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
9 December, 2013

CAD, Cloud, Browser…  Since SolidWorks first started CAD in the cloud debates by making SolidWorks in the cloud announcement back...

22 August, 2014

I remember one of my birthdays back many years ago. My dad pushed me towards a bookshelf with kids encyclopedia...

2 February, 2018

Small manufacturing companies and enterprises always presented a weak point in the landscape of PLM implementations. While complex organizations demonstrated...

16 September, 2023

Earlier this week I attended Digital Factory 2023 event organized by Formlabs and Autodesk. The event took place in the...

29 January, 2023

It is 2023 and any manufacturing company in the world at a certain moment of its existence will ask a...

16 January, 2014

Last year I was writing about PLM and PaaS dilemma. As we move more into diversity of cloud PLM options,...

3 July, 2019

Unless you’ve been under the rock for the last five years, you’ve heard about DevOps. Still confused about DevOps? Start...

21 August, 2012

As you probably know, Excel (or spreadsheets) is one of my favorite topics. Despite the multiple efforts of software vendors...

17 January, 2013

I suggest you an experiment. Invite two engineers and ask them to provide a definition for some of PDM/PLM related...

Blogroll

To the top