ERP-PLM integration eliminates the $1.36M annual cost of manual reconciliation, reduces errors from 12% to under 2%, and cuts ECO cycle times from 4-8 hours to under 15 minutes. This comprehensive guide covers why 73% of integrations fail, the process-first approach that achieves 92% success, and step-by-step implementation from data mapping through go-live.

Reading time: 47 minutes | 12 sections | 19 examples | 4 real implementations

Table of Contents

• Why Integrate PLM and ERP?

• Why 73% of Integrations Fail

• The Process-First Integration Method

• Data Mapping: Engineering to Manufacturing BOM

• Change Order Synchronization

• Middleware Selection Guide

• Implementation Timeline and Costs

• Success Metrics

• Troubleshooting Common Issues

• Next Steps

Why Integrate PLM and ERP?

The $1.36M Manual Process

Monday morning at a typical manufacturer:

8:00 AM - Engineering releases ECO-2847 in Windchill. Changes valve assembly from brass to stainless steel. Updates 47 line items in the bill of materials.

10:00 AM - BOM Specialist exports CSV from Windchill, opens SAP, manually enters 47 line items. Makes 3 typos (catches 2, misses 1).

2:00 PM - Manufacturing planner creates work order in SAP. System shows brass valve due to the typo. Doesn't match Windchill. Planner calls engineering to verify.

Tuesday - Engineering confirms stainless steel. Planner manually corrects SAP. Work order finally released. One day lost.

Wednesday - Shop floor gets work order. Warehouse issues brass valve from old stock still in system. Operator questions it. Quality gets involved. Another day lost.

Thursday - Brass units scrapped ($400). Stainless ordered with rush freight ($300). Customer shipment delayed ($5,000 penalty). Total cost for this one ECO: $6,300

The Compounding Cost

• Average manufacturer: 150 ECOs per month

• Error rate on manual entry: 12%

• 18 ECOs per month with errors

• $6,300 average cost per error

• Annual cost: $1.36M

The Automated Alternative

With properly implemented PLM-ERP integration:

• ECO released in Windchill at 8:00 AM

• Integration middleware detects change within 1 minute

• Transformation rules applied automatically

• SAP updated by 8:03 AM

• Manufacturing planner notified

• Manufacturing planner reviews and confirms (15 minutes)

• Work order released by 8:30 AM

Time saved: 4-8 hours → 30 minutes Cost per ECO: $6,300 → $19 Annual savings: $1.36M Payback on $400K integration: 3.5 months

Why 73% of Integrations Fail

Failure Mode #1: Technology-First Approach (31% of Failures)

What happens:

Companies select middleware, configure point-to-point connections, map fields 1:1, and go live. Data syncs successfully—but makes no business sense to the receiving system.

Real example: Aerospace manufacturer's data synced perfectly, but manufacturing received "Rev B" when they use "Version 2" terminology. The data was technically correct but operationally useless.

Root cause: Integration focused on moving data from Point A to Point B without translating between departmental languages.

What successful integrations do differently:

Create an enterprise data dictionary that defines canonical terms and translation rules. The middleware doesn't just move data—it translates it. Engineering's "Rev B" becomes Manufacturing's "V2" automatically.

Failure Mode #2: No Data Governance (27% of Failures)

What happens:

Integration works initially. Then an engineer creates a part named "NewValve_v2_final" that doesn't follow the naming standard. Integration has no rule for this format, passes it through to ERP. SAP planner can't identify part type. Manual process returns.

Real example: Medical device manufacturer had 4 different part numbering formats across systems because there was no validation at source. Integration "worked" but required manual lookup for every non-standard part.

Root cause: No documented standards, no validation rules, no enforcement, no governance structure.

What successful integrations do differently:

Implement data governance before integration launches:

• Document standards (part numbering, revisions, status values, units)

• Embed validation in PLM (can't save without meeting standards)

• Clean legacy data (fix 95%+ before going live)

• Maintain ongoing governance (quarterly audits, training for new hires)

Failure Mode #3: Ignored Change Management (25% of Failures)

What happens:

Integration technically functional. Email sent announcing go-live. Users continue manual process in parallel. Nobody trusts automated data. 18% adoption after 6 months. Integration effectively dead.

Real example: Industrial equipment manufacturer spent $400K on integration that sat unused because users preferred "the way they'd always done it."

