Assessing the challenges of managing product design change through-life

Figures & data

Figure 1. Prominent product-related enterprise processes.

Figure 2. Survey responses segmented by the industry sector.

Table 1. Survey questions and summarised results.

Question		Response (%)
1	How do you rate the ability of your organisation to track product changes throughout the product life cycle? Rated from good (1) to significant difficulty (5)	Options	11	21	31	41	51
		Results	181	251	221	321	31
2	How easy is it to search for product information? Rated from easy (1) to difficult (5)	Options	11	21	31	41	51
		Results	31	241	361	251	121
3	How does inaccurate product information impact your business? Response considered problem frequency and impact: rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	311	471	221
		Impact	641	361	01
4	The flow of product information from one information system to others causes problems? Response considered problem frequency and impact: rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	341	491	171
		Impact	341	561	101
5	Instances of duplicate product information exist in our systems? Response considered problem frequency and impact: rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	221	391	391
		Impact	241	541	221
6	Discrepancies in product information exist between our records and those of our customers? Response considered problem frequency and impact: rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	111	381	511
		Impact	231	451	321
7	Discrepancies in product information exist between our records and those of our suppliers? Response considered problem frequency and impact: Rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	141	441	421
		Impact	271	541	191
8	Rules for managing the allocation of important configuration information to new or modified products are sometimes ambiguous? Rated from agree (1) to disagree (3)	Options	11	21	31
		Results	411	371	221
9	Deficiencies in workforce skills contribute to discrepancies in product information? Response considered problem frequency and impact: rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	281	361	361
		Impact	411	471	121
10	Inconsistent product terminology causes problems for our organisation? Response considered problem frequency and impact: rated high-medium-low		High	Medium	Low
		Frequency	241	321	441
		Impact	191	471	341
11	Top five issues: Rated greatest (1) to least concern (5)	Options	1	21	31	41	51
	Inaccurate product information		321	241	291	121	31
	Product change process		241	371	221	121	51
	Product information flow between systems		271	251	201	171	101
	Product information search		141	241	271	241	121
	Product duplication		71	171	141	121	511

Table 2. Sector-specific responses made in response to industry survey.

Industry	Product life (Years)	Design variation between different production batches of the same products (%)	Overall through-life design change (%)	Variation at end of life between initially common products (%)	Comments
Rail	30–40	70–80	Not known	Not known	High levels of technological change mean that electronics products are often manufactured for five years. During this time, changes will be made to the design mostly triggered by changes to supplier parts
Civil aerospace	30–40	Not known	30–40	20–25	These design changes arise due to the need to upgrade the avionics, engines and ‘refresh’ the internal trim and seats
Defence aerospace	30–40	20	Not known	20–25	The design difference between aircrafts of the same specification produced as separate batches arises mainly due to changes in software and electronics components
Gas turbines	30–40	Can be as high as 100%	40–50	Not known	As much as 100% difference can be experienced between different versions of the same product – similar to the design variation between different versions of mobile phones (version 1, 2, 3, etc.).
Nuclear power plant	40–60	Not known	25%	Not known	The main component areas that require ‘refreshing’ are the reactor vessel heads, pumps and steam turbines. Electronic/electrical elements also require replacement due to obsolescence

Figure 3. Problem-solving behaviour demonstrated by maintenance engineers.

Figure 4. Potential future applications architecture.

Table 3. Inputs made by the different sources utilised by the authors in this work.

