Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www . elsevier . com/locate/compind
a,
Switzerland
Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Logistics Systems Dynamics Group, Aberconway Building, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 7 September 2015
Received in revised form 24 April 2016 Accepted 3 May 2016
Available online 10 June 2016
Keywords:
Engineer-to-order Design automation
Knowledge-based engineering Product configuration Maturity model
regard
ed as
an
effecti
1. Introduction
ve
Fast and cost-efficient tendering andmeans
order execution processes are consideredto
as sources of competitive advantage in the achie
ve
engineer-to-order (ETO) sector [13].
lead
Since ETO products either have to be time
fully developed or adapted to customer and
specifications within tendering or order cost
fulfillment
[4,5], design-related tasksreduct
contribute to a substantial amount of ions
delivery lead times and costs. Approaches while
aiming at computerised automation of maint
tasks related to the design process, oftenaining
termed design automation or knowledge- , or
based engineering (KBE), are generallyeven
AB S T R AC
T
Short delivery
times
are
considered a
competitive
advantage in
the engineerto-order (ETO)
sector. Designrelated
tasks
contribute to a
substantial
amount
of
delivery times
and costs since
ETO products
have to be
either
fully
developed or
adapted
to
customer
specifications
[9] and
1*
Correspondi
ng author.
E-mail
addresses:
owillner@ethz.ch,
olga.willner@gmx.de
(O. Willner),
d
o
i
.
o
r
g
/
1
0
.
1
0
1
6
/
j
.
c
o
m
p
i
n
d.2016.05.003
0166-3615/
2016 Elsevier
B.V. All rights
reserved.
introd
uction
of
sales
config
urator
s,
which
consti
tutes
as an
eleme
nt of
desig
n
autom
ation,
contri
butes
additional research.
Well-established
concepts associat-ed
with maturity models
are relevant to these
issues, but the review
presented later in the
paper shows that
these have not been
adequately adapted
to
either
design
automation or ETO
situations.
Beyond
the
shortcomings
identified in the
literature, discussions
with
company
representatives
brought to light that
managers are
58
literature.
Elgh
[6]
and
core sub-disciplines
[10].
Typically, the automation of
The term design automation has its design processes for highly
origins in the electronics sector where itcustomized products is seen
has been used since the early 1970s toto encompass developing and
describe the automated design of circuits implementing the following
applications:
sales
and electronics chips
[37,38]. MoreIT
recently, the term has increasingly beenconfigurators
[11,44,45],
applied when referring to the automation
engineering or technical
of design-related tasks in the field of
mechanical
engineeringconfigurators [10,41,4446],
[6,7,10,13,16,39]. There exists no generalas well as the linking of
consensus on the definition of designthose with CAD systems
[9,10]. Although product
59
(e.g. [20,59,60]).
MMs
should
be
developed iteratively (step 3:
iterative
model
development). Our approach
consisted of two iterations.
In the first iteration, we
conceptually developed our
a-priori model based on the
requirements
we
had
previously derived from both
the literature review and
preliminary interviews with
company representatives. In
the second iteration, we
empirically refined
60
Table 1
Maturity-related literature in the realms of ETO and design automation.
Author
Title
Contents
ETO
Veldmann & Klingenberg
[64]
Applicability of the
Cederfeldt [17]
Conceptual
State-of-the-practice in
product configuration a
survey of 10 cases in the
Finnish industry
Design automation in
SMEs current state,
potential, need and
requirements
Planning design
automation a structured
method and supporting
tools
Design automation
Tiihonen et al. [66]
definition of process
maturity as level of task
and knowledge formalization
priori model
the model by means of a comparativeto
illustrate
case study with four ETO manufacturers the
study
(see
Table 2). At each of thescope and to
provide
our
companies, we conducted targeted
case
study
interviews following an interview
partners with a
guideline (see Appendix A). As part offramework
the interviews, we introduced our athat allowed
them
to
describe their
path towards
design
automation in
a
structured
and
comparable
manner. We
recorded all
interviews and
later reduced
Used
techniques
Empirical Conceptual
Performed
activities
Problem
identification
Problem identification and
motivation
Definition of target group
Section 1 (Introduction)
Section 2 (Related work and
state of the art)
hin-case
and
crosscase
thei analysis
r [67]. By
cont doing so,
ents we were
into able to
cate identify
gori common
es maturity
alon paths
g across
our the
five compani
- es. For
leve example,
l our data
anal showed
ysis that
fra product
me,
whi
ch
cont
ribu
tes
to
bot
h
wit
structure
s are
always
establish
ed before
sales or
even
engineeri
ng
configura
tors are
introduce
d.
