What a health check covers
The check covers the four parts of PLM that decide whether a programme pays off, with reviews of processes and data alongside assessments of the software and the people who use it. Each one is scored against the same scale so you can compare them. That shared scale is how you assess your current PLM capability without a vendor's demo setting the agenda. Most PLM audit work in the market looks only at the software. Software is the easiest part to measure and the least important.
Each area has its own warning signs, and published research shows what it costs to ignore them:
| Area | What gets examined | Common warning sign | What the research says |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process design | Stage gates, change control, approval routes | Work happens in email and spreadsheets outside the system | CIMdata's 2024 forum survey found only 15% called PLM mission critical |
| Data quality | Specifications, formulas, supplier and regulatory records | Duplicate or incomplete records | Gartner puts poor data quality at $12.9 million a year per organisation |
| System fit | Configuration, customisation, integrations | Heavy custom code that blocks upgrades | 60% of industrial companies name data quality as a top AI-in-PLM challenge, with 44% citing integration silos |
| User adoption | Training, roles, workarounds, sponsorship | Users rebuild reports outside PLM | Prosci finds excellent change management makes projects 7 times more likely to meet objectives |
Process design
Process design is scored first because a PLM system only automates the processes you give it. The review traces how a product actually moves from brief to launch. It follows a new formula or a reformulation through each gate; a pack change can also be traced this way. It maps who approves what and where approvals stall. It also records where people step outside the system to get work done.
In formulation businesses the weak points sit at hand-offs. R&D passes a recipe to regulatory. Regulatory passes a label to packaging. Packaging passes a specification to the plant. Every hand-off that runs on email is a place where versions drift apart. So check how many of your launch steps finish inside PLM and how many finish in a shared drive.
Data quality
Data quality is checked by sampling real records against the rules your business says it follows. A reviewer pulls a set of specifications and checks them for completeness and duplicates, then looks at whether each one links to the right ingredients and the right supplier documents and claims. Good data can be traced back. A label claim should lead to the formula, and the formula to approved raw materials.
Problems here matter more than they used to. The 2026 CIMdata study for Siemens calls data quality "the single most-cited obstacle" to using AI in PLM. If an AI pilot is on your roadmap, its results will only be as good as the records underneath it. Before the check starts, find out who owns master data in your organisation. If nobody does, write that down as a finding.
System fit
System fit measures how closely your PLM platform matches the way your business works without bending either one too far. The review looks at configuration against standard functionality and the amount of custom code. It also examines the platform's ERP connections and its links to regulatory and artwork systems. Custom code needs the most attention because each customisation adds testing work at every upgrade, and enough of it can lock you onto an old version.
Processes that were never redesigned and a system customised to copy old habits produce a poor fit. The health check separates those two cases, which changes the answer from "replace the platform" to "simplify how you use it." C+P Consulting starts from the standard platform and customises only where the business case holds up. The system-fit review tests whether your current customisations have a sound business case.
User adoption
Adoption is scored on what users do, which differs from what the project plan says they do. The evidence comes from login and transaction data and from short interviews with people in each role. The review also examines the workarounds they've built. A formulation team that keeps its own spreadsheet "just in case" is telling you the system doesn't give them something they need.
Sponsorship counts as much as training. Prosci's research found that projects with extremely effective sponsors meet objectives 79% of the time, against 27% for those with extremely ineffective sponsors. The review asks whether a named business leader owns PLM outcomes or whether PLM has been left to IT.
You receive a scored baseline
The first deliverable is a scored baseline: a maturity rating for each of the four areas, backed by the evidence behind each score. Process maps and data samples feed into it alongside evidence from integration diagrams and interview notes. Evidence-backed scores let a steering committee agree on where things stand in one meeting.
The baseline becomes your reference point. Run the same scoring a year after go-live and you can show what changed in terms finance will accept. Ask for the scoring criteria to be written down, so a later review measures against the same scale and doesn't drift.
