The article discusses the challenges in reconciling discrepancies between the as-designed, as-built, and as-maintained baselines in engineering and manufacturing. It highlights how AI can systematically identify these gaps, enabling better tracking and traceability, while emphasizing the human role in interpreting these discrepancies to ensure effective configurations and risk management.
The article discusses the challenges of dataset validation within the CM2 framework, emphasizing the distinction between creator and user perspectives. It highlights how AI can enhance validation by checking technical requirements and simulating user reviews to identify ambiguities. The co-ownership model ensures accountability and clarity in dataset usage for all stakeholders.
This article discusses the importance of human accountability in AI-assisted configuration management, emphasizing that governance failures, rather than technical issues, led to AI’s biggest failures in 2025. It highlights the necessity for clear ownership in processes and warns against over-relying on AI, which cannot replace human judgment, responsibility, and engagement in organizational culture.
This article discusses the potential negative impact of AI on the skill development of junior configuration managers in the realm of configuration management. It highlights the risks of reliance on automation, including skill degradation and reduced critical thinking. Proposed solutions include manual practice, graduated automation, and competency gates to preserve human expertise alongside AI adoption.
This article discusses the integration of AI in configuration management, highlighting the challenges posed by probabilistic decision-making compared to deterministic systems. It emphasizes the need for governance frameworks to validate AI outputs against compliance requirements and establish confidence thresholds for manual review in decision-making processes.
This article discusses challenges of AI-assisted product changes, particularly context degradation in large language models as conversations progress. It introduces scaffolding, a structured approach to maintain contextual integrity in change management. By emphasizing task decomposition and context engineering, organizations can improve AI performance and enhance governance in engineering workflows.
This article discusses the integration of AI in configuration management, highlighting the governance gaps between probabilistic AI outputs and established deterministic standards. While AI-driven tools improve efficiency and data accuracy, concerns arise about the erosion of human expertise and the need for frameworks to validate AI-generated analyses, especially in regulated industries.
In case you missed them, you can find the following How do YOU CM2? posts in the 50th edition🥳 of the Future of CM newsletter:
🧑🚒 When ‘Saving the Day’ Becomes the Problem.
🐺 Why does Configuration Management have such a bad reputation?
😵💫 Are you planning on hallucinating your next product?
What is the quality level of the product data in your organization?
🤥100%? — You’re lying to yourself.
✅99%? — Hard to believe.
🆗95%? — Impressive, but not enough.
❌Less than 95%? — That’s the reality for most organizations.
Rob Ferrone’s and Oleg Shilovitsky’s LinkedIn bromance 😉 has resulted in an interesting post by Oleg: How to Build PLM Applications We Love Using AI. His premise (my interpretation) is to build Minimum Loveable PLM applications as small applications supported by AI that fulfill a specific purpose using data from a shared data platform. No MVPs, but MLPs! Around the same time, Michael Finocchario published The Agentic AI Revolution: Reimagining PLM as… Read More »How the CM Baseline and Agentic AI enables the future of Enterprise applications.