We’ve been hearing about PLM for a long time now -- probably at least a decade. But I’m only recently really starting to hear about people really benefiting from PLM. Does it really take that long for something that sounds so good to work its way into real business value?
Yes. I figure it this way:
It takes at least a few years for management to recognize there is a problem with the way things are done and that maybe there’s a better way. Management generally ignores anything that involves new technology for at least a few years because they can’t count it and because they think engineering/design people always want the latest technology simply because it’s cool.
Management needs to understand what process improvement and continuous improvement really means, while realizing that the process improvement implicit in PLM is something every company should master.
Actually, technology rarely comes into the discussion in the first few years. The next steps are about process.
Where do potential improvements fit best, first? What would come next? Where would we find the best returns to show other groups and projects to get them on board with the new vision? This is the second most important step in getting PLM to happen. Start small and show big, visible wins. You also gain some insight into the real implementation cost (not the numbers that vendors tell you). At this point, we’re already about three to four years into the transformation.
During this phase, a lot of good thinking happens -- thinking that helps the business, regardless of a chosen direction. One of the big things the PLM “movement” has gotten people pondering this last decade is what it means to have an integrated product lifecycle process.
Relevant things to think about include: What is my product data asset?; What data do I need?; Where is the data? What control do I need/have over it?; What don’t I have/need control over (e.g. outside owner)?; and How much are we, as an organization, willing to share and with what limitations?
A huge amount of good homework is accomplished through this effort, taking apart internal processes and looking at things from a continuous improvement perspective.
I agree with you, David. Just like a new operating system or a drastically new machine interface, the learning curve can be very steep and time consuming before the benefits of the upgrade are realized. I've been teaching Systems Dynamics to undegraduates and it takes a while for them to "get it" --- and that is without first having to erase any misconceptions or poor practices developed out of a Mechanical Management view. On the optimistic side, I'd say 10 years is pretty quick. =]
I've been covering PLM since 1999 and I have to agree it's only been in the last couple of years when you've really started to hear more tangible examples of how companies are gaining efficiencies and driving innovation in product development through the use of PLM practices and software.
I think part of the slow ramp is that the initial wave of software was pretty un-user friendly and expensive. Just like with any new enterprise platform, the amount of dollars poured into consulting engagements just trying to get the platform tuned to the way an organization worked sent the price tag of early PLM implementations skyrocketing.
Today, however, you see more out-of-the-box packaged tools, many custom tailored for workflows and business processes fitting particular vertical industries, which helps time to value. The software is less toolkit-like and more like what people are used to and there has been tons of effort by vendors to flesh out these suites with additional modules (think supplier management, requirements management, service and support) so they are not glorified Product Data Management (PDM) platforms tuned only to the needs of managing CAD files.
All in all, good stuff, but I think way more value to come!
I had high hopes for the SOA/SaaS movement in recent years - another pretty high ramp-up cycle. Another great concept, but tough to tell if this was a lot of vapor, or something real. You mention verticalized applications. I think that's the key, and architecture is EVERYTHING. SOS/SaaS software infrastructures can provide great architectures upon which one could build a suite of highly customized PLM applications, WITHOUT incurring the huge "one off" implementation cost of an SAP or "traditional" PLM implementation. It could be much like the Droid platform provided for developers in consumer mobile device software, but instead packaged for corpoate use in their own unique product lifecycle. Trouble is, after much early hype, and many vendors claiming they "do it", I don't yet see any evidence of anyone using it and certainly not benefitting from it. One could suppose that means apps are still in the works, or, hmm... maybe it was vapor.
We are inthe middle of implementing a high-end PLM software system. My assessment so far is that we would have been much better off by just working on our PLM processes (within the in-house, ad-hoc framework) without buying very expensive software and tying ourselves to the very unfriendly and rather inflexible software platform.
I have to disagree with the premise of this article that we are not seeing value from PLM. I have many, many examples from a wide variety of organizations of substantial value from PLM in both engineering and manufacturing. I have done a number of case studies going back to 2003 that feature organizations obtaining real value from PLM. More recently, in my work with NASA, I have a number of examples of multimillion dollar savings from manufacturing simulations.
A few years back, Purdue did a survey of PLM users. One of the questions asked was the level of return on investment from PLM projects. Most respondents checked the "greater than 35%" response, which was the highest option.
While I would agree that organizations need to change processes, practices, and even culture in order to get the maximum benefit from PLM, the reality is that I have yet to run across an organization that didn't get benefit from PLM, even if they simply used it as a tool. That may not have gotten the benefit that they could of, but they got enough benefit to justify investment.
If you have examples of organizations that brought PLM in, it failed to give them value, and they abandoned it, I'd like to hear about it.
@Michael - You're right, of course, that where PLM is properly implemented there tends to be a big benefit. However, it is generally the larger companies that can devote the resources necessary to implement it. Unfortunately, its the small to mid-sized places that are having a hard time justifying the time and expense.
On April 21, NASA launched a novel project, putting into orbit three satellites that employ an off-the-shelf commercial smartphone as the control system.
The legacy endpoint devices that control our critical infrastructure (utility systems, water treatment plants, military networks, industrial control systems, etc.) are some of the most vulnerable devices on the Internet.
In a switched-capacitor filter, capacitors and switches take the place of resistors and accurately reproduce the characteristics of continuous-time Bessel, Butterworth, and elliptical filters.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
13 
