|
The term PLM has now been general in use for over two years. Yet, there is still widespread confusion about what it is. Many still think of it as a natural evolution of PDM, or simply PDM with a more fashionable name. Some respected analysts suggest that PLM is still something that is not attainable today - as was CIM when it was first introduced - and suggest that we should use something less ambitious like PDM II. If the vendors and analysts cannot agree on what PLM is, what hope is there that the user community will understand what it is, never mind buy into it?
CIM was technological approach for automating the manufacturing process using computer technology that was in its infancy. PLM is not technology. It is, as we defined it in our "Understanding PLM" report:
"...a strategic business approach for the effective management and use of Corporate Intellectual Capital."
We do not need technology to have PLM, though it obviously helps. In contrast, CIM even now is difficult to achieve, because CIM would require PLM, as well as advanced computer technology.
The ‘L’ in PLM makes all the difference. PLM is about driving business processes and innovation through the lifecycle, and not simply the automation of individual processes such as the design and manufacturing. In other words, to move to PLM, we need to move away from the mindset seeing things from a computer aided tools perspective. PLM needs a foundation, and that foundation is an Integrated Data Model for our Corporate Intellectual Capital. Without this foundation we will continue to have PDM and CAx, and not PLM.
The nearest thing to PLM are the solutions being used by Boeing on the 777 and 7E7 programmes and asset management solutions in the rail and process industry. These however, tend to be single vendor solutions, which work if suppliers, customers and partners use the same system. In practice this is hard to achieve. Some may argue that second best thing is to use data exchange tools to communicate with partners, suppliers and customers. This in fact is a very distant second. Relying on data exchange, other than for data migration projects, is a recipe for perennial data management problems. That is so, since such an environment require high overheads and offer no guarantee of data integrity, currency and security.
In other words, in real life, PLM cannot easily be supported by a single vendor solution. Therefore, the initiative to move to the PLM era rests with the user community rather than the vendors. Some companies like BAE Systems are taking a lead in this area by defining their own Corporate Data Model. When they have done that, they can select the right tools to achieve their business requirements. Such tools need not be the all singing and all dancing solutions from one or another of the major PLM solution providers. It may be any tool even from a small software house that can deliver some required functionality.
It should be noted that though the notion of Corporate Data Model is different from the notion of Application Protocol, which is central to STEP and other standards, the two are in fact complementary. Application Protocols define data models that have matured and received general consensus within a given industry sector or application domain. The Corporate Data Model defines a company’s Corporate Intellectual Capital, that by definition, cannot be standard because every company is different. That said, 80-90% of any company’s need would probably be similar to those of its competitors. That part of its Corporate Data Model can therefore be effectively catered for with standard data models. The remaining 10-20% will be different for each company and would represent it main differentiator.
* * *
Want to read more about PLM ?
Visit: www.ibm.com/solutions/plm or www.3ds.com
|
