PDM versus PLM: a matrix vision

Two recent blog posts by Oleg Shilovitsky (PDM versus PLM: from a data perspective and PDM versus PLM: from a process perspective) got me thinking about what a true PLM - product lifecycle management- system is.

In his publications, Shilovitsky discussed the differences between product data management (PDM) and PLM on the basis of two criteria:

• Data (scope and control of data) ;
• Processes (coverage of product lifecycle activities).

I have a different point of view.
Let me first go back and look at the systems being implemented for Product Development and Collaboration (PD&C) (I use this term to avoid 'PDM' / 'PLM'). My question is: what are the possibilities for interaction between PD&C and users on the one hand, and between PD&C and other systems on the other?

1. The level of organisational involvement

Today, many publishers have the capacity to store product data, manage development processes and facilitate collaboration. What varies between these PD&C systems is the level of organisational involvement (i.e. how many parties use the system). This can vary from a single department (the design department) to the whole company (including the manufacturer and key product stakeholders such as customers, suppliers and other partners).
Generally speaking, the level of organisational involvement is positively (but not perfectly) related to the scope of the functionality: the more functionality there is, the more parties are involved. You can consult the tender template for PLM and PDM (free examples) to get an idea of the difference in functionality between PLM and PDM.

2. Level of integration with other systems

Primarily focused on product information, a PD&C system alone does not address everything a company needs to optimise its decision-making and collaboration around products. The value of a PD&C system lies in its ability to work with other systems. The low-end option is the one-way link (or data export) through which product data can be retrieved from other systems, while the high-end option is the two-way intéwhere a PD&C system not only provides data to other systems but also uses information from peer systems (such as enterprise resource planning : ERP).

Taking the two levels as axes, I have drawn a matrix and found four situations in which a PD&C system could be found:

• Quadrant 1 - PDM : the PD&C system is mainly used at divisional level and serves as a source of information on product data for other systems.
• Quadrant 2 - "Advanced PDM" : product designers/developers are the users of the system, but some information from other systems (such as procurement, production and quality) can be routed to the PD&C system to enable product designers/developers to make better decisions.
• Quadrant 3 - 'Manual PLM': Many different parties can access the PD&C system, but due to the limitation of integration, many entries have to be made manually. For example, a major supplier can see product information stored in manufacturers' PD&C systems, but can only provide comments (e.g. delivery dates) manually via the interface.
• Quadrant 4 - PLM: Product stakeholders can access data from the PD&C system as required (via the PD&C system or the systems they use most often) and the exchange of data between the PD&C system and other systems is automated and synchronised.

If you are currently in the PDM quadrant (as many companies are), the matrix can be a tool that provides you with three ways to achieve PLM:

• Option 1: PDM -> "Advanced PDM" -> PLM
• Option 2: PDM -> "Manual PLM" -> PLM
• Option 3: PDM -> PLM

You can choose the option that best suits your company's needs and available resources. If moving directly from PDM to PLM is not an option at the moment, you need to answer the important question of what you want to focus on: people integration or system integration?