Clarity on PLM

I had the chance to talk with … SAP and their customer Colgate in June, and learned that they have been hard at work improving the way manufacturers innovate. I was attending an SAP customer event on PLM to get updated on the progress of SAP’s PLM efforts. SAP continued to showcase their new PLM interfaces (now including Recipe Management for the process industries). But the thing that caught my attention most was a presentation on a newly co-developed solution for product innovation codenamed “Edison.” While this isn’t a formal SAP product as of yet, it shows some real promise on how companies can use social computing to drive innovation.

Note: Hopefully this wasn’t the only thing I learned in June, but things have certainly busy and I am behind in sharing!

What they are Doing

The solution, presented jointly by SAP and Colgate, is labeled as an “idea management” solution. To me that description falls a bit short of what they have developed. The solution handles a broad range of the innovation process, including:

• Idea Solicitation – to help target innovation as opposed to an all purpose suggestion box
• Idea Submission – to capture ideas from participants, including any supporting media they choose to submit
• Review and Processing – to help companies find the ideas they want to focus on, including search, filtering, sorting, tagging, and commenting
• Evaluation – allowing companies to score innovation and promote the good ones
• Execution – although this was a little less clear to me, this is the idea that the promoted ideas would flow into SAP’s PPM solution to turn into product development projects

The first thing that stood out to me as evidence that this was based on practical experience was that they didn’t assume that getting more ideas was better. I run into vendors all the time who like to talk about helping their manufacturing customers get more ideas. All of my research and interviews end up with the same conclusion from manufacturers: “I don’t need more ideas, I need help sorting through all of the junk to find the good ones!” Manufacturers want better ideas, and they want a way to make sense of the volumes of input they get. Kudos to Colgate and SAP for getting this right, which I have to imagine came from Colgate’s real-world experience in innovation.

Another thing I was impressed with was the objectives of the project. They set out to build something “simple, usable, flexible, and extendable.” As well thought out as the solution seems, it doesn’t appear that they over-designed it. The solution does not look or feel like SAP, but instead is a light, web-based experience. While this might not be appropriate for the highly transactional world of traditional SAP solutions, it is ideal for this application where broad use by untrained participants is a key to success. After all, you don’t want all of your innovation coming from a few trained insiders!

One final point that Colgate made which I think is important to consider, is that the solution is not only valuable in the front end of innovation but throughout the new product development process. In fact, early use of the tool at Colgate has helped solve supply chain issues like cost reduction.

Implications for Manufacturers

The use of social computing techniques to drive innovation is beginning to take shape. SAP is clearly interested in providing this capability, as are standalone innovation management solutions such as Brightidea, Imaginatik, Ideajam, and others.  Some upcoming research I will publish soon with Kalypso shows that many manufacturers are getting started in the use of social media in innovation, and those that did are going to increase usage next year. Times are changing, and it will be interesting to see who can best take advantage of this new opportunity.

So that is what I heard from SAP and Colgate, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it. Who else should I be paying attention to in this space?

What I learned this week … is that product cost is not getting the attention it deserves in PLM. I was presenting on the future of PLM in a PLM-focused event last week in Helsinki. My topic was the future of PLM, and I based my discussion on the four dimensions of PLM expansion (recently updated past post). I got a great question from one of the participants. He wanted to know “why I hadn’t included cost in the future of PLM?“ My response? Good question!

Product Cost in PLM

Product Cost Management (PCM) in PLM is something that I used to bring up on a regular basis. Design for cost is an important initiatives. Particularly as companies are trying to remain lean in uncertain economic times, controlling cost is critical. Even in good times, designing products with optimal cost structures is hugely important to driving high profit margins. So why has this dropped off of my radar? Is the problem being addressed? Is the problem solved? No.

The problem still lingers, but I haven’t seen as many companies willing to try to address it. Perhaps this complicates the roles of ERP and PLM, and companies don’t want to deal with a hard decision on which system supports which part of the process. ERP and PLM both have the potential to help, and should be a part of the solution. But neither ERP nor PLM are ready to take on the PCM challenge fully.

• ERP
  • Has historic costs
  • Understands multi-currency, locations, volumes, other sourcing factors
  • Generally handles cost for the execution of procurement and manufacturing
• PLM
  • Has new parts
  • Understands product content early when costs are locked into designs
  • Generally handles product development decisions in the innovation lifecycle

So each system has some thing to offer. So why instead of addressing this properly with the right combination of ERP and PLM, do companies continue to use masses of disconnected spreadsheets to solve the problem? At least I can hope that they are managing the spreadsheets in PLM so it is readily available and can be reused. But that is only a partial solution. We need a better answer.

