Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..

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.