A blog by Oleg Shilovitsky
Information & Comments about Engineering and Manufacturing Software

PLM Out-of-the-Box: Misleading or Focusing?

PLM Out-of-the-Box: Misleading or Focusing?
Oleg
Oleg
13 December, 2010 | 2 min for reading

I’ve seen a new splash in the discussion around PLM out-of-the-box during the last couple of weeks. The initial hit was done by Marc Lind of Aras publishing his OOTB PLM: Hit of Miss. The name of the post is doing well from the standpoint of Google’s keyword search and then was followed by multiple comments and additional blogs. One of them, Jos Voskuil’s PLM and Flexibility is a great reading. You can enjoy various opinions about what is more important – “ready to go” functionality or flexibility.

Early PDM/PLM experience

The initial PDMs were heavy customized. It started as a database managing CAD files. Later PDM/PLM explored a possibility to manage more data as well as control more processes in organizations. However, the lesson learned during that time was simple – you cannot replicate PDM/PLM experience in such a way. Too complex and too expensive.

PLM Out-of-the-Box

Following early experience, industry gurus decided to come with so called “best practices” or Out-of-the-box” implementations. It seems to solve few problems in one hit – to provide a starter package as well as simplify implementation. The obvious success of such approach was in a demo time. Marketing did an excellent job rolling out OOTB features and videos. However, the implementation was hard-landing. I heard about multiple replacement of “PLM Limited Editions” with full PLM packages in order to deliver a promise.

The House of Balance

After all years and multiple options, the discussion of Flexible vs. OOTB seems to me an endless. You obviously don’t want to repeat all implementation steps from the beginning every time. So, your PLM system needs to provide some mechanisms ready to use. On the other side, you need to be ready that every customer will introduce some needs that will require you to make a chance. You will hardly achieve your goals if your system won’t support it.

What is my conclusion? The both sides of this conversation are wrong in my view. You cannot go totally out-of-the-box, since you will obviously miss the target or deliver to a very small customer audience. However, extreme flexibility can cause a complexity on the implementation side, which can be good for few big implementations, but obviously won’t be productive for a mainstream. To find a good balance is a right option to go. It seems to me, PLM industry is still looking for this balance. Just my opinion.

Best, Oleg

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
5 April, 2011

I found an increased trend of conversation around the “post-PC” topic. I found the conversation fascinating. Are we going to...

17 June, 2010

I had chance to read Buzz message thread about ECO management, initiated by Josh Mings. I found it worth reading....

17 October, 2018

My attention was caught by Facebook video where Stan Przybylinski, VP at CIMdata, was interviewed by Graeme Noseworthy at #AgileEngineering...

5 August, 2012

I’m spending this weekend on Cape Cod with my family. When hiding from active afternoon sun, I stumble on blog...

4 February, 2024

In the land of product development and manufacturing, the traditional Product Data Management (PDM) systems have long stood as the...

5 October, 2016

Centralization was a big deal in manufacturing 100 years ago. Famous River Rouge Factory was a giant plant that literally took...

22 July, 2014

Data is an essential part of every PLM implementation. It all starts from data – design, engineering, manufacturing, supply chain,...

9 May, 2016

I was catching up on news during the weekend. One of the articles in Boston Globes caught my attention –...

5 September, 2021

In recent years, we’ve been accustomed to searching everything on Google. It is easy to find the answer to your...

Blogroll

To the top