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)

Tecnomatix response

Eric Gautier, European Marketing Director

Firstly, we feel that predicting large IT domains such as PLM and SCM could disappear as early as 2004 is a bit provocative.

Secondly, presenting the IT environment of discrete manufacturing companies as made of four main IT systems is probably a bit schematic; it might well be a long term vision, but there is still a long way to go until we reach this scenario. As you remember, even though the ERP acronym was probably the first out of the four to be promoted by vendors and analysts, we see a large proportion of companies, including the major ones, still a few years from completing their ERP implementation. Other initiatives in SCM, CRM or PLM are usually even less advanced.

You point out the much devalued perception of the word "integration"; we do recognize that this terminology is outrageously over-used by vendors. This probably comes from the fact that when we say 'integration' we are often referring to software integration - this is not enough to make customers happy. When talking about integration, one should also look at having well-defined workflows and procedures, and then develop communication between various software applications supporting them: that's certainly a much harder task.

In your article, you describe outsourcing by major OEM's to their supply chain as an increasing trend; this is definitely a phenomenon we acknowledge at least in the electronics and automotive industries, which represent a significant part of our activity. You also suggest that the development of outsourcing could limit the development of PLM business, or even lead to its vanishing. We believe that as long as the PLM systems actually support, or will evolve to support, collaboration between the various companies involved in the development, planning, manufacturing and delivery of a given product, they should bring enough value to justify their existence. Furthermore, PLM encompasses fields such CAD, CAE, CAM, CAPE, PDM, MPM, etc a vast spectrum of engineering disciplines representing relatively complex processes, as well as huge amount of data to be managed. Based on all this we see the vanishing of PLM as an unlikely event in the near future.

In addition, with the development of web-based architecture, IT systems can incorporate more and more collaborative work capabilities, better supporting the needs of extended enterprise (what you have called the industry network).

In the arena of Manufacturing Process Management (MPM), another acronym, our specific area of expertise - collaboration across the supply chain - is already a reality. A global company such as GM (General Motors Corporation) works with several manufacturing engineering suppliers to design an assembly line - a four month long process - and determine the factory procedures and equipment configurations that work best for assembling car bodies.

MPM covers the planning of manufacturing processes (the downstream side of PLM) to figure out how a product could be best manufactured, and then expands into production to optimize its execution.

Tecnomatix diagram for PLM / MPM / ERP (size: 168kB)

You can find out more about Tecnomatix on their website: www.tecnomatix.com

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