Root cause: Companies think they're implementing technology. Actually changing how people work every day. Without addressing human element, technology changes fail.

What successful integrations do differently:

Implement comprehensive change management:

• Stakeholder engagement (6 months before launch)

• Change champion network (peer advocates)

• Pilot with feedback loop (fix issues immediately)

• Phased rollout (expand gradually)

• Continuous improvement (ongoing support)

Failure Mode #4: Wrong Middleware (10% of Failures)

What happens:

Select middleware based on cost or existing licenses. Discover it can't handle multi-level BOMs. Create workaround by flattening BOMs. Manufacturing can't build without assembly structure. Integration "works" but unusable.

Real example: Automotive supplier selected Dell Boomi because they already had licenses. Couldn't handle their 7-level BOM hierarchy. Spent $120K on wrong tool, then $180K to switch to proper middleware. 9 months wasted.

Root cause: Middleware selected like IT infrastructure (cost, licenses, IT familiarity) instead of business requirements.

What successful integrations do differently:

Business-driven selection:

• Document requirements first (before evaluating tools)

• Test with real data (not simplified samples)

• Consider total cost (not just initial license)

• Pilot before full implementation

The Process-First Integration Method

Phase 1: Process Mapping and Requirements (Weeks 1-2)

Goal: Understand how departments actually work, not how they should work.

Week 1: Current State Documentation

Interview each department:

• Engineering: How do you create BOMs? When do you release changes?

• Manufacturing: How do you plan production? Where do you get BOM data?

• Quality: What inspection data do you track? Where does it go?

• Purchasing: When do you order parts? How do you know what to order?

Map the real process including workarounds, Excel sheets, tribal knowledge, and manual reconciliation steps.

Deliverable: Current state process map with pain points identified

Real example: Automotive supplier discovered purchasing used an Excel sheet nobody knew about. The Excel sheet was the actual source of truth—both PLM and ERP lagged behind it. BOM specialist maintained all three manually, spending 15 hours per week.

Week 2: Future State Design

Define the integrated process:

• Who creates data? (source of truth)

• Who consumes data? (read-only)

• Who can make changes? (write permissions)

• What triggers sync? (time-based vs event-driven)

• How are conflicts resolved? (PLM wins? ERP wins? Manual review?)

Create data flow diagram:

Define business rules:

• When engineering releases revision → Manufacturing BOM updates within 15 minutes (automated)

• If part doesn't exist in ERP → Create new part (approval workflow required)

• If cost changes >20% → Hold for manual review (alert sent)

• If BOM structure >7 levels → Flag for manufacturing review (may need restructure)

Deliverable: Future state process map with integration points defined

Phase 2: Data Dictionary Creation (Week 3)

The translation layer everyone skips—and the most important step.

For each key data object, define:

1. Canonical name (enterprise-wide term)

2. PLM field name (Windchill attribute)

3. ERP field name (SAP field)

4. Transformation rule (how to convert)

5. Validation rule (what's acceptable)

6. Conflict resolution (what happens when they differ)

Example: Part Number

CANONICAL DEFINITION: Part Number

• Purpose: Unique identifier for component or assembly

• Format: XXX-YYYY-ZZ

  • XXX = Part type (001-999)

  • YYYY = Sequential number (0001-9999)

  • ZZ = Variant code (AA-ZZ)

• PLM field: Windchill.PartNumber (String, 50 char)

• ERP field: SAP.MATNR (String, 18 char, left-pad zeros)

• Transform: Pad to 18 characters with leading zeros

• Validation: Regex ^[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{4}-[A-Z]{2}$

• On conflict: PLM is master, ERP updates

• On missing: Create in ERP with approval workflow

Repeat for 50-100 key data objects.

Deliverable: Enterprise data dictionary (typically 50-100 objects defined)

Real example: Medical device manufacturer found 7 different definitions of "Device Master Record" across systems. Created one canonical definition, mapped all 7 systems to it. Integration errors dropped 89%.

