The problem with PLM Polls
Yesterday I got my weekly email from CIMDATA with their PLM Industry Summary - I regularly peruse it for updated information and particularly tend to find thier weekly polls informative. This week’s poll however concerned me and it surprised me when I read the analysis.
This week’s article is not yet posted on their website - however it should be located at http://www.cimdata.com/newsletter/archive.html in the next few days.
The bottom line was that CIMDATA concluded that the following:
should be viewed as positive evidence that PLM is coming into the forefront of corporate understanding. They conclude that 60% of the respondants place PLM in the “strategic” bucket. I disagree with the analysis. CIMDATA polls are fed by consumers of CIMDATA’s weekly updates on PLM - therefore their predominant respondants ARE knowledgeable regarding PLM regardless of what department is responding. What the poll does NOT do is have evidence that companies that are not engaged in leverage PLM actually would answer the question the same way. My concern about the poll results and the analysis is that it could lead people to be complacent regarding the need to educate senior management regarding the business impact and benefits of PLM.
So many companies I see still regard PLM as not well understood, as an engineering issue, or lacking value - not because of the consumers but because of the need to show clear evidentiary proof that PLM is a financially necessary business investment for the executive buyers. As I have mentioned before - too often I see the PLM decision being driven by the CAD decision, and when that happens the PLM system will rarely shine as a productivity and process enabler.
So be careful what you read into poll results such as these.
Copyright 2007, LHirr, All Rights Reserved.
[...] reading the PLM-oriented blog at http://www.plmsavvy.org/ (it’s not really a .org) and ran across this post about a CIMdata PLM [...]
Pingback by 3D Mojo » Blog Archive » PLM’s silent majority — July 30, 2007 @ 8:15 am
The irony of 3D Mojo’s comments is that my identity and background is clearly stated on the About PLMSavvy page while there is no author information to be found on 3D Mojo.
To be hung up on the .org - is silly to say the least as PLM Savvy does not promote any product or company, thus serves the intent of a .org.
We both agree that the survey I cited is not a scientific survey and comes to faulty conclusions. And that was the point. We also have agreement that hyperbole around PLM “strategy” is not beneficial - that real and tangible metrics and deliverables are key.
Comment by plmsavvy — July 30, 2007 @ 9:33 am