One of the major objections to implementing a PLM system is that it is going to tie a creative organization into a structured workflow that can slow down their process and ability to react.  If the process is too strictly structured, people start looking for ways around the process when “special situations” arise.  A major deadline, build stoppages on the manufacturing floor, unexpected audits, or irate customers can all be reasons to go around the process and not wait for the standard Friday Morning design review meeting to get designs released.

What if we assume that every design change is driven by a special situation, and allow them to all “flow” naturally?  I believe it’s possible to use tools that facilitate real time, collaborative communication and status on issues to treat each problem differently, and come to the right solution more quickly. 

The argument is that employees are lazy, and no one will do anything unless they are told to do something.  I just don’t think that’s true anymore, and Daniel Pink agrees with me in his book Drive.  Today’s workforce is driven more by pride of creativity and accomplishment than simple financial incentive.  Treat your employees like children, and they will act like children.  Allow them the freedom to accomplish a task in their own way, and they will naturally work harder and do whatever it takes to accomplish their goals. 

The next natural question is that of issue ownership.  Without workflow, how do you know who has ultimate responsibility for an issue?  My thoughts are that an organization can be like a sports team, where responsibilities can be clear, with motivated players.  If you had to constantly tell your outfielder explicitly to catch the ball when it comes towards him, would you really keep him in the game?  Putting the right people in the right jobs and providing the right tools can truly yield a lean, efficient environment for true productivity.