You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘PLM’ category.
This time, not a post as expected. Normally, you would expect a long post from me after this conference, but this time I have to say AI! /ah-ee/.
AI in Dutch is an expression similar to the English expression “ouch“, an expression you can use when you feel mild dismay or realize a problem.
And I had this problem: after the conference, it was a weekend full of political activities, and next Monday/Tuesday my home office was occupied by two carpenters making my office functional for the future.
Now it is already Wednesday, and I can finally start my series of posts about this great event. Usually, it takes me a few days to digest and sort the content, so given the limited time, I decided to start with one of the two multi-person experiences from the conference – the future of PLM discussion on November 3rd.
The future of PLM discussion
Last year, we organized a pre-conference workshop, sponsored by the Arrowhead™ fPVN project, to discuss aspects of the future of PLM. Here, with almost 32 passionate PLM professionals, we discussed various future aspects of product lifecycle management and asset lifecycle management.
You can read my write-up from that workshop here:
2025 –A week after Shaping the Future of PLM – No time to lose!
It was an interesting workshop; however, we also felt there wasn’t enough space to build networks of interest or for free discussion.
Therefore, this time we aimed for a less publicly announced event, more of a coffee machine discussion with a group of selected opinions coming to the conference or living close to Gothenburg – to keep it informal and with an open agenda.
Bringing together professionals with different backgrounds and perspectives creates opportunities for innovative discussions.
No ultimate targets, drink the coffee together, listen and learn. The image below shows the mood, credit to Helene Ålander (and AI as we all look younger).
We discussed the various aspects of the Digital Thread – starting from the base for traceability, evolving into a more end-to-end, data-driven infrastructure to give a broader context, understanding that IP security is still an unsolved topic.
Next, to move further to benefit from agentic AI using this digital thread infrastructure, we dived into the need for ontologies and domain-specific semantic models.
Markus Zimmermann, supported by Michael Kirsch, gave us a sneak peek at his CASCaRA and DDP (Digital Data Package) presentation. CASCaRA (Collaborative Artifact, Specification, Context and Resource Access) is a standardization initiative for digital engineering collaboration using an ontology and a common knowledge graph. Michael provided the ProSTEP background to the DDP.
Markus would give a keynote session the next day on this topic within Rolls-Royce Power Systems.
The CASCaRA theme led to an interesting discussion where Martin Eigner hoped for a broader discussion related to the end-to-end digital thread. Why should we focus on external ontologies, as for most companies the ontologies of their major systems are already good enough?
Håkan Kårdén did not allow Martin to use the name of a famous ERP supplier as the German standard.
Martin is right here: for most companies, the current state of their system landscape does not call for overall ontologies; however, it creates vendor lock-in.
Here you could also see Rob Ferrone‘s approach: not question the existing product lifecycle management landscape, but be pragmatic and fix things where needed. The former Digital PLuMber did not design new cars, houses or machines; he made the data flow – the reason we invited him.
Mikkel Haggren Brynildsen, project lead for the ISO 23726-2 standard, working at Grundfos, was the real ontology expert in the room, working at the other end of the spectrum, claiming he is still curious why he is accepted by his PLM colleagues at Grundfos.
The big differentiator, of course, is the core business model of the company. Traditional industrial manufacturing companies own the core process from the beginning to (their) end – be it service or disposal,
The (capital) Asset Lifecycle Management (also ALM) industry is characterized by a conglomerate of suppliers building a plant, a ship, a building or a platform, where the asset has to stay in operation for 30 years or more – nuclear plants, for example, can have a lifetime of over 60 years.
Building and maintaining capital assets is where the need for overarching standards comes in, as suppliers won’t use the same tools during the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) phase and later during the MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) phase.
Plant Owners/Operators cannot force all their partners to work with the same systems.
Given the lifetime of the assets, it is worthwhile to invest in ontologies and standards, one of the drivers behind Eurostep and the existing PLCS standard – the area where Peter Wedholm, Bjørn Fidjeland and Torbjörn Holm are active, now exploring existing standards to transform them into interoperable OWL 2 DL ontologies aligned through the IDO Upper Ontology.
For them, standards and ontologies matter.
We all agreed that a future enterprise, using AI agents, relies on quality data with an understandable context for the agents. That’s why we were happy to have Peter Vind and Helene Ålander in the room, giving the perspective of an enterprise architect – a mandatory role in a modern organisation.
Helene, the only woman in the room, raised the question upfront: is the future of PLM really about improving today’s processes and systems, or should we rethink some of the assumptions behind them?
A topic that also resonates a lot with me, Jos Voskuil, but we did not have the time or the audience to dive in that direction.
As you can see, everyone brought a perspective, illustrating the broad reach of product lifecycle management, its application to industrial practices and needs, and the move to a reliable, data-driven infrastructure that allows AI agents to provide us, humans, with richer context.
Will this all allow us to work differently, more efficiently and with less IT overload – time will tell.
No Conclusion
This time, no conclusion, because when Torbjörn, Håkan, and I discussed using the opportunity of so many PLM experts coming to Gothenburg to have this meeting, our goal was to satisfy each other’s curiosity and understanding of different perspectives. Thanks on behalf of the three of us: we can say:
“We Did It” – “Wir Haben Es Geschafft”, “Vi Gjorde Det”.
Next episode soon: The week after PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe – AI AI (AI²)
In our series, the PLM Green Global Alliance (PGGA) talks with software vendors and service partners, continuing to interview them and discuss their contributions and insights toward a more sustainable future.
This trend is already very noticeable. The term sustainable is becoming less associated with the environment or the planet. More and more companies embed environmentally friendly activities in their business processes.
A few years ago, the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) or the Sustainability team sat in a separate silo within the organization. Just as we had the CDO (Chief Digital Officer) ten years ago, the separate CFO role is now less needed.
Great news, showing that the business matures!
Back to the interviews
If you have time to study and read, look at this development documented over time. Our interviews are on the PLM Green Global Alliance website, or you can watch them on our YouTube channel: @PLM_Global_Green_Alliance.
This time we have an interesting newcomer to the series: CONTACT Software, represented by Sebastian Weber, responsible for their sustainable innovation. As usual, Mark Reisig and Jos Voskuil ask the questions.
CONTACT Software
CONTACT Software is probably a niche player in the PLM domain for many people, as it has mainly operated from the DACH Länder (Germany, Austria and Switzerland).
Learn more about the company and their customers in Jos’s blog post related to the Open World 2026 conference in Bonn here: The week after CONTACT Open World 2026
Now, with Sebastian Weber, we zoomed in on sustainability – enjoy the 27-minute discussion here:
What we have learned
- Horizontal Integration Across PLM (Not an Isolated Silo): Sustainability is treated as a horizontal capability embedded across the entire modular CONTACT Elements platform—from early innovation and design to manufacturing and service—rather than being isolated as a standalone module or departmental silo.
