Process design for the management of changes in ...

CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cirpj

Process design for the management of changes in manufacturing: Toward a Manufacturing Change Management process J. Koch *, A. Gritsch 1, G. Reinhart Institute for Machine Tools and Industrial Management, TUM, Munich, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Available online 28 June 2016

The efficient and effective management of changes in manufacturing constitutes a key success factor for industrial enterprises in a highly dynamic world. Despite its undoubted importance, the management of manufacturing changes as a dedicated field of research has rarely been a focus of engineering science. However, other fields of research, such as Engineering Change Management (ECM) or continuous factory planning, investigate similar topics (ECM) in a different domain (Product Development) or possess the same object of observation (manufacturing/factories) focusing on different approaches (factory planning). Based on the broad basis of literature available in these fields, a dedicated process for the management of changes in manufacturing – an MCM process – is designed. Guided by the Design Research Methodology (DRM), a total of 42 processes and related process requirements have been comparatively analyzed for the MCM process design. In addition to further detailed analyses of process stages, the article elaborates on the validation approach and results as well as the derived need for further research in the field of Manufacturing Change Management (MCM). ß 2016 CIRP.

Keywords: Manufacturing Change Management Engineering Change Management Factory planning Reference process

Introduction Despite the undoubted importance of changeability in manufacturing, the management of changes in manufacturing constitutes a continuously growing challenge for manufacturing companies [1,2]. Changeability has become and remains a key characteristic of factories, exploiting known change enablers such as modularity, scalability, or mobility, just to name a few [3,4]. Innumerable publications investigated the phenomenon of changeability and closely related subsets such as flexibility, transformability, adaptability, or re-configurability (e.g., [5–9]). These are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘ilities’’ [8,10] and describe inherent properties of a production system [11]. Also, several approaches have been proposed to model, analyze, and evaluate those ‘‘ilities’’ (e.g., [12–14]) as well as to consider them for planning change measures in production systems (e.g., [15–17]). At the same time, the development of approaches to methodologically cope with manufacturing changes – i.e. to actually capitalize on the changeability of factories – has been rather neglected.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 89 289 15500. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Koch). 1 Angela Gritsch wrote her master’s thesis at iwb under the supervision of the corresponding author. She contributed to this work supporting the literature survey and analysis as well as the design of the proposed MCM process. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.04.010 1755-5817/ß 2016 CIRP.

Until today, only very few approaches are available in scientific literature actually dealing with the management of changes in manufacturing (cf., for example, [18–20]). Moreover, some research has been conducted on continuous factory planning approaches (cf., for example, [21–23]). In contrast, extensive literature is available in the domain of engineering design, providing numerous concepts for the management of product changes, usually referred to as Engineering Change Management (ECM) [24]. Here, especially enterprises need to comply with configuration and quality management standards such as ISO 10007 or ISO 9001 [25], while also dealing with an increasing product complexity in a world of ever faster changing customer needs, necessitated the development of suitable concepts for ECM [26]. In the domain of manufacturing, similar challenges have to be addressed today. An increasingly dynamic manufacturing environment, a general compulsion for cost-efficiency and a growing complexity of factories [27] cause more and more changes in manufacturing (cf., e.g., [28]). For engineering research, this fact raises the question of how to efficiently and effectively deal with manufacturing changes – i.e., how to avoid time-consuming laborious iterations and rework, missing or misrouting of information, and unsystematic work. Key terms In order to clarify the relevant terminology for this research, crucial terms and concepts are described in the following section.

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

11

Manufacturing Change Management (MCM)

MCM process and ECM process

Although some scientific literature is available on the management of manufacturing changes, the term ‘‘MCM’’ is barely discussed. While Aurich et al. [18], Ro¨ßing [19], and also Malak [29] adapt ECM terminology and refer to ‘‘engineering changes in manufacturing’’, ProSTEP iViP [30] are among the first to introduce the term ‘‘MCM’’ and describe it as ‘‘information management between planning and production’’ in their latest publication [31]. In order to gain further clarity on MCM, Koch et al. [32] proposed a definition of MCM based on two broadly acknowledged definitions of ECM by Lindemann and Reichwald [33] and Jarratt et al. [34] (see section ‘‘Engineering Change Management’’). This shall also be used for the research at hand. MCM is defined as ‘‘organizing and controlling the process of making alterations in manufacturing, including all measures to avoid or frontload and efficiently plan, select, implement, and control manufacturing changes’’ [32].

A process is ‘‘a specific ordering of work activities across time and place, with a beginning, an end, and clearly identified inputs and outputs: a structure for action’’ [37] or ‘‘an organized group of related activities that work together to create a result of value’’ [38]. Following Pall [39], it can also be described as ‘‘a network of customer-supplier activities to produce results of value’’. According to Leech and Turner [40], an engineering change (or ECM) process is ‘‘a mini, highly constrained design process or project’’, which Jarratt et al. [25] confirm to be ‘‘perhaps the clearest description of the engineering change process’’. By this, the authors acknowledge projects to be unique processes as defined by DIN EN ISO 9000 [41], which on a detailed level are typically modeled as activity networks rather than linear processes [42,43]. By its very nature, the change management process in the domain of manufacturing (the MCM process) corresponds with the change management process in engineering design (the ECM process), even though they manage different types of changes – manufacturing changes vs. engineering changes. Based upon the aforementioned definitions and explanations, the term MCM process (ECM process) describes ‘‘a network of activities performed with the goal of managing manufacturing change (engineering change)’’. Among others, these activities comprise the planning, selection and implementation of changes within a factory system (MCM process) or for a product (ECM process).

