The PLM industry is relatively new, and has no structure or coordination.  This holds back progress for everyone, because low aspirations mean that sights are set lower than they need to be, and fragmentation means that the wheel is continually re-invented.  Some form of common direction is needed.

Low Aspirations

Every business improvement activity - including PLM - needs to work towards a state of completion if it is to progress effectively.  Without a clear future target, it is impossible to make proper plans or measure progress.

The problem is that PLM has seemed to be "undefinable", and so complex that a state of "Full PLM" may never be achievable.  Companies focus on short and medium-term projects that build towards integration and PLM improvement, but without a well-defined long-term view.  This creates the widely-held impression that PLM is a "never-ending process".

However, PLM does have an end state, and the Maturity Reference Model has shown what it is.  It can be defined on a Standard or PLM Scale, and measured according to a Structure-Based or Activity Based methodology.  "Level 5" Maturity is the business completion point, and "Level 6" is what universities should be researching.

Company-Wide

When you can define the end state of your own PLM, it transforms the progress you can make.  Instead of running projects based on immediate objectives you can use Generative Project Planning to plan through to completion.  This generates far greater visibility than was previously possible, creates the Roadmap that all implementations need, and allows PLM to be led from the top.  PLM becomes integrated with other business initiatives and the whole organisation becomes part of the process.

Industry-Wide

This also has an effect on the industry at large.  If everyone in the marketplace shared a well-defined, long-term view of where PLM is heading, then we would have a chance of getting there.  At the moment, the scenario for PLM in 5 or 10 years' time seems to be "more of what we are doing now".

By all normal measures of business good practice, this is clearly a weakness.  The problem is not that consensus cannot be reached but that, currently, no-one is trying to achieve it.  It is the aim of the PLMIG to set this discussion in motion.

Fragmentation

The lack of a PLM industry body means that everyone is pulling in different directions. Vendors, consultancies and service providers, quite reasonably, are each promoting their own proprietary views of PLM.  The many man years of expertise in user companies' PLM teams is isolated, unwritten and shared only at the most rudimentary level.

There are some things that will never happen in PLM unless there is a neutral body to coordinate and manage them.  The most obvious of these is the development of PLM standards, which are a fundamental resource of any mature industry.  Standards need an active, independent organisation to coordinate their development and maintain them as they are used in practice.  The standards themselves would range from the detailed (such as metrics and best practice) to the basic (how to articulate the business case for PLM).

The Way Forward

In order for the PLM industry to coordinate itself we first need to agree a target scenario of PLM Industry Aims.  This debate will be a major step forward in itself, and bring together industry experts to create a long-awaited forward view.

For more information or to put forward your own views about the state and direction of the PLM industry, contact industrydirection@plmig.com.