- Sustainability Information as the Data Anchor for the Green Digital Thread: Sustainability Information within the CONTACT Elements platform connects environmental data to products, components, materials, and lifecycle stages while preserving sources, methods, and assessment scope. It provides a traceable foundation for BOM-based calculations, design comparisons, Digital Product Passports, and circularity assessments across the product lifecycle
- Automated Calculations and Bill of Materials (BOM) Roll-ups: Organizations are shifting away from manual Excel spreadsheets toward automated Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) calculations and Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) – digital transformation in action.
- Standardized Data Exchange and Digital Product Passports (DPP): While widespread adoption of Digital Product Passports is still emerging (driven initially by upcoming battery passport regulations), companies are actively adopting standardized exchange frameworks
- Leveraging AI for Rapid Design Scenarios: Looking ahead, an integrated intelligence layer will help engineers evaluate design alternatives, assess supplier options, run PCF calculation scenarios, and uncover unlinked data across product structures to broaden context during design decisions.
- Shop-Floor Energy Tracking and the Shift Toward Circularity: The platform extends sustainability into manufacturing by comparing planned vs. actual shop-floor energy usage. Looking forward, CONTACT Software is expanding capabilities around circular economy strategies—such as refurbishment, component reuse, and recycling—to help companies build valid business cases for circular business models.
Want to learn more?
- CONTACT Software’s offering on Sustainability Reporting
- The Decide4Eco project mentioned during the interview
- Sustainability – CONTACT Software Blog
Conclusion
It was a pleasure to work with CONTACT Software again, this time with Sebastian Weber, their Senior Research Scientist, focusing on sustainability. What we appreciated most was the honest conversation – we didn’t paint a picture of a world that doesn’t exist, but discussed what is actually happening in the field and what companies can realistically do today. This attitude is characteristic of CONTACT Software. They are not the company with the biggest marketing budget or the loudest voice in the PLM market. They are a company of people who do things – and then talk about them, which is precisely why this episode is worth watching and reading.
The conference is sold out – see you there – or read my next blog post the weekend after …..
During my summer break, I have been thinking about why companies struggle to start a digital transformation and how businesses keep going, struggling to change.
I ended up with Conway’s Law as a demonstration of the biggest inhibitor to digital transformation in companies.
But before that, I need to make two basic statements that form the basis of my plea.
1. PLM is a strategy
When we mention PLM without the word system, we should think of it as a strategy supported by connected, federated systems.
Most of the time, when I hear people talk about PLM, it sounds like they are talking about their PLM system. A core system needed to implement a Product Lifecycle Management strategy.
For me, PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) starts with the core business processes a company needs to implement to remain a long-term (sustainable) product or solutions provider. More on the solution provider dimension later.
Every company that sells products has a product lifecycle management strategy – see the image above.
When a company focuses only on product data, I am tempted to call it PDM (Product Data Management), which can still support different disciplines.
For me, PLM is the operational environment that helps companies manage their products/solutions throughout the product lifecycle, which means it is influenced by sales, R&D, engineering, manufacturing, service and, increasingly, regulations.
This broad scope makes it clear to me that no single PLM system can effectively support all these demands while providing a user-friendly interface. Even if you are SAP or one of the three major PLM vendors.
To remember:
PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) is a strategy supported by a federated infrastructure, where a PLM or PDM system/platform can be one of the main components.
2. Conway’s Law
If you have read my blog posts before, you might have come across Conway’s Law; although it is not a real law, more a description of a phenomenon, it’s largely true. Compare it to Moore’s Law or Murphy’s Law.
Let’s start with THE LAW:
Conway’s Law is an observation about how organizations design systems, formulated by computer scientist Melvin Conway in 1967:
“Any organization that designs a system… will inevitably produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization’s communication structure.”
Conway meant that the organizational architecture of what you build tends to mirror the shape of the team that builds it. If you have a siloed organisation with Sales, R&D, Manufacturing and Service, you will build processes and install systems to support those siloes.
The reason: People can only design what they can communicate about. Coordination across team boundaries is harder than coordination within a team, so design decisions cluster along organisational boundaries.
This observation makes what I often call the COORDINATED approach, the approach companies are following and feel comfortable with – image below:
People can work in their silos, then share information in a linear, document-driven process when requested and needed. Sometimes it is not a document but a Bill of Materials. Handling the BOM is a great example of Conway’s Law that still exists.
An example: The PDM(PLM) – ERP integration
One topic that keeps our community busy is PDM-ERP integration, or, in a more advanced setting, PLM-ERP integration, especially when you consider the MBOM.
A recent debate can be found here: Turbulent times in PLM: The EBOM-MBOM chain is shaking, AI is rattling everything.
Without going into the debate, as there are many dimensions in the PLM domain, the first question to ask is: WHY DO WE PERCEIVE IT AS DIFFICULT?
Let’s have a look through Conway’s eyes.
- Two silos need to collaborate: engineering on one side and manufacturing preparation, purchasing and manufacturing on the other. Each side has its favorite system, and that’s where the problem starts.
- Instead of analyzing the preferred process, the focus shifts to how to get data into my preferred system easily and reliably. Instead of People, Processes, Data and Tools, it becomes a Tools, Data and Process discussion. People are not considered anymore.
This approach can lead to ludicrous situations, where an engineer has to request a part number when designing a new product, or, in another case, use a temporary part number until the part is mature enough to be registered in ERP, according to the ERP standard. These are real examples I encountered.
Historically, SAP drove these scenarios, as its material master message and MDM approach were built around a single connected manufacturing environment.
For SAP, the bridge to engineering is built through custom solutions at the CAD level (CIDEON) or EBOM level, e.g., ECTR (DSC).
Technology has never limited a fluent PDM-ERP interaction, as long as you start at the process level before touching the systems.
I have written many posts around this topic in the past too. Here are a few of them:
2026: The BOM revisited – what are the challenges
2023: The rise and fall of the BOM
2020: Learning from the past
For me, the discussion is closed; many companies already know the theory and best practices from the past or for their current operations. But will they work on a better future?
The future and Conway’s Law
In my network, many PLM experts, like Prof. Jörg Fischer or Martin Eigner, can describe an ideal future approach to product lifecycle management. But Oleg Shilovitsky, Benedict Smith, Doug Macdonald and many other voices also describe a potential future, often inspired by an additional graph database layer, sometimes better supported by an ontology. The whole idea is that such an environment is a needed foundation for agent AI.
