Comments on: Product and Process Models in PLM – What Should Come First?

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:24:04 +0000

Jez, In this case, I just see “Product Available” as a “data” available in the context of various processes (like you said major/minor/maintenance releases). This is where my “product model” plays a primary role in comparison to process one. Thanks! Oleg PS. Of course, both models are important.

By: Jez Cunningham

Jez Cunningham — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:31:56 +0000

Oleg asked: “In your example, what happens between first and last releases with product alignment? Is it two processes that going in parallel?”
Answer: there is no specific PROCESS happening to the PRODUCT except through regular sales and support activities; in its lifecycle it’s just ‘available’. Meanwhile, multiple major/minor/maintenance RELEASES go through their full lifecycles.

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:25:50 +0000

Jez, thanks for sharing your experience. I think, we need to stop with PDM and PLM mapping…. It brings a huge amount of marketing and emotions. We’d better talk about models and processes. In your example, what happens between first and last releases with product alignment? Is it two processes that going in parallel? Best, Oleg

By: Jez Cunningham

Jez Cunningham — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:48:22 +0000

In our company we had a model for the product life cycle that was pretty much aligned with the stage-gate product development process.

As we became more ‘agile’ we adapted this and realised that in fact it’s a multi-level model: we have a PRODUCT lifecycle management process and underneath we have multiple PRODUCT RELEASE development projects. They each follow a PRODUCT RELEASE PROCESS and there are multiple overlapping PRODUCT RELEASE lifecycles.

The PRODUCT and the first RELEASE are aligned at the beginning, and the PRODUCT and the last RELEASE are (somewhat) aligned at the end.

Now how you map this to PDM and PLM is another long story

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:35:50 +0000

Hervé, On the level of dreams, it is ok. I want to have a single system. However, in practice, and also from the software lifecycle standpoint it remains as a dream … Enterprises are living with reality of multiple systems that deliver best of the bread functionality. So, in the context of my post, I wanted to point that first focus needs to be on the product model and second on the process. And, if you can do it in the single application, it can be just great! Best, Oleg

By: Henk de Man

Henk de Man — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:10:22 +0000

Oleg,

There is a movement towards an additional style of process management, integrated with BPMN, but distinct. More towards something like “agile project management”. Information and work product are in the driver seat, as well as the human worker, who majorly decides on how to continue. We call this “case management”, although it is much broader applicable than just to what’s traditinally called “case management”. It is very applicable to managing innovative processes, such as in SCRUM. You might have a look at the OMG RFP (see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/2009-9-23 ).
Note that the submission process, the process that aims to deliver this standard has started. If you are interested: be invited to join. You might also have a look at e.g. the Cordys website(www.cordys.com ) and search on “case management”. If you want to talk further: just let us know. Note that we also work on integrating this more into the PLM world. You might also look on our website at what we do in the PLM world itself, such as in the area of PLM data federation.

By: Hervé Menga

Hervé Menga — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:42:51 +0000

Well, it is not because the model must be single that the application must be single.
Imagine a real single model that could be built by many applications, each of which is constructing a piece of the model: several stake holders coming from different businesses are collaborating towards the construction of this single model : people from the “product” view (the product as it should be, the “functional” view), together with people as it should be built, the “physical” view). This is already the case in software engineering, the software workbenches are enabling the collaborative construction of a single model, why could not we dream that in the future the “other engineering softwares” could not provide same capabilities?

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:14:59 +0000

Hervé, Thanks a lot for your insight! I liked your poultry story … The idea of single model for product and process is not viable in my view. The reason is the same as one because I think all trials to bring enterprise to a single model/application can rarely happen. Thanks! Oleg

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:08:32 +0000

Cam, Thank you! It make a lot of sense. Especially your example with acquired companies. This is something, I’ve seen many times. Best. Oleg

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:06:44 +0000

George, Thanks! I had the same assumption- product comes in the beginning… before processes. Best, Oleg