Manufacturing change In manufacturing, various terms such as ‘‘modification’’, ‘‘adaptation’’, ‘‘transformation’’, or ‘‘reconfiguration’’ are often used synonymously when referring to a manufacturing change (e.g., [6,22,35,80,81]). Also, the term has been described regarding different characteristics such as the depth ([21,80]) or the cause of the change (e.g., [27]). According to Westka¨mper et al. [82], changes in manufacturing can be described as a change in characteristics of a change object compared to its previous state, while Klemke [35] defines change as ‘‘required change of elements in a factory and/or their relations in order to implement an alternative action’’. Based on these understandings and taking into account the prevalent definition of the related term ‘‘engineering change’’ [34,36], the following definition of the term ‘‘manufacturing change’’ is proposed: A manufacturing change is an alteration made to the factory system or its elements. The change can be of any size or type, involve any number of people and take any length of time. Common examples of manufacturing changes are layout adaptations, reconfigurations of manufacturing resources, modifications of assembly processes or corrections of assembly instructions. Engineering Change Management Two broadly acknowledged definitions of ECM are available. Lindemann and Reichwald [33] describe ECM as ‘‘all measures to avoid or frontload and efficiently plan, select, implement and control engineering changes’’. More generally, Jarratt et al. [34] define ECM as ‘‘the organizing and controlling of this process [of making alterations to a product]’’ in their review of engineering change literature. Based on these, ECM refers to organizing and controlling the process of making alterations to a product. This includes the totality of measures to avoid and specifically frontload as well as efficiently plan, select, process, and control engineering changes. Engineering change Jarratt et al. [36] provide the following definition for an engineering change, which reflects the most acknowledged definitions of this term [34]: ‘‘An engineering change is an alteration made to parts, drawings, or software that have already been released during the product design process. The change can be of any size or type; the change can involve any number of people and take any length of time.’’ Common examples for engineering changes are variations of a product material or an alteration of a component drawing.

Research design Research objective The objective of this paper is the design of a general MCM process to support an efficient and effective management of manufacturing changes. Closely following Blessing and Chakrabarti [44], the activity of designing a process is understood as actually generating and developing a new process. This research seeks to contribute to manufacturing science and industrial practice in two ways: by proposing a rigorous MCM process regarding process content and sequence, and by creating a basis for a subsequent development of a detailed process design, comprising activities, deliverables, and their interdependencies – the actual activity network of the MCM process (cf., e.g., [45]). Along with this, the MCM process derived in this paper could provide a thorough basis for the future development of a norm or standard for MCM (similar to the industrial norm for ECM published by Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. [46]). Research methodology and structure of this article Our research is based on the Design Research Methodology (DRM) with its four-staged DRM framework as proposed by Blessing and Chakrabarti [44] and has been guided by the following research questions:  Which fields of research provide relevant input for designing a general MCM process?  Which process stages are required within a general MCM process?  How does a general MCM process advance the state of the art? To answer these questions, first, the research objective of designing a general MCM process (stage 1) has been clarified. Second, an extensive survey of literature from 1980 until 2016 has been carried out supplemented by a structured keyword sieve as proposed by Webster and Watson [47]. The focus was on MCM and

12

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

MCM-related processes in order to identify relevant fields of research and usable input for designing a general MCM process (stage 2 – descriptive study I). Third, a general MCM process is suggested based on a comparative analysis of MCM and MCMrelated processes, relevant requirements for the MCM process design, and several interviews with industrial experts (stage 3 – prescriptive study). Finally, the results are validated applying four complementary approaches: a review against the MCM requirements, a web-based survey, expert interviews, and academicindustrial case studies (stage 4 – descriptive study II). State of the art Up to date, MCM as a dedicated research topic has rarely been a focus of engineering science. The few publications in this field deal with basic procedures and processes for MCM [18,19,29,30,48], the integration of manufacturing flexibility in production change management approaches [20] and mechanisms of change impacts in manufacturing [49]. Besides these, Karl et al. [50] and Koch et al. [51] proposed basic planning approaches dedicated to one specific manufacturing change: the reconfiguration of manufacturing resources. In addition, Koch et al. [32] developed a context model for MCM, but do not specifically address an MCM process or process design. Overall, only the former publications actually explore process-oriented approaches for MCM providing suitable input for the research objective of designing an MCM process. Hence, these can be assigned to the research field of MCM. Beyond this modest basis on MCM, the survey of literature further yielded multiple MCM-related processes. These can be clustered into additional fields of research considered relevant for the following reasons:  Factory planning: same object of observation compared to MCM (i.e., factories/manufacturing); investigation of process-oriented approaches for the planning of factories  Continuous factory planning: same object of observation compared to MCM (i.e., factories/manufacturing); investigation of process-oriented approaches for the identification of needs for factory planning  ECM: investigation of change processes for a different domain (Product Development) Together with MCM, these fields of research constitute the framework for the state of the art, the subsequent comparative literature analysis, and the design of a general MCM process. The following sections address the state of the art for processes and process-oriented approaches, clustered into the four fields of research, relevant requirements toward MCM, and adjacent or partly related fields of research. Manufacturing Change Management The few publications mentioned before, which deal with manufacturing changes, all directly transfer the concept of ECM to the domain of manufacturing [18,19,29,30,48]. In this context, Aurich et al. [18], Ro¨ßing [19], Malak [29], and ProSTEP iViP [30] suggest a purely ECM-based process for the management of manufacturing changes. Available approaches for factory planning, continuous factory planning as well as different ECM process concepts remain unconsidered for the process design. In contrast, Stanev et al. [20] derive a high-level production change management process based on industrial business scenarios that contemplate ‘‘the integration of flexibility measurements into the change management process’’. Again, existing literature on comparable change processes or similar approaches that could provide valuable input for the process design have not been taken into account.

Factory planning The field of factory planning does not cover the management of manufacturing changes, but ‘‘planning of a factory on a so-called greenfield site’’, ‘‘brownfield planning’’, and ‘‘re-planning’’ (sometimes also referred to as ‘‘brownfield planning’’), which applies for existing factories [52]. Schenk [53] also points out that factory planning and operation are closely connected with a creative planning process for adaptations that might arise at any time due to changing requirements [53]. Hence, available approaches might provide valuable input for the planning and implementation of manufacturing changes. Indeed, an abundance of factory planning approaches is available in literature specifically focusing on planning processes. Covering the past 30 years, nine publications have been chosen exemplarily for analysis. Within these publications, Kettner et al. [54], REFA [55], Bullinger and Ammer [56], Aggteleky [57], Wiendahl [58], Dohms [59], Schenk et al.[83], and Schulze [60] suggest differently detailed factory planning processes with varying priorities regarding the subject matter. For example, Aggteleky [57] and Wiendahl [58] focus on comprehensive planning, while Dohms [59] deals with the utilization of controlling variables in factory planning. In contrast, Bergholz [61] investigates the application of workflows in factory planning, and VDI [52] provides a standardized, high-level norm on factory planning. However, a common and distinct focus of the factory planning processes is on rough, detailed, and implementation planning stages. Continuous factory planning In recent years, new concepts have been developed to better leverage the changeability of factories. Building on the idea of adapting and utilizing control-loops to monitor the need for change in an operating factory and to plan resulting changes, these concepts have become known as ‘‘continuous manufacturing planning’’ (cf., for example, [21,62]). Consequently, available publications with a focus on planning processes and control loops might add beneficial input for designing an MCM reference process. Felix [63] was one of the first to understand a factory planning process rather as a control loop than a sequenced process. Based on Aggteleky [57], the author introduces a modified cycle for factory planning, which has been extended with, inter alia, a key figure analysis to capitalize on process experience. Cisek [64] focuses on rough planning and adds a monitoring module for the identification of adaptation needs for the factory structure and a cost-based valuation. Similarly, Nofen [22] integrates a control loop with a so called ‘‘change monitor’’ into the factory planning process in order to identify and analyze the need for change in a factory. Nyhuis et al. [62] also develop a control-loop based concept for the identification of needs for change in factory systems. The approach combines the identification of a need for change, changeability of the factory system, and internal as well as external change drivers, but lacks a specific integration in the factory planning process. Wagner [65] modifies the described control-loop concept for production stages and adds, inter alia, a temporal dimension (for short- and long-term planning) and software support. PachowFrauenhofer [66] integrates the control-loop concept into a planning approach focusing on the design and specification of changeability, while Azab et al. [21] slightly adapt the concept to enable the involvement of suppliers. Klemke [35] finally focuses on utilizing the control-loop concept for the identification and valuation of needs for change as an input for planning the systemic changeability of factories. That is, all major publications about continuous factory planning specifically address the control-loop