For example, I like the concept Martin Eigner expresses in the technical architecture. On paper (or slide), the concept looks explainable, though the details are missing.
And of course all the PLM software vendors have similar offerings related to the concept above – the only question to ask yourself as an enterprise is:
“Who owns the data and who owns the knowledge – be aware of a lock-in”
At the upcoming PLM Roadmap & PDT Europe conference in Gothenburg on November 4th & 5th, we will learn about and discuss interesting future concepts, including the application of agentic AI.
Here, I am curious about the following sessions I saw in the agenda:
- Key Findings in the Arrowhead fPVN Project – A Knowledge Graph-Based Digital Twin for Semantic Lifecycle Interoperability
- AI in PLM – Balancing Innovation with Stable Enterprise Architecture
- Digital Threads for Digital Agents & Collaboration: Connecting ALM, Mechanics, E/E, Software and Production
- Ontology-based Data Governance and Enterprise Data Modelling: Standards, AI Readiness and Governance Processes for PLM Data Management, a “Data Town Plan” Approach
- Practical AI Transformation in Enterprise PLM
Of course, there are more interesting presentations to watch and discussions to have, so if you are interested in a potential technical future, join us in Gothenburg; there are still places left; last year the conference sold out.
How to escape from Conway?
The digital thread is one of those topics that appeared even before AI and has now become a theme companies should implement, supported by their software vendors and system integrators. In many boardrooms, the term “Digital Thread” is mentioned to address the lack of end-to-end visibility in the company, finally enabling full traceability.
However, more important, I believe, is the horizontal business thread, where disciplines work together in real time. Technology and, for sure, AI agents can facilitate this approach; however, as long as every silo in the organisation is optimized for its own performance (Conway’s Law again), no horizontal business thread will emerge.
I wrote about this topic in June, addressing the mood in the field at the time: The Human Thread, breaking the (PLM) blame game, where I look into the alerting messages that PLM is failing, already with Conway behind the scenes.
I don’t believe Product Lifecycle Management is failing; businesses are failing to transform their organisations, which will lead to new, better operating models.
Too many future strategies are built on an existing siloed organisation, blocking the potential change needed.
A great book to read in this context is Reshuffle by Sangeet Paul Choudary; he describes the fundamental business changes required to break Conway’s trap.
The challenge is that you cannot delegate this job to middle management; top management needs to understand and execute it once they have mastered the potential strategy.
I consider this one of my major topics for the coming years: educating and coaching organisations to escape Conway’s Law and fully benefit from an AI-supported digital transformation.
Conclusion
This time, a short conclusion – Conway is the elephant in the room – what do you think?
The Design for Sustainability team withing the PLM Green Global Alliance, Matthew Sullivan (NCC) and Erik Rieger (PTC) have been active in the background during the summer months to further explore the actions for the Design for Sustainability workgroup.
One of their actions was to reconnect with Pierre David, with whom we, as a PGGA, spoke in a broader context about a year and a half ago when discussing sustainability activities within his company, CIMPA PLM Services: PLM and Sustainability: talking with CIMPA.
Follow the link to learn more about this interview.
In a recent PGGA discussion, Pierre David shared his perspective on how Design for Sustainability (DfS) is evolving from an environmental assessment activity into a core part of product development. Central to this evolution is a shift from traditional “eco-design” towards Design to Value, where sustainability is considered alongside cost, technical performance and other engineering objectives rather than being managed as a separate workstream.
You can watch and listen to the full discussion here on our YouTube channel:
What we discussed
A recurring theme throughout the conversation was the growing maturity of sustainability reporting, but with a lack of integration with engineering methods. Many organisations now have well-established processes for measuring and communicating sustainability performance, driven by Corporate Social Responsibility reporting, Science Based Targets initiative commitments and sustainability ratings.
However, Pierre highlighted a disconnect between these activities and the engineering teams that design products. While sustainability metrics are increasingly available at a corporate level, they are not always accessible at the point where engineering decisions are made. As a result, sustainability can become an activity that reports on outcomes rather than influences them.
Part of the challenge is expertise!
Established engineers often lack DfS training, so those who want to work on sustainability may lack the technical skills. Additionally, engineers are typically driven by improvements in cost, weight or performance, whereas sustainability’s financial benefits are often less clear.
The second challenge is tooling!
While PLM providers are increasingly introducing sustainability capabilities, the current landscape remains fragmented. Designers often have to work across multiple specialist applications, databases and data sources, making sustainability analysis hard to embed in day-to-day engineering workflows. Engineers already work within established processes and digital toolsets, and introducing additional sustainability activities can create friction if they are not embedded within existing workflows.
What to do?
To address this challenge, Pierre discussed EFCAT (Environmental and Financial Cost Analysis Technology), a parametric modelling approach now integrated within 3DEXPERIENCE, designed to provide designers with rapid environmental and cost insights during the early stages of product development.
One key finding of EFCAT is that environmental and costing models are about 80% similar in their inputs, structures and assumptions. Both disciplines require materials, manufacturing processes, transportation routes and supplier information.
Rather than treating environmental analysis and cost analysis as separate activities, Pierre advocates bringing them together through a common Design to Value approach. This lets engineers assess environmental and financial impacts simultaneously, reducing duplicated effort and improving decision-making.
Looking Ahead
Looking ahead, Pierre highlighted several challenges likely to shape the sustainability landscape in the coming years.
- The first is the growing focus on Digital Product Passports (DPPs). As new regulations begin to take effect, including the battery passport requirements arriving in 2027, sustainability teams are expected to spend significant time preparing the data, governance and processes needed to support compliance.
- He also identified supplier data as one of the biggest unresolved challenges. Accurate Scope 3 reporting relies on environmental data from suppliers, yet widespread adoption will require greater trust across the supply chain. Suppliers must be able to share environmental information without exposing commercially sensitive data that could reveal their cost structures or affect future negotiations.
- Finally, Pierre highlighted the need to better support smaller suppliers. While large organisations may have dedicated sustainability teams, many lower-tier suppliers lack the resources to employ sustainability specialists. The industry therefore needs to provide simpler methods, clearer guidance and practical rules that allow smaller businesses to calculate and share Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data without creating a significant financial burden.
Key Takeaways
The discussion highlighted that the challenge facing Design for Sustainability is no longer simply measuring environmental impact. Instead, the focus is shifting towards integrating sustainability into engineering decisions and existing product development workflows.
Pierre’s challenge to the PLM Green Global Alliance is to compile a benchmark of PLM providers to map their actual sustainability features and identify gaps between platforms, providing key insight into the sustainability tooling at engineers’ fingertips.
The DfS team has started working on it, and feel free to contact us if you represent a (PLM) provider supporting design for sustainability in a broader sense than impact analysis. Matthew or Erik will be happy to connect with you.
