I am stunned by the average level of posts on the PLM on Linkedin.
I’m sorry but, in 2023 :

  • Part Number management (significant, non-significant) should no longer be a problem.
  • Revision management should no longer be a question.
  • Configuration management theory should no longer be a question.
  • Notions of EBOMs, MBOMs … should no longer be a question.

So why are there still problems on these topics?

I see 3 reasons:

  • The weight of habits, the conservatism of end users
  • PLM software capabilities
  • The complexity induced by these topics due to the complexity of the managed products

Conservatism of end users

I have been often stunned by the conservatism of the key users during PLM solution designs, especially when it is a second or third generation PLM project. People are aware that things must change, that alignment with standards means the disappearance of secondary functions, but they cannot get used to these ideas. To sum up : everything is allowed, nothing is possible
Integrator is pushed to implement expensive abd useseless function, or in worst cases, models that harm the general coherency of the solution.

Thus, customers find themselves requiring meaningful identifiers (with heavy developments to generate and control these identifiers), more or less wobbly revision management, capability to modify afterwords the class of an object. And, of course, the non respect of these requirements is a show-stopper, even if 95% of the companies do not need them…

PLM software capabalities

Whatever one may think, there are, in 2023, real differences, and real differatiators between the main PLM solutions, especially on two topics, essentialy related to product structure management:

  1. Occurrences, revision and effectivity management
  2. Continuity between the different structures : EBOM, MBOM, Manufacturing Process (routings).

The extended notion of occurrence (relative versus absolute occurrences), strong revision management rules, single structure management engine are key topics.

If these functions are not correctly implemented, the risks of more or less generic workarounds, or heavy specific developments, impacting the core of the solution are likely to prevail, with all the impacts on the maintenance and scalability of the solution.

Complexity

There is a refusal, which turns into a denial, of complexity among users and customer PLM managers

If you mix (and you have to mix !) digital thread between the differents product views (EBOM, MBOM, SBOM …), change management – implying revision management and traceability -, you quickly get something that seems very complex, even looking unmanageable by end users.

Sorry, guys, but even if the functions are well implemented in a PLM solution, configuration management (taken in its broadest sense) is, and will remain a complex topic. Insuring traceability between engineering and manufacturing views of a product is a complex task. To manage it, the PLM solution must be efficient, the PLM implementation must be rigorous, and users must be trained.