Generative Project Planning and Privicy Issues
New improved format: More Knowledge in Less Time!
2PLM NewsletterJohn Stark Associates November 9, 2009 - Vol12 #17 |
|
Welcome to the 2PLM e-zine This issue includes :
NEW!
|
2PLM Sponsorship opportunity: your banner or logo here
|
|
PLM Project Management: Generative Project Planning By Roger Tempest |
|
|
The relationship between PLM and PDM can be compared to the yin and yang of Chinese philosophy - complementary, inter-related, and different parts of the same whole. As PLM and PDM are different, they can require different approaches and techniques for what seems to be the same activity. Recent issues of 2PLM have discussed how PDM is different to PLM, and how a specific focus on PDM is necessary to deal with the subject properly. The October 26 issue set out a new approach to project management that is highly effective in the PDM environment. It might be called a "Reverse Holistic", or perhaps "Ski Jump" approach, because everything builds and gathers speed in a draft state for as long as possible, and all of the finished documentation and IT changes are generated in a leap at the end. But as PLM and PDM are different, so PLM requires its own, very different project management technique: Generative Project Planning. When companies plan their implementation of applications such as ERP or SCM, they produce a full set of resourced and justified plans that lead to an end point of: "the system is implemented". There are many reasons why this is difficult to do for PLM. PLM is not a single computer system; PLM is more difficult to define precisely; it is more difficult to quote cost benefits when projects are submitted for approval; and PLM extends outside the organisation to customers, suppliers and other trading partners. And most people cannot see an end point of: "PLM is fully implemented". The PLMIG PLM Maturity Workshop hosted by PSA Peugeot Citroen in Paris at the end of 2006 showed that there is a future state of Full PLM Maturity that it should be possible to achieve in perhaps 5 or 10 years' time. It depends not just on advances in PLM understanding, but also on collaboration and development of standards within the PLM industry. Nevertheless, Full PLM Maturity is possible and is therefore the end point that can be planned toward. |
This leaves the problems that PLM is difficult to define precisely; and that the end point is a long way away. It is still not possible to create a fixed, incontrovertible project plan for that journey. So if fixed planning is not possible, Generative Project Planning must be used. This takes what seem to be two incompatible issues (that we should plan to PLM completion, and that we do not know enough information to be able to do so) and makes them work together. The essence of Generative Project Planning is that the whole PLM plan is laid out, from current 'As-Is' to full implementation across the entire extended enterprise. Future stages will be described in the form of "concept elements", and near-term stages will be implementable projects that match the current most urgent PLM drivers. The emphasis is on pragmatism, and continually reshaping the near-term and conceptual programmes in the light of guidance from the management team. It means that the board can see the big picture whilst only having to approve small or medium-sized projects, and the continual reiteration as projects end allows for changes of direction to adapt to the development of the business. The difference between Generative Project Planning and conventional short-term or "scrum" techniques is that the entire roadmap to completion is defined, and is always maintained and updated. If the company changes its product portfolio, the GPP is updated. If there are mergers or acquisitions, the GPP is updated. If the management team rejects the short or medium-term projects, the GPP is updated. Both the PLM and PDM forms of project management are covered in more detail in the Q2 issue of the PLM Journal. Roger Tempest is co-founder of the PLMIG. You can send your comments or input via plm_planning@plmig.com |
|
|
|
|
I like to keep Myself to Myself by David Potter |
|
| Our privacy is very important to most of us, even to the most high-profile celebrities. Social networking on the Internet has greatly magnified the risk of people unwittingly disclosing personal details on an unparalleled scale. The opportunity for misuse of personal information has therefore also greatly increased.
The emergence of the "Internet of Things" (IoT) means there will be a sustained increase in the number of intelligent devices enabled for the Internet - trillions of them. These devices will increasingly communicate and interact with each other on a continual and more or less ad hoc basis. Because the majority of these devices will also interact with the human beings who own and use them, the risk of unintentional loss of privacy will also increase. The IoT promises many benefits. Take, as a single example, domestic energy saving. A home equipped with intelligent appliances, intruder alarm system and energy-saving control systems can potentially interact with other personal systems such as PDA, mobile phone, and on-board car system. Between them they can exchange data and collaborate to automatically secure the house and minimise energy consumption when you leave, and then manage the control of heating and ventilation systems to ensure that the optimum levels are met just as you return home again. But will we able to trust these systems to keep our data secure and respect our privacy of information? |
Among the most important challenges facing the IoT is the ability to achieve an open and unified infrastructure for true interoperability, and at the same time to convince both commercial and private users that it is trusted and secure. However, there is currently the potential danger of an ever-increasing web of organisation- and domain-specific intranets due to parallel development of disparate technologies and standards and continued lack of trust. Just think about how many separate control interfaces already exist in a modern home. Do we really want more? How many authentication mechanisms do we already have to interact with in order to protect our identity and privacy?
At best, the products enabled for the IoT will address these challenges in a responsible way. If they don't, then the least that I will expect of them is the ability to opt out and disable all the so-called beneficial features because I don't trust their respect for my privacy - I like to keep myself to myself! If you have any comments or questions related to this article, please post them on my blog at cl2m.com. Top |
|
|
|
| Top 10 Reasons to Manage Business Processes by Scott Cleveland |
|
| Top 10 lists have become popular, so let's look at the top 10 reasons to manage your business processes ....
10) Actually see the activities required to provide goods or services Your Thoughts.... The order of these is somewhat arbitrary - what would you add to this list? Scott Cleveland, Coldwater Technology Top
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Top
To unsubscribe, please visit My account, - Newsletters- "manage my subscription" and untick the appropriate box.
Subscription is free to registered users. Register now
Post to Twitter