PLM implementation discussions are usually brings lots of controversy. Vendors, analysts, advisers, service companies, customers are all involved into implementations. It brings different and, sometimes, conflicting interests. In my view, one of the most debated topic in PLM implementations is related to so called ability to implement “PLM Out-of-the-box”. I’m not sure who first used that term. I think, it came out of PLM vendor marketing trying to demonstrate how easy and quick PLM implementation can be done. However, since then, the debates about “PLM Out of the box” had never ended.
Two other related topics are customization and configuration. For long period of time, I didn’t differentiate much between these two terms. However, modern enterprise software lexicon (and PLM vendors are in a full compliance with that) will define “configuration” (opposite to customization) a process that doesn’t require to write a software code for PLM implementation, but only use some elements of PLM user interface to configure a system. It probably turns all PLM implementation into “customization”, since writing programming scripts (using VB scripts or JS) is a widely used practice during all PLM configurations.
But let me get back to OOTB topic. I covered PLM OOTB few times in my blog. You can navigate your browser and read PLM Out-of-the-Box: Misleading or Focusing? published almost four years ago. From my latest posts, I can recommend you to take a read of the following article – Why My PLM won’t work for you? My attention was caught by an article that looks like trying to end all debates about PLM OOTB.
Aras Corp. published an interview with Dr. Martin Eigner who recently joined Aras’ board of advisors. In a very short published interview Dr. Eigner dots the i’s and crosses the t’s in the debates about out-of-the-box PLM and customization. Here is a main passage I captured. It has a strong Aras marketing flavor, but to quote it is important to bring a full message:
Dr. Martin Eigner: The kernel PLM functions are very similar from all competing PDM / PLM solution providers and from functionality it’s not a big criteria to differentiate each other. The user interface, performance and customization is important. Customization is very important because I do not believe even for small customers that you can buy PLM solution out of the box. That is a dream. You have to customize it. The real differentiator of existing PDM systems is the amount of money and capacity to customize a PLM solution. So I think usability, performance, upgrade capability and how easy it is to customize and maintain the customized solution are the most important points. They have the strongest impact on the total cost of ownership. I think in all these topics [performance, usability, upgrades, and customizations] Aras is leading. There are independent tests which show the system’s performance. We did internal tests at my university and found Aras to be the easiest to customize and upgrade. That is a big difference to the competitors. Customization is the most important aspect of PLM. Out-of-the-box works for no one.
I’m not in full agreement with Dr. Eigner about the fact you have to customize every PLM implementation. However, there is one point, which I think it is very important and I liked how Dr. Eigner emphasized that. It is related to the ability to maintain a customized PLM solution. This is one of the key differentiators of something I call a sustainable PLM platform. Customized legacy PLM is data management titanic in many implementations. Companies have to spend resources to maintain the solution, which is in most situation cannot support latest version of PLM platform provided by vendor.
What is my conclusion? Sustainable PLM platform. This is should be an important element of every PLM strategy these days. Modern business environment is very dynamic. Customer are looking for an agile way to implement business solution, adopt it to a new requirements as well as to maintain existing configuration. In my view, the concept of OOTB PLM should be revised with modern open architecture approach, which can simplify configuration, customization and sustainability of existing solutions. Just my thoughts…
Pingback: Beyond PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) Blog 2 options for out-of-the-box PLM - Beyond PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) Blog()
Pingback: Beyond PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) Blog Will PLM go back to a toolkit approach? - Beyond PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) Blog()