Join us at the PLM Roadmap & PDT 2026 for more discussions related to PLM and Sustainability. Have a look at the agenda.
Back on track after a side step (see: I am back), I restarted my PLM activities, and WOW, was I lucky with the first conference on my list: CONTACT Open World 2026 in Bonn.
Melanie Stadtler invited me as a guest (thanks, Melanie 🙏), and for the first time I connected in depth with CONTACT Software, their partners and customers.
I knew CONTACT Software from a few brief interactions, but now I could experience their full ecosystem. As CONTACT Software has historically been active in the DACH region, our paths rarely crossed – most of my activities were elsewhere in Europe.
So my key question was: Who is CONTACT Software, and where would I position them in an SAP/Teamcenter-dominated market?
Around 650 people attended this year’s biannual event. The World Conference Center Bonn, along the Rhine, was a great venue for sessions, networking and evening entertainment.
The conference theme was Industrial AI – from top floor to shop floor.
Before the event, there was a great warm-up party with dinner and a variety show. Beyond the impressive show, it was a great first chance to network and catch up with peers. And then the event started.
Industrial AI — from Top Floor to Shop Floor
Maximilian Zachries, Chief Operating Officer (COO) at CONTACT software, kicked off day 1 sharing CONTACT’s ambition and strategy to grow, with a repackaging of their solution – the CONTACT elements as the image below shows.
In the domain of PLM, I would position CONTACT software as a platform with a few foundational layers and op top of that customers can implement Elements, functional, pre-configured blocks on the platform or connect to other systems in the enterprise architecture.
Maximilian Zachries showed the unification of CIM database, Office, Project and IoT into a single collaboration platform based on Elements – coordinated PLM in my terminology.
Openness is a key driver for CONTACT software, so connectivity is crucial.
The image also shows the intelligence layer, named Fourier, which CONTACT has released and includes Elements related to its AI capabilities.
Initially focused on enhancing functionality within the platform and, in upcoming releases, also adding support for MCP connectivity, agentic AI, AI coding and even the option to bring your own model (BYOM)
The mood of the session was much more down-to-earth and factual than at other conferences I used to go to. The understated German culture was evident in this session and in other sessions too, which was a relief for me as a VirtualDutchman.
CONTACT’s intention to grow is also visible in its recent acquisitions and partnerships, including a significant investment in team neusta SE.
You snooze, you lose.
Markus Dietrich (CEO, team neusta) then illustrated the complementary value they bring: modern front-end development, data-driven capabilities and dashboards on top of the CONTACT platform – the modern connected PLM in my terminology.
The trend, as Markus stated, is from components to systems, and in the long run from selling products to delivering products as a service.
Driven by economic survival, it is crucial for a sustainable, circular economy.
Companies should start exploring data-driven capabilities now – AI only performs reliably when the underlying data is correct and in the right context.
Hence the title: you snooze, you lose.
From Product Truth to Possible Futures – AI and the future of lifecycle management
Frank Patz-Brockmann, Chief Product Officer at CONTACT Software, gave an interesting presentation, discussing AI’s impact on PLM—particularly in engineering.
We already see what AI does in software development. And as the image below illustrates, the real human value is in dealing with the intent—the WHY behind what we do.
Of course, we should not forget that software changes are relatively cheap. A code change typically doesn’t affect the stock in the warehouse or your selected and approved suppliers, as it would in a mechanical world—one reason manufacturers push as many product features as possible into software.
Still, as Frank mentioned, creating engineering artifacts today is expensive and requires specific skills. As AI advances, authoring tools will likely become capabilities of the engineering system, while humans will still be needed to decide intent—the broader context AI cannot address through its trained models.
His ultimate conclusion: in the long run, traditional PLM systems built as the “Single Source of Truth” will be replaced or superseded by a collection of federated data sources, accessed and managed by AI agents. A statement that is supported by many of my forward-looking peers in the PLM community.
From systems to platforms to knowledge infrastructures.
After the guided tours—an excellent way to get a quick impression of sponsors grouped around a theme—it was time for the afternoon sessions.
From Connected R&D to Intelligent R&D: Apollo Tyres’ Digital Transformation Journey
I listened with great interest to Hizmy Hassen, Chief Digital Officer at Apollo Tyres. Having worked with tyre companies before, and having a soft Dutch spot for their Vredestein brand, much of his story felt familiar.
What caught my attention even more was their “New House strategy” as shown below:
Too often, I have seen companies start their transformation from their pains and wishes, wrapped in a project based on the known As-Is situation. External consultants like this approach too—it lets them sell interviews and reporting while getting paid to learn the company. It is the traditional business model, and I understand it.
However, I believe in a different approach: define the desired To-Be status from the company’s business strategy for the coming years, then derive the enterprise processes and the underlying data model needed to get there.
From there, you define the journey.
Instead of looking back and fixing what went wrong—an inherently negative mindset—the company looks forward, fostering a positive, aligned attitude when everyone is informed and on board.
Of course, Organizational Change Management becomes crucial here, as systems, the organization, and even business models can and must change.
I saw exactly this mindset in Hizmy’s New House strategy.
One of his best examples: introducing AI/automation as the natural way of working with data in a context where data is available. And as his concluding slide showed, this forward-looking approach is already delivering its first wins.
Success Under Extreme Conditions – What Enables Innovation Under Pressure
During the afternoon sessions, attendees chose from various tracks, and we concluded the day with an inspiring keynote from Jutta Kleinschmidt, a famous race car driver (Dakar), physicist and author, who shared how to succeed in an unpredictable environment.
After a great networking evening on board the Ocean Diva, sailing on the Rhine, we started Day 2 with an interesting opening session: the CONTACT software product management team shared their plans and roadmap.
Roadmap CONTACT Elements: opening the next chapter
What surprised me first was the roadmap’s level of detail. Most vendors talk about roadmaps but rarely share specifics or commit to capabilities before a release is actually available. Here, I saw the opposite.
Some random thoughts I noted down:
- CONTACT Elements is primarily a platform of connected capabilities. It provides a foundation through its Elements, and customization remains possible. I did not hear any Out-Of-The-Box messaging.
- The focus on delivering 3D Search capabilities surprised me somewhat, as I have seen this capability in typical PLM systems before. I also assumed there would be vendor-independent solutions in the market to connect to. Apparently not.
- The roadmap suggests the current mindset is still to deliver more and more standard, traditional PLM capabilities. This makes it harder to distinguish between being a platform and being a PLM system.
- Combining ALM and MBSE into a single Element suggests that the full complexity of managing systems—hardware and software—through a model-based approach is not yet fully developed. Both ALM and MBSE could be domains on their own, with many elements.
