From PDM to PLM: Unify or Integrate?

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }

ITC Infotech is one of the leading PLM solutions providers globally, which enables companies and organizations to achieve its goals by solving its key business issues.

How ITC Infotech can help companies to integrate multiple PDM, PLM systems?

Hi Oleg,

Thanks for writing this blog - I'll reference it from ours!

In my experience, merging PDM and PLM has had one primary problem: it makes them into one system. This monster of a database is too large for a single person to manage. The software is always too out-of-date for R&D to be satisfied, too integral for Operations to risk upgrading, and too expensive for "corporate politics" to ignore! Just as large corporations often segregate divisions across buildings or states, product-specific PDMs should act as silos for work-in-progress Engineering data, uploading "cleaned" and organized data into the corporate PLM.

However, you touch about it in your blog when you mention "cloud products". I think unified PDM/PLM "cloud" services are exactly what small-sized or startup product companies need: a single solution that someone else is managing so that I spend my time Engineering.

Thanks again for the write-up. It's good to see others who agree with me that the goal is to keep the TCO low but the productivity high!

Ed Chung

Edwin, thanks for commenting and sharing your opinion. Yes, big PDM/PLM is hard to control and manage. Interesting enough is that unified cloud PDM/PLM is what Arena solutions tried to implement many years. However, it wasn't spread out widely. What do you think is the biggest challenge for cloud PDM/PLM? Thanks, Oleg

Oleg,

As you are probably aware we specialize in this area and offer solutions for both methods.  Based on our experience I believe that both methods are legitimate and each offer unique benefits.  It really depends on the customer as to whcih approach makes the most sense.  The problem with the CAD based PLM vendors like PTC and Siemens is that they are blindly forcing all of their clients toward a single PLM approach even if this is not the best fit for them.  Interoperability allows customers to have choices and to select the technologies that best meet their needs.  Moreover it is rare that a company can meet all their needs with one application.  I talked about this in my article PLM's Dirty Little Secret, http://www.zerowait-state.com/...

Thanks for commenting and article sharing. PLM companies are trying to force customers to use their unified solutions, because try to maximize usage and revenues. Using "other" applications, obviously increase the integration cost. So, if a customer can be "convinced" to use a unified approach, creates an illusion of optimal solution. However, as you noted it is a rare situation that you can satisfy all customer's needs with a single system. In many cases, PDM solutions, a better connected with CAD systems from the same vendor. It creates an opportunity for "an integrated approach". Aras is trying to leverage this situation with SolidWorks EPLM. Just my opinion, of course. Oleg

Hi Oleg,
Just a thought, I think it's much simpler for an IT manager to take a software editor who "does everything" than many editors who use standard systems to make their system communicate. At first sight i think the IT manager can say, well i should better take just one editor i will have a single contact aware of the all project and he can cover the whole scope. Issue is, the big editors haven't designed all these software. Most of these softwares have been bought regardless of how easy it was to integrate on a software base to the existing portfolio.
To me the right way is to have multiple tools that can communicate. It's much more work for the IT manager, but less risk and you are much likely to deploy in run simultaneously implementation task as per definition of the selected standard you have common interfaces.
My guess is that it will play a huge difference on implementation delays and it will push for a more technological competition between editors.
Best Regards,
Yoann

Yoann, thanks for the comments and insight! I've seen many customer references saying about advantages of having a single system. However, I never heard about public reference of customers doing opposite. Can you bring any examples / links? Thanks, Oleg

Well as long as you don't see the risk of having a single supplier, you just see the advantages and you just don't advertise the fact that you're still widely using Excel spreadsheets for common data management process like FMEA, PDCA, small projects, test campaign follow-up, skills management,...
I can't mention customers doing this yet but I hope to do it soon. 
I like the OSLC initiative for that : http://open-services.net/about...
I think the good news for IT management, will be that they will just have to look for a tool which is OSLC compliant and then they will be able to select different softwares from many editors instead of having different modules from one editors who didn't have any competition after you signed your first license with him.
In PLM the battle for standards has been slow because of CAD consideration but we need to communicate on the fact that Standards in PLM exist out of CAD. They need to be defined at data-model level (how a document is related to a part) but also at technological level (webservices, json, xml...)

Yoann, Yes, I do like OSLC. I think it has a potential. I had a chance to write about it before. Remember this -- PLM and ALM: How to blend separate systems --> http://plmtwine.com/2010/06/02.... Frankly, I'm a strong believer in RDF-based technologies. What do you think about a potential of future RDF-based activity for standards in PLM? Best, Oleg