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

concept, its utilization for monitoring factories, and the identification of required adaptations. Engineering Change Management With more than 400 publications [24], of which multiple focus on ECM processes, this field of research yields profound knowledge about processes for the management of product changes (engineering changes). Two of the first publications dealing with basic approaches for ECM are [67] and Dale [68]. These have been advanced by other authors considering interdisciplinary teams, change impacts [69], and the identification of changes [70]. Based on that, Reichwald et al. [71], Kleedo¨rfer [72], and Assmann [73] developed an integrated view on ECM processes incorporating organization, management, methods, tools, and people. In addition, the usage of experienced-based knowledge was considered more important and included in the process. In the following years, many other authors developed similar processes for ECM (e.g., [25,74,75]). These differ slightly regarding their emphases such as efficiency and effectiveness [74] or change risk analysis and chance success evaluation [25]. More recently, Wickel et al. [76] derived an ECM reference process based on seven industrial case studies and selected literature, highlighting the limited utilization of knowledge management and control in industrial ECM processes. Altogether, the publications on ECM processes considered for this research propose specific process stages for the management of changes in the domain of Product Development, but do not address MCM. Process requirements Within all four fields of research, authors provide numerous, partly congruent requirements for their specific processes or process-oriented approaches. Within the publications, these usually form the basis for both, process design and process validation. In general, four requirements relevant for all of these fields can be observed: a holistic view, transparency and traceability, practicability, and in this context the general (enterprise-independent) applicability of the approach. Besides these general process requirements, differing foci can be found within the four fields of research, which shall be highlighted exemplarily: Publications on factory planning mainly focus on basic requirements such as a systemic view [60,61], economic efficiency [54,60], or the cross-functional coordination and consideration of interfaces [54,56]. In continuous factory planning, consideration of change drivers and their impacts [35], or a fast and timely reaction on changes [22] are emphasized. In contrast, publications on ECM highlight the requirements of change cause and impact analysis [69,71,77], change classification [68,78], change avoidance by knowledge management [73,77] as well as process-orientation and -integration [72,73,78]. For MCM, requirements suggested by Ro¨ßing [19] and Stanev et al. [20] essentially coincide with the aforementioned requirements, especially with the ones for ECM.

MCM

Change identification

Solution finding

Adjacent or partly related fields of research Besides the four main fields of research identified as relevant for the design of the MCM process, adjacent or partly related fields of research should also be mentioned here. These are, in particular, ramp-up management, total productive maintenance, lean management, organizational change management, and simultaneous engineering. However, for the design of an MCM process, these are not considered in the following, but might be beneficial for further research on specific MCM activities or supportive methods and tools. Designing the MCM process The MCM process is designed based on an extensive analysis and comparison of 42 processes from literature, a workshop on MCM with a group of experts for the management of engineering and manufacturing changes (10 participants), and several, subsequent expert interviews. Allocated to the four fields of research, the distribution of processes reflects the amount of available and relevant literature: MCM (4), factory planning (10), continuous factory planning (8), and ECM (20). This also ensures a balanced ratio between change management (i.e., MCM and ECM; 24 processes in total) and planning of factories (i.e., factory planning and continuous factory planning; 18 processes in total). For the process design, first, a dedicated reference process for each of the four fields of research is derived by comparative analysis. Together, these reference processes contain the comprehensive content required for a literature-based MCM process design. Conducting a second comparative analysis, the reference processes are merged to a preliminary MCM process. In addition, a further review is conducted on process requirements proposed in the aforementioned literature. The results of this analysis are then merged with MCM and MCM process requirements derived in the expert interviews. In the last and final step, the preliminary MCM process is matched with the requirements and advanced to the final MCM process. Literature-based reference process design Figs. 1–4 show the results of the detailed comparative analysis of the processes within the four fields of research. The color code indicates the level of accordance to the respective reference process on a five-point scale (from ‘‘not considered’’ to ‘‘fully considered’’, see Fig. 1), which depends on the amount of information provided in the respective source (from ‘‘not considered in text or figures’’ to ‘‘description of the process stage and its content in text and/or figures’’). In the research field of MCM (see Fig. 1), the four processes complement each other with a partial overlap. The reference process comprises six stages, of which each is covered by at least two processes in literature. The factory planning processes almost completely correspond with each other in the first four stages, while only half of them also address the implementation stage and only few consider a final stage (knowledge management & control;

Decision

Implementation planning

Rößing (2007) Stanev et al. (2008) Malak (2013) ProSTEP iViP (2014)

Relevance: Not considered

13

Fully considered Fig. 1. Reference process for MCM.

Implementation

Knowledge management & control

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

14

Factory planning Preparation

Rough planning

Detailed planning

Implementation planning

Implementation

Knowledge management & control

Kettner et al. (1980) REFA (1985) Bullinger (1986) Aggteleky (1987) Wiendahl (1996) Dohms (2001) Schenk et al. (2004) Bergholz (2005) VDI 5200 (2011) Schulze (2013)

Fig. 2. Reference process for factory planning.

