This page contains the collection of blog posts from 2021 exploring the concepts of moving to a model-based and connected approach for PLM.
During the exploration, it became clear that there are a lot of dependencies on new technology concepts and that the TLA PLM for Product Lifecycle Management is a little outdated – will the future be SLM (System Lifecycle Management or Solution Lifecycle Management)

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 1)

A bit of history takes the reader through the drawing-centric approach toward the item-centric approach. It has been a technology shift, but basically, it has not created new ways of working. We kept on working linearly, optimized per discipline. For frequent readers of my blog, I call this the coordinated approach.

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 2)

In this post, I have discussed the upcome and introduction of platforms, a way to connect all stakeholders in almost real-time. Five platforms were discussed: The ERP platform, the MES platform, the CRM platform, the IoT platform and relevant for the PLM domain, the PIP (Product Innovation Platform)

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 3)

This post is the central post of this series, discussing first what do I mean by data-driven and next, I end up with seven statements, grouped as What does data-driven imply? The follow-up posts are every time zooming in on one of these aspects.

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 4)

This post zooms in on the statement: Data-driven does not imply there needs to be a single environment, a single database that contains all information. As I mentioned in my previous post, it will be about managing connected datasets federated. It is not anymore about owning the data; it is about access to reliable data.

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 5)

This post zooms in on the statement: Data-driven does not mean we do not need any documents anymore. Read electronic files for documents. Likely, document sets will still be the interface to non-connected entities, suppliers, and regulatory bodies. These document sets can be considered a configuration baseline. In addition, briefly discuss the need for SysLM or SLM as we deal more and more with systems.

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 6)

In this quite abstract post, we zoom in on the dataset as part of the statement: Data-driven means that we need to manage data much more granularly. We have to look different at data ownership. It becomes more about data accountability per role as the data can be used and consumed throughout the product lifecycle

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 7)

In this post, I discover that the SCAF content (SCAF is the Swedish CATIA User Forum) has some aspects discussing a data-driven future (the dataset), and I combine it with the statement:  Data-driven means that you need to have an enterprise architecture, data governance and a master data management (MDM) approach. So far, the traditional PLM vendors have not been active in the MDM domain as they believe their proprietary data model is leading. Read this interesting McKinsey article: How enterprise architects need to evolve to survive in a digital world.

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 8)

In this post, I come back to the connection between data and models plus some reflections on low-code platforms, mainly addressing these statements: A model-based approach with connected datasets seems to be the way forward. Managing data in documents will become inefficient as they cannot contribute to any digital accelerator, like applying algorithms. Artificial Intelligence relies on direct access to qualified data
I don’t believe in Low-Code platforms that provide ad-hoc solutions on demand. The ultimate result after several years might be again a new type of spaghetti. On the other hand, standardized interfaces and protocols will probably deliver higher, long-term benefits. Remember: Low code: A promising trend or a Pandora’s Box?

The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 9 – CM)

In this concluding post, I come back on the need for configuration management practices for such new environments – what do we need to consider? Not an answer but an opening for discussion on:

Configuration Management requires a new approach. The current methodology is very much based on hardware products with labor-intensive change management. However, the world of software products has different configuration management and change procedures. Therefore, we need to merge them into a single framework. Unfortunately, this cannot be the BOM framework due to the dynamics in software changes.