Open side-bar Menu
 Jeff's MCAD Blogging
Jeff Rowe
Jeff Rowe
Jeffrey Rowe has almost 40 years of experience in all aspects of industrial design, mechanical engineering, and manufacturing. On the publishing side, he has written well over 1,000 articles for CAD, CAM, CAE, and other technical publications, as well as consulting in many capacities in the design … More »

PLM 2012 Part II – Can Vendors Pull It Off?

January 13th, 2012 by Jeff Rowe

Last time, based largely on vendors’ marketing language,  PLM was defined as a comprehensive system and process that integrates, interfaces, and interacts with every other IT system within an organization, including CAD, ERP, CRM, etc.  While this occurs at a peer level, the PLM oversees and, to a certain extent, controls all data exchanges.

I think, however, there is a better definition and model of what PLM actually should be. Unlike many vendors’ definitions,  PLM is not a peer system to other systems, such as ERP, SCM, and CRM. Rather, PLM is the intellectual property backbone of an enterprise. While the other subsystems deliver indirect cost-reducing improvements, none of them have any measurable impact on delivering top-line, revenue enhancing results and only a minor impact on lowering direct costs. The only way to positively impact top-line revenues is to develop and build innovative, higher-quality products, and PLM is the only system of the four that addresses these issues.

In this context, PLM transforms ideas to profits, capturing customer experiences, and generating ideas for new products. Along the way, the intellectual property undergoes several transformations (such as ideas to concepts, concepts-to-prototypes, prototypes-to-products, and so on) and interacts with the other systems. Ideally, a well-implemented PLM system provides a comprehensive framework that lets all the other systems and disparate groups of users to easily interact with an enterprises’ intellectual property so anyone can add value to it.

I think the revised definition and vision finally get to the heart of what a PLM was always envisioned to be, but thus far, executed and implemented by only a few PLM vendors – an intellectual property asset manager that can be used universally within an organization.

Ultimately, the success of PLM is dependent on two things. First, it is imperative that vendors communicate comprehensively and truthfully what their PLM offerings can do and integrate with, as well as what their customers can reasonably expect in terms of gains and ROI. Second, customers must educate themselves to the true needs of their organizations and how they expect PLM to fit in with the rest of their existing and future IT infrastructures. Only then will customer expectations and vendor promises meet  for improving processes and resulting products through intellectual property asset management.

Can vendors pull off what PLM was truly meant to fulfill? I think so, and more and more vendors will do so, increasingly with cloud-based services that are just beginning, but should decrease implementation costs and increase productivity through being available to anyone anywhere.

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “PLM 2012 Part II – Can Vendors Pull It Off?”

  1. Stan Przybylinski says:

    Hi Jeff,

    That is why CIMdata, and some other analysts, consider PLM itself to be a strategy, enabled by different technologies, most notably a data and process management solution at its core (what CIMdata calls a collaborative Product Definition management – cPDm – system, more commonly called product data management – PDM). Different vertical markets supplement a cPDm solution with different other solutions, depending on the industry. In heavy manufacturing, this usually includes MCAD, simulation and analysis, and other tools. In more process-oriented industries, there may be little or no MCAD.

    As we see in the market, some PLM solution providers offer a broad portfolio, while others focus on one or more specific niches. Companies have to decide for themselves which solution approach works best for them: single vendor or best of breed?

    Stan Przybylinski
    Director of Research
    CIMdata, Inc.

  2. Education ERP Consultant says:

    Do not forget “Google hold on only sitemap protocol 0.9 by

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Colortrac: LearnMore
TurboCAD pro : Limited Time offer

Internet Business Systems © 2016 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
595 Millich Dr., Suite 216, Campbell, CA 95008
+1 (408)-337-6870 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes EDACafe - Electronic Design Automation GISCafe - Geographical Information Services  MCADCafe - Mechanical Design and Engineering ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy Policy Advertise