The PLM Debate
As part of our ongoing research programme, Cambashi is running a debate on product lifecycle management (PLM) and how it interfaces with the supply chain. Various IT vendors were invited to respond to a discussion paper : "In 2004, will PLM and SCM still be recognisable TLAs?" (a version of which was first published in the FT)

Agile Software opinion

Chris Farinacci, Vice President, International Marketing and Strategy, Agile Software

Recently, we put PLM (and ourselves) under the microscope at an industry roundtable event in London. While passions flared about the term 'PLM' - and what it truly encompasses - practically no one could refute its potential for making the business of making products more effective, higher quality, and therefore more profitable for companies. If only we could agree to what it should be called...

When the discussion wasn't mired in semantics, it explored all the various business, process and product data challenges - old and new - to which PLM is being applied today: engineering change management, product portfolio management, product compliance, and even package management, are all benefiting from PLM.

However, many folks are still under the misconception that PLM is some kind of intelligent filing cabinet in the sky - one that specialises in housing product data. We think this is a myopic view, which undercuts how far PLM technologies have come. PLM has enabled the marriage of market and customer economics, regulatory controls, as well as traditional product data - that gives products a head start in life, enables products to reach their fullest potential in the marketplace and complete their lifecycle, as intended at the start of the process. For many, this is still a difficult concept to embrace.

The hard fact is, people will likely continue to grapple with the term PLM, but for reasons one might not expect. Increasingly, PLM is being leveraged to manage and protect that most elusive of company assets: intellectual property (IP).

After all, it doesn't get anymore 'fuzzy' than brands, customer relationships and capabilities (i.e. best practices and methodologies). But increasingly, they are what products are about, versus a list of parts and the suppliers who furnish them. Companies are beginning to wake up to the possibility of managing both these worlds - the fuzzy realities of IP, plus the economics of supply and demand - and make them work in the spirit of product development.

We think these are some of the most exciting times for PLM, while acknowledging that there's still a tough and winding road ahead (for the market, let alone the category).

But we must get our heads out of the physical world, where PLM is concerned. Product data alone just doesn't cut it anymore, if manufacturers are to succeed in the new world economy. What does make the cut, is the confluence of people, process and technology that makes the difference between product for the sake of product; and a product like the iPod, and its far-reaching impact on popular culture. And that's IP that is worth preserving.

If you have any feedback to add to this debate, please email plm@cambashi.com with the subject "PLM debate".