Ask five departments about the same product. Get five different answers.
One day, your customer calls support asking whether a product is compatible with something else. The agent checks their system and finds nothing conclusive. They escalate to the product team, who open a spreadsheet last updated eight months ago. The website says something different. The sales deck says something else. The warehouse has it filed under a name nobody else uses. The customer hangs up and buys from a competitor.
This isn’t a story about a bad company. It’s a story about how most companies are built. Product knowledge doesn’t live in one place, and without centralized product data, it never will, because companies don’t grow that way. They grow department by department, system by system, each team solving its own immediate problem. Take a single product, say, an electric kettle, and trace how it exists across the business:
- Marketing – Brand story, lifestyle copy, photography specs
- Sales – Pricing tiers, compatibility notes in the CRM
- Logistics – Weight, dimensions, country of origin
- Support – Complaint patterns, workaround notes
- E-commerce – Whatever made it onto the website three years ago and hasn’t been touched since
None of these teams is wrong, exactly. But none has the full picture, and none knows what the others know. When a product update, market launch, or regulatory audit comes around, the company has to go on a scavenger hunt through its own internal knowledge.
The stakes are rising. Customers now notice when your spec sheet contradicts your packaging. Regulators increasingly require auditable product data. And every new sales channel demands consistency, which the business may not be able to guarantee.
So what to do?
The instinctive fix is a shared spreadsheet. One master file, meant to be the single source of truth. Anyone who has lived through this knows how it tends to end: version conflicts, overwritten edits, the final_FINAL_v3_USE THIS ONE problem. The spreadsheet becomes another silo, just a larger one.
A category of software called Product Information Management (PIM) was designed to address this. The idea is not to create yet another place where teams manually enter data. Rather, a PIM system connects to the platforms that already exist: ERP, CRM, or WMS, and assembles a single coherent product record from what each holds. That record can then be distributed to downstream channels (website, retailer portal, support tools) without teams having to manually synchronise anything.
This solves several problems at once: a spec change updates everywhere simultaneously, support agents draw from the same data as the product catalogue, and compliance requests become answerable without cross-departmental coordination.
Not all PIM systems work the same way, and not all of them can adapt to your business logic. Some are rigid by design, built around a fixed data model that fails when product structures get complex, or processes don’t map neatly onto someone else’s assumptions. AtroPIM takes a different approach: open-source, highly configurable, and built for mid-sized to large companies that need flexibility without vendor lock-in, with deployment options and integrations that can grow alongside the business.
What PIM doesn’t solve
Implementation depends on the quality of the underlying data. If existing systems are inconsistent, a PIM inherits that problem. Data governance (deciding who owns what and keeping it current) remains a human task that no software eliminates, and for smaller organisations, the tooling may outpace the actual complexity.
What PIM does not do is resolve the organisational reasons why product data fragments in the first place. Departments have different incentives, different update cadences, and different definitions of accurate. Technology reduces synchronisation friction; the coordination problem requires process and ownership decisions that sit above any software layer.
The more useful question may not be “which tool do we buy” but “who is responsible for the accuracy of product data, and what authority do they have?”
Article received via email
