Time to Value: When and How to Upgrade PLM Platforms?

CIMdata study asks: Are all PLM upgrades equal? How often should you upgrade? How long it take? What’s the costs and ROI?

An eBook by CIMdata, sponsored by Aras, on the perceived value of PLM upgrades: how often should OEM upgrades, from fix-pack to major upgrades? As explained by CIMdata, responses were “scrubbed, but not cherry-picked.” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

Recently, CIMdata published the results of a sponsored research survey asking about PLM upgrades. This is a very controversial topic because PLM implementations and legacy upgrades can be notoriously complex due to intricate data sets, customizations and interfaces. The study was commissioned by Aras and, as it happens, provided very positive perspectives on how Aras users benefit from regular, quicker and cheaper platform upgrades—compared to the competition, namely Dassault Systèmes, PTC and Siemens.

While I do not doubt CIMdata’s market independence and its ability to run balanced and transparent industry surveys, I had several questions on how their survey was equal. As a matter of fact, all PLM implementations are not equal, concerning: user base, data types, legacy data complexity and volume, capabilities and functional scope, enterprise architecture, legacy integration and more. Therefore, it is fair to state that all PLM upgrades are not equal; upgrades can range from technical fix packs to major upgrades, following significant platform enhancements from editors or business transformation requirements from adopting enterprises.

In this article, I discuss the findings of the CIMdata PLM upgrade study. Additionally, I report on a follow-up discussion with CIMdata as I sought for clarifications with Peter Bilello, president and CEO, and Tom Gill, the senior consultant at CIMdata, covering how responses were collected, how results were interpreted and finally, discussing what additional research could be envisaged to fully cover such a controversial topic.

PLM upgrades provide opportunities for both enhanced capabilities and stability improvements. This is common sense: small frequent upgrades bring ongoing opportunities to maximize value from platform improvements, providing a continuous learning experience and the ability to experiment. This needs to be balanced with the level of change that an organization is willing (or able) to absorb, considering potential disruption associated with these upgrades.  

Reviewing the CIMdata PLM Upgrade Study

My first question to Bilello and Gill was about how the data was collected. CIMdata used social media to advertise its survey, in addition to pushing it directly to their 11,000-contact list. So why did CIMdata use an additional rented mailing list and where did it come from? Bilello explained that the intent was to reach as many respondents as possible. Since respondents had the opportunity to input anonymously, making it harder to verify or query the context and accuracy of their responses. 

PLM upgrade research objective: understand upgrade frequency and issues and inhibit upgrades as presented during a joint CIMdata-Aras webinar with Peter Bilello, president and CEO at CIMdata, and Mark Reisig, vice president of product marketing at Aras. (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

CIMdata received around 200 responses, which “resulted in 85 vetted responses, representing 120 unique PLM solution implementations” once removing spam and incomplete input. The 85 responses included 15 anonymous inputs. As Bilello explained: “The result was a list of PLM implementations at small to large companies representing various industries, solutions and geographic regions. Finally, for purposes of this study, we focused on the solution providers that had double-digit responses; Aras, Dassault Systèmes, PTC, and Siemens Digital Industries Software (Siemens).”

In April 2021, during a joint webinar discussing this PLM Upgrade Study with Mark Reisig, vice president of product marketing at Aras, Bilello highlighted that key PLM platform characteristics include “eight abilities necessary to minimize PLM technology obsolescence: adaptability, maintainability, upgradability, extensibility, stability, reliability, scalability, and compatibility.” I assume that extensibility includes the ability to configure, customize, and augment a given solution. Furthermore, one other important ability missing from the list above is integrability in the wider enterprise landscape—a critical component when bridging data and processes across multiple platforms and digital tools. 

Bilello commented that “platform characteristics go beyond the eight abilities; integrability underpinning a number of these characteristics.” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

The CIMdata study covered the following 9 points:

1. Respondent role and industry
2. Current PLM solution: What is the current solution editor?
3. PLM solution longevity: How long has the current solution been in place?
4. Timing of the last PLM upgrade: How long since the last upgrade?
5. Frequency of PLM upgrades: How long / how many months or years between upgrades?
6. Time to execute the last PLM upgrade: How long / how many months or years to perform the upgrade?
7. Cost of the last PLM upgrade: How much did the upgrade cost?
8. PLM upgrade complexity: How easy or difficult was the last upgrade process?
9. Impact of PLM customization: Are customizations inhibiting upgrades?

Additionally, I questioned about the survey being sponsored and if/how it might have influenced respondents. Bilello commented that there were only 17 responses from Aras users, hence most responses were from other platform users. PLM vendors often have strong supporters and detractors due to previous good or bad experiences, sometimes from a decade or two ago, despite current implementation success or failures. While I am neither challenging the findings presented by CIMdata nor the fact that Aras provides robust and value-for-money upgradability, survey data transparency and detailed breakdown analysis are essential to minimize ambiguity. 