Continuous factory planning

Latent need for change

Change identification

Preparation

Rough planning

Detailed planning

Implementation planning

Implementation

Implementation

Knowledge management & control

Felix (1998) Cisek (2005) Nofen (2006) Nyhuis et al. (2010) Wagner (2012) Pachow-Fraunh. (2012) Azab et al. (2013) Klemke (2014)

Fig. 3. Reference process for continuous factory planning.

ECM

Latent need for change

Change identification

Solution finding

Evaluation & Decision

Change planning

DIN 199 – Part 4 Dale (1982) Maull et al. (1992) Hiller (1997) Conrat Niemerg (1997) Reichwald et al. (1998) Kleedörfer (1998) Terwiesch & Loch (1999) Assmann (2000) Rivière et al. (2002) Rouibah & Caskey (2003) Jarrat (2005) Tavcar & Duhovnik (2005) Lee et al. (2006) Belener (2008) Schuh et al. (2008) Ström et al. (2009) Köhler (2009) VDA ECM (2010) Wickel et al. (2014)

Fig. 4. Reference process for ECM.

see Fig. 2). All processes for continuous factory planning coincide for the first process stages (see Fig. 3); following stages such as implementation planning and implementation are only considered by few authors. In contrast, those processes put less emphasis on the preceding stages compared to the other processes. In the research field of ECM, the processes share a common focus on process stages for change identification, solution finding, evaluation and decision, and implementation. Most consider a final process stage (knowledge management & control); however, some contemplate distinct stages for a latent need for change and for change planning. On the whole, the comparative analysis shows that a dedicated reference process can be derived for each field of research showing a specific pattern for its process design. The results demonstrate how different authors and publications, also over time, coincide and agree on similar or even the same process stages – but also

how partly complementary focal points have been set for the different process designs. Applying a further comparative analysis of the four research field specific reference processes, a preliminary MCM process has been derived and refined toward a literature-based MCM process. Similar to the previous analyses, the results provide further insights into process structures and contents – i.e. the process design (see Fig. 5). In total, the reference processes consider nine different process stages, which are all part of at least two reference processes. Out of these nine stages, four (equivalent to about 44%) are part of three reference processes and two (about 22%) even of all four. The reference processes for continuous manufacturing planning and ECM especially emphasize the early stages (for example, latent need for change, change identification); however, the factory and manufacturing related reference processes have a strong focus on rough, detailed, and implementation planning. The rather late

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19 Change identification

MCM

Solution finding

Factory planning Continuous manufacturing planning

Decision

Implementation planning

Implementation

Knowledge management & control Knowledge management & control

Preparation

Rough planning

Detailed planning

Implementation planning

Implementation

Rough planning

Detailed planning

Implementation planning

Implementation

Latent need for change

Change identification

Preparation

Latent need for change

Change identification

Solution finding

Evaluation & Decision

Change planning

Preliminary MCM process

Latent need for change

Change identification

Solution finding

Evaluation & Decision

Rough planning

Literature-based MCM process

Latent need for change

Change identification

Solution finding

Evaluation & Decision

ECM

15

Detailed planning

Change planning

Implementation

Knowledge management & control

Implementation planning

Implementation

Knowledge management & control

Implementation planning

Implementation

Knowledge management & control

Fig. 5. Derivation of the literature-based MCM process.

stage for implementation is considered important by all reference processes; the final stage for knowledge management & control is part of the MCM and ECM reference process and only mentioned by the factory planning reference process. Overall, none of the nine process stages is insignificant enough to be neglected for designing an MCM process. However, aiming to rather support the management of manufacturing changes than general factory planning, the process stages for rough planning and detailed planning are combined into one stage (change planning) for the literature-based MCM process. The resulting MCM process comprises eight stages, which are thoroughly reflected in the different reference processes of the fields of research considered for this research.

Literature-based MCM process

Latent need for change

Change identification

Solution finding

Analysis of the literature-based MCM process In order to gain further insights into the process design of the literature-based MCM process and its correspondence with former MCM and MCM-related processes in literature, an in-depth analysis has been undertaken, ranking all processes considered within this paper against the eight stages of the literature-based MCM process (see Fig. 6). It was revealed on a detailed level of resolution, for which process stages and to what extent the different processes in literature actually correspond with the literature-based MCM process. These findings also indicate a potential availability of references and further detailed information for the different process stages.

Evaluation & Decision

Change planning

MCM

Rößing (2007) Stanev et al. (2008) Malak (2013) ProSTEP iViP (2014) Kettner et al. (1980) REFA (1985)

Factory planning

Bullinger (1986) Aggteleky (1987) Wiendahl (1996) Dohms (2001) Schenk et al. (2004) Bergholz (2005) VDI 5200 (2011) Schulze (2013)

Continuous factory planning

Felix (1998) Cisek (2005) Nofen (2006) Nyhuis et al. (2010) Wagner (2012) Pachow-Fraunh. (2012) Azab et al. (2013) Klemke (2014) DIN 199 – Part 4 Dale (1982) Maull et al. (1992) Hiller (1997) Conrat Niemerg (1997) Reichwald et al. (1998) Kleedörfer (1998) Terwiesch & Loch (1999)

ECM

Assmann (2000) Rivière et al. (2002) Rouibah & Caskey (2003) Jarrat (2005) Tavcar & Duhovnik (2005) Lee et al. (2006) Belener (2008) Schuh et al. (2008) Ström et al. (2009) Köhler (2009) VDA ECM (2010) Wickel et al. (2014)

Relevance: Not considered

Fully considered Fig. 6. Analysis of the literature-based MCM process.

Implementation planning

Implemenation

Knowledge management & control

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

16

It was found that none of the processes analyzed covers all aspects and process stages, which are relevant for a comprehensive, thorough MCM process. Excluding Reichwald et al. [71] and Assmann [73], all processes lack at least one or more process stages of the derived MCM process; however, the results also prove a general consistency of the processes with certain process stages. In addition, the different priorities regarding scope and content of the processes can be identified easily. The resulting ‘‘pattern’’ in Fig. 6 visualizes not only the origins of the MCM process stages, but also provides first evidence regarding the validity of the literaturebased MCM process. MCM process design In order to further enhance the literature-based MCM process to the final MCM process, the process requirements proposed in the aforementioned literature have been reviewed, clustered, aggregated, and categorized. The categories describe specific aspects considered relevant for an overall effectiveness of MCM and an MCM process in particular. In the next step, the results have been matched with the requirements toward an MCM process, which are considered relevant in industrial practice. These requirements have been derived in a workshop on MCM with a group of experts for the management of engineering and manufacturing changes (10 participants) as well as in subsequent, semi-structured expert interviews. The expert group represented six different companies from suppliers to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in, inter alia, automotive and mechanical engineering. The aggregated results comprising the proposed aspects of MCM effectiveness, main requirements, and their relevance as indicated by the four fields of research as well as by industry are listed in Table 1. Besides these aspects of MCM effectiveness,

