I spent a few days in Atlanta recently at the PLM Innovation Conference. There have been several good articles written about the conference itself including a couple by the prolific Oleg Shilovistsky and even one from Jos Voskuil, the Virtual Dutchman. It was great to have the opportunity to finally meet Jos and to spend some time with Oleg. This was the first PLM event I have attended where multiple PLM vendors and their customers were present. It was very interesting to be able to sit through back to back presentations from customers using different PLM solutions. This is one of the appealing and unique aspects of this event and is probably one of the reasons that CimData and PLM Innovation announced the combining of their events next year. Having all of these different vendors and customers gathered together certainly contributed to a different dynamic but the energy was extremely positive. As I reviewed Stephen Covey's sixth habit from his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People I couldn't help but be struck by the "synergy" that was present at the event and the benefits that all product development companies could experience from the sharing of ideas and strategies independent of software tools. This tracks nicely with the habit of synergy and how it can benefit individual companies in their efforts to improve their product development process. This article will discuss the value of synergy in PLM adoption both from an internal and external perspective.
As in the previous articles on the 7 habits of effective PLM adoption we will rely on Mr. Covey's definition, this time for the term synergy. According to Covey, synergy "means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It means that the relationship which the parts have to each other is a part in and of itself. It is not only a part, but the most catalytic, the most empowering, the most unifying, and the most exciting part". Basically, he is celebrating the differences. I am sure most people who have been involved in complex multi-disciplined projects may not share this perspective. I actually wrote a blog a while back called Do Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth? My blog was more about the perils of social product development but we all know from experience that having diverse opinions on a project can result in a pretty messy experience. That being said it can be equally problematic to have a narrowly focused group with the same opinions and perspectives. The likelihood that the end result will address all needed elements for success is slim. I have been involved in both types of projects and seen the results, which are not pretty. Covey's point is that successfully blending different elements together can be powerful. The conference is a good example of this. I have attended many vendor specific events like Oracle's Open World, PTC's Planet PTC and SolidWorks World and they were all very helpful but obviously very limited in the fact that they just presented one tool set. At PLM Innovation we got to hear from a wide range of companies like Boeing, Purdue University, Xylem, Coca-Cola, St. Jude, Mary Kay, Flextronics etc. The interesting thing was that even though they were dealing with different toolsets most of the issues they were dealing with were common across all PLM platforms. Things like user adoption, change management, integration to other systems, data migration came up in all of the presentations and it was interesting to see how these issues were addressed by other partners and vendors. The end result is that most of the vendors would benefit from attending their competitors presentations not to gather ammo against them but to get ideas for how to improve their own solutions. In my view each vendor has weaknesses and strengths and if you took the best from each PLM solution you would have a fantastic tool. This is synergy in practice at a large level and I think all vendors and partners should take note and look for opportunities to learn from each other to deliver value to their clients.
That is all well and good for the big picture but how does synergy help the individual company? Recently, I have been privy to discussions at companies where the main thrust was to limit input to control the project and keep it from becoming overly complex. While I understand this sentiment and the necessity behind trying to limit scope I am wary that this approach might not yield the best results for the company. I think the real answer is to set up an environment where it is possible to bring diverging opinions together in a constructive way. Covey talks about two types of conflicting forces that will most likely manifest themselves when you try to make any type of major change to a process or organization's methodology. He cites some research from a sociologist named Kirk Levin who developed a "Force Field Analysis" model which analyzes the state of equilibrium between driving forces that encourage movement and the restraining forces that discourage movement. Covey describes driving forces as "positive reasonable, logical" and restraining forces as "negative, emotional, illogical". He goes on to say both forces are very real and must be taken into account when dealing with change. Anyone who has been involved with PLM deployment activities can recognize these forces and it is most likely the driving motivation behind "out of the box" PLM deployment and companies' desire to limit scope. The idea is to limit the voices within the company so that you can get something done quickly. Covey is advocating rather than limiting these voices you channel them into something constructive. The end result is a much broader reaching solution that has more impact on the issues you were trying to address in the first place. He describes the peril of isolating or excluding the restraining forces "Increasing the driving forces may bring results-for a while. But as long as the restraining forces are there, it becomes increasingly harder. It's like pushing against a spring: the harder you push, the harder it is to push until the force of the spring suddenly thrusts the level back down." I am fairly certain we have all either experienced this first hand or witnessed it happening. I think the point Covey is trying to make is that even if you engineer the situation to minimize the negative forces if you don't truly neutralize them they have a way of coming back and impacting the success of the project.
How do you successfully neutralize the negative forces so that the project is truly a success? I think the neutralization approach is doomed to failure unless restraining forces are truly engaged and allowed to fully participate in the project. Otherwise they will sabotage the effort through passive aggressive and maliciously obedient behaviors we have discussed in the previous articles. Synergy is the key here. As Covey states, "When you introduce synergy, you use the motive of Habit 4 (Win/Win) and the skill of Habit 5 (Seek first to understand) and the interaction of Habit 6 to work directly on the restraining forces. You create an atmosphere in which it is safe to talk about these forces…You involve people in the problem, immerse them in it so that they soak it in and feel it is their problem and they tend to become an important part of the solution." If you have tried to do this with project teams you certainly understand that it is more easily said than done. I think the mistake that is made in trying to involve a larger group that might even include detractors of the program is that it is usually done in a manipulative sort of way. They are involved but only at a cursory level to try and minimize the impact they will have on the project. Covey talks about this issue and how critical it is that all parties be aligned for the success of the company. He emphasizes, "The relationship of the parts is also the power in creating a synergistic culture inside a family or organization. The more genuine the involvement, the more sincere and sustained the participation in analyzing and solving problems, the greater the release of everyone's creativity and of their commitment to what they create."
What all this means at the end of the day is that in order to have true success in implementing change you must truly engage all parties within your organization, especially those who might be most resistant to change. It is tempting to avoid it and try and use preconfigured software or structure the project to minimize participation of certain elements within the company but ultimately it will come back to bite you. As we have witnessed from the PLM Innovation event there is value in a diverse group. Different perspectives can lead to a stronger solution. Not only are you setting yourself up for sabotage or limited success you are potentially eliminating a resource that can lead to a better overall result for the company. Skeptics can drive quality and push harder than those who are already bought in if it can be done constructively. The key is to structure internal involvement in a way that legitimately utilizes input from all groups and makes them feel connected to the solution. One of the key indications for happiness is the ability to control one's environment. If people within the organization are allowed to legitimately contribute to the solution then the quality of the project and the end results should be positive. In the end we all are in it together and want the same outcomes. We may differ on the best way to achieve success but that can be harnessed and used for the greater good of the company or industry.
[Edit: Repost from 2012]