Phase 3: Integration Build (Weeks 4-8)

Step 1: Select/Configure Middleware (Week 4)

Middleware Comparison:

Dell Boomi

• Best for: Multi-cloud environments

• Pros: Pre-built connectors, visual builder, scales well

• Cons: Struggles with complex BOMs, expensive ($30K-$100K)

• Use cases: Simple part sync ✓, Real-time notifications ✓, Multi-level BOMs ⚠️

• Cost: $50K implementation + $40K annual

MuleSoft

• Best for: Enterprise with existing MuleSoft

• Pros: Extremely flexible, strong API management

• Cons: Most expensive ($50K-$200K), requires developers

• Use cases: Complex transformations ✓, Multi-system ✓, High volume ✓

• Cost: $120K implementation + $80K annual

Jitterbit

• Best for: Mid-market manufacturers

• Pros: Balance of features and cost, handles BOMs well, fast implementation

• Cons: Smaller ecosystem, some edge cases need coding

• Use cases: Standard PLM-ERP ✓, Multi-level BOMs ✓, Good cost/benefit ✓

• Cost: $60K implementation + $25K annual

PTC ESI

• Best for: Windchill customers, complex scenarios

• Pros: Built for Windchill, understands PLM natively, excellent BOM handling

• Cons: Only works with Windchill, expensive ($40K-$150K)

• Use cases: Complex Windchill ✓, Multi-level BOMs with variants ✓

• Cost: $80K implementation + $60K annual

Selection criteria:

1. Handles BOM hierarchy?

2. Real-time or batch?

3. Transformation engine?

4. Error handling?

5. Monitoring?

6. Long-term support?

Step 2: Build Integration Logic (Weeks 5-7)

1. Data Extraction (from PLM)

Trigger: Engineering releases ECO Action: Extract affected parts and BOM structure Output: JSON payload with part data

2. Transformation (business rules)

Input: Engineering BOM Process:

• Apply naming conventions

• Convert units (metric → imperial if needed)

• Add manufacturing attributes (lead time, MRP data)

• Flatten or restructure as needed

• Validate against business rules Output: Manufacturing BOM

3. Loading (into ERP)

Input: Manufacturing BOM Process:

• Check if parts exist

• Create new parts (with approval)

• Update existing parts

• Maintain BOM structure

• Trigger dependent processes Output: Confirmation or error log

4. Error Handling

• If part number invalid → Log error, notify creator

• If BOM structure too complex → Flag for manual review

• If cost variance >20% → Hold for approval

• If sync fails → Retry 3x, then alert

Deliverable: Working integration in dev/test environment

Step 3: Testing (Week 8)

Test scenarios (minimum 50 tests):

Positive tests:

• Create new part in PLM → Appears in ERP

• Update existing part → Changes reflect in ERP

• Release ECO → BOM updates in ERP

• Multi-level BOM → Maintains hierarchy

Negative tests:

• Invalid part number → Rejected with clear error

• Duplicate part → Conflict resolution works

• Missing required field → Validation catches it

• Network failure → Retries then alerts

Edge cases:

• 10,000 line BOM → Processes without timeout

• Special characters in part name → Handled correctly

• Simultaneous updates → Last-write-wins or merge

Deliverable: Test results with 95%+ pass rate

Phase 4: Change Management and Rollout (Weeks 9-24)

Week 9-10: Change Champion Training

Identify champions (one per department):

• Engineering: Senior PLM admin

• Manufacturing: Lead planner

• Quality: QA manager

• Purchasing: Procurement lead

Train them deeply:

• How integration works (not just how to use it)

• What business rules are embedded

• How to troubleshoot common issues

• How to train their teams

Why champions matter: Peers trust peers more than consultants. Champions speak department language. They're there after consultants leave. They become internal experts.

Week 11-12: Pilot Rollout

Start small:

• One product family

• 20-30 active parts

• 5-10 users

• 2-week pilot period

Measure everything:

• Sync success rate (target: >95%)

• Time savings (benchmark: manual vs automated)

• Error rate (target: <2%)

• User satisfaction (survey weekly)

Fix issues immediately through daily standup with pilot users.

Real example: Aerospace manufacturer pilot Week 1 had 78% sync success (not acceptable). Issue was BOM flattening rule too aggressive. Fixed rule, re-tested. Week 2: 97% sync success. Proceeded to full rollout.

Week 13-20: Phased Rollout

Expand incrementally:

• Month 1: One product family (pilot)

• Month 2: Three product families

• Month 3: Half of product catalog

• Month 4: Full catalog

Support structure:

• Daily office hours (first 2 weeks)

• Weekly office hours (weeks 3-8)

• On-demand support (after week 8)

• Monthly review meetings (ongoing)

Week 21-24: Optimization and Handoff

Measure success:

• Adoption rate (target: >80%)

• Sync success rate (target: >95%)

• Time savings per ECO (target: 4 hours → 30 minutes)

• Error reduction (target: 12% → <2%)

• User satisfaction (target: 4/5 stars)

Optimize based on usage patterns and feedback.

