Why Engineers Give Up on PLM Systems

This blog post is promoted by a LinkedIn post:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alindenthal_engineers-give-up-plm-plm-systems-have-activity-7337209561826660352-Yi2X/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAJVUn4BzjTVfTnHgKx3zQWTPI5tYcYTiCM

Engineers Give Up on PLM Systems – Lessons from Jon M. Quigley’s Work

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems are intended to streamline product development, enhance traceability, and ensure quality. Yet, as Jon M. Quigley, renowned author, engineer, and project management expert, has observed throughout his career, engineers give up on PLM systems for technical and organizational reasons. By leveraging Quigley’s published works and decades of hands-on experience, we can better understand the root causes and chart a path to more effective PLM adoption.

From experience, it is not as simple as acquiring a PLM tool. The range of domains a tool must manage typically includes multiple product development domains, including the elements below. This is done over the product’s lifecycle, numerous increments and iterations.

Product Design and Engineering
- Computer-Aided Design (CAD) integration
- Engineering Change Management (ECM)
- Configuration Management
- Requirements management and traceability
Bill of Materials (BOM) Management
- Engineering BOM (EBOM)
- Manufacturing BOM (MBOM)
- Service BOM (SBOM)
Document Management
- Technical documentation
- Version control
- Design history files
Configuration and Variant Management
- Product configurations and options
- Product line management
- Variant tracking and management
Quality Management
- Test status
- Defect tracking
- Compliance and regulatory documentation
- Audit management and reporting
Supplier Management
- Supplier collaboration and data integration
- Supplier performance monitoring
- Component sourcing and management
Manufacturing Process Management
- Process planning and workflow management
- Resource and tooling management
- Manufacturing execution system (MES) integration
Project and Portfolio Management
- Project scheduling and tracking
- Resource and Talent allocation and management
- Portfolio analysis and decision-making
Service and Maintenance Management
- Service lifecycle tracking
- Maintenance schedules and spare parts management
- Field feedback and service improvement tracking
Regulatory Compliance and Sustainability
- Compliance management (FDA, ISO, RoHS, REACH, etc.)
- Sustainability reporting and lifecycle assessments
- Material traceability and environmental impact management
Cost Management
- Product costing and budgeting
- Cost analysis and tracking across lifecycle phases
- Financial impact assessment of design decisions

Key Hurdles Obstructing Effective Use of PLM Tools

Drawing on Jon M. Quigley’s works and broader industry insights, several recurring hurdles prevent engineers from effectively using PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) systems. These obstacles frustrate end users and undermine the return on investment for organizations seeking to streamline product development and configuration management.

Common Hurdles Include:

Overly Complex User Interfaces: PLM tools often present engineers with non-intuitive, cluttered interfaces that require extensive training and disrupt established workflows, leading to resistance and abandonment. [1]
Poor Integration with Engineering Tools: Lack of seamless connectivity between PLM systems and essential engineering applications (like CAD, simulation, or requirements management) forces manual data entry and increases the risk of errors. [1] [2]
Ineffective Configuration Management: Inadequate configuration identification, control, and traceability within PLM platforms can result in version confusion and loss of critical product information, as highlighted in Quigley’s Configuration Management: Theory, Practice, and Application. [1]
Insufficient Change Management: Failure to communicate changes, provide adequate training, or involve engineers in the adoption process leads to disengagement and a lack of system ownership. [1] [3]
Limited Customization and Flexibility: Many PLM systems are rigid, making it challenging to tailor workflows or data structures to the specific needs of different engineering teams or projects. [1] [4]
Data Quality and Consistency Issues: Incomplete, outdated, or inconsistent data within the PLM system undermines trust and utility, discouraging regular use. [1] [5]
Resource Constraints: Inadequate allocation of human and technical resources for PLM implementation, support, and ongoing improvement hampers effective use. [1] [2]
Combinatorial Explosion of Test Cases: As described in Quigley’s Testing Complex and Embedded Systems, the sheer volume of possible product configurations and test scenarios can overwhelm PLM systems not designed for scalability, making it difficult to manage and validate all variants efficiently. [6] [7]
Late Involvement of Testing and Verification: When PLM adoption or updates are left until late in the product development cycle, critical feedback from testing and verification is missed, leading to gaps in coverage and quality. [6] [7]
Lack of Organizational Alignment: Disconnection between project management, development, and test engineering groups can result in misaligned objectives and poor PLM utilization. [6] [3]

If unaddressed, these hurdles explain why so many engineers give up on PLM systems, as underscored by Jon M. Quigley’s research and industry experience. [6] [1] Overcoming them requires user-centered design, robust integration, effective configuration management, and a culture of continuous learning and collaboration.