Of course, these are first impressions, and as I am not a CONTACT software insider, I am eager to learn more.
In the afternoon, there were more thematic sessions. I want to highlight one close to my heart:
Circular by Design – Anchoring Sustainability in Product Strategy
Comparing the agendas of the 2022 and 2024 editions with this year’s, I noticed sustainability has become less prominent — less hype, fewer dedicated topics. Understandable, as we’re overwhelmed by other immediate global challenges, despite the extreme climate warnings we’re facing.
That’s why I was glad to attend this session. In Europe, we see fewer specialized sustainability discussions; however, more and more companies are being forced to anchor sustainability in their product strategy—mainly due to regulations and, hopefully soon, genuine business benefits and customer demands.
Sebastian Weber gave a great overview of the industry’s current state and CONTACT Software’s approach, where other speakers shared their detailed sustainability experiences (this blog space is too short to mention everything. 🙄 I had much more to tell and digest, but I already passed my 1500-word deadline.)
As a core team member of the PLM Green Global Alliance (PGGA), I am happy to announce we’ll publish a dedicated interview with Sebastian on our PGGA channel in mid-October. There, we will definitely dive deeper into CONTACT software’s contribution to sustainability.
Conclusion
The CONTACT Open World conference was an eye-opener for me for several reasons. First, it was a warm, open community where I could discuss the typical challenges a medium-sized enterprise faces. Next, the clarity of the presentations and discussions helped me better understand where to position and recommend CONTACT software in the PLM domain as an exploration every potential customer should do.
CONTACT software is currently a niche player, but an interesting company that’s willing to expand. Keep them on your radar.
Next big event to meet
Back to Work, Back to Reality
After the holidays, we return to work with greater urgency. The big wildfires show that climate change is real.
While addressing climate change requires a long-term vision and the will to move away from fossil fuels, another problem is also emerging: the limits of our planet:
The increasing scarcity of the resources needed to build and maintain the products we use.
Addressing these challenges requires a new approach for both manufacturing companies and consumers.
The heavy, carbon-intensive linear take-make-dispose approach to products needs to be replaced by a systemic approach that accounts for carbon emissions across manufacturing and use, optimizes business models to minimize resource waste, and incorporates thresholds to safeguard biodiversity.
The challenging transformation upon us is often evoked as a twin transition of “Sustainability and Digitalization”. Image below from my 2023 presentation at the PLM Roadmap/PDT conference.
Our last PGGA interview with Adrian Segens from Cambridge Design Partnership addressed Design for Sustainability.
As a reminder: Have a look at our last PGGA interview to get ready for this episode: Design for Sustainability: The PLM Green Global Alliance talks with Adrian Segens.
The INCOSE Sustainability Workgroup
We were extremely happy to connect with the INCOSE Sustainability working group, particularly the Sustainability Together team, as it is like our PGGA: a group of experts with diverse backgrounds who have begun addressing sustainability with a systemic approach grounded in Systems Engineering and in modeling a circular and regenerative economy.
We spoke with Hamza Bassam, Trainer, Consultant, Coach and Author at OOSE. and Kai Constantini, Consultant, Trainer, Facilitator and Art Thinking Expert, both with a broad interest and work on sustainability-related topics
Enjoy the 37-minute interview below:
You can download the slides presented (and more) HERE
What we have learned
- The Essential Role of Systems Engineering (SE) and MBSE: Systems engineering provides a holistic perspective that is crucial for sustainability, as traditional linear processes (design, produce, use, retire) are insufficient to address the complexity of a circular economy and the complex techno-socio-ecological phenomena such as the “Rebound” effect.
- Shifting from Eco-Efficiency to Regenerative Design: The session highlights a move beyond “eco-efficiency”—which may simply make a bad process more efficient—toward “eco-effectiveness” and regenerative design.
- The Need for New Mental Models and Proven Profitability: A significant barrier to sustainability is the current business mental model, which often prioritizes short-term profit over long-term regenerative practices
- The “Sustainable Together” Open-Source Project: a virtual lab to test these concepts, also open for non-INCOSE members (see link in the next paragraph) – a group similar to our PGGA.
- Leveraging AI and Data-Driven Environments: Future sustainability efforts will increasingly rely on AI and automated agents to handle complex tasks like Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), which are currently cumbersome for organizations. They will also account for Biodiversity data capture to inform our decision-making process across business and multiple socio-economic layers
Want to learn more?
- Link to the Sustainability Together project on GitHub: Sustainability Together
- Link to the INCOSE Natural Systems Working Group
- The 9R-framework or the 10R-framework from Potting
- The Donella Meadows project – Limits to growth
- More info about: Art Thinking and the Improbable method
Conclusion
The INCOSE Sustainability WG and the PLM Green Global are a perfect match to address sustainability topics. While the PGGA focuses primarily on PLM-related topics, sharing information and educating the field, the INCOSE Sustainability working group enables people from around the globe to discuss and apply these topics on real projects.
To strengthen our relationship, Hamsa Bassam has agreed to join the PGGA core team, and Jos Voskuil will be actively involved in the INCOSE Sustainability Together project starting in Q4 2026.
Feel free to join us too!
In nearly twenty years of coaching PLM implementations, I’ve noticed something striking: these projects often mirror politics—not just in complexity, but in the blame game that follows when things go wrong.
When something goes wrong, people rarely see it as an opportunity to solve the issue together. They look for someone to blame instead.
That happens in politics and in Product Lifecycle Management. I wrote about it in 2019, The PLM Blame Game—and most of those observations still hold—although the emphasis has shifted.
But what if the real issue isn’t the system or the technology? What if it’s the human connections—or lack thereof—that determine success?
Political systems/ PLM approaches
In democracies, everyone debates priorities, but progress is slow. Stakeholders defend their own interests, consultants favor preferred solutions, and vendors promise the moon. Long-term plans such as digital transformation often stall.
The result is familiar: each leadership change resets ambitions, leaving users with mixed messages and less commitment – sounds familiar in PLM?.
From: Communication charts around the world
Then there are the autocracies, where a single dominant view determines the path. Usually, that view comes not from the CEO but from the CFO or CIO. These leaders often have a limited understanding of product lifecycle management and instead rely on trusted networks.
That is why some companies choose SAP because “all enterprises run on SAP” or Teamcenter because “everyone in automotive uses Teamcenter.” Strategic consultants reinforce the same pattern with their own preferred solutions.
The result: Surface-level alignment, but resistance beneath the surface—another familiar PLM scenario.