Knowledge transfer:

• Document everything in clear language

• Train internal team to maintain integration

• Create runbooks for common issues

• Plan for long-term governance

Deliverable: Self-sufficient team, documented system, proven ROI

Data Mapping: Engineering BOM to Manufacturing BOM Transformation

The Core Challenge

Engineering designs for function. Manufacturing builds for process.

Engineering BOM structure (Windchill):

Engineering cares about: Functional groupings, design intent, revisions, interchangeability.

Manufacturing BOM structure (SAP):

Manufacturing cares about: Build sequence, kitting by workstation, routings, lot control for traceability.

Transformation Rules

Rule 1: Maintain hierarchy, change grouping Engineering subassemblies → Manufacturing build stations Functional grouping → Process grouping

Rule 2: Add manufacturing attributes

• Lead time (how long to make/buy)

• Routing (which work center)

• Setup time (changeover between builds)

• Lot size (minimum build quantity)

• Make/buy flag (source type)

Rule 3: Handle phantom assemblies Engineering shows subassembly for documentation. Manufacturing marks as phantom (don't stock, just routing step). Integration flags as phantom while maintaining structure.

Rule 4: Quantity transformation Engineering "as required" → Manufacturing needs exact quantity. Integration applies default rules or requires manual input.

Example Transformation

BEFORE (Engineering BOM):

Valve Assembly VA-001-A ├─ Valve Body VB-123 (qty: 1) ├─ Valve Seat VS-456 (qty: 1) ├─ Spring SP-789 (qty: 2) └─ Fastener Kit (qty: as required)

AFTER (Manufacturing BOM):

Valve Assembly VA-001-A [Make, Lead time: 3 days] ├─ Kit VA-K1 [Phantom, Routing: Station 1] │ ├─ Valve Body VB-123 (qty: 1) [Buy, Lead: 30 days] │ └─ Valve Seat VS-456 (qty: 1) [Make, Lead: 5 days] └─ Kit VA-K2 [Phantom, Routing: Station 2] ├─ Spring SP-789 (qty: 2) [Buy, Lead: 10 days] └─ Fastener Kit FK-Standard (qty: 1 kit) [Buy, Lead: 1 day] ├─ Screw M6x20 (qty: 4) └─ Washer M6 (qty: 4)

What changed:

1. Added manufacturing attributes (make/buy, lead time, routing)

2. Resolved "as required" to specific quantity (1 kit = 4 screws + 4 washers)

3. Created phantom kits for work stations

4. Expanded hardware kit to individual parts for MRP

Change Order Synchronization

The ECO Flow (Engineering Change Order)

Trigger: Engineer saves and releases ECO in Windchill

Step 1: Integration detects change (within 1 minute)

Event: Windchill.ECO.StateChange = "Released" Action: Extract ECO data Data captured:

• ECO number (ECO-2847)

• Affected parts (list of part numbers)

• Change type (revision, obsolete, new)

• Effectivity date (when change goes into effect)

• Reason for change (description)

• Approvers (who signed off)

Step 2: Business rules engine evaluates

IF change type = "New part" THEN Create part in ERP with approval workflow ELSE IF change type = "Revision" THEN IF cost impact < $5000 THEN Auto-update ERP ELSE Hold for management approval END IF ELSE IF change type = "Obsolete" THEN Check inventory in ERP IF inventory > 0 THEN Alert planning to consume stock first ELSE Mark obsolete in ERP END IF END IF

Step 3: Transform ECO to ERP format

Windchill ECO-2847 → SAP Engineering Change Number Map fields:

• ECO number → Change number (add prefix "PLM-")

• Effectivity date → Valid from date

• Affected parts → Object list

• Change reason → Long text

• Approval status → Release status

Step 4: Update ERP

• Create change order in SAP

• Update affected BOMs

• Trigger MRP re-run (if effectivity immediate)

• Notify affected planners (email alert)

• Log transaction in audit trail

Step 5: Confirmation back to PLM

• Success: Update Windchill with SAP change number

• Failure: Log error, alert PLM admin, retry

• Partial: Flag conflicts for manual resolution

Total time: 3-15 minutes (vs 4-8 hours manual)

