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)

SAP response

Stephan Schindewolf, PLM Business Development Director

In terms of pillars it's difficult to set the right cut in my point of view. e.g. at SAP we talk about the 3 value disciplines according to Treacy and Wirsema: customer intimacy; operational excellence; and product leadership as the major business drivers to make companies successful. These disciplines have to be supported by the right set of tools, including CRM, SCM, SRM, PLM, in addition to the core ERP functions in HR, manufacturing and finance.

One of your quotes suggests that SCM will disappear and merge into PLM and ERP - I don't share this viewpoint; SCM is a pretty clear defined marketspace with a clear value proposition.

I agree with your definition of PLM, however I would not include the authoring tools. Depending on the industry, the processes supported within this definition of PLM become far too broad - for example you would have to include Word or Excel as probably the most used authoring tools in product development and engineering. MCAD and ECAD work in discrete, but widely fail in process industries which do use different authoring tools, e.g. for formulation management. Otherwise the definition of PLM stays as mechanical CAD - discrete industry centric - back to the roots where PDM evolved from CAD file management about 10 years ago.

You can find out more about PLM from SAP on their website: www.sap.com/solutions/plm/

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