Talk:Product data management

Comments

This is flagged with the "Advertising Style" template.

This is inappropriate. This article is not selling anything.

I'm going to delete it.

Really?

PDM actually is a useful subject, even though this text looks cribbed from vendor websites. PDM is a seriously bullshit prone subject, but people in the industry need to understand it. Perhaps this page can be re-written to meet Wikipedia standards.

Most mechanical design now is done using 3D CAD software that links together hundreds of computer files. 3D CAD vendors strongly recommend getting PDM software to manage all this data. PDM...

provides a vault for storing computer files securely. The PDM software must "understand" the file formats of the applications, CAD or otherwise.
provides a check-in, check-out facility that at the very least, tracks changes to the files
provides change requests or Engineering Change Requests (ECRs) so that people can report and track problems.

The above is my strong personal opinion, as opposed to stuff read from a source I could cite. Also, I am looking at this from a mechanical design perspective. There is electronics documentation, software and an awful lot else. I am active on the engineering forum eng-tips.com. I could start a discussion thread. There would be multiple inputs from people in the industry, and quite a bit of peer review. Would this be an adequate citation?

JHowardGibson (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: PDM predates computer software. Product Data Management simply means that a manufacturer or creator of a product is organizing and keeping track of (managing) their Product Data. PDM software simply automates the process. Prior to computers this function was accomplished by file clerks and filing cabinets. The PDM page needs to explain what types of Product Data need to be managed and explain how the PDM software (or data management policy) accomplishes that task.

I cite personal experience & my opinion as source for the above statements DSchreiber (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)24.106.148.6 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change Title to Document Control

I would agree that this pushes a particular viewpoint consistent with those selling PDM software and does not cite any source to support its assertions. Indeed, PDM, under the under term of Document Control, is a very old discipline. Many engineering shops still run with only paper archives. As written the article suggests that PDM is only a software tool and not a process and discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.34 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is all sorts of software out there that is called PDM. We can describe what it is, who publishes it, and what it does or what it ought to do. Document Control is an amorphous subject, probably not suitable for a Wikipedia page. JHowardGibson (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product Data Management (section)

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The historic origin of PDM is that it was launched in 1984 by a team led by myself (Brion Carroll) at Computervision Corporation. The internally name of the program to create PDM was call Project David and it was focused on creating a functional set of capability that covered the Vaulting, the Revision Control, Access & Security, Archive & Restore, and Backup & Recovery of CAD files that were created using the CADDS 4.

The key was the integration of the CADDS 4 (and later CADDS 4X, etc.) into this software product that ran on an IBM VM/CMS platform using the SQL/DS database. There were no network protocols at the time (no TCP/IP stack, etc.) so everything had to be done in direct connect, ack/nack dialog, checksum validation, etc... and the transfer speeds maxed out at 1 Megabyte per minute vs the 10K Megabit per second xfer rates that occur in LAN enviroments.

We didn't know what to call it, so we went to the basics and called it "Product Data Manager" and in order to do effective marketing, we announced it was the leader product offering in the "Product Data Management" market. The reason we could say we were the leader is that were the only product in a market that we had created.

The purpose of creating PDM was to reduce the market penetration of other CAD systems, such as Cadence, CATIA, etc... and their direct penetration into our CADDS accounts by pushing that those other CAD systems don't integrate into PDM. Since we were never going to integrate those systems into PDM, we were able to stave off infultration into CV's CADDS account (mostly). Brion Carroll (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Validation of the above edit