Implementation Timeline and Costs

Typical Mid-Market Project

Scope:

• PLM: Windchill

• ERP: SAP S/4HANA

• Users: 150 (50 engineering, 75 manufacturing, 25 other)

• Parts: 8,000 active

• BOMs: Mix of 2-6 levels deep

• Middleware: Jitterbit

Timeline (24 weeks total)

Weeks 1-2: Discovery and Planning

• Process mapping workshops

• Current state documentation

• Pain point identification

• Success criteria definition

• Cost: $25K (40 hours @ $625/day × 2 consultants)

Week 3: Data Dictionary

• Enterprise glossary creation

• Field mapping specification

• Business rules documentation

• Cost: $8K (16 hours @ $500/hr)

Weeks 4-8: Build and Test

• Middleware configuration

• Integration logic development

• Unit testing

• Integration testing

• Cost: $80K (160 hours @ $500/hr)

Weeks 9-10: Change Champion Training

• Champion identification

• Deep training on system

• Train-the-trainer sessions

• Cost: $12K (24 hours @ $500/hr)

Weeks 11-12: Pilot

• One product family

• 20-30 active parts

• 5-10 users

• Daily monitoring and fixes

• Cost: $15K (30 hours @ $500/hr)

Weeks 13-20: Rollout

• Phased expansion

• Training sessions

• Daily support and office hours

• Cost: $60K (120 hours @ $500/hr)

Weeks 21-24: Optimization

• Performance tuning

• Business rule refinement

• Knowledge transfer to internal team

• Cost: $20K (40 hours @ $500/hr)

Cost Breakdown

Consulting services: $220K

• Discovery and planning: $25K

• Data dictionary: $8K

• Build and test: $80K

• Change management: $12K

• Pilot: $15K

• Rollout: $60K

• Optimization: $20K

Middleware licensing: $85K

• Jitterbit implementation license: $60K

• Year 1 subscription: $25K

Internal labor (client side): $95K

• Project management (0.5 FTE × 6 months × $150K): $37.5K

• SME time (10 people × 80 hours × $75/hr): $60K

Total project cost: $400K

ROI Calculation

Current state costs (annual):

• Manual BOM reconciliation: 60 hrs/week × $75/hr × 52 weeks = $234K

• ECO errors: 18/month × $6,300 × 12 months = $1.36M

• Delayed shipments (6/year × $50K penalty): $300K

• Total annual cost: $1.89M

Future state costs (annual):

• Middleware subscription: $25K

• Integration maintenance: $30K

• Total annual cost: $55K

Annual savings: $1.89M - $55K = $1.84M Payback period: $400K ÷ $1.84M = 2.6 months 3-year ROI: ($1.84M × 3) - $400K = $5.12M (1,280% ROI)

Success Metrics

What to Measure

Metric 1: Sync Success Rate

• Definition: % of integration transactions that complete without error

• Target: >95%

• Measured: Daily via middleware monitoring

• Why: Indicates technical health

Good: 98% (2% fail due to data quality, caught and fixed) Bad: 87% (13% failing, users losing trust, reverting to manual)

Metric 2: Time Savings per ECO

• Definition: Time from ECO release to ERP update

• Target: <15 minutes (vs 4-8 hours manual)

• Measured: Timestamp comparison

• Why: Tangible productivity gain

Good: 8 minutes average (includes review and approval) Bad: 2 hours (integration works but bottlenecks in approval)

Metric 3: Error Rate

• Definition: % of ECOs resulting in manufacturing errors

• Target: <2% (vs 12% baseline)

• Measured: Quality records, shop floor incidents

• Why: Business impact of integration

Good: 1.3% (most errors unrelated to BOM sync) Bad: 8% (integration not catching all data quality issues)

Metric 4: User Adoption

• Definition: % of users actively using integrated process

• Target: >80%

• Measured: System logs, user surveys

• Why: Integration only works if used

Good: 87% adoption (13% still learning or edge cases) Bad: 43% adoption (users don't trust data, still checking manually)

Metric 5: Cost Savings

• Definition: Reduction in manual labor + error costs

• Target: Match ROI projection ($1.84M annually)

• Measured: Time tracking, error logs, cost accounting

• Why: Business case validation

Good: $1.92M actual savings (exceeded projection) Bad: $840K savings (less than half, needs investigation)

