Talk:Product lifecycle/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Information technology assumption
There is an assumption in this article that the organization has embedded information technology. It is possible to exercise the entire product management lifecycle without using a computer at all. This is historically a marketing term and not a computer term. Dfletter 02:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point. Don't we computational types think that our paradigm is IT <pun>? Thank you for opening the discussion. IT's even worse.
- Another assumption (or is it a bias?) is that the thing called the 'Enterprise' viewpoint (top-down by definition) is the key one. I'm talking about this very issue at COE Atlanta (subject - KBE for PLM and CAx). Some feel that KBE (Knowledge-Based_Engineering) ought to be PLM driven. Not!
- Of course, I'll have to admit a bias for the bottom-up (iconoclast and egalitarian that I am). Where would science be without the lowly lab worker? <grin> jmswtlk 17:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Bgwood (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) We definitely are impossible in IT - these acronyms need a diagram. The acronyms PLM and PLCM refer to two different parts - PLM is the cycle to initially create the product, PLCM is the operational cycle from production through supply channel to sales to consumption. In the pharmaceutical world, the PLM is the cycle for the creation of a new product, from research through testing, FDA submission, to the finished, approved product, while the PLCM is the production cycle from creation of the product through expiration of the product, . We really should have two different acronyms (how about PPLCM - product production life cycle...). Aaaah, those acronyms! :-)
Product Lifecycle or Product Life Cycle Management
There are two very different Wikipedia articles on what I would have thought are just different spellings for the same thing.
If this is not the case, would it be possible for someone to offer distinctions / comparisons / justifications between
- Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
- Product Life Cycle Management (PLC Management?, let's say PLCM)
Feel free to contact me directly for detailed discussion. We could post summaries here.
--Gary Walker, gwlucca@yahoo.com
- These two may be related in a couple of ways. 1) that PLM generally has a computational focus (see User:Dfletter comment) may be used to say that PLM may be one concrete manner to support PLCM. That PLM can be applied by other than computational means (again, User:Dfletter) may imply that PLM is a methods-oriented affair. 2) PLCM on the other hand has a broader scope (see Related topics). Notice that it does not point back to PLM (an oversight, I'm sure).
- Now, ought there be a general overview page that then splits into these two (one management/strategy - PLCM, the other technical/tactics - PLM)? In this case, PLCM would also provide the theoretical view. jmswtlk 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
--
PLCM is to do with the life of a product in the market in respect to business/commercial costs and sales measures.
PLM is more to do with managing descriptions and properties of a product through its development and useful life, mainly from an business/engineering point of view. Freeformer 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-- The Product Lifecycle Management article is about managing some engineering issues related to products throughout their life, but especially pre-market. This is quite a different subject from Product Life Cycle, which is a technical term used by marketing professionals. It is unfortunate, but a fact of life, that engineers and marketeers do not co-ordinate their jargon. The two disciplines do use variants of the same phrase to describe different phenomena. The similarity of the article names reflects reality. Perhaps an answer is to hyperlink the articles and edit the texts to make it clear which is the marketing article and which is the engineering article.
- So, using Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) and Product Life Cycle Management (PLCM), we have
- PLM - product/process engineering and its management (from a viewpoint that is both broad (covers the whole of the chain, technically, encompassing pre-sale, sale, post-sale, and dispose) and deep (relates to success via applied science and technology))
- PLCM – product management and its management (including marketing)
- These two ought to meet in the middle via processes like value engineering. However, there are several types of overlap that need to be mapped out. It seems that a third page ought to be written which then points to these two for more detail. Anyone want to volunteer? Has this mapping been done? jmswtlk 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
How about this for a start? Product lifecycle Freeformer 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I realize I'm late to this conversation, and that contributors to these two articles may feel this question is settled. (So my apologies upfront if this is upsetting.) But as a new reader, I have to say it looks very weird. These aren't two different terms; they're just the same term typed differently. Having both these articles is like having both of "Database" and "Data base." Imagine someone listening to a lecture on this subject. Would they be expected to discern a difference in meaning between "product life cycle" and "product lifecycle." I don't think so. (Product lifecycle means before production, but product life cycle means during production? Please no.) Note that (in WP) a search for "Lifecycle" (by itself) redirects to "Life cycle." You land on a disambig page, which includes a link to "Product life cycle management" but not to "Product lifecycle management." A newcomer seeking infomation on this subject needs good luck to find the right article first. Here's a suggestion: if this subject matter is so broad that it requires more than one article of reasonable length (which is probably so), and if the subject matter can be factored into "product under development" vs "product in the market" or "IT products" vs "other sorts of products," then divide it up that way and give each article a meaningful title. This gets done for other big topics all the time (e.g., France in the 1800s, France in the 1900s). Hult041956 16:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. It appears to me quite often lately that we have a proliferation of management buzzwords as article titles that will usually be followed by lots of bloated "white paper" disinformation where a concise statement like "It's a manangement concept" would amply suffice. So, in short: whatever real encyclopaedic information there is in the product life[ ]cycle mgmt. - could IMNSVHO easily be subsumed under one heading. -- Kku (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to apologize in advance for not going through all the detail in this discussion before sharing my two cents. I think:
- The articles should be'Product lifecycle management (engineering)' and 'Product life cycle management (marketing)'
- There could be a description that states that in engineering 'lifecycle' tends to be one word (evidence would be great too)
- Most importantly i think the article names should be differentiated by more than just the spelling variation. It cannot be very clear to first time readers when they get the topic they were not looking for.
