Jan 8, 2007
I was forwarded this whitepaper written by Chuck Cilamore, CTO of Omnify Software. The topic of the whitepaper is to delineate the roles of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) in creating a successful collaborative environment. Omnify Software is a providers of PLM software for OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) and EMS (Electronic Manufacturing Service) providers.
The manufacturer had an ERP system in place to manage all of the operations-centric business activities such as financials, purchasing, planning and work orders. But the ERP system did not address their engineering design requirements.
Furthermore, the real objective of the PLM is,
A PLM system is designed to manage the full gamut of engineering information in a single location through the many stages of a design. The enterprise server manufacturer used the PLM system to manage the lifecycle and all revisions of their Bill of Materials (a listing of components used in a product), provide revision control of engineering documents (such as assembly drawings, schematics and datasheets), electronically route approvals for New Part Requests (NPRs), manage and automate Engineering Change Orders (ECOs), and control Approved Manufacturer’s List (AML) changes. More importantly, the PLM system helped bridge the gap between engineering and manufacturing. By providing direct data sharing with the ERP system, any changes made in the PLM system were automatically uploaded to ERP so that engineering and manufacturing were always in synch.
The essential distinction being drawn between ERP and PLM by Chuck is a void that exists on the ERP side i.e. an ERP system doesn’t delve into the details and complexities of product development and lifecycle management. However, that void is something that ERP systems will expand into by acquiring some of the PLM players and integrating their products into the ERP suite of offerings. I saw the same thing happening with ERP players gobbling up TMS providers to precisely fill this gap that was perceived in their offerings.