Standard for PLM Governance, PLM Conference & Exhibition Geneva, PLM: Not for Engineers?
2PLM NewsletterJohn Stark Associates June 6, 2011 - Vol14 #5 |
Welcome to the 2PLM e-zine This issue includes :
|
![]() |
A Standard for PLM Governance by Roger Tempest |
|
One of the first results of the PLMIG PLM Standardisation series is an international standard for PLM Governance. Participants at the launch workshop in Gothenburg on 24-25 May generated a core framework that can be applied as a standard methodology for integrating board-level and operational PLM.
The surprising thing is that the standard does not rely on restrictive rules, or formalised project management structures such as PRINCE2. It is simply a distillation of best practice management and oversight at all levels of a company. It gives CEOs and VPs clear visibility of PLM throughout the enterprise, without requiring them to deal with technical detail - and it provides the PLM Team with a natural mechanism for presenting PLM problems and issues to the Board in a clear and non-contentious way. Because the standard is independent of company size, type, industry, or geography, it can be applied internationally. Therefore, whichever country you are based in, you can be sure that your management of PLM is as good as anywhere else in the world. For global corporations it can be used to ensure that PLM is applied equally well in all divisions, and in all of perhaps 30 or 40 worldwide sites. For smaller businesses, it is the start of a 'Path to PLM' that channels effective PLM adoption without re-inventing the wheel. The breakthrough made by the Gothenburg group was to identify how the PLM Governance Standard can be generated by developing and adding to existing PLM tools, and using them together in a modular and intelligent way. |
The core of the standard is the CEO Briefing Document, which not only explains PLM to a Board that does not understand, but shows the Board the documentation and reporting structure that they should expect to see.
For some companies, the Board already has its own view of PLM and would be insulted by the explanation. For others, the briefing will bring them up to speed. Once the Board understands and accepts PLM, it is perfectly reasonable for them to look at PLM progress at certain intervals during the year, and the reporting structure in the Briefing Document still applies for this. When a modified PLM Self-Assessment is added to the reporting requirements that the Board is advised to see, then the monitoring and review process can be extended throughout the enterprise. Advanced companies may enhance this by adding a degree of internal benchmarking. None of this is onerous - the size of the standard itself is about 10 pages. There is no requirement for approval by ISO committee. The PLM Governance Standard is simply a definition of how to manage PLM well and thoroughly, and in a completely integrated way. More information is available via standardisation@plmig.com. Roger Tempest is co-founder of the PLMIG. Membership of the PLMIG is available via membership@plmig.com. |
![]() |
PLM Conference & Exhibition, Geneva, September by John Stark |
|
The PLM Conference and Exhibition will be held at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland on September 6-7, 2011. It will address PLM across the product lifecycle: innovation; development; manufacturing; use/support; retirement/disposal.
The Conference has four parallel tracks. With about 60% of the speakers for the Presentation Tracks now known, the provisional Agenda includes speakers from SMEs as well as from larger organisations such as Bobst, Bombardier Transportation, CERN, EADS, European Commission, Givaudan, Merck Serono, Mettler Toledo, Salomon, Schneider Electric, SR Technics, Synthes and Varian Medical Systems. |
The preliminary version of the Conference Brochure (1 MB, PDF) is available for 2PLM readers here.
In mid-May, we started to approach potential exhibitors. We're currently in discussion with about 15 companies, and are already finalising the details of the participation of four exhibitors. If you're interested in exhibiting, or sponsoring the Conference, please review the details here.
If you would like to attend the event, please register here. |
|
PLM: Not for Engineers? by Henk Jan Pels |
|
To my great surprise, engineers in general aren't interested in PLM.
The main function of PLM is to keep product data accessible. And, since long ago, manufacturing companies have had a special department for that purpose. It's often called "Archiving" or "Technical Product Data". That department issues standards for the formats of drawings, and for the contents of forms that must be completed before a new product can be released to Manufacturing. The people in that department check and archive all that data. Engineers consider that a dull task, but accept that if those people like to use computers for their work, and call that PLM, then that's their business. Engineers are technical specialists who don't like their creativity to be disturbed by dreary administrative tasks, but are nevertheless willing to upload their CAD files to such a PLM system. However, filling in all kinds of metadata - that can be found in the CAD model by anyone who knows how to read it - is annoying and useless. As an engineer, I can fully understand that. Our challenge is to solve seemingly impossible problems, and our satisfaction is in finding solutions. Of course, you have to document that solution in a language that's understandable for common Production people, but don't ask us to fill in endless tables, because there are administrative people who like to do that much more than we engineers. For a long time, I didn't understand why Engineering Managers didn't overload me with their thanks when I informed them that, if data was properly managed, the output of their people could be increased by 5 percent. I deliberately didn't say 50%, because I knew they would have taken offence. I learned my lesson when I developed an Engineering Performance Measurement method, and was looking for environments to apply it. The Engineering Managers who I approached always found excellent reasons why it wasn't a good time for such an experiment in their department. The common unspoken reason appeared to be: "Even if there are any inefficiencies in my department, I've no need for an academic report that will give that message, in black and white, to my boss." I understand that top management only gets interested in PLM on the basis of a project proposal with an impressive ROI. However, already, in the early PDM days, we discovered that ROI calculations, based only on saving engineering hours, weren't convincing. PLM vendors may state that expensive errors are prevented by using their software, but any company will tell you that they never have that kind of error. A reduction of engineering lead time sounds nice for a ROI calculation, but the benefits are always classified as intangible, since it isn't cost reduction. Compared to PLM vendors, ERP vendors are in a much better position. Their system is the toy of the Chief Financial Officer, who needs ERP to control the flow of money and other valuable materials in the company. A proper bookkeeping system doesn't need ROI, it's obviously the first thing you need to run a business. |
If, in a last desperate attempt to show the value of PLM, you argue that it enables you to increase product variety and thus better serve the customer, Management answers that their main policy is product standardisation, since that reduces manufacturing cost. What I never understood is that, at the same time, Management rewards Sales people based on turnover, and not profit, motivating them to offer the most costly customer-specific requirements for the standard price.
PLM doesn't improve the product, but the product development process. PLM isn't a design methodology, but a design process enabler. PLM prevents double work and process delays by enabling better communication and finer coordination of the process. However, if you ask engineers how their process is organised, they answer by explaining their own design and thinking process. If you ask how they coordinate their activities with those of their colleagues, they explain how they define interfaces and resolve clashes. But that isn't what you asked for, because it's still design methodology, and that's not the issue. What you want to know, for the sake of PLM, is how they synchronise their activities. Strangely enough, they don't know themselves, because they leave that to the Project Manager. In other words, engineers aren't aware of any design process at all. And neither are Project Managers! Their task is to control cost and time. Project Managers are deemed successful when the project terminates within plan and budget. For that purpose, they plan sufficient slack to be able to reach the targets, even when engineers spoil the plans. Project Managers aren't interested in reductions of costs and leadtimes, because that implies a reduction of their margin for error, and a higher risk of failure.
That, precisely, is the problem with PLM! To be continued. Dr.ir. Henk Jan Pels is Associate Professor, Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Information Systems, at the Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands. He can be contacted here. |
|
Small Ad Section | |
|
![]() |
|
Top
To unsubscribe, please visit My account, - Newsletters- "manage my subscription" and untick the appropriate box.
Subscription is free to registered users. Register now