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 organizational involvement

Today, many editors have the capacity to store product data, manage development processes and facilitate collaboration. What varies between these PD&C systems is the level of organizational involvement (i.e. how many parties use the system). This can range 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 organizational involvement is positively (but not perfectly) related to the scope of 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 provide everything a company needs to optimize 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 supplies data to other systems, but also uses information from peer systems (such as enterprise resource planning : ERP).

Taking the two levels as axes, I was able to draw 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 plant level, and serves as a source of product data information 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 limited 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 PD&C system data as required (via the PD&C system or the systems they use most often), and data exchange between the PD&C system and other systems is automated and synchronized.

If you're currently located 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 going directly from PDM to PLM is not an option at the moment, you need to answer the important question of what you want to prioritize: people integration or system integration?