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
14 December, 2010

Ask people about the connection between CAD and PLM and you will discover a very interesting thing. In the past...

5 February, 2016

The time when you product was a piece of machinery is over. These days, every product is a combination of...

22 May, 2014

Usually, it takes time and money to implement PLM system for a large company. This work requires understanding of customer...

11 April, 2013

For many years, enterprise software was known as a place where development of new features was one of the main...

20 November, 2018

I’m continuing to publish my notes and comments from AU2018. If you never been at AU… it is big. The...

16 October, 2020

Earlier this week, I was talking to one of my teenage sons about his homework. At one moment of time,...

21 January, 2024

In the rapidly evolving landscape of industrial processes, the digital transformation has become a pivotal focus. This shift demands a...

26 April, 2012

The ability to develop virtual conversation accorss continents and timezones is one of the most exciting parts of my blogging...

19 December, 2017

PLM people always had a big vision. How to build a PLM for a whole company. For entire supply chain....

Blogroll

To the top