Challenges

ERP and PLM both bring value as seen above, but both fall short. Here are some of the issues:

• New purchased parts - ERP is not involved in the early parts of design, and doesn’t help with estimating costs of new parts. PLM (for the most part) doesn’t have a rich enough model for sourcing. I have seen “cost” as a single field too many times, without any concept that the cost will change based on volumes, locations, currencies, etc.
• Newly engineered parts – For brand new parts, there is not historic data to work from. Costs need to be developed based on product characteristics like materials and manufacturing complexity. Comparisons can help, but ERP typically doesn’t know enough to determine which parts are similar in their construction

Who will step up?

Are vendors ready for this? Agile has had a cost model for some time. Siemens partnered with ATK. Dassault Systemes invested in this area. PTC just announced that their InSight product analytics product will address cost. So there is hope. There are also specialty vendors like Akoya and aPriori that help engineers estimate cost based on product attributes. Why haven’t SAP PLM and Oracle (with Agile and ERP) done something about it?

More importantly, are manufacturers ready? Adidas CIO mentioned Design for Cost at a PLM user conference (PTCuser) yesterday. But I don’t hear it often enough. I haven’t seen the momentum that something as important to profitability as cost deserves.

Implications for Manufacturers

If manufacturers aren’t willing to integrate cost into their design processes (and PLM), they will be stuck with spreadsheets. And actually, the question was broader. The question also addressed other financials in addition to cost. For example, is PLM addressing product pricing? Product forecasting? While I think that it makes sense for PLM to address this, I have seen little activity in this area to this point. What a shame. What a great opportunity for someone to step up.

So that is my rant for today, I hope you found it interesting. Why did this fall off of my radar? Did it fall off of yours? Have you done something to address this? If you did let us know about it!

A quick peek into some research on … how manufacturers and vendors plan to react to the market for CAD, CAE, PLM, and other engineering software in 2010. Last week I posted the first part of my research for COFES, Engineering Market Research Results from COFES 2010. Last week I reviewed how 2009 predictions played out and what the survey participants expect from 2010. Today, I plan to focus on what they are going to do about it.

The Research Findings – What Comes Next?

Let’s jump right in. 2009 was a bad experience for most companies in our market, but the outlook for 2010 looks a lot better. Stunning analysis on my part, isn’t it? More details are in the prior post, but I realize I stating the obvious based on what most of you are experiencing. So what did the survey say will happen in the engineering software market between now and this time next year (2011)? It is not all positive.

• Continued Consolidation – Over half of the respondents predict “continued consolidation within the industry.” This is not all bad, by the way. The market for suites of applications always relies on innovation around the edge and consolidation into an integrated offering. This has been true for other markets as well, for example the way ERP became such a large suite of solutions. I expect we will also see the kind of consolidation expected in most mature markets, where companies acquire older solutions to scale up their customer base and maintenance revenue. 
• Fewer New Entrants – Almost half (44%) of the participants believe there will fewer new companies coming into our market. I have heard that it is still difficult to get venture funding, so this doesn’t surprise me. I hope this changes, because I think market innovation is much easier in a “garage” than in a big corporate R&D center.
• Entry by “Others” – A third that responded to the survey see further entry into this market by “non-traditional” vendors like SAP, Oracle, and possibly others through acquisition. Interestingly, less than half that many (15%) believe those same companies will enter by developing their own solutions. See Who Will Disrupt PLM Giants? for more of my thoughts on that.

The Research Findings – What Are We Doing About It?

So that explains what we think will happen, but what are market participants planning do it about it? In a word, grow. In two words, grow profitably.

• Over 1/2 of companies polled listed “grow in existing markets” and “grow in new markets“ in their three responses. What clearer message could we get? Companies are upbeat about 2010.
• But wait, 40% say they also have “remain lean” in their strategies for 2010. I believe there are two drivers behind this. The first is caution. Yes, we are recovering. But no, I haven’t talked to a lot of people that are 100% confident that it will continue or that we won’t have a “double dip.” But there is another reason, in my opinion. That is profitability. Companies that remain lean in growth markets make nice profits. It is not sustainable over the long haul because people get overworked, but as a business strategy it works.