Metric 6: Data Quality

• Definition: % of parts with complete, accurate data

• Target: >95%

• Measured: Data validation reports

• Why: Root cause of integration failures

Good: 97% (improving over time as governance matures) Bad: 82% (integration failing because source data poor)

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Issue 1: BOM Sync Takes Too Long

Symptom: Large BOMs (1000+ line items) take 30+ minutes to sync

Root cause: Integration processing line-by-line, not in batch

Fix:

• Modify integration to process in batches of 100 lines

• Add parallel processing for independent subassemblies

• Result: 30 minutes → 4 minutes

Prevention: Load test during implementation with largest expected BOM

Issue 2: Phantom Parts Appearing in ERP

Symptom: Parts that shouldn't exist in ERP are being created

Root cause: Integration creating parts for engineering reference documents

Fix:

• Add filter: Only sync parts where Make/Buy flag is populated

• Engineering marks reference docs differently

• Result: 847 phantom parts cleaned up

Prevention: Define clear rules for what constitutes a "real" part

Issue 3: Users Don't Trust Integrated Data

Symptom: 43% adoption, users still manually checking everything

Root cause: Poor communication, users weren't trained on what changed

Fix:

• Show users the data flow (where it comes from, how validated)

• Demonstrate error handling (what happens when something's wrong)

• Build confidence through transparency

• Result: 43% → 81% adoption over 3 months

Prevention: Change management from day one, not after go-live

Next Steps

If You're Just Starting

Step 1: Take the Integration Readiness Assessment (5 minutes)

You'll get:

• Feasibility score (0-100)

• Your biggest risks identified

• Estimated timeline

• Recommended approach

Step 2: Download Integration Planning Template (free)

Includes:

• Data mapping worksheet

• Business rules template

• Testing checklist

• ROI calculator

Step 3: Schedule 30-minute consultation

We'll review:

• Your specific systems

• Your integration challenges

• Ballpark timeline and cost

• Whether you should DIY or hire help

If You're Mid-Implementation

Step 1: Take Integration Health Check

Measures:

• Sync success rate

• User adoption

• Data quality

• ROI tracking

Step 2: Download Optimization Guide

Learn:

• How to improve sync performance

• How to increase adoption

• How to add new business rules

• How to prepare for system upgrades

Step 3: Talk to our rescue team

If things aren't going well, we can help. We've rescued 47 integrations. Most can be saved.

If Your Integration Is Working

Keep it healthy:

• Monthly data quality audits

• Quarterly business rule reviews

• Annual middleware updates

• Ongoing user training for new hires

Expand it:

• Add MES integration (work instructions)

• Add CPQ integration (sales to engineering)

• Add supplier portal (external collaboration)

• Add IoT data (real-time production feedback)

Conclusion

ERP-PLM integration is not a technology problem. 73% fail because they treat it like one.

It's a translation problem. Engineering and manufacturing speak different languages. Technology just makes them speak faster. If they don't understand each other, automation amplifies the confusion.

The 27% that succeed follow this sequence:

1. Map the real process (not the ideal one)

2. Create a data dictionary (translate between languages)

3. Build the integration (with business rules embedded)

4. Manage the change (so people actually use it)

Not:

1. Buy middleware

2. Configure it

3. Go live

4. Wonder why nobody uses it

If you remember nothing else: Process first. Translation layer. Change management. Technology last.

Download the Implementation Toolkit

47-page PDF includes:

• Data mapping worksheets (ready to fill out)

• Business rules template (50+ common rules)

• Testing checklist (100 test scenarios)

• Change management plan (week-by-week)

• ROI calculator (plug in your numbers)

• Vendor comparison matrix

• Interview question bank (for selecting consultants)

[Download Complete Toolkit] (Free, no email required)

Talk to Our Integration Team

30-minute consultation, no sales pitch:

• Review your specific scenario

• Identify your biggest risks

• Ballpark timeline and cost

• Recommend DIY vs hire help

We'll tell you if you don't need us. (Happens about 30% of the time.)

[Schedule Consultation]

Related Guides

PLM-MES Integration Guide - Digital work instructions, as-built records

PLM-CPQ Integration Guide - Configure-price-quote to engineering handoff

Digital Thread Implementation - Connecting design through service

Change Management for PLM - How to get 80%+ adoption

Data Quality in PLM - Fix the source before integrating

Based on 127 PLM-ERP integrations implemented by Element Consulting. 92% success rate. Written by Eric Horn, Lead PLM Architect.