How To Choose PDM? (Another visual guide)

How To Choose PDM? (Another visual guide)

Last week I published my visual guide how to choose PLM. This post was the most popular during the whole week. So, I decide to try another one this week about Product Data Management.

What do you think is the future of PDM? The demand for tight integration with CAD system and need to keep up with CAD system release schedule put PDM very dependent on CAD vendors. Most of non-CAD-related PDM implementation moved to PLM that focuses on wider aspects of data coverage in this organization. See my previous post – PDM vs. PLM: A Data Perspective.

I’d interested to know your view of the future PDM trajectories. Do you see it differently?

Best, Oleg

Share

Share This Post

  • Oleg,
    I disagree a little bit. I don’t think the need of BOM parts and engineering stuff (as long as you don’t specify the need of BPM, flexible forms, etc…) would lead you to PLM yet.
    Best,

  • beyondplm

    Yoann, thanks for this disagreement :)… Actually, I really wanted to lead to this conversation. Let’s take a look on this from a “data perspective”. When you manage of CAD models (3D, 2D, whatsoever…), you can still keep things pretty close in the scope PDM, which is managing “files, metadata, document lifecycle. However, when you think about Parts of Items, you need to have a different capability to manage them. Item lifecycle is including lots of dependencies, and it very much reminds certain business rules and processes. So, if you want to keep track of Parts and all dependencies you can drive yourself to a pretty complex data management scope that can be resolved by application of PLM modeling principles. Does it make sense? Best, Oleg

  • Well, it can be confusing. really depends how far you want to go and how much itemtypes you want to build around your parts. There is still a problem based on the fact that nobody wants to stand on a simple definition. The software evolution makes the definition changing everytime. I like to stand on this following diagram (http://www.product-lifecycle-management.info/images/plm-scope.png) where for me: “Part, Bom, and other engineering stuff”are still PDM

  • beyondplm

    You stated the BIGGEST problem. Nobody wants to come with a simple definition of things. This is what I want to achieve. In practice, things are much simpler… You have Parts (or Items.. Whatever you call’em). You need to handle business rules around promotion of items to next revisions with some related information – documents, etc. The things can get complicated depends on product structure and configurations, etc .. However, fundamentals are simple. It would be good to agree about them…
    The problem with the diagram is that you can, for example, hardly disconnect between Component management, Classification and change management. Things are connected in systems we have today. Probably, a good idea will be to think how to disconnect them. Just my thoughts…
    Best, Oleg

  • Oleg, when you say “Parts (or items… whatever you call’em)” for me here, there is a difference between a PDM and a PLM “enabling software”. A PDM sees a Part as a native object. PLM “enabling software” can have a PDM as one of its modules but it’s mainly an Itemtype factory (sounds like we are back on the Toolbox topic).
    Regarding my experience as a process engineer, to me, the clear difference I had between PDM and PLM was if it was installed in other computer than just R&D. No access for quality, no access for production, no access for process engineers… Mainly CAD people.

  • beyondplm

    Yoann, I can get it. PDM is for engineering and PLM is outside of engineering. However, lots of engineers won’t get it and disagree. The TLA dispute is pointless. I don’t see a future in TLAs… Nobody is trying to say “Facebook is XYZ”. The same is about other web apps – Google, Twitter, Dropbox, etc. In the enterprise, there are lots of politics, trends, strategies. And this is not because of software. The root cause is the organization itself. Software vendors just trying to support it to get benefits of successful enterprise application selling. Don’t you think so? Best, Oleg

  • Syed

    I agree with you Oleg. Especially with the hunger of companies to sell more and more PDM happened to diminish with the emergence of PLM. One of the main objectives of having PDM was the huge uncontrolled data to be made in tight control and avoid duplication (and also increasing Design reuse). For people in the enterprise realized that a tighter control of Design Data will ensure that the information which will go down the line especially to Mfg,Purchase, Quality,etc will ensure things are in control and thereby avoiding huge Data explosion.

  • beyondplm

    Syed, Agree. PDM becomes more and more an addition to CAD. However, the question of multiple CAD systems becomes real if you try to implement one of CAD-oriented PDMs. Best, Oleg