|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Frequently Asked QuestionsThe PLMIG is the kind of organisation that gets asked questions, and PLM is the kind of subject that generates questions. The scope of PLM is so wide that questions can appear to be quite random. Some of the most frequent are:-
FAQ Answers Around 100 organisations and individuals have held membership of the PLMIG,with a peak of 50-60 at any one time. With the launch of the User Initiative the emphasis is likely to change towards corporate membership in order to enable the more detailed PLM collaboration to take place. PLM is an industry in which publicity can attract unwanted email. The PLMIG respects the privacy of its members and does not publish membership lists. The PLMIG started in 2004 as a forum for PLM practitioners to meet, because that is what the participants at the launch meetings in Oxford and Frankfurt felt that they wanted. We found at the early events was that "doing" is much more important than "meeting" - and that doing something really useful takes time. This is how the PLMIG 2-day and 3-day workshop formats evolved. The PLMIG does not hold meetings simply for networking, because the trade shows fulfill this function. If you come to a PLMIG event, you will meet other members who are dealing with the same issues as you are, and generate deliverables that make it well worth the travel. The PLMIG gives informal advice to members as requested, and has occasionally been retained to give more formal advice in a range of formats. The reasons for this were covered in detail as far back as the July 2005 issue of the PLM Journal, but in essence it is because the actual embodiment of "PLM" is different in every single organisation. The PLM Maturity Reference Manual shows that PLM can be subdivided into 16 Axes, and that a PLM implementation within any given enterprise will be well-developed in some axes but less so in others. Small wonder that static PLM definitions for two different organisations, even within the same industry, can look very different. Understanding the '16 Axes' approach is also useful in other areas such as calculating the commercial value of PLM. You will need to do this at some point, in order to explain to other parts of the organisation what you are doing. In general, it is best to leave this until as late as possible in the project; compile a definition that you are happy with from the available sources; and don't be too pedantic about it. Your PLM definition is only there as a reference point - your PLM projects will be based on business needs, not on the words of the definition. For a long time, we didn't. All experienced PLM practitioners have a mental picture of PLM that is close enough and consistent enough for them to work together immediately, even though they might have difficulty writing it down. Offering up a definition at PLMIG events would just get in the way, so we would move straight on with the task at hand. However, the drive for PLM Standards obviously needs to include a definition of PLM, and the PLM Concept Set now includes a standard PLM Definition, and also a PLM vs PDM Definition that finally defines the relationship between the two acronyms. This is probably the most common question of all. There are obviously problems due to the lack of neutral PLM metrics, though these will eventually be resolved by the User Initiative and the PLM Benefits Reference Model. However, the hidden difficulty is that board members and VPs of major corporations live in a different world. To use an automotive example: the PLM manager may identify a genuine need to manage the product development data used by CAD and CAE for design and analysis within distributed engineering offices; whereas the CEO's working week is dominated by commissioning a new factory in Eastern Europe. This difference in viewpoint means that straightforward explanations of PLM are almost bound to fail - board members have neither the time to sit still and listen, nor the detailed background to understand the technicalities. In practice, it is far more effective to demonstrate PLM to the CEO than to try to explain it. This needs thought and preparation by the PLM team. PLM projects uncover actual company issues and successes that are live and relevant; active use of a structured reporting framework creates the information path; and PLM progress then becomes a 'positive virus' that feeds the board information in a form they can understand and act on. It is surprising that this is a frequently asked question, given the number of vendor-supported user groups that meet every year, but it has been asked by many user companies in different countries, and was a consistent theme during the consultation phase for the PLMIG User Initiative. The PLMIG is well placed to see both sides of this issue, and it is clear that there are two problems. Vendors do not always have complete communication with their customers (probably because there are always the overtones of a selling situation); and users do not organise themselves to react effectively. The answer to the question lies in discussing the issues in an open, safe environment. Vendors could provide this if they are prepared to acknowledge that improvements might be made; users could make their own arrangements; or the PLMIG could provide a neutral forum for the purpose. An advantage of the PLMIG approach would be a structured format that would keep the discussions positive. Another problem that underlies this issue is a certain fatalism amongst users - a feeling that this situation is inevitable. Maybe it is time to change this. Ask a Question If you would like an answer to a question that is not shown here, you can ask it via faqrequest@plmig.com. Send your comments to faqcomment@plmig.com.Copyright 2010. PLM Interest Group | 
|