The question was raised by Michael Finocchiaro during his last analyst webinar, and to me it was provoking and unexpected. Asking “what is the role of PLM technology?” is like asking “what is the role of GPS?” At first glance, the answer feels obvious—it is transformative, indispensable, and something we use daily without much thought.
For most of us as drivers, GPS is just a blue dot on a screen. It helps us avoid traffic, find the nearest coffee shop, or navigate an unfamiliar city. We don’t ask who built the satellites, how accurate the geolocation algorithms are, or what kind of data infrastructure keeps maps updated. But once we look deeper, context starts to matter. If you’re a logistics company, you care about GPS accuracy, fleet-wide tracking, and integration with supply chain systems. If you’re a rescue service, you depend on second-by-second reliability and redundancy. Suddenly, the underlying technology is no longer invisible—it becomes strategic. And if you’re regular user of navigation system, you’re more focusing on user experience and integrations with other products.
Cost also enters the picture. For a casual user, GPS feels “free” because it is bundled into smartphones and apps. But building and maintaining satellites, cellular networks, and mapping databases costs billions. The experience you get—basic directions versus predictive traffic models or real-time fleet optimization—depends on how much is invested in infrastructure and whether the technology is connected to other services, like the internet. Without mobile data, GPS can tell you where you are, but not how to avoid the next traffic jam.
That’s how I see the question about PLM technology. At the surface level, its role feels obvious—managing product data. But the real meaning depends on context: who uses it, for what purpose, how much you’re willing to invest, and how it connects to other systems.
Michael Finocchiaro asked this question from a group of PLM analysts. The provoking character of the question was to see how much weight PLM tech plays in the recommendations PLM analysts provide to their customers. Here is what happened…
A Lightbulb Moment
“I was shocked.” That’s how Rob Ferrone described his reaction during the latest Future of PLM webcast hosted by Michael Finocchiaro.
The discussion included some of the most recognized PLM analysts: George Lawrie, Jim Brown, Predrag (PJ) Jakovljevic, Peter Bilello, Jos Voskuil. Here is a more precise question in the way Michael posed:
👉 What is the role of technology in PLM success, compared to people, process, and data?
Thumbs up meant “technology is the most important factor.”
Thumbs down meant “technology has no influence.”
Here is a passage from Rob’s post:
As you can see from the screenshot (PJ later echoed Jim and Michael’s estimate, while Oleg abstained), the group’s average put technology at around 40% of the solution leaving a full 60% down to people, process, and data. To be clear, this was a “thumb in the air” estimate, not an empirical study, but the authority of the people in the room made it a lightbulb moment.
This was not a scientific survey, but the weight of the voices in the room made it a lightbulb moment. It made the imbalance visible: if technology is not the majority of PLM success, why does most of the industry’s spotlight, investment, and conversation still skew so heavily toward technology stacks, integrations, and platforms?
As I promised to Rob, this is what I want to discuss in my article today.
Technology as a Foundation
Let’s start with the obvious: technology is foundational. Without it, there is no PLM software, no systems, no way to store, manage, and connect product information.
But the role of technology in PLM success depends entirely on context. Are we speaking about PLM as a business strategy or as a software system?
Two Faces of PLM: Business Strategy and Software
Ask the following question – “What is PLM?” from a group of engineers and you will end up with a mixed bag of answers. This is where much of the confusion begins. I prefer these two:
- PLM as a business strategy is about how organizations structure their work, align teams, and manage processes. In this context, success depends far more on organizational change management (OCM), process design, and cultural alignment than on the underlying technology.
- PLM as software is about systems that enable collaboration, manage CAD and BOM data, automate workflows, and connect the digital thread. In this context, technology matters a great deal.
When we collapse these two perspectives into one question — “what is the role of technology?” — we inevitably get answers that average out into the middle, like the 40% result from the panel.
Why the Poll Was Flawed
Michael’s question, while brilliant and provocative, suffered from missing context. Were we voting on PLM as a business strategy? On PLM as software platforms? On implementation projects?
Each panelist applied their own interpretation, which is why the result was neither wrong nor right — just a mirror of how fragmented the PLM conversation still is.
