I had the chance to talk with … the team at Planview earlier this month about their plans for the product portfolio management (PPM) market. Although they have historically focused on ITPM (information technology portfolio management), I was encouraged by what I heard from the Planview team. I am very cautious when I hear manufacturers consider historically IT-focused portfolio management solutions for product development. Despite the fact that on the surface PPM and ITPM needs seem similar, there are some very fundamental differences. Planview, however, deserves a second look.
What do they Do?
As I mentioned, Planview has historically focused on helping companies make investment decisions on portfolios of IT projects, and helped companies execute against those plans. I have had personal experience with attempting to repurpose an ITPM solution to serve PPM needs. I recognize the challenges involved in making the software work for a different purpose, and also in developing the product development knowledge within the vendor required to help manufacturers leverage the solution. Planview appears to have invested the time and effort to make the transition. In addition, there are other factors that help give me confidence that they are sincere about PPM:
- They are partnered with Siemens PLM, who certainly understands product development and offers the Planview solution as their PPM offering (through an OEM agreement)
- They have acquired Stage-Gate certification indicating they meet the needs of product development execution at a minimum
- They have a legacy PPM product, prior to adding PPM to Planview
Planview’s scope includes portfiolio analysis, resource management, and project execution. In addition, they offer an analytics solution and help with risk management and financial planning.
Who do they Work with?
Planview’s traditional ITPM solution is positioned across industries, as the needs of each industry to manage their IT investments are not that different. The PPM offering, however, is primarily target at manufacturers. Manufacturing companies should give Planview a serious look, and evaluate the solution specifically for PPM and NPD needs. In addition, manufacturers need to look closely at their consultants in addition to the software. Depending on what they find, manufacturers may want to engage a consulting firm with deep PPM expertise to augment Planview’s professional services team if they need significant help in developing their PPM strategy and processes. My prior research into PPM indicates that (more than even for other enterprise software) paying attention to process is critical to achieving positive results.
So that’s what I hear from Planview, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?
For PPM to be successful, it must build on accurate, up to date project and program information. You cannot make those fancy bubble charts and other BCG-inspired graphics without that data AND some structure and processes for your strategic planning.
My question is are most companies that mature in their project and program management to be ABLE to bubble up to PPM? I was only a PLM consultant for a few years before going over to the vendor side, but in the end user consulting I did, I did not see it.
PPM has been the next big thing for most of the nearly 10 years I have been in PLM, but is it being pulled by end users or pushed by analysts’ PLM models (PPM plays a prominent role for most of them)? And supported by the niche software and service providers that can help people figure this out? (Some of the niche vendors seem to be more about services, or the latest methodology.)
I am not saying it is not important; the question is more about the tool matching the maturity of the adopting organizations.
Stan,
Thanks for your comments. This is definately a growing area, but one that is still maturing. My opinion though is that the value is not as much from “bubbling up” project and program information as it is driving down corporate strategy through the product portfolio. I think that most of the information that gets bubbled up from a project is very tactical, and not what is required to make good management decisions. I am not saying it shouldn’t be integrated (it should), but the what should be bubbled up is status, risks, etc.
There are four main parts I include in my PPM framework:
– Select and Maximize Product Portfolio
– Resource and Enable Pipeline
– Execute and Manage Projects
– Determine and Monitor Product Value (touching all of the above)
All are important. What most companies fail on is the maximizing their portfolio, and part of the reason is that they don’t have a good measure on the potential value of the new products. That information rarely “bubbles up” and is instead driven by solid business analysis (that doesn’t usually fit in PPM and PLM).
So in my view, the corporate strategy should drive the portfolio, and the strategy should be executed down through the projects. Then, there should be feedback up to the portfolio level so ongoing decisions are made based on fact instead of hopeful wishes about project status.
In regards to vendors – I do think this is partly service and partly software, more so than the rest of PLM. The tools are useless (maybe even harmful) without the right strategy and processes. A lot of the good progress is being made by niche providers and specialty consultants. I think that just reflects that maturity of PPM overall.
Thanks for your comments, insightful as usual!
Hello Jim,
I am a Product Marketing Manager for Teamcenter at Siemens PLM Software.
Thank you for your article and comment. We agree with your analysis.
Yes…most companies have been focused on execution of programs/projects, i.e. Are we doing things right? However, there is very little attention given to the question: Are we doing the right things?
Too often companies find their portfolio is not aligned with the company growth strategy, or they have selected projects outside their core competencies. On many occasions companies have the right projects but haven’t got the resources available at the right time to deliver in within the opportunity window. Projects flounder, are never launched or launched late.
Yes…the top down planning and bottom up execution should be integrated. There is need to align top-down planning using FTE’s and organizational units with bottom-up named resources planning for integrated staff planning. Knowing there are resources with specific skill sets available when they are needed will help to improve predictability of execution. Knowing there is a disconnect early in the process allows appropriate adjustments in resource assignments or schedule to reflect a resource constraint, or budget to outsource in order to make a critical delivery window. This requires continuous visibility of current programs and projects.
We also agree with your comment – “there should be feedback up to the portfolio level so ongoing decisions are made based on fact instead of hopeful wishes about project status.” Ability to monitor the plan continuously and make mid-way correction , for example to adjust resources for a good project falling behind schedule for lack of resources or killing a project based on new insight in changing market conditions is critical to success for NPDI.
Last thing I would like to add is the need for PLM integration. Companies are not able to leverage existing rich PLM knowledge, like product designs, BOM, requirements, etc., to do early, quick feasibility studies of new product ideas.
Is Portfolio being pulled by end users or pushed by analysts’ PLM models?
Any new technology, CAD, PDM, PLM, etc, requires customer education. And I am happy that analysts, like yourself are helping educate customers. We vendors can not do it alone. I have been in the industry since the inception of CAD. Selling CAD, and PDM in 1990’s, and PLM in 2000’s, was missionary. It required educating customers, and helping them to transform their processes. Portfolio Management is no different. Of course, in good times, when companies were making zillions of dollars, it was hard to convince them that can improve their product portfolio planning process. However, the times are different right now. Customers are willing to assess their process.
Nik,
First of all, I apologize for the length of time it took for your comment to post. Due to spam issues, I have had to put a review process in place for first-time posters. I was on vacation, and for some reason didn’t see the notification that there was a comment to approve. My sincere apologies, particularly after you took the time to write such a thoughtful reply. So welcome to the ClarityonPLM blog, I hope to see you back and look forward to future conversations.
Second, thank you for your comments and your perspective. I am a firm believer in the value of improved portfolio management. I find that most companies are doing portfolio management, they are just not doing it well. They have poor processes, use subjective criteria, and don’t have the right information (strategic or tactical) to make good decisions. Software is only a part of the answer, but I believe it is an important enabler.
Thanks,
Jim