Mois : août 2023

Throughout my 35-year journey in the world of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), I’ve been deeply involved in the selection phase of PLM systems, initially from the client’s perspective and soon after, from the vantage point of software publishers and integrators.

Time and again, I’ve been struck by the superficiality that tends to overshadow this pivotal decision-making process, even for projects of several tens of millions of euros/dollars.

Here are some key observations and insights:

1. Internal Expertise: Often, a company’s internal teams lack the in-depth PLM expertise necessary for informed decision-making. Such a void leads to choices based on surface-level knowledge, missing the deeper intricacies of what makes a PLM system genuinely effective.
2. The Consultant Dilemma: Many independent consultants, instead of providing unbiased advice, tread cautiously to avoid offending software publishers, fearing blacklisting. This conflict of interest invariably compromises the integrity of their recommendations.
3. Use Cases: More Surface than Substance: The use cases presented usually lack depth and comprehensive understanding, leading to a disconnect between system capabilities and actual organizational needs.
4. Overlooking PLM Theory: In the quest for immediate solutions, the foundational theory of PLM, the core models, and basic algorithms are often undervalued. A deeper appreciation of these fundamentals can significantly inform better system selection.
5. The Misconception of Equivalence: A prevalent false belief is that all PLM solutions are created equal. However, in reality, there are significant disparities between them. Overlooking these distinctions can lead to settling for a system that doesn’t truly meet organizational needs.
6. Technical Aspects: Often Undervalued: A PLM system’s technical foundation plays a monumental role in its efficacy. Yet, this facet often takes a back seat during the selection process, leading to potential pitfalls down the road.
7. Political Choices: Sometimes, PLM system selection is swayed by internal politics rather than the system’s capabilities or the organization’s genuine needs. Such decisions can often lead to complications in the future, as a politically driven choice may not align with operational requirements.
8. Overvaluing End-user and Middle Management Opinions: While it’s crucial to consider the perspectives of end-users and middle management, over-relying on their opinions can skew the selection process. This overemphasis can bolster superficial criteria over deep technical or functional considerations.
9. Publishers’ Misrepresentations: Sadly, I’ve witnessed instances where software publishers, in their eagerness to secure a deal, provide responses that range from overly optimistic portrayals to outright misrepresentations.

Selecting a PLM system is not a decision to be made lightly. It requires a holistic approach that considers technical capabilities, aligns with organizational needs, and is backed by genuine expertise. As stakeholders in this process, it’s imperative that we challenge superficiality, advocate for thoroughness, and champion the value of deep knowledge.

What must be evaluated in a PLM?

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems are pivotal for organizations to streamline their product development processes and manage product-related information throughout its lifecycle. A top-notch PLM system is the backbone of successful product management. Here’s what sets the best apart:

1. User Experience: A user-friendly interface is paramount. It not only ensures ease of use but also accelerates adoption across teams. The smoother the user experience, the more seamless the product lifecycle management.
   
2. Functional Scope: The breadth and depth of functionalities determine how effectively a PLM system can cater to diverse needs. Comprehensive features are essential for end-to-end product management.
   
3. Core Data Model: It’s crucial to have an accurate, rich, and extensible data model. This foundation determines how well the PLM can handle complex product information and changes over time.
   
4. Business Logic and Core Algorithms: Features such as a Single Product Structure Engine and Occurrence Management algorithms streamline the management of products, ensuring optimal efficiency and accuracy.
   
5. Architecture:
   • Unified Architecture: Cohesion and global unity ensure data consistency and alignment across teams and regions.
   • Type & Flexibility: Whether 3-Tier or 4-Tier, the architecture’s design impacts adaptability. Key elements like independence of the user interface, the number of databases, and potential for dockerization play pivotal roles.
   • Connectivity : An optimal PLM offers a multitude of web services (see customization)
   • Security: an optimal PLM keeps ethernet ports requirements minimal for efficient integration, and places a premium on cybersecurity.
     
6. Openness: The ability to seamlessly interact or interface with third-party software, authoring tools, partners, customers … is vital. Capability to exchange (in and out) complex data, with strong filtering and traceability becomes a major feature of efficient PLM.
   It enables flexibility and ensures that the PLM can evolve with emerging technologies and needs.
   
7. Performance: Both server performance and communication performance are crucial. Optimized LAN/WAN communication (considering chatiness and packet optimization) ensures real-time and smooth data access and collaboration.
   
8. Customization & Sustainability: The future is in adaptability. A superior PLM offers APIs, web services, and seamless integration with low/no-code platforms. But customization doesn’t compromise sustainability; stable APIs and consistent web services ensure longevity. And what about software upgrades in case of customized solutions ?
   
