|
PLM
|
Product Lifecycle Management
|
Blogs
Posted By:
Federico Fontanella, PMP
TL;DR:
When your PLM vendor retires the version you run, the default is to follow them onto the next one. It is the lowest-friction path and often the right one. It is worth testing that assumption once. Even when the recommended path requires significant migration work, alternative platforms may involve different levels of effort, cost, risk, and functional scope.
Evaluate alternatives when at least one of three signals is present: the recommended path still requires significant migration effort, your product data has spread into systems outside your PLM, or your business has changed shape since you first bought the platform. If none apply, the recommended upgrade path may remain the most proportionate choice.
Why does a forced migration feel like a decision that has already been made?
Because in one sense it has. Your vendor announced a change. They provided a destination, a timeline, and a path. Your team is already busy. Nobody was asking for a platform evaluation this quarter.
So, the question in the room becomes how do we do this with the least disruption rather than what should we do. That is a reasonable instinct. Migrations are hard and the default path is genuinely the easiest one to start.
The problem is that the easiest path to start is not necessarily the least costly, least risky, or best-aligned path over the full life of the next platform. And once the default is chosen, the window to ask closes quietly. Nobody reopens a platform decision six months into an implementation.
Key Takeaway:The default is a legitimate option. It just should not be the only one that got considered. |
Is staying with the same PLM vendor always cheaper?
Not necessarily, and the assumption is worth breaking apart.
Staying in the same ecosystem usually reduces two things: commercial friction and familiarity cost. You know the vendor, the contract structure exists, the terminology carries over.
What it does not automatically reduce is the migration work itself. Moving between major platform generations still means mapping data models, validating formulas, rebuilding integrations, redesigning permissions, and retraining every user. Those are the expensive parts, and they scale with your data volume and process complexity — not with how well you know the logo on the invoice.
Before you accept that staying is cheaper, ask your vendor the same questions you would ask a new one:
- How many of our records transfer automatically, and how many need mapping?
- Does version history transfer, or do we get a current-state snapshot?
- Which integrations have to be rebuilt rather than reconnected?
- What does the permission and approval model look like, and does ours map to it?
- What is the full cost across the contract term, not the first year?
If the answers are materially better than a new vendor’s, you have your evidence. If they are similar, you have learned something important.
Key Takeaway:Compare the migration work, not just the relationship. Familiarity is real value, but it should be weighed against the actual effort, cost, risk, and scope of each path. |
What are the three signals that make PLM alternatives worth evaluating?
1. The recommended path still requires significant migration effort
If moving to your vendor’s next generation requires data mapping, revalidation, integration rebuilds, and retraining, the recommended path already involves meaningful migration work. At that point, the destination is worth testing because alternative platforms may involve different levels of effort, cost, risk, and functional scope.
If the transition is largely automated, preserves the required data and integrations, and continues to meet the organization’s future needs, a broader evaluation may not be justified.
2. Product data has spread outside the PLM
Look at where things actually live today. Packaging specifications and artwork approvals. Supplier certifications and expiry dates. Regulatory assessments for secondary markets. Portfolio and project reporting. Cost roll-ups.
Every one of those sitting in a spreadsheet, a shared drive, or a separate tool is a handoff. Handoffs are where version confusion starts and where a regulatory question that should take a minute takes a day.
A migration is the only moment when consolidating those is not a separate project competing for budget. It is the moment when the disruption is already priced in.
3. The business has changed shape since you bought the platform
Most PLM decisions are made for the business as it was. Since then you may have added categories, acquired a brand, entered new markets, taken on private label work, or moved into adjacent product lines with different regulatory regimes.
A platform chosen for a single-category business behaves differently in a multi-category one. Not worse — differently. The question is whether the fit that was right five years ago is still right, and a forced migration is a natural moment to check.
Key Takeaway:Significant migration effort on the recommended path, product data scattered across systems, or a business that has changed shape. One of those is enough to justify evaluating alternatives. All three make the case stronger. |
How do you run a proportionate PLM evaluation during a forced migration?
It does not mean a nine-month RFP. It means a bounded exercise with a defined end date.
- Establish a reliable initial view of the data landscape first. Before comparing options, capture the volume, structure, quality, ownership, relationships, and likely destination for the principal product data categories. Refine the detail once the viable paths are shortlisted.
- Set your scope before your shortlist. Decide what the next platform should cover. Scope determines who belongs on the list — doing it the other way around means the vendors define your requirements.
- Use one question set for everyone. Including your incumbent. If each vendor is assessed on the ground they choose, the comparison is meaningless.
- Define a proportionate evaluation period. Base it on the number of options, the stakeholders involved, the evidence required, and the decision deadline. The objective is not to complete a full selection process immediately, but to determine whether the recommended path remains clearly preferable or warrants a deeper comparison.
If the incumbent wins, you have a decision you can defend to a board, a documented rationale, and better commercial terms than you would have had without a comparison. If they do not, you found out at the only moment when switching was going to be affordable.
Key Takeaway:Bounded, scoped, and proportionate. An evaluation that confirms the recommended path remains clearly preferable is a good outcome, not wasted effort. |
One question worth asking before you commit
You are facing a migration decision either way. The effort, cost, risk, and functional scope can differ by destination. The question is what each path requires — and what you get in return.
Ask the question once, with a defined scope and decision deadline. Then commit to the answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Federico Fontanella, PMP
Product leader with a background in Software Engineering and more than 20 years of experience in software development, product management, and innovation strategy. In his role as Head of Strategic Innovations and Product Partnerships at Trace One, Federico drives the company’s long-term innovation agenda, shaping how emerging technologies and strategic collaborations enhance its PLM and compliance solutions. He works across product, engineering, customers, and partners to identify new opportunities, build integrated value propositions, and accelerate adoption of next-generation capabilities. Specialties: Innovation Strategy, Product Management, Strategic Partnerships, Software Development, Emerging Technologies (AI & Analytics), Go-to-Market Strategy.
About Trace One
With more than 30 years of industry expertise, Trace One is the product development and compliance partner to over 9,000 brands across food & beverage, cosmetics, and chemicals, turning regulatory complexity into a competitive advantage. Our AI-powered PLM platform connects formulation, specifications, packaging development, supplier collaboration and regulatory compliance, with regulatory intelligence spanning 170+ countries — helping brands bring products to shelf faster and enter new markets with confidence. Learn more at traceone.com.