Per their eBook entitled “PLM Upgrade Study: Deferred PLM Modernization Delays Time to Value,” CIMdata summarized the findings of this survey with the following four takeaways:

1. “CIMdata’s experience gained over the years has identified that staying current on modern PLM-enabling technology is difficult but necessary to maximize return on investment.”
2. “Maintaining a current, modern, well-architected solution is critical to addressing unforeseen requirements long into the future. This happens when the platform (the Product Innovation Platform) is architected for flexibility and is kept current.”
3. “Customizations are often an inhibitor to upgrading PLM solutions.”
4. “Aras’ PLM platform customers (i.e., those that participated in the survey) stated that they can upgrade significantly faster, more easily, and at less cost than survey respondents who had competitive PLM products.”

Per the snapshots below, findings from this study positioned Aras ahead of the pack on all surveyed aspects: upgrade frequency, complexity and cost.

PLM upgrade study: on “what was your last upgrade?”, CIMdata concluded that “Aras users upgrade more often” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

PLM upgrade study: on “average time between upgrades”, CIMdata concluded that “Aras users upgrade more often.” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

PLM upgrade study: on “average time elapsed during the last upgrade”, CIMdata concluded that “Aras upgrades take less time.” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

PLM upgrade study: on “average cost of the last PLM upgrade”, CIMdata concluded that “Aras upgrades cost less.” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

PLM upgrade study: on “how complicated was the upgrade process,” CIMdata concluded that “Aras upgrades are perceived as less complicated.” (Image courtesy of CIMdata.)

Overall, this was certainly a good marketing exercise from Aras. Having said that, my view is that the study misses on several critical aspects to assess, in a fair manner, PLM upgrade effectiveness and value for money across vendor solutions (removing the potential emotion from the responses). It is important to demonstrate that the collected data is statistically significant, not just by the overall number of responses, but also by the quality and accuracy of the responses. This includes the need to cross-check responses with vendors or system integrators, as well as with the concerned OEMs themselves. Furthermore, a thorough analysis would need to consider the following aspects:

• The type of industrial organization (start-up, established, SME, major legacy context, etc.)
• The type of PLM upgrade (technical bug fixes, product enhancements, hotfixes versus major changes, etc.)
• The type of PLM solution (on-premise, IaaS, SaaS, web client versus desktop application, or both, etc.)
• The scope and complexity of the PLM solution (CAD-PDM centric or non-CAD specific, level of integration with the rest of the enterprise, etc.)
• The business context and operational complexity (informing PLM platform usage, distribution, scope, number of users, etc.)
• The licensing model (perpetual, leasing, pay-as-you-go, etc.) and cost covered as part of maintenance fees

In our discussion, Bilello explained that it was not a full-blown research project but a survey-based analysis. We agreed that an exhaustive study would be beneficial to draw more elaborated conclusions, removing as many ambiguities as possible since there are indeed many factors (including, albeit not limited to customization) that typically hinder upgrade frequency, complexity, duration and cost. 

What Are PLM Upgrades?

The study should have started by elaborating on this question: what are PLM upgrades? Upgrades are not only about software, they are also about people from business change to testing and training. Also, is installing a hotfix considered to be an upgrade? Hotfixes can be cumulative patches and considered critical upgrade elements. In contrast, major upgrades might include a combination of new capabilities, business rules, user interfaces, data model augmentations, new APIs and connectors implying new interface development, re-customization or de-customization opportunities, enhanced process elements, or significant changes requiring extensive training refresher programs. Clearly, PLM upgrades are not only about going up a software version.

Furthermore, there are many other questions to cover on this topic: 

• How to balance upgrade frequency versus the rate of change and associated effort to adapt to change?
• In some cases, how is production data affected by a given upgrade? How can this be anticipated and managed?
• Is it advisable to skip a version? (Clearly not, to avoid ending up with a legacy solution.)
• Which upgrade element should be selected? Which one should be skipped? Do OEMs have or want to have the choice, especially when they adopt SaaS solutions?
• How to anticipate changes from software editors as they enhance their platforms? 
• How organizations deal with change and manage business disruption mitigations? How to apply agile and DevOps best practices in dealing with smaller change increments?
• How to deal with software extensions, customization and integration? Are they allowed, wanted or needed? What are customizations anyway as software personalization is often (wrongly) negatively perceived?
• Are OEMs more likely to upgrade soon after a new implementation to benefit from bug fixes or product enhancement requests raised during the implementation? 
• What upgrades are visible to end-users versus performed in the back end by support teams to deploy minor improvements? 
• What makes an upgrade difficult or even very difficult? 
• How much organizational change management and training are required to ensure a successful upgrade? 
• Are there such things as free upgrades? 
• How are upgrades paid for? What is covered as part of software maintenance? 
• Is SaaS a solution for painless upgrades? 
• Is integration not part of the customization equation and therefore a requirement? 
• Furthermore, how to deal with interface implications when upgrading enterprise platforms?

What are your thoughts?

• CIMdata (2021). PLM Upgrade Study (free resource; gated content: log-in credentials required to access).