{"id":6171,"date":"2023-03-28T13:36:45","date_gmt":"2023-03-28T13:36:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/durolabs.co\/?p=6171"},"modified":"2024-07-03T19:24:44","modified_gmt":"2024-07-03T19:24:44","slug":"plm-paralyzes-innovation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/durolabs.co\/blog\/plm-paralyzes-innovation\/","title":{"rendered":"PLM paralyzes innovation: Why leaders need to rethink PLM now"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

PLM streamlines engineering processes so that when changes are made, people know what to do next. So how is it that startups with only an innovative idea and no PLM can come out of nowhere to disrupt the industry leaders and take away their market advantage?<\/p>

PLM software itself does not inhibit innovation. However, the way it\u2019s implemented and utilized within a company runs the risk of doing so. If PLM is used solely to optimize existing products and processes, rather than exploring new possibilities, it could lead to a lack of innovation.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Why does PLM paralyze innovation?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

PLM isn\u2019t just software<\/a>, it\u2019s a\u00a0business strategy.\u00a0<\/i>It\u2019s enabled by various software and systems, including those commonly categorized as \u201cPLM.\u201d It was designed to ensure governance of the design, testing, manufacture, and quality of manufactured products. These processes and sets of rules are essential so that products conform to corporate and regulatory standards.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Preset workflows and processes encourage repeatability not freethinking<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Market leaders often customize their PLM platforms to ensure maximum efficiency in product development. Product lifecycle workstreams become streamlined to perfection. They encapsulate proprietary processes, templates, libraries, plus even functional roles.\u00a0<\/p>

However, those workstreams are like guardrails; predictable, reliable, efficient, and rigid. This is where the\u00a0problem of innovation<\/a>\u00a0arises because\u00a0innovation\u00a0<\/i>requires free thinking and acting. People need to be able to think\u00a0and\u00a0<\/i>act\u00a0differently than they did before in order to solve new problems.\u00a0<\/p>

The customized PLM system backbone that ensures engineering efficiency and repeatability is the same thing that prevents agility to try out new things.<\/i><\/b><\/p>

Leading manufacturers follow repeatable engineering processes. That way they don\u2019t drift outside of governance standards, proven over decades, and do something risky.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

PLM was traditionally designed for products with long lifecycles<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Historically products had longer lifecycles and most of the content was designed and manufactured in-house. This was a stable, predictable, well controlled environment. And it fueled investment in customized PLM solutions because processes could be baked into a system to improve efficiency, velocity. The ROI was high because the baseline of the product and sourced content didn\u2019t change much. As a result, the PLM backbone didn\u2019t need to change much either.<\/p>

In contrast, today\u2019s manufactured products have much shorter lifecycles and draw sourced content from a vast global ecosystem. There are new security issues along with a new for greater flexibility. Manufacturers are now dependent on supply chain constituents for significant modules of their whole product. Additionally, a product\u2019s invention is frequently a collaborative effort between many independent companies who may also work with competitors. This highly fluid environment is not conducive to rigid customized workflows because things are constantly changing.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Bold ideas are easy. Converting them into innovative products is hard<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Let\u2019s take a look at an example of an engineer working at a large enterprise. The engineer has an idea for a new product and wants to create a quick design to share with his manager.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Initially, an engineer uses PLM to find content to reuse<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

He might choose an existing design using PLM\u2019s advanced search capability to start developing. The PLM platform recognizes that changes are being made to an existing design and issues an \u201cECO Pending Approval Number\u201d notification.\u00a0<\/p>

The engineer then realizes that\u2019s not what he wants to do and will make a\u00a0copy\u00a0<\/i>of the design instead. Again PLM recognizes the intention to \u201ccopy\u201d an existing design, issuing a new part number in the system which in turn flags ERP to check component inventory levels.\u00a0<\/p>

This part number is now officially registered and can only be removed by a formal obsolescence process. It can\u2019t be deleted or retired any other way. As a result, the new design will be an increment of the previous trial number, which creates ongoing confusion in the numbering registry.\u00a0<\/p>

Advanced PLM systems may also prompt the engineer to consider an alternate component that is more readily in-stock. But he doesn\u2019t want to make anything yet and doesn\u2019t know how much of the original design he\u2019ll actually use, if any.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Then, the engineer decides to create a brand new design in CAD\n<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

By now the engineer is frustrated so starts a new CAD model. He\u2019ll use externally sourced content from free online catalogs to speed up design brainstorming. Eventually, he\u2019ll have a new digital prototype. However, the design likely won\u2019t conform to PLM policy standards for the data model or BOM structure. It may include non-approved components and can\u2019t be manufactured in-house because of existing tooling or process restrictions. Additionally, no one in the company has any experience with the new technology that\u2019s been incorporated in the design.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

The idea is eventually rejected as it is viewed as risky<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The official PLM system has no awareness of this new product development. The engineer, although acting with best intentions, has gone rogue! Management likes his idea but is unwilling to risk the time or money to make a prototype, let alone scale to production. Management tells the engineer that he should\u2019ve created the design in the corporate PLM system to comply with engineering governance standards. Catch 22.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Disruptive startups aren\u2019t held back by proprietary processes and systems<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In contrast, disruptive startups are built around innovation. They aren\u2019t weighed down by proprietary processes because they don\u2019t yet have any. They have the ability to continuously try new things and change things if something doesn\u2019t work. But their fail-fast and keep-moving-forward model surely must lead to chaos? So how do disruptive startups, big or small, ensure that failures become learning experiences and eventually, result in quality innovative products being built?<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Any size company can build innovative products<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

As discussed in our blog on the\u00a0challenges faced by market leaders<\/a>, processes that were defined for yesterday\u2019s product development may not support how engineers must develop new products today.\u00a0<\/p>

What\u2019s needed is a Product Lifecycle Management strategy that embraces today\u2019s supply-chain-centric product development. Modern PLM software should combine both agility and governance.<\/i><\/b><\/p>

It\u2019s not just disruptive startups that have the ability to push the boundaries of hardware design and innovation. Although it\u2019s more difficult for larger organizations that have established product lines and platforms to adapt, they can set up new teams for success. They need suitable tools and systems to support agile development.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

How to rethink PLM strategy to encourage innovation<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Innovators should design their organizations to empower people while allowing technology to both simplify and speed up processes. They should review and adapt the core areas of their business.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

People are empowered to take risks<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t