Requirement	Identified with responses to these questions in the industry survey	Developed in response to these issues from industry specialists	Informed by this referenced literature
1	1,3	1: Inaccurate product information	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Millson and Wilemon (2002), Eckert et al. (2009), Jarratt et al. (2011), Ouertani et al. (2011), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005)
2	4,6,7	2: The difficulty of managing the product change process	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Rachuri et al. (2008), Chandrasegaran et al. (2013), Barki and Pinsonneault (2005), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005), Wasmer, Staub, and Vroom (2011), Corella, Rosalen, and Simarro (2013)
3	8	1: Inaccurate product information	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007); Srinivasan 2011), Corella, Rosalen, and Simarro (2013)
4	1,2,3,9	2: The difficulty of managing the product change process	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Millson and Wilemon (2002), Barki and Pinsonneault (2005), Jarratt et al. (2011), Ouertani et al. (2011), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005)
		4: The time spent searching for product information
5	5,8,10	1: Inaccurate product information	Gerritsen et al. (2011), Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Ouertani et al. (2011), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005), Wasmer, Staub, and Vroom (2011), Corella, Rosalen, and Simarro (2013)
		5: Duplicate product information
6	3,8	2: The difficulty of managing the product change process	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Millson and Wilemon (2002), Eckert et al. (2009), Jarratt et al. (2011), Ouertani et al. (2011), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005)
7	4,10	3: The flow of product information between systems	Gerritsen et al. (2011), Barki and Pinsonneault (2005), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005), Wasmer, Staub, and Vroom (2011), Corella, Rosalen, and Simarro (2013)
8	8,9	2: The difficulty of managing the product change process	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Barki and Pinsonneault (2005), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005), Corella, Rosalen, and Simarro (2013)
		5: Duplicate product information
9	6,7	3: The flow of product information between systems	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Rachuri et al. (2008), Chandrasegaran et al. (2013), Burgess, McKee, and Kidd (2005), Wasmer, Staub, and Vroom (2011), Corella, Rosalen, and Simarro (2013)
10	2,3	2: The difficulty of managing the product change process	Jun, Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis (2007), Millson and Wilemon (2002), Eckert et al. (2009), Jarratt et al. (2011), Ouertani et al. (2011)
		4: The time spent searching for product information

Jun, H-B., D. Kiritsis, and P. Xirouchakis. 2007. “Research Issues on Closed-loop PLM.” Computers in Industry 58: 855–868. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2007.04.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Millson, M., and D. Wilemon. 2002. “The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success.” Industrial Marketing Management 31: 1–23. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00126-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eckert, C., O. de Weck, R. Keller, and P. J. Clarkson. 2009. “Engineering Change: Drivers, Sources, and Approaches in Industry.” Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'09). Stanford, CA, USA (4): 47–58.

 Google Scholar

Jarratt, T. A. W., C. M. Eckert, N. M. H. Caldwell, and P. J. Clarkson. 2011. “Engineering Change: An Overview and Perspective on the Literature.” Research in Engineering Design 22 (2): 103–124. doi: 10.1007/s00163-010-0097-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ouertani, M. Z., S. Baïna, L. Gzara, and G. Morel. 2011. “Traceability and Management of Dispersed Product Knowledge During Design and Manufacturing.” Computer-Aided Design 43 (5): 546–562. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2010.03.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burgess, T. F., D. McKee, and C. Kidd. 2005. “Configuration Management in the Aerospace Industry: A Review of Industry Practice.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (3): 290–301. doi: 10.1108/01443570510581880

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rachuri, S., E. Subrahmanian, A. Bouras, S. J. Fenves, S. Foufou, and R. D. Sriram. 2008. “Information Sharing and Exchange in the Context of Product Lifecycle Management: Role of Standards.” Computer Aided Design 40 (7): 789–800. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2007.06.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chandrasegaran, S. K., K. Ramani, R. D. Sriram, B. A. HorváthI, R. F. Harik, and W. Gao. 2013. “The Evolution, Challenges, and Future of Knowledge Representation in Product Design Systems.” Computer-Aided Design 45 (2): 204–228. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2012.08.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barki, H., and A. Pinsonneault. 2005. “A Model of Organizational Integration, Implementation Effort, and Performance.” Organisation Science 16 (2): 165–179. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0118

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wasmer, A., G. Staub, and R. W. Vroom. 2011. “An Industry Approach to Shared, Cross-organisational Engineering Change Handling - The Road Towards Standards for Product Data Processing.” Computer-Aided Design 43 (5): 533–545. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2010.10.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Corella, V., R. C. Rosalen, and D. M. Simarro. 2013. “SCIF-IRIS Framework: A Framework to Facilitate Interoperability in Supply Chains.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26 (1–2): 67–86. doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2012.681912

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Srinivasan, V. 2011. “An Integration Framework for Product Lifecycle Management.” Computer-Aided Design 43 (5): 464–478. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2008.12.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gerritsen, B., W. Gielingh, W. Dankwort, and R. Anderl. 2011. “Frameworks and Technologies for Exchanging and Sharing Product Life Cycle Knowledge.” Computer-Aided Design 43 (5): 459–463. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar