Should your CAD system result in a default selection of PLM?
All PLM systems are not created equal. When we work with our customers to select a PLM system we evaluate the entire business situation not just the engineering department. Too often PLM is viewed as an engineering system only and yet in every case we’ve seen it put in place successfully, PLM rapidly outgrows the engineering department and becomes an enterprise wide, process changing, paradigm shifting, productivity enhancing system. Manufacturing users of PLM often exceed the engineering users, and Field Service also rapidly jumps on board to get proper information on the products they service.
The irony is that all too often, PLM selections are made in the shadow of a CAD selection, being viewed only as a means to handle CAD vaulting. This is a waste and will result in less than optimal use of the PLM system. In addition, it means that the system selection for PLM is driven by CAD and not by a systematic business benefits, enterprise wide justification, and then executives percieve that they have a “qualified” system and ignore the fact that key process needs are not met by the system.
In my opinion - these types of selections are as poorly advised as selecting your PLM solution based upon your ERP system. In both cases the PLM solution has not been selected to meet your full business needs but has been selected as a “default” decision.
Copyright 2007 - All rights reserved LHirr
Very appropriate thoughts. The title could well have been parameterized; “Should your XXX system result in a default selection of YYY?” as your thinking certainly applies to other related applications. For discrete, configurable products manufacturers, the discussion question is, “Should your ERP or PLM system result in a default selection of a Configurator?” The clear answer is emphatically “No.” A bit of explanation is in order.
The first danger is not that a default selection is not appropriate, rather that in a default-minded environment the necessary homework is not done for any reason - one of which is to accept the ERP/PLM Configurator on the assumption to minimize integration costs.
The “necessary homework” includes defining a clear vision of the true needs of a configurator-based solution. This is not blue sky Pollyanna. Any one who has been burnt by inappropriate default selection can attest to this point.
The “clear vision” does not need to be in the depth to support a Request for Proposal (RFP), not yet. Rather enough detail to determine the validity of a default selection, for example, to answer questions such as “How should the customer interact with a Web-based configurator solution?” Another key question to answer is “Do we need to rethink how our product is defined for configurability purposes?”
This visioning process needs to accomplished without considering the potential default selection; the so-called “clean sheet approach.” Then compare. The result should be a relatively unbiased evaluation of the default selection. The default choice might be appropriate. At this point, a rational decision could be made as to whether to proceed with a full evaluation and an RFP, if deemed necessary.
This analysis would also provide justification for not selecting the default choice, if necessary. The evaluation group may need to fend off those who would take the supposedly easy path, particularly upper management who may not appreciate the ramifications. If such is the possibility, then the arguments against the default approach need to be stated in terms of the company’s true configurability strategy needs.
There is another consideration: there are a number of third party alternatives for configurator capabilities. The pressure is on these vendors to make their offerings clearly superior to avoid unthinking default selections.
Comment by Dick Bourke — August 6, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Jessie
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
Trackback by Jessie — October 30, 2007 @ 10:24 am