efficiency has been broadly mentioned as the second major pillar of a successful MCM. Based on these requirements and further input from the expert interviews, the literature-based MCM process has been enhanced with further specifications of the different process stages (see Fig. 7). The refined MCM process still comprises eight stages, but in order to account for the requirements ‘‘proactivity’’ and ‘‘problem solving & analytic capabilities’’, especially the early process stages have been adapted. In addition, slight adjustments of the middle stages and the final stage have been performed taking the latter requirement into consideration throughout the whole MCM reference process. The resulting MCM process comprises eight stages as shown in Fig. 7.

Validation of the MCM process In addition to the comparative analysis of the MCM process against the MCM and MCM-related processes in literature (cf. section ‘‘Analysis of the literature-based MCM process’’), four complementary approaches have been chosen to validate the MCM process: requirements and logical checks, a web-based survey, several expert interviews, and academic-industrial case studies. Each of the four proved the general validity of the MCM process; together, these results create profound evidence and justification for a general validity of the MCM process proposed in this paper. In addition, the results also indicate a potential to further develop the MCM process regarding the level of detail provided for the process design, regarding its efficiency and effectiveness during application in industrial practice, and regarding a possible IT support in terms of workflow management and data handling.

Transparency & traceability

- Transparent approach - Clear responsibilities

Practicability & applicability

- Enterprise-independent applicability - Simplicity of method

Process orientation

- Coordination of activities and stakeholders - Information flow and communication support

Proactivity

- Change identification - Early change approval

Problem solving & analytic capabilities

- Cause & Impact analysis, change classification - Solution finding & consideration of production system properties

Knowledge management

- Archiving & tracing information - Control of success & lessons learned

Partly described

Fully described

Industry

- Systemic view - Interfaces (to e. g. other departements)

ECM

Holistic view

Continuous factory planning

Detailed requirements (examples)

Factory planning

MCM effectiveness (aspects)

MCM

Table 1 MCM effectiveness – aspects and detailed requirements.

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19 Literature-based MCM process

MCM process

17

Latent need for change

Change identification

Solution finding

Evaluation & Decision

Change planning

Implementation planning

Implementation

P0

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

Knowledge management & control

P7

Fig. 7. Derivation of the MCM process.

Requirements and logic-check based evaluation A detailed review of the designed MCM process against the MCM requirements (cf. Table 1) showed a general fulfillment of these, but also gives evidence for further improvements. The dedicated, clearly specified process stages constitute a solid base for an effective management of changes in manufacturing; but to foster its effectiveness, further support for, inter alia, information flow, communication, and a situation specific application of the MCM RP is required. Comparing the MCM RP with general strategic management processes as proposed by, for example, Colley [79], an accordance on a fundamental level becomes apparent. That means, both, process content (e.g., ‘‘problem definition’’, ‘‘defining alternatives’’ or ‘‘monitor results’’) and process sequence (from ‘‘examining goals’’ to ‘‘monitor results’’) correspond with the proposed MCM process. Web-based survey and expert interviews For the web-based survey on MCM conducted in 2015, completed questionnaires from more than 100 industrial experts (e.g., change managers, factory planners, production managers) were evaluated; of those, 54 provided valid data regarding the evaluation of the MCM process. The semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with practitioners of engineering and manufacturing change management, factory planning, and manufacturing operations. The companies represented are small, medium and large-scale enterprises, suppliers as well as OEMs in the following industries: automotive, mechanical engineering, medical technology, and aerospace. As a part of the web-based survey, the participants were asked to evaluate the applicability and completeness of the process

20%

15% 41%

7% 43%

4% 37%

stages of the MCM process in comparison to their own MCM activities. Fig. 8 visualizes the results. At least 80% of the companies confirm a rudimentary or full availability of the process stages. Starting from the third process stage, full availability raises from 50% (stage p2) to 74% (stage p6), but greatly decreases to 28% for the last stage, 33% for stage p0 and 44% for stage p1 respectively. These results are in line with the expert interviews, which confirmed the general validity and applicability of the MCM process with its eight process stages. Also, the interviewees stated the MCM process stages for conceptional problem solving, detailed change planning, and implementation planning to be utilized most in their companies. Also, they agreed upon the insufficient application of the first two process stages as well as the final process stage in industrial practice, indicating significant potential for improvement. These findings match the results of a study on ECM processes in industry, published by Wickel et al. [76] in 2014. Furthermore, specific topics have been agreed upon for future research: a more detailed and implementable MCM process design, the development of dedicated concepts and methods for the early and final process stages, and guidelines for an efficient and effective process deployment in industrial practice. In this context, appropriate interfaces and/or integration with ECM processes should also be addressed. Academic-industrial case studies For the academic-industrial case studies, three common events usually triggering manufacturing changes in the industry have been chosen to analyze the applicability of the MCM process: an increase in number of units produced by 20 percent; a new product launch on an existing manufacturing line; a potential launch of a new manufacturing technology (for example, a new welding technology). For each of these cases, the entire MCM process has

6%

4%

37%

33%

6%

11%

20% 61%

46%

n = 54

not available

33%

MCM process

P0

44%

50%

P1

P2

59%

57%

63%

74%

rudimentarily available 28%

P3

P4

P5

Fig. 8. Results of the web-based survey on the MCM process.

P6

P7

available

18

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19

been applied in workshop sessions with participants from academia and industry. Strengthening the results of the webbased survey and the expert interviews (cf. section ‘‘Web-based survey and expert interviews’’), these academic-industrial case studies demonstrated a fundamental applicability and a coherent, logical sequence of the MCM process. The early stages of the MCM process foster a proactive collection of information about events potentially inducing manufacturing changes; in these cases an increase in the number of units produced, a new product launch, etc. In turn, this enables an early identification of a required manufacturing change, the timely analysis and planning of required measures – leaving enough time for the subsequent change implementation. The process stages for conceptional problem solving and detailed change planning help to improve the quality of solution concepts for manufacturing changes and support decision processes in MCM. The last process stage of the MCM process standardizes and fosters the exchange of experiences regarding former and future manufacturing changes. Finally, the structured, clearly described MCM process increases transparency about the current change status and next steps to be conducted for a manufacturing change supporting, for example, the collaboration between departments (e.g., manufacturing planning, product development, sales) and the coordination of activities. Despite the successful application of the MCM process for the three case studies, all gave evidence that the greater the level of detail of the MCM process, the better its applicability and performance in practice.

