understood the data-centric approach. It was nice to be in the room together, sharing the ideas of what would be possible. However, the outside world is hard to convince, and here it is about change management.
I read an interesting article in IndustryWeek from John Dyer with the title: What Motivates Blockers to Resist Change?
John describes the various types of blockers, and when reading the article combined with my PLM twisted brain, I understood again that this is one of the reasons PLM is perceived as complex – you need to change, and there are blockers:
Blocker (noun) – Someone who purposefully opposes any change (improvement) to a process for personal reasons
“Blockers” can occupy any position in a company. They can be any age, gender, education level or pay rate. We tend to think of blockers as older, more experienced workers who have been with the company for a long time, and they don’t want to consider any other way to do things. While that may be true in some cases, don’t be surprised to find blockers who are young, well-educated and fairly new to the company.
The problem with blockers
The combination of business change and the existence of blockers is one of the biggest risks for companies to go through a business transformation. By the way, this is not only related to PLM, it is related to any required change in business.
Some examples:
A company I have been working with was eager to study their path to the future, which required more global collaboration, a competitive business model and a more customer-centric approach. After a long evaluation phase, they decided they needed PLM, which was new for most of the people in the company. Although the project team was enthusiastic, they were not able to pass the blockers for a change. Ironically enough, they lost a significant part of their business to companies that have implemented PLM. Defending the past is not a guarantee for the future.
A second example is Nokia. Nokia was famous for the ways they were able to transform their business in the past. How come they did not see the smartphone and touch screens upcoming? Apparently, based on several articles presented recently, it was Nokia´s internal culture and superior feeling that they were dominating the market, that made it impossible to switch. The technology was known, and the concepts were there, however, the (middle) management was full of blockers.
Two examples where blockers had a huge impact on the company.
Conclusion:
Staying in business and remaining competitive is crucial for companies. In particular, the changes that currently happen require people to work differently in order to stay completive. Documents will become reports generated from data. People handling and collecting documents to generate new documents will become obsolete as a modern data-centric approach makes them redundant. Keeping the old processes might destroy a company. This should convince the blockers to give up.
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 28, 2014 at 3:02 pm
Joe Brouwer
“State of the art technology” is a buzz word and is virtually meaningless. If a PHD can’t dazzle them with brilliance, they baffle them with Buzz Words and Acronyms. My information about the failure of PLM comes from the experts and their own negative comments on PLM and their lack of answers. They seem to feel secure in their own chaos and are sure that no one is listening, because no one outside the PLM community can even understand it. There seems to be no oversight of this group and it is designed such that only this group can implement it.
Sad to say, I am sure many “blockers” have saved the day for many companies from many pie in the sky solutions. All I have to do is point to the fiasco that is happening at Boeing and Airbus trying to implement the failed PLM and MBE, driven by Dassault and their Catia 5. Think this through, Catia 6, has been out for over 6 years and Dassault’s major clients have not moved to it. Nothing like a software program telling a company how to run its business. Just plug it in, “nothing can go wrong, nothing can go wrong.” One day the powers that be will lift their heads.look around and say “Hey, this PLM stuff is costing us a fortune”.
The question is not who needs PLM? But who can afford it! It is failing in so many ways, it is now like pushing a rope. From what I have observed, I am the only one even pointing out the failure of PLM. Those involved are so buried in vested interest that even the comments from an insignificant drafter can get their hair up.
It is very simple to know why it is failing,
PLM in its current form has no standards and all of engineering runs on standards. Any system based on standard limits the surprises. Change is the only constant in engineering and having a proven standard process is the only way for it to effectively provide the information across the enterprise.
I am not trying to block it, I am trying to eliminate it and start over with something that works and does not require a PHD to understand it.
Joe I believe you are making you point very clear. Needless to go into a further discussion, but have a look at PLM reference stories from multiple vendors. They are consistent and demonstrate PLM brings value and improves business in many areas. If you still disagree, join for once the next vendor independent PLM conference in the US (http://us.picongress.com/) or perhaps register as a speaker explaining to the full audience why they cannot afford PLM. The implementations I have been coaching had usualy a payback time of 1.5 – 3 years, which is low compared to an ERP implementation.
Best regards
Jos
LikeLike
April 30, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Joe Brouwer
Hi Jos,
I will repeat, “The lack of being a standard will kill it.”
Joe
LikeLike
May 6, 2014 at 8:10 pm
ritgrad83
Reblogged this on Just Blogging.
LikeLike
May 13, 2014 at 6:20 am
Edward Lopategui
Jos,
Great article, I particularly enjoyed the garbage bin single source of truth analogy.
I too have seen too many companies suffer the same fate as your example, failing to overcome their respective blockers despite obvious future benefit and the enthusiasm and vision of a dedicated team. At great future cost.
I also recall being on the front lines – on the tip of the spear if you will – to surge past my own blocking opponents on a particularly challenging 5-year project. While successful, I did recognize such a task required Herculean effort, tenacity, and patience in equal measure. I also know that I was focused on doing the right thing – even if cost me my position; and there were many blockers who plotted exactly that. I wore that determination as a sort of self-imposed diplomatic immunity and would use it to protect my team and concentrate any wrath on just myself. My partner in that venture, the chief IT architect admitted on several occasions that we wouldn’t have been successful if I had actually cared what happened to my position – since I had to throw myself and the project in front of so many trains. I owe him for believing in me.
But there was a balance. I could not allow myself to reach a point of arrogance; I would reserve enough empathy for the blockers to listen at just the right moments, and win them over. I spent more time in the trenches than most would reasonably allow. It was a ridiculously hard thing and was not without an intellectual and emotional cost.
In that crucible, I realized that finding people with such perspective (putting the ideal above their own position) within each corporation is *exceptionally* rare. People naturally don’t like to jump in front of trains. It can be career-limiting. That’s kind of a problem, don’t you think? It’s a limiting factor without a doubt, and not one that can be fulfilled with consultants alone. You often need someone with internal street cred and long-earned reputation to push through the tough parts.
It’s not always nearly that bad, depending on the company culture, but often it is.
PLM shouldn’t need justification. It shouldn’t be susceptible to sabotage by blockers. It shouldn’t need heroes. Yet it often does. We need to understand precisely why and change that for the better.
I wrote more on this here:
http://eng-eng.com/hey-enterprise-the-future-is-calling/
Thanks Ed for sharing your experience, which is typical I believe for any business change / transformation. We do not want to jump in front of the trains (and survive), however we tend to ignore the fact that meanwhile business is declining due to our rigidness. We would still be living in caves if there were no people that wanted to take a risk and explore the world further.
Best regards
Jos
LikeLike