~~K
Sorry guys, but I think the article need to be discuss once again. Because I think people are getting a little confuse about differences on PLM / PLCM. You know in the beginning of IT there is no such thing as PLM. The few companies who first start using it, the only guys I can think of is DARPA and Intel.
Brief history you should know before discussing PLM is actually dervied by the conceptual idea where products should be divided down int to ALM / PLM (ALM for web applications and other small promotional products), due to the idea of promoting Open Source, products were usually license some form or variants of GNU GPL, when people develop something good things such as add-on, the company buy that technologies from the developers and integrated onto their hardware like Sun Microsystems, Solaris and StarOffice.
PLM was for Corporate. After some time, GNU GPL become way too viral, the idea of FSF starting growing. I think people are getting confused that, because ALM / PLM are more suited for software such as CAD, DCC, AutoCAD and other assisting technologies for things like Bionformatics database, mechanical drawings (assisting gurus who don't go to university but have the knowledge). And it is not really engineer-based at all.
It is just they uses the sort of transistion the Buisness Concept and practice into a more scalable idea. And the entire ALM / PLM is based on things like Agile, RAD (Rapid Application Developement...etc.)
Simply put it is a topic that combines ALM / PLM (Informatics + Metholodgies) Probably would be a good idea to look at the article infobox template for more understanding. [[1]] The template is just an overview of commno methodologies, don't get yourself confused with the connotation. PLCM still encompass the field of buisness concepts of stock markets, statistical math, marketing, the ALM / PLM is somewhat a guide that keep the technician / developers on track, instead of getting off-topic about the idealistic computing science, which in reality is possible, but not practical due to the budget of a product. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I generally like the idea of Product lifecycle management (engineering) and Product lifecycle management (marketing) provided that one of the existing pages become a disambiduation and the other a redirect to the former. Alternately, I wonder if the engineering article could be renamed as System lifecycle management. All my experience in this field has been on equipment of which I am the consumer, and so my tendency is not to think of them as the "product." At the same time, the text books that I've used don't talk about product lifecycle but of system lifecycle. Benjamin S. Blanchard has produced a number of books on this for anyone in need of further reference. Logistics Engineering and Management seems to be one of his more recent. As far as "lifecycle" vs "life cycle," I think that is largely regional difference. I see "lifecycle" used in Canada, and "life cycle" from US references. MCG (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Vendors Section removal
It appears there's quite an unbalance afoot. There are plenty of public and private vendors. One or two regular players that are pervasive in the industry are eliminated at least once a year. Claims of no references or external links are made. Several citations/references to major editors in the industry whose careers are to write about PLM regularly covers these vendors, yet somehow some the wiki group seems to disagree with who is a "major commercial player." Since the list is now heavily biased towards the definition of a pervasive player being whoever has or has not a wiki stub or "approved" wiki page, as opposed to who has hundreds or thousands of PLM software installations, it does appear prudent and supportive of the "unbiased" context wikipedia wants to maintain, once again, to remove the major commercial player section since so many other wikipedia pages don't include that, for example, CAD software or ERP, the two software systems for which PLM is the bridge. Both of these examples give extensive explanations of the technology with no mention whatsoever of "major commercial players." I believe comparing this PLM page to how wikipedia handles 'similar' technologies makes far more sense than comparing it to the automotive industry, etc. So since CAD and ERP are the two closest technologies, (physically touching - PLM interfaces to both at most installations) I suggest having PLM follow those two leads and not mention "major commercial players," solving all problems. I do believe, however, that if a heading such as "major commercial player" is to be typed, then the list must accurately reflect just that - the major commercial players which is defined by those vendors who have hundreds or thousands of installations or who have garnered consistent coverage by the industry's analysts and editors who are probably more in the know than any of us would be, instead of a "major commercial player" being determined by wikipedia fonts and stub rules and occasional broken links, etc. If a vendor's page for whatever reason suffers a broken link and is repaired but perhaps not exactly the way wikipedia editors prefer, does not negate their installation numbers or editorial coverage. Who and how these pages are created in wikipedia fonts, programming language, etc is not as important as the facts of the industry. If that's the case, then the "unbiased" claims of wikipedia remain intact for all but one - the bias of wikipedia itself as the end all and be all of "the facts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.218.185 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with removing the vendors as was done recently. Perhaps, they ought to be in a section about the major players with a few additional remarks. After all, those who play the commercial roles are as much part of the landscape as are the abstractions via words.