9. Scalability: As businesses evolve, a top-tier PLM adapts, ensuring it grows in tandem with organizational needs.

In conclusion, while many factors contribute to a successful PLM system, these key elements form the cornerstone. Investing in a PLM that embodies these characteristics can significantly bolster an organization’s product management efficacy.

Who must be involved for the solution evaluation?

For each of the nine topics concerning a great PLM system, different stakeholders within the organization will have varying perspectives based on their roles and expertise. Here’s a breakdown of who is most able to evaluate each topic:

User Experience :

• End User: Primary evaluator, as they interact directly with the interface and can best judge usability.
• Business Expert: Can also provide feedback on how well the user experience aligns with business processes.

Functional Scope:

• Business Expert: Best positioned to understand if all necessary business functionalities are present.
• PLM Expert: Can assess how well the functionalities match industry standards and best practices.

Core Data Model:

• PLM Expert: Understands the intricacies of data modeling in PLM systems and can evaluate its adequacy.
• IT Expert: Can assess the technical aspects of the data model.

Business Logic and Algorithms:

• Business Expert: Can evaluate if the algorithms align with business needs and processes.
• PLM Expert: Understands industry standards for business logic in PLM systems.

Architecture:

• IT Expert: Most capable of assessing the technical architecture and its coherence.
• PLM Expert: Can evaluate how the architecture aligns with PLM best practices.

Openness:

• IT Expert: Primary evaluator for technical integrations with third-party tools.
• PLM Expert: Can assess the PLM’s compatibility with industry standards.

Performance:

• IT Expert:Best positioned to evaluate server performance and communication protocols.
• End User: Can provide feedback on real-time performance issues they encounter.

Sustainability and customization:

• IT Expert: Evaluates the quality and stability of customization tools and their potential long-term integration and evolutions.
• PLM Expert: Understands the long-term requirements for PLM systems in the industry.

Scalability:

• IT Expert: Can assess the technical scalability of the system.
• Management: Can provide insights on future growth plans and if the PLM can accommodate such growth.

In summary, while different profiles can evaluate multiple topics, certain profiles are better suited to assess specific areas due to their expertise and daily interaction with the PLM system. Collaborative evaluation involving various profiles will provide a comprehensive assessment of the PLM’s capabilities.

#PLM #ProductManagement #Technology

The Bill of Materials (BOM) is a critical component in the realm of manufacturing, design, and product management. Over time, the term « BOM » has evolved in significance and is now often seen as synonymous with « Product Structure. » Let’s delve deeper into this idea.

Historical Context:

Traditionally, a Bill of Materials (BOM) was a list or document that specified the raw materials, parts, and components, along with their quantities, needed to manufacture a finished product. The BOM was essentially an ingredients list for manufacturing.

On the other hand, Product Structure described how a product was broken down into its constituent components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies. It was more of a hierarchical depiction, detailing how different parts fit into the overall product.

Convergence of Concepts:

1. Complexity of Modern Products: As products have become more complex, so too has their documentation. It’s no longer enough to just list parts; manufacturers need to understand the relationships between parts, how they fit together, and the various dependencies. This necessitates a deep structural view of the product, blurring the lines between a mere list (BOM) and a detailed breakdown (Product Structure).
2. Digital Evolution: With the rise of digital tools and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) software, the BOM has evolved from a static list into a dynamic, multi-dimensional entity. Modern BOMs can now represent the hierarchical structure, variants, and configurations of a product, encompassing the essence of what was traditionally termed ‘Product Structure’.
3. Holistic Product View: In today’s competitive market, a holistic view of the product is paramount. From design and engineering to manufacturing and after-sales support, understanding the product’s structure is critical. Thus, the BOM has expanded in scope to provide a 360-degree view of the product.
4. Unified Terminology for Cross-Functional Collaboration: With multiple departments and teams (design, engineering, procurement, manufacturing, etc.) collaborating on a single product, a unified language is essential. Referring to the product’s structure as the BOM simplifies communication and ensures that everyone is on the same page.
5. Lifecycle Management: Modern BOMs are not static. They change and evolve as the product moves through its lifecycle, reflecting design changes, substitutions, or adaptations based on feedback or supply chain dynamics. This dynamic nature aligns more with the concept of ‘Product Structure’, which inherently acknowledges the product’s evolving nature.

Conclusion:

The evolution of the BOM from a static list to a dynamic representation of a product’s entirety is a reflection of the complexities of modern manufacturing and product design. The convergence of the terms « BOM » and « Product Structure » is not just semantic; it mirrors the industry’s need for a more holistic, integrated, and detailed view of products. As products continue to evolve, it’s likely that our understanding and representation of their structure will evolve alongside them.