Implications for Manufacturers
So what does this all mean if you are a manufacturer? First, you are facing many of the same conditions. Your businesses are also planning to grow, but you will likely stay lean. One of the way to stay lean is to get the most out of the resources you have, which I believe will help fuel the engineering software market recovery. To remain lean, many manufacturers will upgrade tools and automate processes to improve efficiency. 2010 will be a busy year. But would anybody trade a busy 2010 for a repeat of 2009? I doubt it. Let’s get things rolling again, and then as growth is sustained let’s start to invest and get people back to work.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on how companies plan to react to the recovering market in 2010, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

What I learned this week … was that we could use a good, common PLM definition and scope, but we will not get one. The discussion (a lot of discussion in multiple forums, actually) came from my post SAP, Too Much or Too Little Credit for PLM Efforts and another called Who Will Disrupt Entrenched PLM Vendors? Chris Williams pointed out on a LinkedIn thread that he felt maybe the confusion was due to a lack of understanding of what PLM really is, and asked for a common definition. My response? Not so much.

A Not-so-Common Defintion

Chris asked the million dollar question. But PLM is not one thing. While ERP has matured to a more common footprint across the vendors, the scope of PLM from each of the vendors differs. I define PLM as “processes and software used to improve product innovation, product development, and engineering performance.” That is (by definition, not by fault) very broad. There is no one “PLM” definition. The vision of the vendors shows consoliation over time, but today they are very different. Siemens includes MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) for A&D. Dassault Systemes has spent much more effort in “lifelike simulation.” PTC includes development of product documentation. Then, there are the applications that don’t come as a part of the suite, which makes each implementation different. Aras includes APQP and quality. They are all different.

Implications for Manufacturers

The lack of a common definition is also why putting in PLM without a strategy is a quagmire waiting to happen. But a common defintion won’t help. While there are standard processes in PLM, they are not as common as in ERP. There are examples of common processes, such as Stage-Gate processes for new product development (NPD) or CMII for change management. But product innovation and product development are not as standardized processes as accounting, as an example. It is not the lack of common PLM system definition at the root of this, it is the lack of common PLM processes. And as much as companies like Invention Machine are putting process orientation into innovation, it will still not be as standardized as ERP functions like human resource management.

So, manufacturers really need to think about what problems they want to solve before implementing PLM. You can’t just install the software and expect any benefits (beyond maybe simple data management). This is what I call the PLM Program, a strategy and vision for PLM that you accomplish in small, incremental steps.

So those are my thoughts on a common PLM defintion, don’t hold your breath waiting for it. I hope you found it interesting. Do you have a better one? I didn’t, if you do let us know about it.

That, by the way, is one of the reasons it is very hard for ERP to simply build another module and call it PLM. That is why SAP has a long program to develop PLM (which will be yet another variation on the PLM theme, different from the others).

What I learned this week … came from some discussions with Chris Williams yesterday about my blog post SAP – Too Much, or Too Little Credit for PLM? in combination with a conversation over breakfast with Oleg, author of PLMTwine. In both conversations I kept hearing about who is going to disrupt the big PLM vendors (Dassault Systemes, PTC, Siemens PLM). Maybe I am just a small thinker, but there seems to be a lot more talk about disruption than actual disrupting going on. Time to share my thoughts, with the expectation that I might be eating my own words on this very blog over the next couple of years.

Disrupting Giants

Maybe it is my jaded view, but I don’t see technology being the disruptor to PLM. I have drawn as many “waves of technology” charts as the next guy, and discussed how difficult it is for vendors to move from one technology to the next big wave. But two things have happened:

• Enterprise software companies have managed to gain significant scale
• Vendors have gotten smarter at riding waves of technology

Already I am sure there are people disagreeing. Let me share my experience.

The Technology Wave Argument

Let’s start with the technology waves. Who will out-technology the big vendors. Will it be a SaaS play like Arena Solutions? Will it be open source like Aras? Or a brand new technology, like Chris William’s Vuuch? Or a more generalized infrastructure technology like Microsoft SharePoint? Or the king of disruption (they are disrupting everybody, I think I heard the words “disruption” and “Google“ at breakfast with Oleg more times than I orderd another cup of coffee (that is saying a lot).

OK, let me share some history that I lived through (maybe you have too). In the ERP world, many players have come and gone. Some have crashed and burned due to their own mismanagement, some have become obsolete in technology and withered away, and others tried and failed trying to migrate to new technology. So why doesn’t this happen to the current largest enterprise software vendor, SAP? Long ago, SAP burst onto the scense with Client-Server architecture with R/3. But truth be told, that transition was a slow and deliberate one. Since that time they have moved their technology along several times. Each time slowly, methodically, and never scrapping the old solution and going for broke on the new one. Countless others tried to grab the brass ring and jump to a new architecture, and drove their companies into the ground.