Conclusion and outlook Although there have always been changes in manufacturing, an increasingly dynamic world intensifies their frequency of occurrence, while the growing complexity of factories and products intensifies their potential impact and complicates their management. Nevertheless, approaches for an efficient and effective management of manufacturing changes have rarely been in focus of scientific activities. In this context, the contribution of this paper to scientific literature and industrial practice is twofold: the proposition of a general, rigorous MCM process in terms of content and sequence, the provision of a thorough basis for a subsequent development of a detailed process design and the actual activity network of the MCM process. In combination, the proposed MCM process and the activity network might be used as a thorough basis for the development of a norm or standard for MCM. Starting with an extensive literature review on MCM and MCMrelated processes as well as concept and process requirements, several comparative analyses have been conducted. In total, four relevant fields of research for MCM (MCM, factory planning, continuous factory planning, and ECM) have been identified. For each of these fields, a dedicated reference process has been derived. Based on these and input from industrial practice, the general MCM process has been designed. This process comprises eight process stages, covering activities from proactive change cause management through conceptional problem solving and detailed change planning to evaluation & knowledge management. To validate the MCM process, four complementary approaches have been combined – requirements and logical checks, a webbased survey, expert interviews, and academic-industrial case studies. All revealed a general validity of the MCM process, but also yielded the need for further research. In particular, a detailed MCM activity network, specific methods and tools dedicated to the early and final process stages, and guidelines for an efficient and effective deployment of MCM are considered beneficial for a future Manufacturing Change Management.

Acknowledgments The German Research Foundation (DFG) funds this research and development project. The authors would like to thank the DFG for the generous support of the work described in this paper, resulting from subproject B5 ‘‘Cycle-oriented design of changeable manufacturing resources’’ in the framework of the Collaborative Research Center 768 (SFB 768) ‘‘Managing cycles in innovation processes-integrated development of product service systems based on technical products’’.

References [1] Westka¨mper, E., 2006, Factory Transformability: Adapting the Structures of Manufacturing, in Dashchenko AI, (Ed.) Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems and Transformable Factories: 21st Century Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 371–381. [2] Westka¨mper, E., 2007, Strategic Development of Factories Under the Influence of Emergent Technologies, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 56/1: 419–422. [3] Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritschow, G., Ulsoy, G., van Brussel, H., 1999, Recon-figurable Manufacturing Systems, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 48/2: 527–540. [4] Wiendahl, H.-P., Herna´ndez Morales, R., 2006, The Transformable Factory – Strategies, Methods and Examples, in Dashchenko AI, (Ed.) Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems and Transformable Factories: 21st century Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 383–393. [5] Sethi, A.K., Sethi, S.P., 1990, Flexibility in Manufacturing: A Survey, Int J Flex Manuf Syst, 2/4: 289–328. [6] ElMaraghy, H.A., 2009, Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems, Springer, London. [7] Fricke, E., Schulz, A.P., 2005, Design for Changeability (DfC): Principles to Enable Changes in Systems Throughout Their Entire Lifecycle, Syst Eng, 8/4.. [8] Ross, A.M., Rhodes, D.H., Hastings, D.E., 2008, Defining Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, Modifiability, and Robustness for Maintaining System Lifecycle Value, Syst Eng, 11/3. S.246–262. [9] Ryan, E.T., Jacques, D.R., Colombi, J.M., 2013, An Ontological Framework for Clarifying Flexibility-Related Terminology Via Literature Survey, Syst Eng, 16/ 1. S. 99-110. [10] de Weck, O.L., Roos, D., Magee, C.L., 2011, Engineering Systems: Meeting Human Needs in a Complex Technological World, MIT Press. [11] Bernardes, E.S., Hanna, M.D., 2009, A Theoretical Review of Flexibility, Agility and Responsiveness in the Operations Management Literature: Toward a Conceptual Definition of Customer Responsiveness, Int J Oper Prod Manag, 29/1: 30–53. [12] Chryssolouris, G., 1996, Flexibility and Its Measurement, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 45/2: 581–587. [13] Abele, E., Liebeck, T., Wo¨rn, A., 2006, Measuring Flexibility in Investment Decisions for Manufacturing Systems, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 5/1: 433–436. [14] Alexopoulos, K., Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., Gogos, P., Chryssolouris, G., 2007, Quantifying the Flexibility of a Manufacturing System by Applying the Transfer Function, Int J Comp Integr Manuf, 20/6: 538–547. [15] Wiendahl, H.-P., Heger, C.L., 2004, Justifying Changeability. A Methodical Approach to Achieving Cost Effectiveness, J Manuf Sci Prod, 6/1–2: 33–40. [16] Mourtzis, D., Alexopoulos, K., Chryssolouris, G., 2012, Flexibility Consideration in the Design of Manufacturing Systems: An Industrial Case Study, CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol, 5/4: 276–283. [17] Karl, F., Reinhart, G., 2015, Reconfigurations on Manufacturing Resources: Identification of Needs and Planning, Prod Eng, 1–12. ¨ nderungsmanagement in der Produk[18] Aurich, J.C., Ro¨ßing, M., Jaime, R., 2004, A tion. Am Beispiel der Einfu¨hrung einer Maschinen- und Betriebsdatenerfassung [Change Management in Production]. Z wirtsch Fabr, 99/7–8: 381–384. [19] Ro¨ßing, M., 2007, Technische A¨nderungen in der Produktion - Vorgehensweise zur systematischen Initialisierung, Durchfu¨hrung und Nachbereitung, [Engineering Changes in Production – Approach for the Systematic Initialization, Implementation and Follow-Up]. (dissertation). FBK, TU Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern. [20] Stanev, S., Krappe, H., Ola, H.A., Georgoulias, K., Papakostas, N., Chryssolouris, G., Ovtcharova, J., 2008, Efficient Change Management for the Flexible Production of the Future, J Manuf Technol Manag, 19/6: 712–726. [21] Azab, A., ElMaraghy, H.A., Nyhuis, P., Pachow-Frauenhofer, J., Schmidt, M., 2013, Mechanics of Change: A Framework to Reconfigure Manufacturing Systems, CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol, 6/2: 110–119. [22] Nofen, D., 2006, Regelkreisbasierte Wandlungsprozesse der modularen Fabrik, [Control-Loop Based Change Processes of the Modular Factory]. (dissertation). IFA, Universita¨t Hannover, Hannover. [23] Westka¨mper, E., von Briel, R., 2001, Continuous Improvement and Participative Factory Planning by Computer Systems, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 50/1: 347–352. [24] Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N.H.M., Clarkson, P.J., 2013, A Holistic Categorization Framework for Literature on Engineering Change Management, Syst Eng, 16/4: 473–505.

J. Koch et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 14 (2016) 10–19 [25] Jarratt, T., Clarkson, P.J., Eckert, C.M., 2005, Engineering Change, in Clarkson J, Eckert C, (Eds.) Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice. Springer, London, pp. 263–285. [26] Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., Zanker, W., 2004, Change and Customisation in Complex Engineering Domains, Res Eng Des, 15/1: 1–21. [27] Wiendahl, H.-P., ElMaraghy, H.A., Nyhuis, P., Za¨h, M.F., Wiendahl, H.-H., Duffie, N., Brieke, M., 2007, Changeable Manufacturing – Classification, Design and Operation, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 56/2: 783–809. [28] ElMaraghy, H., Azab, A., Schuh, G., Pulz, C., 2009, Managing Variations in Products, Processes and Manufacturing Systems, CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol, 58:441–446. [29] Malak, R., 2013, Methode zur softwarebasierten Planung technischer A¨nderungen in der Produktion, [Method for a Software Based Planning of Engineering Changes in Production]. (dissertation). FBK, TU Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern. [30] ProSTEP iViP e.V.. 2014, Manufacturing Change Management – Management ¨ nderungen in der Produktion, White Paper, Darmstadt. von A [31] ProSTEP iViP e.V.. 2015, Manufacturing Change Management – Management of Changes During Production. Recommendation, Darmstadt, . [32] Koch, J., Michels, N., Reinhart, G., 2015, Context Model Design for a ProcessOriented Manufacturing Change Management, Procedia CIRP – 48th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CMS) (Ischia, Italy), . [33] Lindemann U, Reichwald R, (Eds.) (1998), Integriertes A¨nderungsmanagementIntegrated Change ManagementSpringer, Berlin [u.a.]. [34] Jarratt, T., Eckert, C.M., Caldwell, N.H.M., Clarkson, P.J., 2011, Engineering Change: an Overview and Perspective on the Literature, Res Eng Des, 22/2: 103–124. [35] Klemke, T., 2014, Planung der systemischen Wandlungsfa¨higkeit von Fabriken, [Planning of the Systemic Changeability of Factories]. (dissertation). IFA, Universita¨t Hannover, Hannover. [36] Jarratt, T., Eckert, C.M., Clarkson, P.J., 2003, A Taxonomy of Change. Technical Report CUED/C-EDC/TR123, University of Cambridge. [37] Davenport, T.H., 1993, Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, US. [38] Hammer, M., 2001, Seven Insights About Processes, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Strategic Power in Process: From Ensuring Survival to Creating Competitive Advantage (Boston, MA), . [39] Pall, G.A., 1999, The Process-Centered Enterprise: The Power of Commitments, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton. [40] Leech, D.J., Turner, B.T., 1985, Engineering Design for Profit, Ellis Horwood, Halsted Press, Chichester, New York. [41] DIN EN ISO 9000. 2005, Quality Management Systems – Fundamentals and Vocabulary, Beuth, Berlin. [42] Browning, T.R., Fricke, E., Negele, H., 2006, Key Concepts in Modeling Product Development Processes, Syst Eng, 9/2: 104–128. [43] Browning, T.R., Ramasesh, R.V., 2007, A Survey of Activity Network-Based Process Models for Managing Product Development Projects, Prod Oper Manag, 16/2: 217–240. [44] Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A., 2009, DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, Dordrecht, NY. [45] Browning, T.R., 2009, The Many Views of a Process: Toward a Process Architecture Framework for Product Development Processes, Syst Eng, 12/1: 69–90. [46] Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V.. 2010, ECM Recommendation Part 0 (ECM), VDA 4965 – Part 0,, 2nd ed. Available at:http://www.vda.de/de/ publikationen/publikationen_downloads/index.html. [47] Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002, Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review, MIS Q, 26/2: xiii–xxiii. [48] Aurich, J.C., Cichos, D., 2014, Technische A¨nderungen in der Produktion. Planung und Steuerung mehrerer paralleler A¨nderungen [Engineering Changes in Production. Planning and Controlling of Several Parallel Changes]. Z wirtschaftlich Fabr, 109/6: 395–399. [49] Aurich, J.C., Malak, R.C., 2010, Auswirkungsmechanismen technischer A¨nderungen in der Fertigung. Einsatz regelbasierter Auswirkungsmechanismen zur Steigerung der Beherrschbarkeit technischer A¨nderungen in der mechanischen Fertigung [Mechanisms of Impacts of Engineering Changes in Manufacturing]. wt Werkstattstech Online, 100/1/2: 15–21. [50] Karl, F., Reinhart, G., Za¨h, M.F., 2012, Strategic Planning of Reconfigurations on Manufacturing Resources, Procedia CIRP – 45th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CMS), 608–613. [51] Koch, J., Maisenbacher, S., Maurer, M., Reinhart, G., Za¨h, M.F., 2014, Structural Modeling of Extended Manufacturing Systems – An Approach to Support Changeability by Reconfiguration Planning, Procedia CIRP – 47th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CMS), 142–147. [52] VDI. 2011, Factory Planning – Planning Procedures, vol. 03.100.99, No. 5200. Beuth, Berlin. [53] Schenk, M., 2014, Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb: Methoden fu¨r die wandlungsfa¨hige, vernetzte und ressourceneffiziente Fabrik, [Factory Planning and Operations – Methods for a Changeable, Connected and Resource-Efficient Factory]. VDI-Buch, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [54] Kettner, H., Schmidt, J., Greim, H.-R., 1984, Leitfaden der systematischen Fabrikplanung, [Guideline for Systematic Factory Planning]. Hanser, Mu¨nchen. [55] REFA. 1985, Methodenlehre der Planung und Steuerung – Netzplantechnik, Projektmanagement, Betriebssta¨ttenplanung, [Methods for Planning and Controlling. Part 5]. 4th ed. Hanser, Mu¨nchen. [56] Bullinger, H.-J., Ammer, D., 1986, Systematische Montageplanung: Handbuch fu¨r die Praxis, [Systematic Assembly Planning: a Guideline for Practice]. Hanser, Mu¨nchen, Wien.

