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

  • Hannu KärkkäinenEmail author
  • Anneli Silventoinen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 467)


Product lifecycle management (PLM) implementation and adoption involves extensive changes in both intra- and inter-organizational practices. Various maturity approaches, for instance based on CMM (Capability maturity modeling) principles, can be used to make the implementation of PLM a better approachable and a more carefully planned and coordinated process. However, there are a number of different types of current approaches which can be thought to fall under the concept of PLM maturity. The aim of this paper is to investigate, analyze and categorize the various existing PLM maturity approaches to get an organized picture of the models and their background presumptions, as well as their potential use domains, and to facilitate their proper use to better implement PLM in different industry contexts.


Product lifecycle management Maturity approaches Maturity models State-of-the-Art Comparison 


  1. 1.
    Batenburg, R., Helms, R.W., Versendaal, J.: PLM roadmap: stepwise PLM implementation based on the concepts of maturity and alignment. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manage. 1(4), 333–351 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pels, H.J., Simons, K.: PLM maturity assessment. In: ICE 2008 The 14th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Concurrent Innovation: a New Wave of Innovation in Collabarative Networks, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 645–652, 23–25 June 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silventoinen, A., Pels, H.J., Kärkkäinen, H., Lampela, H., Okkonen, J.: PLM maturity assessment as a tool for PLM implementation process. In: PLM 2010 Conference, Bremen, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kärkkäinen, H., Myllärniemi, J., Okkonen, J., Silventoinen, A.: Assessing maturity requirements for implementing and using product lifecycle management. Int. J. Electr. Bus. 11(2), 176–198 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vezzetti, E., Violante, M., Marcolin, F.: A benchmarking framework for product lifecycle management (PLM) maturity models. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71(5–8), 899–918 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stentzel, T., Niknam, M., Ovtcharova, J.: Comparison framework for PLM maturity models. In: Fukuda, S., Bernard, A., Gurumoorthy, B., Bouras, A. (eds.) Product Lifecycle Managment for the Global Market. IFIP AICT, vol. 442, pp. 355–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mettler, T.: Maturity assessment models: a design science research approach. Int. J. Soc. Syst. Sci. 3(1/2), 81–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M.: What makes a useful maturity model? A frame-work of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C.: The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, H., Sekhari, A., Ouzrout, Y., Bouras, A.: PLM maturity evaluation and prediction based on a maturity assessment and fuzzy sets theory. In: Fukuda, S., Bernard, A., Gurumoorthy, B., Bouras, A. (eds.) Product Lifecycle Managment for the Global Market. IFIP AICT, vol. 442, pp. 333–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mettler, T.: A design science research perspective on maturity models in information systems. Working paper BE IWI/HNE/03, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schuh, G., Rozenfeld, H., Assmus, D., Zancul, E.: Process oriented framework to support PLM implementation. Comput. Ind. 59(2–3), 210–218 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schulte, S.: Customer centric PLM: integrating customers’ feedback into product data and lifecycle processes. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manage. 3(4), 295–307 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kärkkäinen, H., Pels, H.J., Silventoinen, A.: Defining the customer dimension of a PLM maturity model. In: Proceedings of PLM12 Conference, Montreal, Canada (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saaksvuori, A., Immonen, A.: Product Lifecycle Management. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stark, J.: Product Lifecycle Management – 21st Century Paradigm for Product Realisation. Springer Verlag, London (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frigerio, G., Rossi, M., Terzi, S.: Sviluppo Nuovo Prodotto-Benchmarking dei processi di Sviluppo Prodotto. Sistemi e Impresa 3, 40 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savino, M.M., Mazza, A., Ouzrout, Y.: PLM maturity model: a multi-criteria assessment in southern italy companies. Int. J. Opera. Quant. Manage. 18(3), 159–172 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    PLMIG, PLM Maturity Reference Manual (Version 1.0), PLM Interest Group, p. 50, 19 March 2007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulkarni, U., Freeze, R.: Development and validation of a knowledge management capability assessment model. In: Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 (CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2010). Accessed August 2015
  22. 22.
    Niknam, M., Bonnal, P., Ovtcharova, J.: Configuration management maturity in scientific facilities. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 10(404), 1–14 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Niknam, M., Ovtcharova, J.: Towards higher configuration management maturity. In: Bernard, A., Rivest, L., Dutta, D. (eds.) PLM 2013. IFIP AICT, vol. 409, pp. 396–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharma, A.: Collaborative product innovation: integrating elements of CPI via PLM framework. Comput. Aided Des. 37, 1425–1434 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stark, J.: Product Lifecycle Management-21st Century Paradigm for Product Realization. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Information Management and LogisticsTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland
  2. 2.School of ManagementLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland

Personalised recommendations