As
emphasiz
ed in
Wendler
[19], the
develop
ment of a
meaningf
ul and
useful
MM
should
conclude
with
model
validatio
n
es.
T
BETA
a Company
bl
e
DELTA
High-rise
2
elevator
C
as
e
st
ALPHA
ud
y
GAMMA
co
m
1
Figures
of
2014
for
the
pa
division.
ni
250
n/a
2000
from universities/
universities of
applied sciences or
vocational training)
Application
Engineering (n/a;
bachelor degree in
mechanical/
electrical
engineering or
vocational training)
in total
4 interview participants
(Manager Engineering
Switzerland, Manager
Engineering China,
Director Product Line
Management,
Engineering Director);
12 h in total
1 interview
participant
(Director
Product Line
Management);
3 h in total
f20
14
fo
rth
esit
F
ig e.
ur
es
o
C
on
du
ct
ed
in
th
e
p
eriod
from
07/2013
03/2014.
4 Conducted
in
the
period
from
09/2014
12/2014.
62
Table 3
Participants of focus group and self-assessment workshops.
Company
Corporate
division
EPSILON
(industry-oriented research
firm specialized in design
automation)
ZETA
(large corporation offering a
broad range of ETO products)
ETA
1
Number of
employees
Turnover
a
in s
Self-assessment workshops
Design
Automation
n/a
Corporate
Technology
6000
n/a
Elevator
200
40
2 Conducted in 05/2015.
(step 4: model validation). As shown in Table 3, our approach for model purposes. The three categories
validation was twofold: First, we conducted focus group workshops with design strategies, processes and systems
automation experts. Second, we requested a company that had not participated in proposed in sterle
[69] were
the model development to conduct a self-assessment with our model. Based on
initially applied as dimensions. We
the workshop results, we further adjusted and refined the model.
opted for developing a multidimensional instead of a one4. maturity model for design automation
dimensional model. The results
obtained from multi-dimensional
As described in the methodology section, we selected an iterative approach
models are much more suited to
for developing the maturity model. This section describes how initially the aletting organizations gain awareness
priori model was designed, thereafter empirically refined with multiple case
of their strengths and weaknesses and
studies and finally validated. We believe that an alternative could have been the
providing guidance for improvements
development of a stage gate model [68] for design automation. However, stage [63]. Later, the model was extended
gate models are mainly applied in the context of new product development, and by the people dimension following
the conventionally used stages are not entirely suitable for describing sales and De Bruin and Rosemann [70] since
order execution processes in the ETO environment.
empirical evidence gained in the first
round of interviews revealed that the
mindset and abilities of employees
4.1. Development of the a-priori model
have a strong impact on the level of
design automation a company can
As a starting point, we developed a rough a-priori model (see Fig. 2). For the
achieve.
a-priori model, we drew from concepts underlying CMMI [58] to define the
To
communicate
our
different levels of maturity. As the literature shows the CMMI is a very popular
foundation for the development of new maturity models (according to Wendlersunderstanding of design automation
to the case study partners, we
mapping study [19] 75% of established maturity models are based on the
predefined the two extremes of the
CMMI). An alternative would have been the use of the stages proposed in the
model. As shown in Fig. 2, level 1
that
effectively
no
Quality Management Maturity Grid [56]. However, we considered the termsimplies
and
design
used to describe the stages in that model such as awakening or enlighteningstandardiza-tion
automation has been put into
not as appropriate for our
practice. The customer is free to
63
product structures considerably increased our data quality. The manager explained: If we manage to improve
newly available data improves the accuracy and speed of the our product structures, the use of precost calculations that we execute in tendering.
engineered solutions will become feasible and
we will be able to advance our level of design
Outlook
automation. Today, by far too many
As a result of the standardization and automation, the calculations have to be done for each order. A
management at BETA expects revenues to growmajor advantage would be to have more
disproportionately to the number of people employed in the design guidelines. They would avoid that
future. The management considers it key to further improve the calculations have to be repeated for every
product structures and extend the product portfolio. As a order to confirm the feasibility of the design.
64
tendering
and
order
execution, and processes
were only roughly defined.
Level 2product
standardization
Faced with growing
competition,
the
management at DELTA came
to realize that customers
regarded their products as
very expensive and the
delivery times as too long. A
manager of DELTA stated:
That is why we defined our
first product lines. We started
with the very top segments
and then slowly worked our
way down. Initially, product
lines were noted down on
paper. We also defined index
price lists.
Level 3automation of
tendering
In
2005,
DELTA
introduced the first sales
configurators to speed up
tendering. A manager of
DELTA emphasized: The
introduction
of
sales
configurators led to new
processes
and
the
organization
required
restructuring. For example,
we
split
up
the
responsibilities between new
product development and
order-specific engineering.
Further, we pushed sales to
sell
the
pre-engineered
solutions specified in the
configurator. The manager
also
expressed:
Sales
configurators helped collect
and prepare data that helped
us decide what else we could
standardize.
Another
advantage of the configurator
was that everybody started
doing everything right or
wrong in the exact same
way.
Level 4automation of
order execution (today)
In the next step, it was
decided
that
product
specifications should no
longer be copied manually
from tendering documents
after an order had been won.
Instead, the configurators,
originally conceived for the
generation of
tendering
documents were to be
extended for use in order
execution.
Parameters
Outlook
DELTA does not intend to advance its
current level of design automation in the
future. The division considers the
capability to deliver products that are
partly engineered to customer specifications as a core order winner. A new
release of the configurators expected to
go-live in 2017 primarily targets
performance improvements and a
simplification of the solution space.
Fig. 3 illustrates the design automation
paths of the four case companies with the
key milestones.
4.3. Model validation
Model validation was based on two
focus group workshops and a selfassessment. The participants of all three
validation rounds generally confirmed the
selected levels and dimensions and agreed
upon the proposed design automation
paths.
We gained the following insights from
the focus group workshops. First,
workshop participants at EPSILON
expressed doubts that the tendering phase
necessarily has to be automated before
automation of the order execution can take
place. We came to the conclusion that
certain engineering subtasks (e.g. related
to particular modules or components) can
be automated without having automated
tendering but not the full order execution.
Therefore, we slightly altered the wording
used to describe level 3
65
Sales Configurators
Split-up PD & ENG
Level 3
Level 4
DELTA
Level 1
Level 2
Project Optima
Level 2
GAMMA
Level 2
Modul
ar
produ
ct
struct
ure
BETA
Level 2
ALPHA
Level 1
2000
2005ev
e
2010l
P
D
:
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
Engi
neeri
ng
and 4 in the model. Dire
Second,
workshopctor
participants at ZETAat
proposed
toETA
incorporate industry-note
specific factors as staged: I
indica-tors
in
thecons
model.
While
weider
generally agree thatmy
this might increase thedivis
usefulness
of
theion
model for managers,to be
we
regard
ancurre
elaboration of thisntly
issue as out of scope locat
for
our
researched at
question.
Whenlevel
discussing the maturity2
models at the focusaimi
group work-shops, itng
also emerged thattowa
managers should notrds
necessarily attempt tomovi
advance
all
theirng
products to Level 5, inon to
which case they wouldlevel
become
MTO3. In
products. In line withthat
resp
Willner et al. [22], we
ect, I
argue that it depends
regar
on the product type
d it
which degree of design
as a
automation is most
majo
appropriate.
r
obst
acle
As part of the selfthat
assessment,
the
the
o
p
m
e
n
t
Level 3
Standard components
for performance
clusters
Sales configurators
Le
vel
1
1995
Sales configurators
Custom-built software for the
engineering of core parts
Year
cas
e
co
mp
ani
es..
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
E
N
G
:
Fig. 3.
automation paths of
infor
that
we
derived from
matio
within-case
n and
know in the specificanalysis
combined with
ledge projects.
cross-case
gathe Formalized
red knowledge sharingcomparisons.
processes
andIt comprises
in
distinct
previ systems are not yetfive
ous fully developed inmaturity levels
proje our company.
(ultimate
Our
studyfreedom,
cts is
prim participants
product
arily unanimously
standardiacces confirmed that thezation,
deliversautomation of
sible model
and
to themeaningful
tendering,
engin applicable insights.
automation of
participant
eers A
order
havin expressed that he
execution, full
intends use to the
g
been maturity model to
invol discuss the next
ved steps required for
automation
with
the upper management.
The
managing director
of one of the
validation partners
intends to apply
the
model
in
design automation
projects
at
customer sites.
Level 3
model for
design
automatio
n.
Fig. 4. Maturity
66
Acknowledgments
This research is funded
by the research project
FastETO (CTI no. 15021.2
PFES-ES). The authors
would like to thank all
organizations participating in
the
case
studies
and
validation rounds for sharing
their insights in the field of
design automation in the
ETO sector.
67
review of knowledge-based
automation?
structures
developed?
General information
1. Interviewee
Information
(name,
position, in the position since when).
currently
2. Division
References
Engineer-to-order
3. Describe
[1]
C. Bozarth, S.
Chapman, A contingency
view of time-based
competition for
manufacturers, Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage. 16 (1996) 56
67, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/01443579610119
090.
[2]
J. Wikner, M.
Rudberg, Integrating
production and engineering
perspectives on the customer
order decoupling point, Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manage. 25
(2005) 623 641,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01443570510605072.
[3]
A. Trentin, E. Perin,
C. Forza, Overcoming the
customization-responsiveness
squeeze by using product con
figurators: beyond anecdotal
evidence, Comput.
(2011) 260268.
Design automation
Ind. 62
[4]
1. What
design
G. Amaro, L. Hendry,
B. Kingsman, Competitive
advantage, customisation and
a new taxonomy for non
make-to-stock companies, Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 19
(1999)
349371,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01443579910254213.
J. Gosling, M.M.
3. Does your division attempt to achieve [5]Naim, Engineer-to-order
4. Please
5. Describe
[6]
F. Elgh, Decision
support in the quotation
process of engineered-toorder products, Adv.
Eng. Inf. 26 (2012) 66
79,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.10
16/j. aei.2011.07.001.
[7]
W.J.C. Verhagen, P.
Bermell-Garcia, R.E.C. van
Dijk, R. Curran, A critical
[8]
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
. im.2014.05.001.
[21]
affecting coordination in
engineer-to-order supply
chain, Int. J. Oper. Prod.
[9]
R. Raffaeli, M. Mengoni, M.
Germani, Improving the link between
computer-assisted design and con figuration
tools for the design of mechanical products,
Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 27 (2013)
51 64, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0890060412000388.
[10]
[22]
O. Willner, D.
Powell, M. Gerschberger,
P. Schnsleben,
[11]
[23]
[12]
Product
2008.
[13]
180195, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.aei.2012.01.004.
I.
Rask,
Rule-based
Product
O. Willner, D.
Powell, A. Duchi, P.
Schnsleben, Globally
distributed engineering
processes: making the
distinction between engineerto-order and make-to-order,
Procedia CIRP 17 (2014)
663668,
[14]
Exploring the
archetypes of engineerto-order: an empirical
analysis, Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage. 3 (2016),
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1
108/ijopm-07-2014-0339.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.054.
[24]
P.
Schnsleben,
Methods and tools that
and
Development Corporation, Mlndal,
1998.
[15]
M.
Stokes,
Managing
Y. Tu, Production
planning and control in a
virtual One-of-a-Kind
Production company, Comput.
[26]
J. Gosling, D.R.
Towill, M.M. Naim, A.R.J.
Dainty, Principles for the
design and operation of
engineer-to-order supply
chains in the construction
[17]
[18]
J. Becker, R. Knackstedt, J.
Pppelbu, Developing maturity models
for IT management, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng.
1 (2009) 213222, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5.
[19]
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2014.880816.
[27]
[20]
[28]
A. Brire-Ct, L.
Rivest, A. Desrochers,
Adaptive generic product
structure
[29]
W.J.C. Verhagen, B.
de Vrught, J. Schut, R.
Curran, A method for
identification of automation
potential through modelling
of engineering processes and
quanti fication of information
waste, Adv. Eng. Inf. (2015),
doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.03.003
.
[30]
modelling for
Cambridge MA,
[31]
T.W.
Simpson,
J.R.A. Maier, F. Mistree,
Produt platform design:
method and
application,
Res. Eng. Des. 13 (2001) 2
22.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[25]
[16]
C. Lutz,
Rechnergesttztes Kon
figurieren Und Auslegen
Individualisierter Produkte,
PhD Dissertation, Vienna
University of Technology,
Austria, 2011.
[35]
F. Elgh, Supporting
management and maintenance
of manufacturing knowledge
in design automation systems,
Adv. Eng. Inf. 22 (2008) 445
456,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.aei.2008.05.004.
[36]
H.
Wortmann,
Comparison of information
systems for engineer-to-order
and make-to-stock situations,
Comput. Ind. 26 (1995) 261
271,
doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/01663615(95)00047-8.