So while some get frustrated by slow evolution of architecture by big PLM vendors, I say they are being prudent. They are moving deliberately. Some say that will be their downfall. I say slow evolution is the best practice they learned from SAP’s success in ERP. I have heard the “we are going to make SAP (or Oracle, or whatever) obsolete pitch hundreds of times. Some from really great ideas and technologies. But where are they now? Part of the answer lies in the next section.

The Benefit of Scale

The key question in disrupting giants is what can you do that they can’t respond to? What can you where they can’t buy or build their way to the next generation? Particularly when most vendors are several steps ahead of the majority of their customers? Current vendors need to show a vision and a path, but revolution is pretty scary to most of the manufacturs they count as customers. As Oleg points out, and here I agree, one thing they can’t compete with is “free.” But I do not forsee the day that there will be an effort of the scale it takes to develop a full, integrated, PLM system. That is not just technology – it is data model and process as well. Let’s face it, this stuff is complex. But here is the thing. If one of these technologies gets hot, won’t the vendors with scale just acquire it? We are not talking about a solution with the broad interest and potential of word processing (Google Docs) or a brand new idea like social networking (Facebook, etc.). Who except a major enterprise player would invest in disrupting the PLM market? Who would find that investment appealing?

So is it SAP PLM? Or Oracle with their Agile solutions? They have the scale, do they have the will? Is PLM an interesting enough market that they will invest enough to compete with best-of-breed? Realizing, of course, that they have the advantage of their installed base in hand? Perhaps? But I don’t see this happening overnight. I believe the big ERP vendors will get to a level where they can compete, but the big PLM vendors have enough scale to stay ahead. SAP and Oracle will be players in the market, but I don’t think they will own it.

Bottom Line

Will their be acquisitions? Mergers? Sure. The names may change (I didn’t expect UGS to become Siemens PLM), but the assets (software and customer base) are large enough to live in. In my opinion. Unless they fall to their own mistakes, I don’t see a sudden displacement coming. I hope that I am not eating these words at some point, but if I should I will. But that is the way I see it.

Implications for Manufacturers

Buy the solution that works for you. Invest in it. Markets move slowly and software takes a long time to go away. Focus on the solution that meets your business needs, and that you feel you can grow with. Buy a solution that will fit the direction of your PLM vision. Keep an eye on new technologies and see where you can apply them. But I wouldn’t lose too much sleep about disruption right about now.

So have I just grown closed minded? Have I always been a small thinker and I just didn’t know it? Or am I making some sense? I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what it looks like from your vantage point.

I had the chance to talk with … the PLM team at SAP recently to get an update on their plans and their progress to date. I have stayed in touch with them over the years, and have always been impressed by the opportunity they have to connect the business of manufacturing with the business of product development. As I reflected on the conversation, I struggled to understand why after all of the years of SAP getting too much credit for PLM, why they don’t seem to be getting as much credit for their recent efforts as I would expect. Today I hope to present both sides of the argument in the hopes to bring some clarity to the subject, and to start a conversation so we can all learn from each other.

Too Much Credit?

I have focused a lot of discussion on the complementary roles of ERP and PLM, and for many companies that translates to the roles of SAP and PLM. I have cautioned manufacturers in the past:

• Not to assume that an ERP provider that “checks the box” for PLM actually has a suitable PLM suite
• Don’t assume that any company offering both ERP and PLM have actually integrated them in a way that works for their particular business
• PLM suites vary significantly between vendors, even among the “best-of-breed” vendors
• PLM is not just another module of ERP, but a suite of solutions itself with some unique requirements

Those comments were typically in reaction to the “suite provider effect” where executives take a cursory look at a software requirement (such as PLM) and say “Doesn’t our ERP company have that? Let’s just use theirs.” While the ERP vendor’s solution deserves a review, if it doesn’t meet the business needs than the potential benefits of a single vendor and an integrated solution don’t add up to much. This conversation started way back in 2003 with my article Can ERP Speak PLM? in Technology Evaluation Centers (TEC) when I served as the analyst for the PLM Evaluation Center.

With all of those cautions in mind, my hope was that manufacturers that have an ERP (such as SAP) would do a thorough evaluation of their needs, and then select the solution (or solutions) that would work best for their business. In other words, they shouldn’t just take PLM from their ERP provider blindly.

Not Enough Credit?

With all of those cautions aside, the ERP provider should get a fair evaluation. There are benefits to integration and a single vendor solution. And SAP has clearly invested in PLM. I wrote about SAP’s PLM strategy and roadmap in the past on my Manufacturing Business Technology blog.* SAP has taken on a multi-year program to enhance their PLM offering, and they have made significant progress. Last year they introduced a new, web-focused interface that pulls together a product-centric dashboard for an item. The “PLM Object Navigator” as it was called offers information about a part from both ERP and PLM perspectives, including configurable sidebars. They have now extended that interface to the process PLM community, where SAP has a significant installed base.

But user interface isn’t all that SAP has focused on. They have integrated CAD management and visual communication capabilities to develop visual representations of the CAD models that all users can access. They have added functionality including labeling functionality for consumer packaged goods (CPG). They have also enhanced product compliance, collaboration, and requirements management.

SAP has remained consistent in their focus to support four PLM “value scenarios,” enabling business processes to help manufacturers in specific initiatives to establish “Product and Service Leadership“:

• Consumer-Driven, Sustainable Innovation
• Integrated Product Development
• Continuous Product and Service Integration
• Embedded Product Compliance

The names have changed slightly over time, but the needs SAP is trying to meet are well-planned, important, and have remained consistent. Clearly, SAP has a plan and has been hard at work to achieve it. 

The Confusion, and the Questions

When I talk to the SAP PLM team, I can feel the excitement and their sense of accomplishment. I hear about the progress on their plans and how they are fulfilling the needs of their customers. Yet from the manufacturers I speak with, I don’t feel the same enthusiasm. So here are my questions:

• Am I talking to the wrong companies, or the wrong people?
• Is it still too early?
• Did the down economy last year stall SAP’s ability to get the word out?
• Does SAP not have the ear of the product innovation, product development, and engineering staff?
• Are manufacturers tired of hearing what is coming?
• Is there just still more that needs to be done?
• Are the best-of-breed vendors too far ahead? Or too entrenched?
• Is there a slow revolution happening that I am just not in touch with?

So that’s what I hear from SAP, and my resulting confusion. I hope you found it interesting. What do you think? Can you help shed some light on my questions?

*Note: Sorry, no link to past posts on SAP PLM right now. Unfortunately the blog was taken offline by Reed Business when they closed the magazine. I hope to get that content back at some point to share with you.

A quick peek into some feedback on my research on … the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM in the manufacturing industry. First, thanks to Oleg for his feedback an continuing the ERP-PLM conversation on PLM Think Tank. Oleg made some very good points and provided some good research on the research. But in the spirit of a healthy debate I want to “myth bust” his response. I will address each of the sections in his response idividually, although I split the first one into three responses.

Responses and Reactions

Managing Innovation (Busted) - The title to Oleg’s report does not reflect the thrust of my paper, but he touches on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. He makes a strong point that innovation can’t be managed. I think the first two responses to his post say a lot, particularly the first one, show that this isn’t the case. No, we are not going to automate innovation with a product line of robots. But the energy and time of smart, innovative people can be harnessed and guided to produce more results by following an innovation process. I call this operationalizing innovation. It is about process. Really.

Distinct Roles of ERP and PLM (Busted) - The point that I was making in my paper is that ERP and PLM serve different purposes. PLM helps drive product innovation, ERP helps execute the business of manufacturing. PLM’s primary role is not managing innovation, it is helping companies innovate, develop new products, and engineer them more effectively. These are fundamentally different purposes. Yes, there is overlap. But there are more differences than overlaps. See the table below for more of my thoughts on this.

PLM as a Module of ERP (Busted) - Oleg disagreed with my statement that “PLM is not just another module of ERP” and points out SAP as an example. I disagree strongly with this. SAP tried to introduce PLM as just another module. If they were successful there would be no market for PTC Windchill, Siemens Teamcenter, or Dassault Systemes Enovia. What has SAP done over the last couple of years? SAP  developed a multi-year program to introduce PLM as a complete subystem to ERP instead of a module. See my post Does SAP “Do” PLM? for more on that. Can an ERP vendor provide PLM? Sure. Is it part of the ERP system itself? Not in the near future. Need more proof? Oracle bought Agile instead of developing further on their e-business suite. Busted.

