A Follow-up Case Study of the Relation of PLM Architecture, Maturity and Business Processes

  • Ville V. VainioEmail author
  • Antti Pulkkinen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 467)


This paper presents findings of two research projects, which study current PLM practices and future PLM challenges of global manufacturing companies.

This study focuses on maturity of PLM adoption, PLM system architectures and integrations between the tools and seeks a better understanding of a real business phenomenon by comparing case companies to models presented in literature. Data was collected by interviews and benchmarking sessions in six plus three companies in two projects. The companies are categorized by using a four level PLM maturity model.

This research indicates that the PLM adoption maturity and architecture models are related to the effectiveness of PLM usage. Service and project businesses seem to be challenging aspects. This is because PLM systems are mainly used in beginning of life activities of the product. In the future also the end of life and middle of life activities should receive more support from the tools and software.


Product lifecycle management PLM maturity PLM systems architecture 



We thank all the participants of benchmarking and Finnish funding Agency for Technology and Innovation for funding the research.


  1. 1.
    Pulkkinen, A., Vainio, V., Rissanen, N.: Case Study on the relation of PLM maturity, architecture and business processes. In: Bernard, A., Rivest, L., Dutta, D. (eds.) PLM 2013. IFIP AICT, vol. 409, pp. 432–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergsjö, D., Malmqvist, J., Ström, M.: Architectures for mechatronic product data integration in PLM systems. In: Proceedings of the Design 2006, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 1065–1076 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crnkovic, I., Asklund, U., Dahlqvist, A.P.: Implementing and Integrating Product Data Management and Software Configuration Management, p. 338. Artech House Inc., Norwood (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergsjö, D., Ćatić, A., Malmqvist, J.: Implementing a service-oriented PLM architecture focusing on support for engineering change management. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manage. 3(4), 335–355 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vainio, V.V.: Comparative research of PLM usage and architecture. M.Sc. thesis, Tampere University of Technology, p. 73 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batenburg, R.S., Helms, R.W., Versendaal, J.M. the maturity of product life-cycle management in Dutch organizations: a strategic perspective. Technical report UU-CS, Issue: 009 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stark, J.: Product Lifecycle Management: 21st Century Paradigm for Product Realisation, p. 400. Springer, London (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial SystemsTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations