PLM Interest Group

The very best of these have been compiled into the Compendium of PLM Ideas.

With over 500 pages of material, this is the largest collection of neutral PLM theory ever assembled in book form.

Whether you are new to the subject, and are looking for some background reading that will bring you up to speed: or an experienced practitioner looking to refresh your thinking; this Compendium is the place to start.

Everyone wants an accurate definition of PLM (and the Compendium provides one); but did you know that there are three different ways to define PLM?  They are listed here, along with the Master definition.

These are particularly important for a clear understanding of how PLM and ERP relate to each other; and also for positioning in-house applications and legacy systems within the total framework of PLM.

Five years after this new paradigm first emerged, the future for PLM looked bright, and everyone was enthusiastic.  Fifteen years later on, the track record is one of missed opportunity.

Understanding what happened creates a chance to regain the original high aims for the future.

Three routes to PLM, a 2-Year Path to your first live implementation, and how to visualise its progress.  Easy orientation for new starters.

PLM often starts small, and with a certain leap of faith.  The process from adoption to maturity requires a conscious and continuous effort to firm up the concept, promote it around the organisation, and create more detailed and compelling reasons for support.

PLM can also meet problems and pitfalls that are well above the detailed level.  Implementors need to consider the bigger picture, and the 'Executive' viewpoint.

What is it that separates a knowledgeable PLM practitioner from his or her non-PLM colleagues?  What intrinsic understanding is necessary in order to apply PLM properly?  These 7 concepts are an essential part of that skill set.

This is the fundamental of PLM that is most frequently overlooked. The vast majority of implementations do not have a written Vision of where they will be in 5 years' and 10 years' time.

The PLM Vision is a short document, but creating and adopting it is not straightforward.  This Section shows what you should look for.

Over the past 15 years, many organisations have claimed that something is "Best Practice": usually vendors or advisors referring to their own products or projects; and always without any corroboration.

Neutral, agreed definitions of Best Practice would be very useful, but so far none exist. What is 'Best Practice', and how can we achieve it?

There are some standards that are important to some areas of PLM, but the issue of Standardisation applies everywhere.

A carefully standardised PLM environment will save time, effort, and enable faster progress.

In the early days of PLM, it was proposed that there should be Reference Models for PLM Benefits, Maturity and Best Practice that everyone could refer to in order to justify new projects, and measure success with existing projects.

The PLMIG ran workshops on the subject, supported by the major vendors of the time, and even though the concept is now on the back burner, some very useful material was generated.

PDM used to be seen as a smaller, partial subset of this great subject called PLM.  This is no longer true.  PDM and PLM are completely and inseparably entwined - and an in-depth knowledge of PDM is essential.

This is probably the most technically difficult question that PLM practitioners have to deal with, with a massive impact on operations and profitability - and it is also the most widely misunderstood.

It took a three-workshop series in three different countries to establish the real relationship between PLM and ERP, and its effect on how PLM and ERP teams work together.  The logic is explained here.

The shiny new future of manufacturing, or just PLM dressed up in new clothes - the Digital Wave is causing fantasy and confusion in equal measure.

This narrative covers the background to the debate, and presents the White Paper, Survey Results and Position Paper that were generated in 2020-21.

PLM impacts the whole enterprise, and if it is not implemented in the right context, the detail can be ineffective.  The context of PLM management is Governance, and every PLM Team needs to ensure that theirs is correct if they are to keep on the right track.

Everyone believes that we should have some sort of metrics for PLM, but which ones?  What metrics are possible, and how do you choose the ones to measure?  The metrics for PLM and those for PDM can be very different.

Project Management as a discipline has its own methodology and best practices, but somehow PLM doesn't seem to conform.

PLM is often a continually-changing environment, with many unknowns.  It can be difficult to know what the future situation will be.  Conventional planning doesn't quite seem to work.  PLM and PDM require specific, and very different thought processes.

PLM has long been regarded as being unquantifiable, but in fact it can be monitored, managed and directed in purely financial terms if required.  The PLMIG developed the methodology, and all you have to do is apply it.

Of course the PLM Manager must be financially aware; the fundamental principles must be understood; and the PLM Team must be prepared to do some work.  The potential outcomes range from easy project justification through to showing financial progress to the Board, with the aim that "the Finance VP cannot say 'No'".

So you understand Financial Management, and know what targets and metrics you are working towards.  You need more software (or 'solutions'), and talk to vendors about what they could provide.  The vendors paint a picture of the benefits you should get for the money you spend, but how will you know that you get what you are paying for?

The PLMIG held user-only meetings as far back as 2008, and again in 2020 just before the pandemic.  These show that there is a place for three different types of user community: informal contact; hands-on working sessions for PLM Managers; and company groups that generate new advanced material for themselves.  There is also the wider question of how users can influence vendors in a constructive way.

These findings have been distilled, and form useful guidance for anyone with plans to bring together a group of their own.

PLM practitioners like to think of themselves as being "professional" in the way they work, but this has no real meaning.  Professional behaviour, competence and skills have never been defined, and there is no PLM Profession to become a member of.

The industry drive towards real professionalism started in mid-2017, and the whole saga is described here.  There is the growing definition of what 'professional' means, which led to the formation of a Round Table; the seven premises that were established as a result of the Round Table's work; and the planning that can lead to the formation of a globally-recognised Professional Body for PLM.

PLM is not just the concern of industry - there is a huge academic contribution to be made.  The Compendium devotes 95 pages to describe what this might be.

Academics and researchers have been involved with the PLMIG since its inception, with the formation of a Research SIG that explored the concept of a global Academic/Industry Research Platform.  This was followed by a more 'blue sky' approach that aimed for a PLM International Research Foundation (PLM-IRF).

The RSIG was interesting and is still useful, but the PLM-IRF could change the future of PLM beyond anything that is envisaged at the moment.  This is the area of maximum impact for academics worldwide.

At the moment the PLM industry is rudderless, drifting on the tides of vendor product development and increased digitalisation.  It is in need of an Industry Vision - and once that is recognised, a whole new thought process happens.

By extrapolating from the past, and focusing on the possibility of widespread Full Maturity, a far more advanced future in 5 and 10 year's time can be envisaged.  This leads to the concept of 'Level 6 PLM', and an Industry Vision that can inspire everyone.