It seems to me, to boot, that an edit of this section would have been preferred over trashing these links. Or, why not put a notice that there was an intention to remove the vendors if that was deemed the way to go after some discussion and consideration?
I'm wondering. In response to a few pranksters and others who created problematic incidents (some of which made the press), is there a growing presence of heavy-handed techniques being applied in the 'wiki' world of late?
By the way, notice that I have elevated the 'reminders' (10 Commandments) in my own work. jmswtlk 14:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree
A section on the major software vendors and overview of the market would be beneficial. This site should not be an advertising media but you cannot ignore the products with such an article. It would be like talking about cars without mentioning any brands or models. Freeformer 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is a category titled Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange that sets the precedence for having reference to commercial entities. There are over 190 pages of listings. I'll attempt a new section with a different title. jmswtlk 02:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in mind there is a big difference between a Category and a list. A Category of companies can only contain companies which have Wikipedia articles. That makes the Category somewhat self-correcting, as only companies notable enough to have an article will appear. Thus, a PLC/PLM/whatever-vendor Category might well be the solution. —DragonHawk (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The vendor list is getting out of hand again, becoming a list of external links to companies or list of PDM packages (which is only part of PLM). What do people think about removing external links and only referencing companies and products that themselves have a Wiki page (not a stub). Freeformer 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Two Different Lives of Product
There are two, somewhat different Lives of a Product. One, from a Business (Producer’s) prospective and another one from the User’s prospective. The first one is the Product “Family Life” and the later one is the Individual Product Life.
The PLM article is focusing on the Product Family life, but missing two key elements of it:
1. Refine: This (continuous) phase is to further improve, correct and adapt (functionality, cost and quality of) the Product Line, to the missed and/or changing external (market) and internal (business) needs. This task is typically performed by Product Engineering departments.
2. Derive: This is to create Derivatives of the Platform to customize it to various market segments and needs as well as to extend the life of the Product Line. The Derive phase typically starts during the Design and Development Phase, but often continues after Product Release.
Typical main stages of a Family Life are depicted below:
\Conceive Design Develop Release Produce Sell Deliver Service Refine Phase-Out
\ Derive-1 | Derive-2
\--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------->
\---------------|-----------------------------> \----------->
\--------------|---------------------------------> \------------->
Note: These stages are overlapping by nature, not as discrete as represented by the diagram.
The following key Organizational Functions and Flows participate in the Family Life Line:
1. Create :: Conceive, Design, Derive-1, Develop
2. Produce :: Source, Manufacture, Assemble
3. Control :: Release, Refine, Derive-2, Phase-Out
4. Support :: Sell, Deliver, Service
The individual Life of the product starts in the Produce Stage of the Family Life:
1. Born :: Source, Manufacture, Assemble
2. Commission :: Sell, Deliver, Put in Operation
3. Operation :: Use
4. Sustain :: Care, Maintain, Service, Repair
5. Decommission :: Remanufacture, Recycle, Dispose
The Individual Life is more related to the experience of Customers, Users and other Actors. The goals of designing the Product Family Life are to achieve both, the Business Objectives and the Intended Individual Life of the products.
The Family Life of products is also linked to their Value Cycle. --ProGlo 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
resent changes to introduction
Can I request that changes to the introduction are enhancements and not total rewrites. Also specific details on areas of this large field be placed in their related articles, eg. PDM,BOM.PPM,CAD etc. Freeformer 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
How do these terms fit in?
Should they be merged or redirected? 1. end of life 2. end of marketing 3. end of service Andries (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Acronym usage in article
If PLM is defined as "Product lifecycle management" - then the following functions: "develop, describe, manage and communicate information about their products" can't also be PLM. CZmarlin (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
MES - Mechanical Event Simulation or Manufacturing Execution System
This article mentions Mechanical Event Simulation (MES) but when I search on MES, the closest thing I find is Manufacturing Execution System for which there is no article. Do we need an article or at least a stub on either or both Mechanical Event Simulation and Manufacturing Execution System ?
