in 2014 there was no (?) CIP like the years before. I asked GTAC and they told me that something new is planned for 2015. Are there any details what is planned etc.?
(This is a re-post from NX Design forum)
PLM World and Siemens PLM have been sponsoring the CIP (Customer Improvement Process) for many years. We both have been measuring the value of the process over time and there has been a decrease seen from both sides. Measurements have included the number of responses returned from users as well as direct impact to the product roadmap to incorporate suggested user enhancements. We are in the process of retooling this critical piece of input so that there is value for both parties. I can't commit to any timeline right now as there are many changes occurring to several facets of the PLM World organization (conference format and agenda, RUG's, etc.), but will bring it up as a topic at our next board meeting to have a better commitment for you (January 26-27). I appreciate hearing from you and knowing that this part of PLM World was important for you and your company. Would love to hear additional thoughts from yourself or other users.
Thank you for following up. In concert with Siemens, there have been working groups established to ensure that the voice of the customer is still heard. These groups have deliverables that are clearly defined and will work with a Siemens counterpart to ensure that the deliverables are met. A few working groups are already up and running. Please reference: http://www.plmworld.org/workinggroups. Any customer may start a working group, and follow the outline provided. We are hoping that these opportunities provide additional input to influence the software direction.
Looking at the criteria it appears to be the identical process as the Technical Committees inside of the Special Interest Group with the exception that you don't have a defined group to pull your resources from (the full SIG members). Would that be a correct?
I would also be interested to know how a person/group would be formed to start with and how to identify the SPLM leader?
I still don't see how this address the lack of the CIP. How do/will these workgroups provide the voice of the users to Siemens?
There is some similarity with the technical committees, but with critical differences. The working groups evolve out of a defined purpose and need to accomplish a task(s), rather than just a committee leadership position being filled. The working groups only last up to one year - and then can be renewed with additional defined deliverables for another year. The previously used technical committees were very stagnant for the most part.
We can help define someone at Siemens to drive a working group. I would encourage yourself and anyone that is interested to review the application at: http://www.plmworld.org/workinggroups. With defined deliverables and a Siemens counterpart, our voice can and will be heard, with an influence to drive improvements into the software. We are seeing some good results with some of the recently established working groups.
I hope that this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions.
The key is how Siemens supports the work groups.
Will someone from Siemens be presenting their view of the Work Group process in one of the group level presentations?
There is a Siemens PLM leader from Product Development who is a member of the PLM World Technical Committee, which oversees the Working Groups. This ensures that Siemens is in the loop with any group that is established. The mandate for approving Working Groups requires a Siemens PLM employee to be part of the Working Group. This involvement is critical in driving enhancements into future releases. Please clarify about Siemens presenting their view of the Work Group process? I'm not sure that I follow that question.
I agree that having the ability to see a list of top ERs and being able to vote on them was great, and I miss it as well. I took full advantage and voted every year while CIP existed. However, most of the PLM World membership didn't participate. Very low voter turnout over the years was the reason for SPLM's reluctance to continue committing resources to the CIP.
We are always looking for ideas from fellow members for improving collaboration between the user base and SPLM to improve their products. If you have ideas on how to accomplish this, please let us know.