In my case, I abstained, precisely because the question blurred different contexts into one. But the outcome — ~40% for tech — is telling. The majority of PLM analysts “customers” are using one of the top 4-5 PLM software packages. They like luxury car brands – in general, all of them are good, but the context (and taste) makes the choice sometimes more assistance.
It reflects today’s reality of enterprise PLM: technology is essential, but it is not the dominant success factor in every PLM story. At the same time, it might be important if you’re in the market of analytics, decision support, supply chain collaboration, solutions for SMB/SME, etc.
PLM in Transformation: From Apps to Data
PLM itself is changing. Over the past years, I’ve been writing about main PLM transformation trends. Here are some of the links:
- How Immortal Are Today’s PLM Leaders?
- PDM Evolution – From CAD Feature to Product Data Backbone
- The Status Quo of PLM Business is Ending – What’s Next?
For me, the main transformation is clear: we are moving from applications to data.
Classic cPDM (collaborative PDM, according to CIMdata) remains dominated by four or five “mindshare” vendors. Their enterprise platforms are heavily engineering-focused: CAD file vaults, EBOM management, and change workflows. For decades, this was the heart of PLM.
But outside of that enterprise bubble, the vast majority of SMB/SME companies still rely on 20–30 year old PDM technology, file shares, Excel, or a patchwork of ad hoc systems. This is where SaaS-native PLM platforms are emerging and where technology choices become decisive.
Context Matters: Enterprise vs SMB/SME Problems
This brings us back to the central question: does technology matter for PLM success?
It depends.
Enterprise PLM (Top 4-6 vendors)
For large manufacturers choosing between Siemens, Dassault, PTC, or Aras, the core technology is nearly the same. It’s like picking between Mercedes, BMW, Audi, or Lexus—all premium cars has more or less the same features done differently and run on the same fuel. What really drives success is not the tech itself, but how well the company aligns its organization, processes, and change management.
Enterprise Add-ons and Extensions
When large companies look for solutions to fill specific gaps in their enterprise PLM—like advanced analytics, specialized collaboration, or domain-specific tools—the technology becomes critical. Here, success depends on whether the chosen tech can solve that precise problem and integrate seamlessly with existing systems.
SMB/SME and SaaS PLM
For smaller manufacturers moving from CAD files in Google Drive and BOMs in Excel to a SaaS PLM platform, technology is everything. The key questions are: Does it support my processes? Is it affordable? Is it easy to use? For these companies, success or failure depends almost entirely on whether the technology delivers on its promise at the right cost.
New Tech Trends (eg. AI and similar)
With emerging technologies like AI, the story changes again. Here, technology itself is the difference between success and failure. If the tech works, it creates new opportunities; if it doesn’t, companies risk falling behind.
In other words, technology matters less when you’re comparing mature enterprise platforms — but it matters a lot when you’re making the leap from no system (or outdated tools) into a modern PLM environment.
The Diversity of PLM
PLM is not one market; it is many. It spans industries, company sizes, and maturity levels. That diversity makes one-size-fits-all answers impossible.
Technology is not “40%” or “60%” across the board. Sometimes it is foundational but secondary. Sometimes it is the entire decision point.
What is my conclusion?
Context is everything. So, what is the role of technology in PLM success? It is foundational—without it, there is no PLM. But its importance shifts depending on where you stand. At the level of business strategy, people and processes carry more weight. When it comes to software decisions, technology becomes central.
In enterprise PLM, the technology itself often feels like a commodity; the real differentiators are alignment, completeness, maturity, and organization change management support. In SMBs and SaaS adoption, however, technology is the make-or-break factor—it either enables the transformation or stalls it.
That’s why the poll result—40% for technology, 60% for people, process, and data—shouldn’t be read as a definitive answer. It reflects the fragmentation of the industry and the variety of contexts companies find themselves in. PLM success cannot be boiled down to a single number. It’s always a function of context, maturity, and the stage of transformation. And that’s precisely what makes PLM both challenging and exciting.
Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg
Disclaimer: I’m the co-founder and CEO of OpenBOM, a digital-thread platform providing cloud-native collaborative and integration services between engineering tools including PDM, PLM, and ERP capabilities. With extensive experience in federated CAD-PDM and PLM architecture, I advocate for agile, open product models and cloud technologies in manufacturing. My opinion can be unintentionally biased.