The chronology of PDM is sparsely populated in the records of the day. However, the book PDM: Product Data Manager, byt Rodger J. Burden CPIM, CIERP (ISBN 0-97000352-2-5) published in 2003 notes (pg 4 "In the mid-1980s a team working on a plan called "Project David" developed software known as Product Data Manager, which was used to facilitate this CAD-data sharing. This was arguably the first PDM software developed and it is likely that the term Product Data Management was coined from Product Data Manager. Brion Carroll (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguably the first" does not support the above text, and at any rate we should not use a self published source for such claims (see WP:RS). MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The key is to add the profile of PDM being first coined in 1980s (1984 specifically) and that Computervision is the company that brought this technology to market. How that gets phrased, and what is in or out of the text is not of care or concern to me. I am merely trying to frame the true foundation of a multi-billion dollar industry instead of having it be baseless and floundering in space because someone didn't think to "put a pencil to it" back in the day. Brion Carroll (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will be able to do that. It is trivial to find examples of the term being used before that - for example this ComputerWorld article from 1978: https://books.google.ca/books?id=yDGRvF7qAPUC&pg=PA57&dq=%22Product+Data+Management%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC0P6stMaDAxX7D1kFHdt5AlUQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Product%20Data%20Management%22&f=false MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the term "product data management", that you found by merely Google search it and finding ComputerWorld's use of it, represents one of many modules offered by IBM and refers (pg 62) specifically to BOM, etc for work centers on the manufacturing floor.

Product Data Management (in capital letters, as an industry) addresses the upstream profile of controlled CAD files. The creation of the industry's first PDM system was done as a collaboration between IBM and CV, because IBM wanted to be "in the game". The program I led was call "Project David". The product we created (not module) was call Product Data Manager and was referred to as the leading product in that industry because WE MADE UP THE INDUSTRY and therefore noone else could have beat us to i.

The fact that you referred to "the book PDM: Product Data Manager, by Rodger J. Burden CPIM, CIERP (ISBN 0-97000352-2-5) published in 2003" as a "self published source" makes me concerned about your profile as an editor or reviewer of edited comments. Why is that book, published by Resource Publishing, any less bonified than the reference made the "Product Data Management / Product Lifecycle Management", Kenneth Crow, which references the npd-solutions.com web site - which is owned by Kenneth Crow - that seems very much self-serving.

Tell me what I need to do to update this source of HISTORY information that is very sparsely profiled by a unanomous author (though I think its Kenneth Crow) of unknown profession with unknown reliability, writing of the history of an industry that I just happened to be the leader of the TEAM that first entered the market (name invented by us a Computervision) so I can address your future concerns.

You keep telling me what I'm not doing (though points made that are arguable incorrect) and not what I should do. It's kind of like Saturday Night Live's "name that dog" skit where there is no way to win because there are 10 trillion names to choose from and the persons playing will never get it right.

I can keep trying to revise this in a way that is "acceptable" to you - even though your knowledge of the subject is less than the author of the current HISTORY section - or you can advise me as to how to proceed. Brion Carroll (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one example, Mapics was around and written about even earlier in the 70s, and then there are non computerized processes using the term that date decades before that. The point being that the term was obviously not coined in the 80s. I decline to 'advise' someone with a COI who is making personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I am making person attacks, so I apologize if my frustration with these basic suggested edits and the need to do what others don't seem to require to do sounds like I'm getting personal.

I don't know why Resource Publishing is not considered a valid source of information. It is the most comprehensive book on the topic of PDM (https://www.amazon.com/-/product-reviews/0970035225) and its content should qualify for addition to the HISTORY section as requested. Brion Carroll (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're a vanity press/self-publish outfit. The best book I can find from a reputable publisher (Springer) is Virtual Product Creation in Industry: The Difficult Transformation from IT Enabler Technology to Core Engineering Competence by Rainer Stark, which identifies the first PDM system on the market as SherpaWorks, and correctly notes the existence of earlier proprietary/internal systems such as NASA/Boeing's IPAD and Ford's PDGS. I'll compose something for the article based on this source when time permits. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the fact that they are a Vanity Press outfit, the book remains the best book on PDM ever published on ths topic.

The reference to Sherpa and its offering, as well as later offerings by IBM (once we made our product platform independent to run on DEC and Sun/Unix), Unigraphics, etc... are all "followers" of Computervision's initial birth of the market with its Product Data Manager product.

Not sure how to make this clear - and since no one thought to write about this in a non-self-published manner, I am going to give this up and let the industry's origin remain unstated and unrecorded so there is no truth (actual truth) to what is in the Wikipedia record.

Not sure who wrote the original HISTORY section, but they should have done their homework. Brion Carroll (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]