Why Engineers Give Up on PLM Systems – Complexity, Usability, and Organizational Fit

Complexity and Poor Usability

In his book Project Management of Complex and Embedded Systems, Quigley highlights that overly complex systems often become barriers to productivity rather than enablers. [8] When PLM tools are designed without considering the day-to-day realities of engineering, the result is a steep learning curve and resistance to adoption. Engineers give up on PLM systems when these tools disrupt established workflows or require excessive manual input, echoing Quigley’s emphasis on the need for intuitive and fit-for-purpose solutions. [8]

Lack of Integration and Configuration Management

Quigley’s work, especially in Configuration Management: Theory, Practice, and Application, underscores the importance of seamless integration between PLM systems and engineering tools. [1] Engineers are forced into inefficient workarounds when PLM platforms fail to connect with CAD, simulation, or requirements management software. This lack of integration undermines data integrity and leads to frustration and, ultimately, abandonment of the system, one of the main reasons engineers give up on PLM systems.

Insufficient Change Management and Continuous Learning

Drawing from Continuous and Embedded Learning for Organizations, Quigley argues that successful PLM adoption is as much about organizational culture as it is about technology. [2] Engineers give up on PLM systems when organizations neglect change management, fail to provide ongoing training, or ignore user feedback. Continuous improvement and embedded learning are vital to keeping PLM systems relevant and valuable to engineering teams.

How to Prevent Engineers from Giving Up on PLM Systems – Quigley’s Recommendations

Prioritize User Experience and Simplicity

Quigley advocates for the design of PLM systems that prioritize usability and align with real engineering workflows. By involving engineers in the selection, configuration, and rollout of PLM tools, organizations can ensure the system meets actual needs and reduces resistance to change. [1] [5]

Emphasize Robust Configuration Management

Effective configuration management is a cornerstone of successful PLM deployment. Quigley’s research stresses the necessity of robust processes that maintain data integrity and traceability throughout the product lifecycle. This supports compliance and quality and builds trust in the system among engineers. [2]

Foster a Culture of Continuous Learning

To prevent engineers from giving up on PLM systems, organizations must invest in ongoing training and create feedback loops that allow for iterative improvements. Quigley’s work demonstrates that embedding learning into the organization ensures PLM systems evolve alongside engineering practices, maintaining relevance and utility. [2]

The Future of PLM – Building on Jon M. Quigley’s Legacy

Jon M. Quigley’s extensive contributions to product development, project management, and quality improvement provide a roadmap for overcoming the challenges that cause engineers to give up on PLM systems. By focusing on usability, integration, configuration management, and continuous learning, organizations can maximize the value of their PLM investments and empower engineers to innovate.

Bibliography

[1]	J. M. Quigley and K. L. Robertson, Configuration Management: Theory and Application for Engineers, Managers, and Practitioners, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2020.
[2]	J. M. Q. S. P. Q. Quigley, Continuous and Embedded Learning for Organizations, Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis, 2022.
[3]	K. Pries and J. M. Quigley, “Project Management of Complex and Embedded Systems, Ensuring Product Integrity and Program Quality,” Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2008, p. 256.
[4]	K. Pries and J. M. Quigley, Total Quality Management for Project Management, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2012.
[5]	K. Pries and J. M. Quigley, “Reducing Process Costs with Lean, Six Sigma, and Value Engineering Techniques,” CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013.
[6]	K. H. Pries and J. M. Quigley, Testing Complex and Embedded Systems, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
[7]	J. M. Quigley, “Dictionary of Testing, Verification and Validation,” SAE Publishing, Warrendale, PA, 2024.
[8]	J. M. Quigley and R. Shenoy, Project Management for Automotive Engineers: A Field Guild, Warrendale, PA: SAE Publishing, 2016.