Having worked with PLM for the last 17 years, I have seen many PLM implementations
failing to fulfill the vision and potential. Why is that? And what are the
typical circumstances we see in such cases? Maybe you recognize some of them in
your organization? In this blog, I will focus on the bad cases and not the
successful ones. The successful ones can be a topic for later.
There are two main situations we
see in the companies having trouble fulfilling the PLM vision. Either they were
not able to meet the vision or they did not have the vision in the first place.
The companies with a vision usually had some
visionaries aiming for the full PLM scope who were willing to fight for it, but
it took too long and required more effort than anticipated. So, gradually they lost
the steam. The reasons vary, but Machiavelli (1469
–1527) showed some insight to one of the main reasons:
"There is nothing more difficult and dangerous than the establishment of a new order (PLM), as those promoting it will be fiercely attacked by those profiting from the old order, yet gaining only lukewarm support from those that will benefit from the new one."
On the other end of the scale we
see several companies with a PLM system which came in the “back door” with
their CAD system and consequently initiated by the design/engineering people.
Many of those companies focused just on that: managing 3D CAD data and perhaps
stretching it to PDM. Maybe the vendor sold in some bold ideas about what PLM
could be in the future, but those were not adapted as a guiding star for the
implementation. The long term PLM vision was not in place.
In both cases, there are some statements
that we typically hear:
"Our PLM is just PDM"
Many companies are using their PLM
system exclusively for PDM. Some companies even use PLM just for CAD
management. In both cases they have an unfulfilled potential in PLM. Some
people may see the potential and want to do more with the system, but are prevented
by lack of funding to start on the journey towards more advanced PLM.
"PLM is just for Design/Engineering"
As a consequence of the above,
the PLM tool is typically owned by the Design or Engineering department. In
that case, PLM has ended up as a costly tool to manage their internal data and
processes before delivering to surrounding systems or processes. Other
departments are probably not interested in, or maybe even afraid of PLM. The
processes and functionality is put in place for engineers with specific needs. The
“engineering mindset” often leads to complex and user-hostile solutions and
processes. You cannot easily expand such a solution to other people in the
organization. For that, you need a much more simplified and possibly different solution.
"Management is not interested in PLM"
PLM is seen as a necessary evil
for the engineers and something that only comes on the management agenda once a
year during budget time and they see the costs for it. In this case management
no longer has or maybe never has had a strategic plan and a vision for PLM. PLM
has become a costly tool with limited benefits. The ones concerned and
responsible for PLM have limited possibilities to do things as they lack
management support to invest even more and other departments don’t see PLM as something
that can help them.
"We have had it for years and very little happens"
Maybe there was a grand plan for
PLM at some time, maybe not. The situation at many companies, however, is that
they have had PLM for years. It has become cemented and very little happens.
The wheels go round and the PLM tool and processes have become part of the
everyday operation. Some see the need for a facelift or even some bold
revolutions, but do not get the attention and funding to do so. Probably
because of the situation described earlier.
"Our PLM system is hard to change and hard to upgrade"
Another reason for a cemented
situation might be on a more technical level. The PLM system has over years
grown in size and complexity. There are integrations with CAD, ERP and others.
There are complex built-in processes and specialized functionality. The amount
of data is huge. There are so many dependencies that it has become very hard to
change it as no-one dares to touch the integrations, the processes, the
functionality or the data, since it is very hard to overview all the
consequences. An upgrade to a newer version that could revitalize the usage and
open up for new possibilities is effectively prevented by the complexity and
costs related to the upgrade.
What to do?
The situations described above are hard to get out of. You might end up thinking that the only way to solve the problem is to replacing the PLM tool with another one. This is very seldom the case. It is not the tools fault, it is how it has been implemented and used. Perhaps it is time to create an updated PLM strategy? Take the opportunity to reassess and analyze the needs to see what role PLM should have, based on current and future goals and challenges. PLM should not be seen merely as a tool to improve engineering efficiency. It should be seen as a means to achieve strategic business goals. For that you need management attention and a long-term vision.
Tore Brathaug
www.infuseit,com
