Talk:Product lifecycle management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Product lifecycle management article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering.
	Please note that the use of Wikipedia to host this project has been questioned. Please read this discussion and, if you wish, contribute your thoughts there.

Contents 1 Information technology assumption 2 Product Lifecycle or Product Life Cycle Management 3 Vendors Section removal 3.1 Agree

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

It's great. The only thing that we might add (IMHO) would be some little description to the PLM (3-character) page if this is allowed under the 'wiki' rules. jmswtlk 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PLM is simply an extention of PLC.However,in real life situation we don't differentiate between the two.I would suggest a section on evolution of the concept.I also don't agree with thje def. given of PLC---Life cycle of product sold?????.Holy|Warrior 13:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vendors Section removal

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)

[edit] 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)