Defining the Customer Dimension of PLM Maturity

Abstract

Abstract. Product lifecycle management (PLM) adoption includes very extensive changes in intra-and inter-organizational practices and requires new types of skills and capabilities. A controlled PLM implementation can therefore be very challenging in practice. PLM maturity models, often at least partly based on the thinking of CMM (Capability maturity modeling) can be used to make the implementation of PLM a better approachable and a more carefully planned and coordinated process. Our objective was to enhance current maturity modeling approaches on PLM implementation, and we have argued for and presented a novel PLM maturity dimension, "customer dimension", that we consider as an important addition to current PLM maturity models.

Comparison Framework for PLM Maturity Models

“…(all information translated from German) [1], the addition of a customer dimension of PLM maturity based on Batenburg's model by Kärkkäinen et al [5], the Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model by Kulkarni et al [6], the PLM Maturity Reference Model by PLM Interest Group [10] the Product lifecycle management model by Saaksvuori et al [11], the PLM Maturity Model by Savino et al [12], and the PLM Components Maturity Assessment by Zhang et al [17]. The comparison is based on the available literature about the aforementioned models, which were found and reviewed by the authors in order to extract the categorized information with respect to the comparison framework's requirements.…”

“…As stated by Fraser (2002), all maturity models shall include six basic components, which will be necessary for them to be well-structured: (1) a number of levels (typically three to six), (2) a descriptor for each level (such as the CMMI's differentiation between initial, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimizing processes), (3) a generic description or summary of the characteristics of each level as a whole, (4) a number of dimensions (such as the "process areas" in CMMI), (5) a number of elements or activities for each dimension, and (6) a description of each element or activity as it might be performed at each level of maturity. As stages (1) to (4) are usually met with ease, some models struggle with clear definitions for stages (5) and (6). Regarding those models the idea and fundamental structure is often well designed, but they lack detailed descriptions for the implementation and/or improvement activities, which leads to less appreciation by end users due to limited practicality.…”

“…[3] As mentioned by Mettler [7] the concept of maturity covers the focus of the model, including process maturity (to which extent a specific process is explicitly defined, managed, measured, controlled, and is effective), object maturity (to which extent a particular object like a software product, a company report or similar reaches a predefined level of sophistication), and people capability (to which extent the workforce is able to enable knowledge creation and enhance proficiency). Additionally, Kärkkäinen [5] introduced a fourth customer dimension (capability for management of all customer-related data, information and knowledge concerning the whole product lifecycle), which will be factored into the comparison. The composition shows that a model can either be concluded as a maturity grid (text descriptions for each activity at each maturity level with moderate complexity), a Likert-like questionnaire or hybrids (questions are statements of 'good practice' to score the relative performance; hybrids combine this with a maturity grid), or something else (e.g.…”

Different Approaches of the PLM Maturity Concept and Their Use Domains – Analysis of the State of the Art

“…PLM Maturity can be defined more specifically for instance as "the ability to manage the knowledge and capabilities of an organization to respond effectively to specific customer needs, at any point in time." (Kärkkäinen et al 2012 [14]).…”

“…Second, PLM is quite seminally about data, information and knowledge, and about getting these properly to serve a company's business and product development (e.g. Schulte, 2008 [13]; Kärkkäinen et al, 2012 [14]). One important difference between these is that while data and information can be managed and shared in a rather straight-forward manner, using e.g.…”