March 3, 2009
Standards Sought for Retail PLM
By Tom Ryan
A group of leading retailers
are working together to establish the first PLM (product life-cycle management)
standards. According to TradeStone Software, “retailers
agreed that creating standards for process, content and data is a necessity
that will save all parties involved precious time and resources and support
speed to market initiatives.”
The first PLM for Retail
Standards Committee inaugural event took place at TradeStone headquarters
in Gloucester, MA, February 25-26. Attending retailers included Macy’s,
Kohl’s, Lowe’s, American Eagle Outfitters, Pacific Sunwear,
Urban Outfitters, Guitar Center, Auchan, Boots
and JD Williams.
The two-day event, broken
down by tracks for softlines and hardlines,
featured discussions on how to build standards for color, materials and
fabric libraries, as well as testing and point of measure codes which will
make it easier for everyone to collaborate. The hardlines representatives
discussed color, packaging, testing and safety protocols. Also discussed
were conversions from legacy PDM systems and conversions from current PLM
technologies, as well as embedding safety, government testing and regulatory
requirements in the design process.
“By establishing
a process that is both generic to the retail industry but specific to each
retail segment, we feel we’ve made a significant step in the right direction,” said
Ann Diamante, chief product officer, TradeStone Software,
in a statement. “We had an interactive and informative two-day session
that focused on working together to establish a consistent, unifying, easy-to-adopt
infrastructure of collaboration among retailers, suppliers and their supporting
service providers including agents, component suppliers, color and inspection
companies.”
The move to establish
standards comes as the Grocery Manufacturers Association last month selected
Accenture and Information Resources Inc. to conduct an in-depth study of
successful PLM processes. The final report will recommend successful PLM
practices and cross-functional collaboration models specific to the CPG
industry. The study will also identify solution-based roles that IT professionals
can play in the successful conception, launch, development and completion
of the overall PLM process.
“If we can more
fully understand the collaborative role all departments play in PLM, we
will be better equipped to serve them,” said Gerrit Schutte,
chief information officer and senior vice president, ConAgra Foods and
a member of the GMA IS Committee, in a statement.
Discussion Questions:
How would you rate PLM’s effectiveness so far
in supporting global collaboration and solving product development problems
in the retail industry? How will setting standards and enhancing collaboration
improve the PLM payback?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
The challenge with implementing standards is to gain the efficiencies of collaboration while at the same time maintaining the individuality that enables differentiation with the consumer. Henry Ford had the most efficient automobile business as long as all you wanted was a black model T.
Standardizing PLM and identifying the business processes is not rocket science. The challenge is reaching consensus on what the processes should be and who owns them. As others have pointed out, this needs to be done through a collaboration process that is supported by multiple manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers and reclaim operators. All the members of the distribution channel have different perspectives of how products should be managed and the key will be providing consistency while not stifling innovation.
I agree with the earlier comment regarding ARTS. It is one effort to establish the technology standards that enable greater flexibility in technology choices. The challenge is that ARTS really needs greater support from the very businesses it is meant to help. Technology vendors participate in ARTS because they recognize the need for technical standards. Businessmen have been slow to participate. ARTS is becoming more sensitive to the need to put a fence around technology in order to steer it toward results the business can use. The effort to define a Services Oriented Architecture has required ARTS to build a framework within which to outline the services. It would be great if the effort to define a PLM were integrated into the SOA model of ARTS. Hopefully, more businessmen will get involved.
As important as standards are, business process standards cannot be as specific as technical standards. The goal for business standards are not to keep businesses marching in cadence, but rather to keep them all going in the same direction. PLM standards will have to flexible for type of merchandise, type of retailer, and type of consumer.
The discussion question is a bit different from the subject of the article.
With or without standards, we know that collaborative PLM has decreased time to market by an average of 6 months–at least that’s what retailers reported in the last benchmark RSR ran on PLM.
These same retailers also told us that in many cases, speed and cost reductions have been accomplished to the detriment of quality. Nothing is going to improve quality like true and impartial factory audits, pre and post-production (for components and finished product). THOSE are the standards that are needed now, and that must be supported by technology.
Having a standard for sharing information is useful, and I support it, but as I sit here recovering from a case of salmonella, the need for careful and precise product inspection is hitting very close to home–right in my gut.
Nikki makes a great point. For this effort to be sustainable and credible, the scope and participation must be as broad as possible. All stakeholders need to be a part of this. Could there not be a more unbiased approach with an existing standards body leading the way? With the evolution of GS1, GCI, etc, and the merging of these and other organizations into others, can we not orchestrate an agreeable process for PLM? It doesn’t sound that difficult…but I guess it must be.
Since every retailer has a heterogeneous IT environment, standards play an important part in easing the integration burden. But in order for standards to be effective, they must be adopted by more than one vendor. Perhaps I’m missing some details, but if only Tradestone is involved without participation or commitment from other vendors, I’m not sure it can really be called a standard.