From: Communication charts around the world – 2014 China
In smaller companies, a populist version often appears. Without a strong strategic layer, the loudest voices from vendors and implementers shape the company’s view. That is the riskiest setup because vision and strategy are effectively outsourced. Early in my career, I often heard:
“You know solution XYZ, so tell us what to do.”
The result is predictable: no one in the company feels a true sense of ownership of the business outcome – the type of situations I have been mediating the most.
Of course, the analogy is imperfect. Countries usually lack competition, so citizens cannot simply switch. Still, it is a useful way to frame what happens in PLM.
They – not us – are the problem!
In the past, debates focused on who was to blame for project problems, often blaming the stakeholder who was not at the table.
Vendors and implementers blamed customers, vendors and customers blamed implementers, and implementers blamed vendors. My role in PLM mediations was to get everyone into the same room.
But one issue always remained:
Blaming the customer is difficult when the customer is assumed to be right – They are paying the bill and not always with pleasure.
Why 70 % of PLM implementations fail – or not?
For decades, we have heard horror stories about failed PLM implementations, each supposedly explained by one simple cause.
Depending on who tells the story, the culprit is the software, the company culture, poor user involvement, or unrealistic ambitions without a budget or understanding.
But the truth is more nuanced: many of these implementations did not actually fail completely.
People react strongly to the word failure because no one wants to be associated with it.
Yet, in software, ‘failing fast’ is often celebrated—it’s a way to adapt early. PLM is slowly catching on, with the rise of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) approaches. Instead of waiting for a ‘perfect’ big-bang rollout, companies now start with a working foundation and iterate as needs emerge.”
That only works if the company owns its vision and strategy. An MVP approach also demands end-to-end stakeholder involvement, because everyone contributes to the solution. At the same time, our limbic brain works against us: it pushes us to protect what we know and react strongly to change.
That reaction shows up in PLM projects too. The loudest critics get the most attention, which makes it easy to conclude a program failed—even when it is working for most people who have adapted to the change.
And now, a new trend has emerged:
PLM systems are failing!
Now, a new claim is gaining traction: PLM systems themselves are failing. With the rise of AI, traditional vendors are being blamed for failing to provide the right infrastructure or opportunities for AI-enabled capabilities.
After years of success built on legacy platforms, vendors now face growing pressure from opinion leaders calling for change.
Martin Eigner has made this point in several posts:
- Why We’re “Optimizing” Problems We Created Ourselves
- 50 % failure rate is not an accident
- My vision for the next 5 years
Oleg Shilovitsky has made similar arguments:
- Did We Solve PLM, or Just Learn How to Describe It?
- Who can replace the big three PLM and why that may be the wrong question in the Age of AI?
- Is Product Memory Just a New Name for PLM?
Prof. Dr. Jörg W. Fischer wrote:
- Will we ever solve PLM? We did, but AI has taken over.
- Digitalization has failed to deliver on its central promise! Why?
Doug Macdonald wrote about the shortcomings of Legacy PLM, which most companies imagine/practice:
- The shortcomings of Legacy PLM
- Could you manage the development of a toothbrush in a Legacy PLM system
I agree with much of this critique, for sure, if you still consider PLM a system rather than a product lifecycle management strategy implemented through a federated infrastructure of systems.
The posts I referred to highlight real problems from the past and suggest that new insights and AI might help us build better businesses. The question is whether that promise will be fulfilled.
Creating the human thread
AI could help businesses break through organizational silos by pulling together information across functions.
That would make concepts such as the digital thread and digital twin easier to implement without relying on dedicated interfaces.
This shift creates both opportunity and risk.
If AI reduces the need for siloed optimization, traditional middle-management roles will change. The key question is whether companies are willing to rethink their structures or stay constrained by Conway’s Law.
It could also make many methodology debates less important.
Today, we as consultants often promote methodologies shaped by our own experience or vendor narratives. The long-running eBOM–mBOM debate is a good example. Across industries and platforms, the answer is often more straightforward than the discussion suggests.
As AI absorbs more collective knowledge, the role of PLM experts and consultants will shift. At the Share PLM Summit in Jerez, we discussed what should come next: a stronger focus on human connection.
That is why I use the term human thread: the network of relationships that connects people across the business. Michael Finochario (Fino) touches on the same shift in his post on the changing balance between humans and technology, in his review of my session in Jerez.
Others are moving in the same direction. This week, Helene Älander shared a post that makes a similar point.
Helene’s post and the related discussion suggest a growing belief that transformation depends less on technology alone and more on human connection and motivation inside the company.
A quote from Helene’s post, and I recommend reading the full post and thread.
One lesson has stayed with me ever since:
Transformation rarely fails because of technology. It slows down when the distance between executive ambition and middle-management reality becomes too large.
For now, I call this the need for the human thread. A successful transformation starts with an end-to-end human connection across the business, with people treating that connection as a shared priority.
Because people are intrinsically motivated by a human connection.
The human thread requires a new approach, new forms of workshops and learning sessions where leaders, managers, and employees work together on the desired business flow.
Helene Älander points in this direction, and Share PLM supports it through initiatives such as Share The Nest.
Also this year at the Share PLM Summit in Jerez, Andreas Wank described how Pepperl+Fuchs made a breakthrough by bringing people together. As Fino in his review post quoted:
No one on the team wanted to make a decision because every decision affected someone else. So they put 30 people in one room for a week and forced them to make decisions. Not perfect decisions. Working hypotheses. That was a critical insight: In PLM, waiting for perfect certainty kills momentum.
The year before, at the 2025 Share PLM Summit, Andrea Järvrén already shared a similar lesson, describing how Tetra Pak used design sprints to advance its PLM work by prioritizing human interaction.
It is an unstoppable trend – the human thread popping up in more and more conversations.
Conclusion
The time for blaming systems, technology, and methodology should fade into the background. Companies need to focus on building business flow through the human thread—the human connections that drive commitment, motivation, and change.
So, here is the question: Are we ready to stop blaming systems and start building the human thread? Or will we keep repeating the same patterns, just with fancier technology?
Erik Rieger and Matthew Sullivian have been active last year, organizing a workgroup related to Design for Sustainability, as you might recall from earlier posts: Towards a shared definition of Design for Sustainability.
As part of this exploration, Erik Rieger and Jos Voskuil had a conversation with Adrian Segens, an experienced professional at Cambridge Design Partnership and a thought leader in packaging, recycling, and sustainability, contributing to industry discussions, reports, and LinkedIn posts.
For that reason, we were happy to record an interview with Adrian, discussing his background in sustainability, the connection to businesses and the concept of Product As A Service – a must for a circular economy.
Enjoy the 36-minute interview below:
The images presented during this recording can be found HERE.