I have no expertise in this field (that's why I was looking)so I can't advise here
Rzyzkc (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Added PPLM - worthwhile?
I just added the section on PPLM / Product & Process Lifecycle Management. It's an interesting twist on PLM. However, there is some concern that this is primarily talked about by one vendor. They have some nice backing from (potential) customers, but is it a true market if only one company does it? Jackvinson (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
PLM
I do not subscribe with the first sentence:
Product lifecycle management (PLM) is the process of managing the entire lifecycle of a product from its conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal.[1]
Even if there is a reference to a writing from CIMData (this reference is broken, however). I have learnt that PLM was only dealing with the Product Development (during the full product life), but just Development (not at all manufacturing, for example!). Of course, the development of the product when it is not yet in production (so up to the prototypes), i mean when the product does not exist yet, is obvious, while the development of this product when production has been launched (series) is still performed. And optionally when the product is in maintenance... But PLM activities are ONLY development activities, aren't they ? Otherwise what the ERP systems are made for ? --Viteazul (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- PLM is really about the entire life of a product, from development through manufacture and (ideally) to the grave. I suspect, however, that most PLM efforts focus on the ideation and development of the manufacturable process. More specifically, if a product is already commercially manufactured, the value of PLM software / processes is significantly diminished. If the product goes through PLM and makes it into manufacture, then all the historical information about the development of the product can be quite useful within the manufacturing setting.
- The reference to ERP is a little odd. ERP systems in manufacture fire off the order for a manufacturing run. This has very little to do with lifecycle aspects.
Jackvinson (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The term PLM has evolved and means completely different things to different people. I believe the term PLM should be changed to Product Development Lifecycle Management.
I believe the article is a bit misleading and is describing an IDEAL potential of what PLM can be, not what is in reality or practice. I agree with Viteazul's point that PLM in reality and generally is much more focused on product development and NOT manufacture, service, disposal, supply chain, etc. Many of the leading PLM players have its roots in design (eg CAD) software and their PLM offerings are not much more than product design/spec plus some workflow/approvals.
As regards Jackvinson's remark, while better/faster product design does help manufacturing, I have not seen any PLM software that actually manage manufacturing/production. It is one thing (and accurate) to say that product development information is useful for manufacturing. It is another thing to imply that product development management includes manufacturing management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hung (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Product lifecycle" is a better title
It's quite hard to explain that articles with similar titles appears to be different. I suggest changing "Product life cycle management" to "Product lifecycle". The idea is to focus on the concept (theory) while the other article "Product lifecycle management" focuses on practice (products, management ...). --jose (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
product life cycle
ntroduction Stage
At the Introduction (or development) Stage market size and growth is slight. it is possible that substantial research and development costs have been incurred in getting the product to this stage. In addition, marketing costs may be high in order to test the market, undergo launch promotion and set up distribution channels. It is highly unlikely that companies will make profits on products at the Introduction Stage. Products at this stage have to be carefully monitored to ensure that they start to grow. Otherwise, the best option may be to withdraw or end the product.
Growth Stage
The Growth Stage is characterised by rapid growth in sales and profits. Profits arise due to an increase in output (economies of scale)and possibly better prices. At this stage, it is cheaper for businesses to invest in increasing their market share as well as enjoying the overall growth of the market. Accordingly, significant promotional resources are traditionally invested in products that are firmly in the Growth Stage.
Maturity Stage
The Maturity Stage is, perhaps, the most common stage for all markets. it is in this stage that competition is most intense as companies fight to maintain their market share. Here, both marketing and finance become key activities. Marketing spend has to be monitored carefully, since any significant moves are likely to be copied by competitors. The Maturity Stage is the time when most profit is earned by the market as a whole. Any expenditure on research and development is likely to be restricted to product modification and improvement and perhaps to improve production efficiency and quality.
Decline Stage
In the Decline Stage, the market is shrinking, reducing the overall amount of profit that can be shared amongst the remaining competitors. At this stage, great care has to be taken to manage the product carefully. It may be possible to take out some production cost, to transfer production to a cheaper facility, sell the product into other, cheaper markets. Care should be taken to control the amount of stocks of the product. Ultimately, depending on whether the product remains profitable, a company may decide to end the product.
Examples
Set out below are some suggested examples of products that are currently at different stages of the product life-cycle: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.224.33 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
A question about the «Product’s lifecycle» image
Shouldn't the arrows here go from «Utilization Reuse» to «Disposal Recycling» and from there only to «Raw Material Extraction»? I've tried to find any comments on it in the article, but failed. And it also seems that the original source on this image (NIST Programs of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory) does not use it anymore either. Instead they have a newer one, with properly looped systematic logic (see 1; 2). DaemonDice (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)