Well, the thing is they're essentially the same thing. Variations on a theme, if you will. What you implement would depend upon the company specifics, including the product. If you're making medical devices, a full blown Configuration Management system more like MIL-HDBK-61A would be required. If you're injection molding rubber ducks for kids to play with in the bath tub, a very much less stringent process would do.
I can't say I would implement either in a company per se.
The first thing I would do is evaluate the company, the product(s) and processes, and define the requirements. Then I would look at the requirements and design an appropriate system. The system would be a mix of different 'named' approaches, and consideration would be given to where similar parts of each have different names. An example is explosives. I've gone through quite a few 'Hazardous Operations Studies'. When I jump the fence to automotive, the closest thing is a Process
FMEA. For all intents and purposes they are the same with the caveat that there are differences, most of which are subtle, which are specific to the different products and processes. For all intents and purposes though, both (in this case) are what we commonly call a Process FMEA (process failure modes and effects analysis).
The thing to remember is both are essentially a cradle to grave system, and both are intended to ensure consistency of a product's functional and physical attributes, as well as its design and operational aspects, remain the same over the life of the product. Neither in it's complete form is necessarily applicable to every company.
So - When you said
"I am trying to propose an implementation of the APQP processes under a PLM solution, also taking into account the benefits of CM.", my first response *should* have been,
"Have you defined the company, its products and processes?". Until then all you can do is guess and generalize.