At ARTS we get requests to create standards all the time, but we only act on the ones that have participation from multiple vendors, and endorsement for multiple retailers. Otherwise, the standard’s value is minimal.
That said, I think the formation of the committee is a step in the right direction.
I applaud efforts to create some standards and a better sense of uniformity, not necessarily of process, but of data and measures. However, I’m a little unsure of the process undertaken to develop standards. Standards are certainly helpful for vendors trying to support and enable PLM processes, but with only one vendor involved in the process, it looks awfully convenient for Tradestone–I would feel like this was a more serious process if other PLM vendors were involved.
I agree that standards should not be set by one vendor; indeed TradeStone never wanted to be in the position of setting standards. However, because there were no standards in place and our PLM solution was being used across a wide spectrum of players who were designing, sourcing, producing, testing and delivering merchandise, we took the initiative to bring our customers together and established a committee that would have a great deal of influence in not only helping to set standards, but also to get them adopted across retailers, suppliers, testing companies, color companies, auditors, etc.
Once ARTS came to us and asked to take over as the Standards setting body, TradeStone relinquished our role as the sole arbitrator of what those standards and processes should be. Other vendors are welcome to join and we would be more than happy to share the workload involved.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
The challenge with implementing standards is to gain the efficiencies of collaboration while at the same time maintaining the individuality that enables differentiation with the consumer. Henry Ford had the most efficient automobile business as long as all you wanted was a black model T.
Standardizing PLM and identifying the business processes is not rocket science. The challenge is reaching consensus on what the processes should be and who owns them. As others have pointed out, this needs to be done through a collaboration process that is supported by multiple manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers and reclaim operators. All the members of the distribution channel have different perspectives of how products should be managed and the key will be providing consistency while not stifling innovation.
I agree with the earlier comment regarding ARTS. It is one effort to establish the technology standards that enable greater flexibility in technology choices. The challenge is that ARTS really needs greater support from the very businesses it is meant to help. Technology vendors participate in ARTS because they recognize the need for technical standards. Businessmen have been slow to participate. ARTS is becoming more sensitive to the need to put a fence around technology in order to steer it toward results the business can use. The effort to define a Services Oriented Architecture has required ARTS to build a framework within which to outline the services. It would be great if the effort to define a PLM were integrated into the SOA model of ARTS. Hopefully, more businessmen will get involved.
As important as standards are, business process standards cannot be as specific as technical standards. The goal for business standards are not to keep businesses marching in cadence, but rather to keep them all going in the same direction. PLM standards will have to flexible for type of merchandise, type of retailer, and type of consumer.
The discussion question is a bit different from the subject of the article.
With or without standards, we know that collaborative PLM has decreased time to market by an average of 6 months–at least that’s what retailers reported in the last benchmark RSR ran on PLM.
These same retailers also told us that in many cases, speed and cost reductions have been accomplished to the detriment of quality. Nothing is going to improve quality like true and impartial factory audits, pre and post-production (for components and finished product). THOSE are the standards that are needed now, and that must be supported by technology.
Having a standard for sharing information is useful, and I support it, but as I sit here recovering from a case of salmonella, the need for careful and precise product inspection is hitting very close to home–right in my gut.
Nikki makes a great point. For this effort to be sustainable and credible, the scope and participation must be as broad as possible. All stakeholders need to be a part of this. Could there not be a more unbiased approach with an existing standards body leading the way? With the evolution of GS1, GCI, etc, and the merging of these and other organizations into others, can we not orchestrate an agreeable process for PLM? It doesn’t sound that difficult…but I guess it must be.
Since every retailer has a heterogeneous IT environment, standards play an important part in easing the integration burden. But in order for standards to be effective, they must be adopted by more than one vendor. Perhaps I’m missing some details, but if only Tradestone is involved without participation or commitment from other vendors, I’m not sure it can really be called a standard.
At ARTS we get requests to create standards all the time, but we only act on the ones that have participation from multiple vendors, and endorsement for multiple retailers. Otherwise, the standard’s value is minimal.
That said, I think the formation of the committee is a step in the right direction.
I applaud efforts to create some standards and a better sense of uniformity, not necessarily of process, but of data and measures. However, I’m a little unsure of the process undertaken to develop standards. Standards are certainly helpful for vendors trying to support and enable PLM processes, but with only one vendor involved in the process, it looks awfully convenient for Tradestone–I would feel like this was a more serious process if other PLM vendors were involved.
I agree that standards should not be set by one vendor; indeed TradeStone never wanted to be in the position of setting standards. However, because there were no standards in place and our PLM solution was being used across a wide spectrum of players who were designing, sourcing, producing, testing and delivering merchandise, we took the initiative to bring our customers together and established a committee that would have a great deal of influence in not only helping to set standards, but also to get them adopted across retailers, suppliers, testing companies, color companies, auditors, etc.
Once ARTS came to us and asked to take over as the Standards setting body, TradeStone relinquished our role as the sole arbitrator of what those standards and processes should be. Other vendors are welcome to join and we would be more than happy to share the workload involved.