PLM Standardization Effort Limited But Still Useful

Written by Evan Schuman
March 11th, 2009

Last Monday (March 2), Tradestone Software announced that it was “working with the largest retailers in the world to form the first PLM for Retail Standards Committee.” And that was true. But the group consisted solely of the vendor’s own customers.

Funny thing, but the vendor’s statement announcing the committee forgot to mention that detail. For the record, it did hint at it by mentioning that the committee “is an outgrowth of the TradeStone STARS User Group meeting in September.” It’s a lot easier to work out a standard if everyone is using the same software. (Envision a meeting of the Microsoft Web Interoperability Standards Committee: “Welcome everyone to our first meeting. First order of business is that everyone needs to use the latest version of IE and only IE. Standard done. Who’s up for lunch?”)

Having gotten that off our product lifecycle management chest, the Tradestone effort does have quite a few things going for it. First, it’s A Team list of retailers—including Macy’s, Kohl’s, Lowe’s, Urban Outfitters and Pacific Sunwear–forces it to be taken seriously. Secondly, there has been so little truly accomplished with PLM standardization that practically any effort should be applauded.

Paula Rosenblum, veteran retail IT watcher whose dayjob is analyzing things for RSRresearch, has the perfect attitude about these things: “Sometimes data standards are just a distraction from actually getting something done.”

In a post on her site, Rosenblum said the committee—especially if it soon grows beyond the vendor’s own clients—has potential, but only if it mandates quality controls all the way down the line.

“So while I’m glad to hear standards are being proposed, for me, the most important part of these is the one that relates to testing and safety protocols.” Rosenblum wrote. “We ought to start from ground zero, straight-up, straightforward check-lists in every PLM system, component by component. ‘Does this component match the specification?’ Yes or no. Standards are great, but it seems we have to start from a baseline. Will this product make me sick? Will this product fall apart? Technology is a key enabler here, and in the IT Executive Steering Committee of my mind, nothing has a higher priority.”

Well said. PLM has never been more important, with more overseas outsourcing giving retailers less and less awareness of what is actually in the products they’re selling. This includes inferior products that could break down to lead in toys and disease in frozen sweet potatoes.

IT control implies cost-control and quality control and it presupposes that IT leadership has access to the information to do those controls. And with rampant efforts today to cut costs anywhere possible, never have those quality controls been more essential.


One Comment | Read PLM Standardization Effort Limited But Still Useful

  1. Ann Diamante Says:

    I agree with both you and Paula Rosenblum that safety and quality must come first when defining PLM standards. Indeed, they were the driving initiatives when TradeStone and the world’s largest and most prestigious retailers formed the PLM for Retail Standards Committee. It is why retailers from the US, UK, France, Canada, Germany and South Africa were willing to work together to ensure that safety and quality control regulations, standards and requirements are embedded into the technology that supports the design and product development process. There is an old adage that says you can’t inspect quality into a product, you must build it in. TradeStone and our customers believe it must start even earlier – it must be a part of the very inspiration and design of the products, merchandise, collections and projects that retailers deliver to consumers.

    The charter of the PLM for Retail Standards Committee is to facilitate the communication among retailers, suppliers, and testing organizations within the business process as a natural extension of the design and product development work flow. Specifically, when government or other safety standards organizations issue standards or regulatory requirements the PRSC will work to define, codify and embed the requirement within the PLM technology to ensure adherence and compliance among retailers and suppliers. Where supporting codes, standards and process do not exist the committee will work to establish them.

    Also, although you were right to point out this first meeting consisted solely of TradeStone customers, we do fully welcome and have extended invitations to other retailers, suppliers, systems integrators, consultants, and standards setting organizations to make this a community effort that is not run by TradeStone, but by the retail community. Anyone interested in joining this effort is welcome to email us at


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.