What we learned
- Sustainability is an Economic Imperative: the effort to sustain a “working and livable economy and society” for a global population of eight billion people. The transition to a circular economy is an economic necessity because current resource use and climate emissions are tied directly to how we make and consume products.
- The shift to ‘Product as a Service’ (PaaS) is essential: Manufacturers must retain ownership of material flows—a cornerstone of circularity and a sustainable economic model. This approach replaces the unpredictability of one-time sales with steady, predictable revenue, long-term customer value, and a reduced reliance on virgin resources.
- Recycling is a Low Priority on the “Ladder of 10”: A major misconception is that the circular economy is primarily about recycling. In reality, recycling is ranked eighth in a ten-stage hierarchy of circularity. Higher-value strategies include rethinking the business model (the second step), reusing products (the most preferred method), and refurbishing equipment.
- Digitalization is essential for Scaling: The circular economy cannot scale without digitalization, as we need full traceability of materials and outcomes. Technologies like Digital Product Passports (DPP) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) are necessary to provide the end-to-end visibility required to track every product in the field, manage complex return logistics, and collect metadata to improve future designs.
Want to learn more?
Adrian recommends that we dive deeper following these links:
- Learn more about Cambridge Design Partnership and its activities.
- Follow and connect with Adrian Segens on LinkedIn, and reach out with your questions.
- Learn more about WEF’s Circular Car Initiative as a great vision of what a circular future looks like.
- Watch this documentary about Adrien’s hero: Dieter Rams.
Conclusion
We all agree that the transition to a circular economy is an economic necessity, requiring a fundamental shift toward product-as-a-service models. Understanding that product design is the most effective lever for reducing environmental impact, prioritizing high-value actions like reuse and refurbishment over recycling.
For us as a PLM community, the circular economy cannot function at scale without digitalization. Success relies on end-to-end visibility, enabled by modern, data-driven PLM infrastructures, to manage material flows and leverage data for continuous improvement.
We have work to do
It has been quiet at the beginning of this year, with presentations and interviews from the PLM Green Global Alliance, mainly due to several activities from the core PGGA team in the background.
Rich McFall stepped back, and with him, the management of the PGGA website.
Sabine and Klaus Brettschneider have meanwhile migrated the website to a new environment with a more modern look and feel, complemented by a redesign of our logo by our partner CIMPA PLM Services. Sabine’s expertise in e-commerce and digital user experience played a key role in shaping the new platform, while Klaus contributed his experience in sustainability and PLM.
As a group of volunteers, we are proud of the result and continue to work to improve it where needed, while encouraging our members to make active contributions.
Have a look at the website plmgreenalliance.com and give us your feedback (and support).
Back to the interviews
Despite political headwinds, businesses have been implementing more sustainability initiatives, and we were curious to hear from PLM vendors and implementers about what they are currently observing and offering to the field.
You can always read about these interviews on our PLM Green Global Alliance website or subscribe to our YouTube channel, @PLM_Global_Green_Alliance, where we share interview recordings.
This time, Klaus Brettschneider, our LCA moderator, and Jos Voskuil spoke with Eduardo Salva from Siemens Digital Industries Software, who was recommended to us as the expert on the global Teamcenter product portfolio, particularly the Sustainability Lifecycle Assessment environment.
Siemens Digital Industries
We don’t think Siemens Digital Industries needs an introduction in the world of PLM; with its broad portfolio, you might miss some of its sustainability initiatives and offerings.
Therefore, we were happy to speak to Eduardo Silva about his personal passion and his professional activities within Siemens Digital Industries related to Sustainability.
Enjoy the 36-minute discussion here:
What we have learned
- Siemens enterprise-wide commitment to Sustainability under the “DEGREE” framework, a holistic sustainability program with measurable KPIs across ethics, governance, and environmental impact, targeting full implementation by 2030. Siemens Impact 2025
- Sustainability at the engineer’s desktop: AI-Driven Sustainability solution within Teamcenter, through a partnership with Makersite, supporting “one-click” LCA calculations. The result: Automated ISO-compliant LCAs/PEFs/EPDs built by engineers to assess eco-design decisions early in the design phase (“shifting left”).
- Sustainability is no longer optional: it is regulation-driven. Under ESPR, the Digital Product Passport (DPP) will require manufacturers to provide verified, lifecycle-based product data (including carbon footprint), forcing OEMs—especially in automotive and batteries—to pass these reporting requirements down to their suppliers
- Sustainable engineering is shifting from document-based reporting to structured product data. Regulations today require standardized lifecycle data, creating the foundation for advanced analytics, digital twins, and AI-driven optimization. Platforms like Catena-X are emerging to enable secure data exchange across the value chain
Want to learn more?
- Product Announcement: Siemens’ AI-powered Lifecycle Assessment software | Siemens
- Product Page: Teamcenter – develop sustainable products | Siemens
- Blog: Transform your competitive edge with Teamcenter Sustainability Lifecycle Assessment – Teamcenter
Conclusion
The conversation with Siemens Digital Industries shows that sustainability in PLM is moving from ambition to execution, if you recall our earlier interviews. Now LCA must become part of everyday engineering work, supported by structured product data, automation, and collaboration across the value chain.
With regulations such as ESPR and the Digital Product Passport accelerating the need for reliable lifecycle information, companies that embed sustainability early in design will be better prepared for compliance while also creating opportunities for innovation, transparency, and competitive advantage.
Those who follow my blog know that whenever I visit an event, I push myself to write a review the weekend after to share the experience. However, this time after the conference, I have been exploring further the Andalusian culture, making me realize that this is exactly what makes the conference different and stand out.
Where traditional conferences are often in cold high-tech places, efficiently to reach, making it for attendees an event in their comfort zone, the Share PLM Summit is held in a grand bodega in the unhurried scenery of Jerez de la Frontera.
An experience best described by Helena Alander in her recent post: “I have never taken the time to invest in myself.” – Read the post, she shares a great reflection.
As the focus of Share PLM is to focus on human-centric transformations, there is much more focus on the human experiences of people implementing transformations in their companies.
The human focus translates into a diverse audience and one big common theme for all, instead of a traditional industry or technology focus.
With more than a hundred attendees, the conference felt like a big family gathering where you can easily connect and learn from everyone. I believe this type of conference will be the future in the age of AI.
The many sponsors that joined the conference were also a part of the success. Without their support and human-centric messages, it would be hard to make this event sustainable 😉
If you want to read an impression of each session, Michael Finocchareo made a great effort to share the highlights of each session – you can find all his excellent reviews here: Share PLM Summit – Fino Summary Post Index.
And now some of my personal highlights from the conference!
The Role of People in Transformation Programs: Experience LEAN
An interesting learning experience was the session from Javier Sánchez, who is a plant manager at Kerry in Spain, about the implementation of LEAN at several plants in Spain.
