I was reading this weeks issue of Information Week – following an article on one of my favorite topics – IT spending (in an uncertain economy)…and was heartened to see several key comments. See
In the article from July 28th, 2008 – Stare down the bear it is stated that companies are viewing the present uncertainties with a view to “leap ahead of weakened competitors” and are “plowing ahead on collaboration technologies” while conserving in the tactical areas.
This should hearten those of us who work extensively in PLM – yet it doesn’t. The frustration is that too many executives view PLM as an “engineering system” not as an enterprise necessity. While many PLM systems get implemented within engineering departments it’s typical to find that in short order, the rapid access to product information, the supply chain enabling, the multi-site collaboration capabilities – more employees within a company will be accessing the PLM environment than any other enterprise application.
Many of the PLM systems enable design reviews, assembly instructions, site specific component designations, hazard tracking, safety notices, policies, and processes all to be maintained across the business. Any business that has multiple facilities and produces products, should not forget that PLM is a highly critical collaboration solution (some even include conferencing systems embedded within them).
If your business is looking for efficiencies and reduction of costs associated with communications and collaboration – hopefully you are looking at your information flow in that context as well and examining what can be done to eliminate the overheads associated with transfer, loss, duplication of product information. After all – your business is based upon your products, right?
Great insight into an issue that everybody reads and talks about, but only a few have set examples on. I’ve referenced this blog entry of yours on our blog (http://blogs.oracle.com/PLM) in a post about an upcoming presentation that we’re doing at Oracle Openworld about collaborating with supply chain partners.
Comment by Anurag Batra — September 18, 2008 @ 1:00 pm |
Anurag,
Thank you. I’ve activated the link in your comments for ease of access to my readers.
Laila
Comment by Laila Hirr — September 18, 2008 @ 2:36 pm |
Much appreciated, thanks.
Comment by Anurag Batra — October 3, 2008 @ 12:43 pm |
Nice article. Thanks.
Eugene
Comment by Eugene — October 20, 2008 @ 10:02 pm |
Your assumption that Product Development requires a high level of communication is spot on, but to draw a connection between this and PLM systems is flawed. I’m not saying that PD teams could not improve communication, but I am saying PLM systems availbale today do not solve this problem. The reality is these application provide file access to design data and really not much more. If they solved the communication problem between individuals within a development team you you see wide spread open adoption. The truth is you do not. Actually the majority of users find little to no value for them in these tools.
Comment by Chris — October 21, 2008 @ 11:28 am |
Chris,
The connection is perhaps out of context. One of my fiercest mantras is that the tool is not the solution in and of itself. Using a hammer when a screw driver is needed only strips threads and weakens the joint that was being repaired. PLM systems are tools and only tools. PLM processes are enabled by the systems but the systems are only as good as the business practices allow them to be. The frustration is that the systems get put in place without changing processes so can not bring true benefit.
Unfortunately too many systems are implemented without a process plan or vision for what is being sought. IT and engineering organizations focus upon executing a technology rather than on executing a business strategy.
Comment by Laila Hirr — October 21, 2008 @ 11:57 am |