Standards, Standards and QLM
John Stark Associates February 1, 2010 - Vol12 #22
Welcome to the 2PLM e-zine
This issue includes :
NEW! RSS Feed for 2PLM
NB. If you are viewing this page as a guest you only have limited access to our community.
|Standards for PLM Delivery
By Roger Tempest
| Amongst the feedback to the articles on PLM standards in the January 18 issue was an interesting response from the Head of Engineering at a global manufacturing corporation. His need is not for standards that are specific to PLM, but for: "standards that would apply in the wider IT industry to achieve higher levels of delivery to requirements and quality in the actual performance and integration capability of the software solutions."
In other words, his company does not need standards for PLM, but for PLM delivery.
If his were a small company then the problems might be due to his suppliers concentrating only on the larger accounts. However, it is not. He works for a multinational corporation with over $9bn turnover and 30000 employees in three continents. If PLM vendors cannot provide satisfactory results for a customer of this importance then something is missing.
Whether the problems are real, or just the result of a mismatch between customer and supplier expectations, there is a need for a more standard representation of what PLM custumers buy and what PLM suppliers deliver.
In his words: "Standards are needed for the internal and external integration of software (in areas such as PLM-ERP integration, speed, GUIs, or CAD/CAE to PDM/PLM); and the 'As-Sold' to 'As-Implemented' performance.
| There should be standards for bug fixing (where the issue is 'fit for purpose as sold'), and proper help/support from vendors after go-live and all cheques are cashed (availability of proper support with acceptable turnaround time, cost, and backward compatibility of new release levels)."
He continues: "These standards could be international. The issue is part of the wider commercial IT industry which has a global reputation for poor standards of quality. As a PLM lobby I think we on the client side should be pushing the vendors to improve their standards and we should leverage existing organisations to set the standards and perhaps audit compliance (ISO, EC, IT bodies etc)."
Standards for PLM delivery would be a win for users and vendors, by aligning expectations, increasing customer satisfaction, demonstrating results and enabling follow-on projects. The challenge is to develop standards that are clear and practical, and that are not simply a microscopic trawl through contractual terms and conditions. We will need active collaboration between users and vendors in order to work out what is possible. If feedback continues to be good, the PLMIG may arrange a working forum at some point before Easter.
| PLM Standards: SOA and M&A
by John Stark
| Just before the 2PLM copy deadline, we received another interesting viewpoint on PLM standards, this time from the Chief Solution Architect at a multinational company headquartered in Scandinavia.
His first concern was for flexibility. "I believe that standards can support PLM in a good way, and even drive it forward - as long as you don't aim for one single standard for PLM. To allow for competition and development, I don't believe there can be one standard everyone is following. The work to get consensus for creating 'one' PLM standard would be enormous. If there are many standards at the start, they will probably convert into fewer when the PLM area is more mature than today."
"The main reason for this is that PLM is not about lean process management, it's about innovation, and that requires best practices instead of lean detailed processes. There needs to be more emphasis on principles, rules, guidelines and status flow follow-up than detailed activity steering. I see PLM as status-driven rather than activity-driven."
| The two areas in which he would like to see standards are Service Oriented Architecture, and Mergers & Acquisitions.
At the detailed level, he would like to see standards for Information Exchange (to be used in the Service Layer), and Standardised SOA Services for PLM (regarding the competitive edge, and how they are used to satisfy business needs). In a global corporation with 30 or 40 sites or more, these issues become extremely important. They are also important when exchanging information in the extended enterprise.
From the wider viewpoint, he says: "Today it's a great deal of work to incorporate other companies' PLM information into your own setup. And, if you acquire a couple of companies, the IT department has work for months/years to come. And the user organisation has to go through a behaviour change due to the different ways of working built into the different systems."
The more we discuss PLM standards in 2PLM, the more readers reply with needs that are not currently being met. 2PLM looks forward to receiving your views or suggestions.
| Quantum Lifecycle Management Webinar
By David Potter
| The New Year has begun with standards once again in the spotlight in the 2PLM Newsletter. Therefore do not miss this opportunity to listen to and interact with global experts who will provide an overview of an overdue approach to developing an open and trustworthy information exchange environment for whole-of-life lifecycle management.
The Open Group cordially invites you to a webinar "Quantum Lifecycle Management - Why do we need QLM and how will it change the way we practice PLM?" on February 18th, 2010 explaining the rationale for their QLM Consortium.
| Please make a note in your calendar then follow this link for more details and to Register for the webinar.
Please pass this to any of your colleagues or friends whom you think may be interested.