Where initially we might think that PLM and plant operations are two different worlds, Javier was able to take us on the journey of implementing a LEAN program for the Spanish plants. There was so much communality to PLM implementations when dealing with behavioural change and the uncertainty of people.
Change can only happen when people in the organisation understand and trust what is going to happen and that they are part of a change for their benefit.
TRUST is the word that I noted down, and to build trust, you can see how Javier shared the org chart of the Kerry Sevilla plant – upside down – people at the top and the manager at the bottom to support everyone.
This image above really illustrates that you have a people-first approach.
Javier further elaborated on the difference of such an approach and how an organization can be fully engaged, as the picture below illustrates.
And after a successful implementation, Javier also warned about the rebound effect.
Where initially the excitement and energy come from the new situation, companies might slowly fall back into the traditional, as over time people have and bring their habits, the pyramid falls over as the image to the left illustrates and Javier shared several potential causes for such a rebound.
Important to see C-level change as #1 point, a point I have seen popping up in many PLM implementations too. After starting with a great vision, new people at the C-level come in questioning the vision (and strategy).
Note: GENBA is a term coming from LEAN, and is also relevant to PLM. It refers to the location where value is created—such as a factory floor, construction site, sales floor, or any workplace where the core work happens.
The concept emphasizes the importance of direct observation and engagement at the source of the action, rather than relying on reports or second-hand information.
It is a key principle in lean manufacturing and continuous improvement methodologies, encouraging leaders to “go to the GENBA” to understand problems and opportunities firsthand.
Combined with his great storytelling skills, Javier took us on an interesting story, very relevant for a human-centric approach and showing that we can learn from other disciplines.
Adapting PLM implementation strategy in evolving organizational realities
Susanna Mäentausta, also a guest in our Share PLM season 2 podcast with that time the title The ROI of Digitalization: A Deep Dive into Business Value gave an interesting lecture about her experiences with the PLM implementation at her current company, Novartis.
She excels in keeping her focus on both PLM business value and strategies to achieve this.
I knew Susanna from her earlier presentation at the Product Innovation 2019 conference in London. Here she stood out because of her strategic and tactical approach to implementing PLM – at that time at Kemira – where she was able to get PLM business benefits to be discussed at the C-level – it was more than a technical story.
You can read my observations from that time here: The weekend after PI PLMx London 2019
In her session this time, she explained all the challenges that she had to address at her current employer. It was not such a nice, linear step-by-step approach as presented by Andreas Wank earlier that day, talking about his implementation challenges at Pepperl & Fuchs.
Susanna’s tactics were all about securing the progress of the PLM project – design for change and awareness in the organisation. Javier Sanchez mentioned that the change at the C-level had a serious impact on the roadmap, as did both Susanna and Andreas. It remains a continuous point of attention when you want to guarantee a long-term outcome.
The image below says it all:
Susanne ended with some tactics:
- Design for non-removable anchor points that keep the PLM vision connected even when priorities shift.
- Define the non-negotiable cornerstone for the future: process & design frameworks and necessary authorities.
Her final recommendation was also interesting – the core team should have a clear long-term understanding of the future and work in an entrepreneurial mindset, meanwhile shielding execution from organizational politics.
Don’t get involved in politics – a recommendation that I also often shared, as politics is so much about emotions and subjective arguments, it’s better to work around it in silence.
The Human Advantage: Working and Leading in the Age of AI
Helena Gutierrez, well known as one of the founders of Share PLM and her AI-related newsletter, shared her positive view on how AI, in one way, destroyed Share PLM’s actual business practices, as a lot of material development now could be done with the help of AI in hours, compared to days of actual design work.
Companies won’t pay anymore for weeks of development of specific materials, she also pointed to the need for human skills in the future.
I think we agree on the fact that with AI, we will need people who can bridge and work with agentic AI to achieve unmet benefits for organisations. These people will have a special role; they are there for their human skills, combining emotion and logic, potentially a highly rewarding job, however, in smaller quantities than current knowledge workers in companies.
In my session Are Humans Still Resources?, I shared a pessimistic viewpoint and an optimistic end.
The pessimistic part is based on the fact that we humans run on our old biological hardware, the limbic brain, which urges us to save energy (think fast) and may lead to cognitive surrender. This situation might push companies to invest even more in AI and consider humans as a difficult resource to handle – are we back in the early days of the industrial revolution?
The optimistic side, which was also mentioned by others, and we see it happen, is that thanks to AI, the entrepreneur has a much easier life. A lot of the supporting activities for an entrepreneur can now be done using AI agents – the image below from this post by Dr.Sam Zolfagharian says it all:
For sure, the discussion will go on between the optimists and the realists (pessimists in disguise)
Scaling human capabilities
I am closing this impression with a train of thought that I can’t get out of my head. We can scale tools and resources with AI, leaving only a space for people with a combination of specific human skills – not only deep thinking, but also emotional and empathic roles, like healthcare providers, coaches and entertainers.
These roles are hard to scale – you become a coach by learning from experiences, and AI will not have an “experience transfer function.” How will business scale in the future, as we also see that junior roles in an organisation disappear due to AI?
The topic was also discussed in the interesting AI panel discussion – image above – with a mix of participants. It was a balanced discussion between tech, vision and reality and one of the highlights was the response from Susanna to a question from the audience:
“I don’t know.”
Have you ever seen someone honestly say this in a panel discussion? And what would AI respond? Great to see the human presence.
Where will humans build their experience and skills to think? I wrote about this already in March and have not yet answered: PLM, AI, and the Risk of Cognitive Surrender: A Call to Stay Sharp!
How to stay sharp in an AI-dominated world?
Conclusion
The Share PLM summit demonstrated again that a human-centric approach related to product lifecycle management has many benefits, as these shared experiences and outcomes from the discussions are directly applicable. Big kudos to the Share PLM team that dared to invest in such an event last year and exceeded expectations this year.
For those who want to learn more, join us at the upcoming event, Putting People in PLM: A Share PLM Summit Recap! and get excited.
For those who are interested in a lifetime, full-time job, watch this excellent short movie below:
I think that it doesn't take a lot of imagination today to at least create some non-vendor-specific tooling. Build it…
Effective collaboration in product lifecycle management can help teams connect different functions and reduce gaps between development stages. I find…
Hi Jos, Knowing your background in methodology and education, I wanted to share a longer article with you: “What is…
Interesting reflection, Jos. In my experience, the situation you describe is very recognizable. At the company where I work, sustainability…
[…] (The following post from PLM Green Global Alliance cofounder Jos Voskuil first appeared in his European PLM-focused blog HERE.) […]