Design and Product Data Management (Confirmed) - The core of PLM is data management. PDM should be rock solid, with very robust security. I do believe that extending to other areas (compliance, costing, etc.) that leverage that core data makes absolute sense. It is like building a house on an unstable foundation, it may look nice but in the end it will collapse.

Cross Funtional Processes (Plausible) – I absolutely agree that processes are organizational.  I believe that business processes absolutely come before software and functionality. I also agree that business processes cross enterprise boundaries (click to see the article with that same name). But my point was – and still is – that companies need to choose which processes will be supported by which solution. Yes, the answer can be that some processes are supported by a combination of the two. And I would love to see business process management (BPM) play a role, even to the point of developing composite applications that leverage the functions of each system. But the point is that there are some overlap areas where companies need to choose. There is more to agree with here than disagree, though.

PLM and ERP Integration (Plausible) – I didn’t go into technical integration in my report. Why? Because I believe that it is more important to get the ownership of data and the alignment of business processes right. This includes addressing semantic differences between the systems. The days where we couldn’t get one machine to talk to the other or data was stored in a proprietary format were the dark days of integration. Today, the technical side of integration is “easy.” By “easy” I mean it is a simple matter of time and money, but it is possible. It no longer requires magic. But it does require effort. And there are some good integration stories between ERP and PLM, but currently it is mostly customer or through integration partners. So we are mostly in agreement here (I think).

Where Does PLM Stop and ERP Begin? (Busted) - Oleg says “don’t even try to put this border.” Unfortunately, as a manufacturer you have to. You have to develop a strategy about which system will address which process (again, it can be a combination). From a vendor perspective there are no boundaries, and I am not suggesting some industry standard footprint of each solution. But for an individual implementation? In some processes you have two tools that can do the job, you have to pick.

Summary
So that was a “quick” reply to Oleg’s comments on my recent research. I hope you found it interesting. I hope you found it entertaining. Mostly I hope you (and Oleg) recognize the good spirit in which this is written. Respectful debate is good for all of us. I appreciate Oleg’s perspective even when I disagree. And more often than not, we agree.

Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … the respective roles that ERP and PLM play in product innovation. This is not brand new research, but I believe it is just as relevant today as when I initially wrote this almost 5 years ago. Why? Not much has changed – with a couple of notable exceptions (SAP and Oracle). I find myself coming back to this topic on a regular basis, and I am starting to do some research in this area again so I thought I would bring this one back to the surface. It also offers some insight that might be helpful for a recent discussion on PLMTwine that touches on the importance of integrating PLM with ERP.

The Research
The research identified two clear and distinct sets of business processes that companies use to drive product
profitability. These two sets of processes include:

• The Innovation Cycle – characterized by rapid iteration
• The Execution Cycle – characterize by a more linear, repeatable process

These cycles are different, and require different solutions. PLM and ERP were developed – and have since evolved – to meet the needs of each of these cycles. Is there overlap? You bet. Processes like engineering change are consistent challenges to coordinate between these two meta-processes. But for most companies, there is
a clear hand-off point where a design is released to manufacturing (and external suppliers, for that matter)
where ERP takes over.

Below is a table extracted from the research that helps to show the differences between ERP and PLM. These differences are what make each the best solution for their respective set of processes – execution or innovation.

Updating the Viewpoint
So what would I change now that five years have passed? Not much. One other interesting fact from the research (and confirmed by a later benchmark I conducted at Aberdeen Group) is that most companies would really rather have one enterprise solution that covers all of their innovation and execution needs. Unfortunately, at the time none existed. I would love to say that five years later that had changed drastically, but it has not. What has changed? The desire for an integrated solution clearly has not changed, but:

• PLM vendors such as Dassault Systemes, PTC and in particular Siemens PLM have progressed their integration to ERP, focusing mainly on SAP due to it’s market prominence in ERP
• Oracle acquired Agile, giving them a PLM solution (two actually, including Prodika) that will be further integrated with Oracle ERP over time, but is also being sold into other ERP environments (again, including SAP)
• SAP has announced and is progressing on their own SAP PLM roadmap (Update: Look for a One to One on SAP PLM in the near future, we have just had a good conversation with the SAP PLM team about their progress)

Having said that, none of the above are clearly differentiated enough to serve as the “one integrated
answer” that many companies are looking for. So for now, the best solution is likely a hybrid of ERP, potentially some PLM from you ERP vendor, some best of breed PLM suite solutions, and some best of breed point PLM solutions. Sorry, I wish there were a cleaner answer than this.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the roles of ERP and PLM. I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect reality? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.