You receive a prioritised roadmap
The second deliverable is a roadmap that ranks the fixes by value and effort. It also puts them in order, because some fixes depend on others. Data cleansing has to come before a migration. Process redesign has to come before configuration. The roadmap makes those dependencies explicit so you don't pay for work twice.
Each item names the problem it solves and the area score it should raise. It also names the owner. The roadmap helps you decide whether you need a new platform or a better-configured one. It also informs what to put in a business case and what to brief implementation partners on. C+P Consulting's other services cover platform selection and blueprinting. The firm also provides data migration and training. You can still take the roadmap to any partner you choose.
How long it takes
Scope sets the length of a health check based on how many sites and categories are included and how many systems need review. A single business unit on one platform is a much smaller job than a global review across food and home care with several ERP links. The scope you agree at the start drives both the timeline and the cost, so settle it before anything else.
Three factors lengthen the timeline, and the first is access to people because interviews slip when R&D and regulatory leads are in launch season. The second is data access. Extracts that need IT security approval can take longer than the analysis itself. The last is the number of integrations to trace. You can shorten the job by naming a coordinator on your side and getting data extracts approved before kick-off.
Who is involved
A health check needs a small group from your business and a senior team from the consultant who work on site where it helps. The split matters because the findings are only credible when the people who run the processes have shaped them.
From your side
You'll need four groups. Each gives a few hours, apart from the coordinator. Include a handful of everyday users as well as managers. Their workarounds are the most useful evidence the review collects.
- A business sponsor. who owns the outcome and signs off the roadmap
- Process owners. from R&D, regulatory, packaging and quality, for interviews and walkthroughs
- An IT or PLM system owner. who can provide configuration details, integration maps and data extracts
- A day-to-day coordinator. who books sessions and chases access
From the consulting side
C+P Consulting works with a small senior team that covers both business process design and technical delivery. The same people who interview your formulation leads can read your configuration and integration setup. That cuts down the translation loss between a strategy team and a technical team. Ask any provider who exactly will be on site, and whether those people will still be involved if the roadmap leads to an implementation.
Next steps
Pick the decision the health check needs to inform before you start. The decision could concern a platform selection or an upgrade. A recovery plan for an implementation that's stalled is another possibility. Write that decision down and share it with your sponsor. That decision sets the scope and guides the interviews. It also determines roadmap priorities. A PLM health check tied to a named decision gives you a scored baseline and a ranked plan in time to act on them. C+P Consulting runs these reviews for CPG and FMCG manufacturers, with a senior team that covers both process and technology. Talk to us about your programme.
FAQ
Expect an evidence-backed capability score and a roadmap ranked by value and effort. The scoring criteria should be documented so later reviews are comparable. Each roadmap item should identify an owner and the problem it addresses.
More articles
PLM for process manufacturers: the complete guide
PLM for process manufacturing: how formula-based PLM differs from discrete, where ERP, PDM and PIM take over, and the signs you have outgrown spreadsheets.
Regulatory compliance in Food product development
Food information regulation explained: what must legally appear on an EU food label, which foods are exempt, and where UK requirements now differ
Packaging specifications: why they are the weakest record in the product file
Packaging specification management: what the record must hold at component level, why supplier data decays, and how the pack file drives labels and artwork.
The EU packaging regulation and the product data you will need
PPWR regulation explained: what applies from 12 August 2026, the PFAS and recyclability limits, and the packaging data behind every declaration of conformity.
Product data management for process manufacturers
Product data management for process manufacturers rests on 3 decisions. Poor data quality costs $12.9 million a year on average, per Gartner.
PLM implementation for process manufacturers: a delivery model that holds
A plm implementation for process manufacturers runs in 4 phases. A first release takes 3 to 6 months and an enterprise rollout runs 12 to 24 months.
Specification management for food manufacturers: the complete guide
This guide explains food product specification management, with a 7-step approval order and the BRCGS Issue 9 review every 3 years.
New product development in consumer goods: the complete guide
This new product development guide for consumer goods compares three stage-gate options and four methods to rank projects against capacity.