19

[57] Aggteleky, B., 1987, Fabrikplanung: Werksentwicklung und Betriebsrationalisierung, [Factory Planning: Plant Development and Rationalization of Operations]. Carl Hanser, Mu¨nchen, Wien. [58] Wiendahl, H.-P., 1996, Grundlagen der Fabrikplanung [Basics of Factory Planning]. in Eversheim W, Schuh G, (Eds.) Betriebshu¨tte. Produktion und Management. VDI-Buch Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen, 7., vo¨llig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Springer, Berlin [u.a.], pp. 1–30. [59] Dohms, R., 2001, Methodik zur Bewertung und Gestaltung wandlungsfa¨higer, dezentraler Produktionsstrukturen, [Methodology for the Valuation and Design of Changeable, Decentralized Production Structures]. (dissertation). WZL, RWTH Aachen, Aachen. [60] Schulze, C.P., 2013, Planung und Bewertung von Fabrikstrukturen, [Planning and Evaluation of Factory Structures]. (dissertation). IFA, Universita¨t Hannover, Hannover. [61] Bergholz, M., 2006, Objektorientierte Fabrikplanung, [Object-Oriented Factory Planning]. (dissertation). WZL, RWTH Aachen, Aachen. [62] Nyhuis, P., Klemke, T., Wagner, C., 2010, Wandlungsfa¨higkeit - ein systemischer Ansatz [Changeability – A Systemic Approach]. in Nyhuis P, (Ed.) Wandlungsfa¨hige Produktionssysteme. GITO, Berlin, pp. 3–21. [63] Felix, H., 1998, Unternehmens- und Fabrikplanung. Planungsprozesse, Leistungen und Beziehungen, [Enterprise and Factory Planning. Planning Processes, Services and Relations]. REFA-Fachbuchreihe Betriebsorganisation/ Carl Hanser, Mu¨nchen. [64] Cisek, R., 2005, Planung und Bewertung von Rekonfigurationsprozessen in Produktionssystemen, [Planning and Valuation of Reconfiguration Processes in Production Systems]. (dissertation). IWB, TU Mu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen. [65] Wagner, C., 2012, Kontinuierliche Gestaltung skalierbarer Produktionsstufen, [Continuous Design of Scalable Production Stages]. (dissertation). IFA, Universita¨t Hannover, Hannover. [66] Pachow-Frauenhofer, J., 2012, Planung vera¨nderungsfa¨higer Montagesysteme, [Planning of Changeable Assembly Systems]. (dissertation). IFA, Universita¨t Hannover, Hannover. [67] DIN. 1981, Begriffe im Zeichnung- und Stu¨cklistenwesen - A¨nderungen, [Terms for Drawings and Part Lists. No. 199, Part 4]. Beuth, Berlin. [68] Dale, B.G., 1982, The Management of Engineering Change Procedure, Eng Manag Int, 1/3: 201–208. [69] Hiller, F., 1997, Ein Konzept zur Gestaltung von A¨nderungsprozessen in der Produktentwicklung, [A Concept for the Design of Change Processes in Product Development]. (dissertation). TU Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern. [70] Conrat, J.-I., 1998, A¨nderungskosten in der Produktentwicklung, [Costs of Change in Product Development]. (dissertation). Produktentwicklung, TU Mu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen. [71] Reichwald, R., Lindemann, U., Zanner, S., 1998, Perspektiven fu¨r ein integriertes A¨nderungsmanagement [Perspectives for an Integrated Change ¨ nderungsManagement]. in Lindemann U, Reichwald R, (Eds.) Integriertes A management. Springer, Berlin [u.a.], pp. 257–265. ¨ nderungsmanagement der Integrierten [72] Kleedo¨rfer, R.W., 1998, Prozeß- und A Produktentwicklung, [Process and Change Management for Integrated Product Development]. (dissertation). TU Mu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen. [73] Assmann, G., 2000, Gestaltung von A¨nderungsprozessen in der Produktentwicklung, [Design of Change Processes in Product Development]. (dissertation). Produktentwicklung, TU Mu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen.. [74] Terwiesch, C., Loch, C.H., 1999, Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders: The Case of the Climate Control System in Automobile Development, J Prod Innov Manag, 16/2: 160–172. [75] Tavcˇar, J., Duhovnik, J., 2005, Engineering Change Management in Individual and Mass Production, Robot Comput Integr Manuf, 21/3: 205–215. [76] Wickel, M., Chucholowski, N., Behncke, F., Lindemann, U., 2014, Comparison of Seven Company-Specific Engineering Change Processes, in Schabacker M, Gericke K, Sze´lig N, Vajna S, (Eds.) Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference 2013. 2014th ed. Springer Berlin, Berlin, pp. 125–136. [77] Ko¨hler, C., 2009, Technische Produkta¨nderungen - Analyse und Beurteilung von Lo¨sungsmo¨glichkeiten auf Basis einer Erweiterung des CPM/PPDAnsatzes, [Technical Product Changes – Analysis and Evaluation of Possible Solutions Based on an Extension of the CPM/PPD Approach]. (dissertation). Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakulta¨t III, Universita¨t des Saarlandes, Saarbru¨cken . ¨ nderungsmanagement modularer Produkte [78] Belener, P.M., 2008, Technisches A und Prozesse, [Engineering Change Management for Modular Products and Processes]. (dissertation). Ruhr-Universita¨t, Bochum. [79] Colley, J.L., 2007, Principles of General Management: The Art and Science of Getting Results Across Organizational Boundaries, Yale University Press, New Haven. [80] Herna´ndez Morales, R., 2002, Systematik der Wandlungsfa¨higkeit in der Fabrikplanung, [Systematic of the transformability in factory planning]. Dissertation. Universita¨t Hannover, Hannover. [81] Dashchenko, A.I., 2006, Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems and Transformable Factories. 21st century technologies., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [82] Westka¨mper, E., 2000, Kontinuierliche und partizipative Fabrikplanung [Continuous and participative factory planning]. wt Werkstattstechnik online, vol. 90(3). S92–S95. [83] Schenk, M., Wirth, S., 2004, Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb. Methoden fu¨r die wandlungsfa¨hige und vernetzte Fabrik, [Factory planning and factory operations. Methods for a transformable and interconnected factory]. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.