When PLM initiatives stall or fail, the common assumption is that the system itself is to blame—poor UI, lack of integration, bad data. But experience shows that cultural and behavioral factors are often the real reasons transformation efforts do not stick.
Let us unpack this in four parts.
1. The Visible Friction: Technical Constraints
Technical issues are usually the most visible. These are the tangible problems that surface during implementation:
- Integration gaps with ERP, CAD, MES, and other enterprise systems that result in disjointed processes.
- Usability concerns—if the PDM/PLM tool is too slow, rigid, or confusing, users will work around it.
- Poor data quality and migration bottlenecks that slow adoption and frustrate users early on.
- Over-engineered customizations that add layers of unnecessary complexity.
- ‘Blue sky’ requirements and speculative use cases—often driven by idealized visions rather than grounded operational needs, these can introduce scope creep and distract from core functionality.
These challenges can—and must—be addressed through strong architecture, data governance, and vendor vendor partnership. But technical fixes alone will not deliver transformational value.
Notably, the system cost is easier to quantify and justify than the cost of inefficiencies, hidden rework, and write-offs caused by poor adoption and misaligned behaviors.
2. The Hidden Resistance: Cultural Misalignment
What derails PLM transformation more often than not is not the system—it is the system of behaviors:
- Resistance to change rooted in fear, uncertainty, or fatigue.
- Lack of leadership alignment across levels—when executives sponsor but do not model the new way of working.
- Functional silos where collaboration breaks down and ownership becomes territorial.
- Ineffective communication and generic training, which fail to connect with real user roles or answer “what’s in it for me?”
- No reinforcement mechanisms—people default to old behaviors if new expectations are not embedded and rewarded.
Too often, IT leaders are expected to drive business change as part of technical implementations. This approach sets them up to fail. While IT enables the platform, lasting behavioral change requires a true business–IT partnership to sponsor, shape, and sustain new ways of working across the organization.
Behavioral resistance is often underestimated, yet it can silently undermine even the most robust implementation plans. Understanding the political, emotional, and operational context is essential. The same system can succeed or fail depending on whether the cultural groundwork has been laid to support it.
Culture tends to override configuration. Deployment alone does not resolve behavioral resistance.
3. What the Evidence Tells Us
Case studies consistently show that PLM projects succeed not because of flawless software, but because the organization was ready and open to change:
- Companies that invest early in stakeholder alignment, targeted communication, and meaningful user engagement see stronger adoption.
- Even with imperfect tools, if teams understand the ‘why,’ see leadership walking the talk, and feel supported—they make it work.
- In contrast, organizations focused solely on system rollout often encounter shadow systems and underutilized platforms.
Successful PLM transformation also requires attention to broader capabilities such as data governance, digital dexterity, and cross-functional collaboration. These elements ensure that the system’s value is sustained beyond deployment and embedded into everyday work practices.
Empirical evidence reinforces the need for a balanced approach—technical readiness must be matched by cultural preparedness. Success hinges not just on the implementation timeline, but on post-go-live reinforcement, recognition, and the redefinition of how value is measured and sustained across functions.
4. Making Transformation Stick
Before defaulting to training or system tweaks, step back and ask:
- What behaviors are we truly trying to shift?
- What is preventing those behaviors today—skills, incentives, or cultural inertia?
- Is the root cause technical, or does it lie deeper in the operating model?
- Are we letting the technology reveal its own limitations before defining what needs to be fixed or expanded?
Sustainable transformation depends on defining realistic change paths, building local ownership, and pacing transformation to balance capability growth with risk management. It requires sustained leadership attention beyond go-live and deliberate reinforcement mechanisms built into performance management.
There is also a growing niche for system-agnostic business change advisors in the PLM field—experts who focus on behavioral and cultural shifts beyond just the technology.
PLM transformation requires a systems approach that includes both the digital platform and the organizational culture that surrounds it. Success comes from aligning process, capability, mindset, and leadership. In other words, a systems approach views the PLM initiative as a complex, interrelated ecosystem, rather than a standalone IT project. It recognizes that changing one part (e.g., the software) without addressing others (culture, processes, incentives) risks failure or suboptimal outcomes.
PLM is not simply a system deployment—it is an enterprise-wide shift in behavior.
What are your thoughts?
Disclaimer: articles and thoughts published on v+d do not necessarily represent the views of the company, but solely the views or interpretations of the author(s); reviews, insights and mentions of publications, products, or services do neither constitute endorsement, nor recommendations for purchase or adoption.
About the Author