[37]
D. Jansen, The
Electronic
Design
Automation
Handbook,
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers, Boston MA,
2003.
68
[38]
153
167,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1504/IJTM.2009.024913.
[49]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[50]
M. El Hani, L.
Rivest, R. Maranzana,
Product data reuse in
Model for
Software,
Software
Engineering
Institute, 1993.
[58]
CMMI
Product
Team,
CMMI
for
Development,
Version
1.3,
Software
Engineering
Institute, 2010.
[59]
V. Introna, V.
Cesarotti, M. Benedetti, S.
Biagiotti, R. Rotunno, Energy
management maturity model:
an organizational tool to
product development: a
practitioners perspective,
Product Lifecycle
Management. Towards
Knowledge-rich
Enterprises, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2016.
[51]
[52]
[60]
A. Sen, K.
Ramamurthy, A. Sinha,
A model of data
warehousing
process
maturity, IEEE Trans.
Softw. Eng. (2012) 38.
[61]
A. Silventoinen,
A. Denger, H. Lampela,
J. Papinniemi,
Challenges of
information reuse in
customer-oriented
engineering networks,
Int. J. Inf. Manage. 34
M. Van Steenbergen,
R. Bos, S. Brinkkemper, I.
Van De Weerd, W. Bekkers,
The design of focus area
maturity models, Proceeding
5th International Conference
on Design Science Research
in Information Systems and
Technology (DESRIST
2010), Springer, Heidelberg,,
2010, pp. 1719,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-13335-0_22.
016/j.
ijinfomgt.2014.07.001.
[53]
T. McGovern, C.
Hicks, C. Earl, Modelling
supply chain management
[62]
processes
in engineer-toorder companies, Int. J.
Logist. Res. Appl. A Lead. J.
Supply Chain Manage. 2
T. Mettler, P. Rohner,
Situational maturity models
as instrumental artifacts for
organizational design,
Proceeding 4th International
Conference on Design
Science Research in
Information Systems and
Technology-DESRIST 09
[54]
Y. Kristianto, P. Helo,
R.J. Jiao, A system level
product con
figurator for
[55]
J.A.
Simpson,
E.S.C. Weiner, The Oxford
English
Dictionary,
University Press, Oxford
UK, 1989.
[56]
[57]
M.C.
Paulk,
B.
(2009),
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
1555619.1555649.
[63]
T. De Bruin, R.
Freeze, U. Kaulkarni, M.
Rosemann, Understanding the
main phases of developing a
maturity assessment model,
Australasian Conference
[64]
J.
Veldman,
W.
Klingenberg,
Applicability of the capability maturity model
for engineer-to-order firms, Int. J. Technol.
Manage. 48 (2009) 219239.
[65]
H. Krkkinen, J. Myllrniemi,
Maturity assessment for implementing and
using product lifecycle management in
projectoriented engineering companies, Int.
J. Electron. Bus. 11 (2014) 176198
http://www.
inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJE
B.2014.060218?journalCode=ijeb (accessed
July 17, 2014).
[66]
[67]
M.B.
Miles,
M.
Huberman,
Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded
Sourcebook,
1994.
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
the
organi
zation
of a
global
engine
ering.
Durin
g her
Ph.D.
studie
s, she
was
found
er and
projec
t
leader
of the
KTIfinanc
ed
projec
t
FastE
TO,
which
was
condu
cted
jointly
betwe
en
ETH
Zurich
and
three
major
Swiss
indust
rial
firms.
Prior
to her
Ph.D.,
Olga
worke
d as a
manag
ement
consul
tant in
the
field
of
supply
chain
manag
ement
and
logisti
cs.
Olga
holds
a
master
s
degree
in
Indust
rial
Engin
eering
and
Mana
gemen
t with
major
s
in
logisti
cs and
strateg
ic
manag
ement
from
the
Techni
cal
Unive
rsity
followed
. His
resear
ch and
teachi
ng
areas
are
logisti
cs,
operat
ions
and
supply
chain
manag
ement
,
global
servic
e
manag
ement
and
servic
e
innov
ation.
He is
memb
er of
severa
l
boards
of
direct
ors, as
well
as
adviso
ry
boards
. He
wrote
severa
l
books,
as
well
as
numer
ous
scienti
fic and
popul
ar
article
s. The
most
import
ant
book
Integ
ral
Logist
ics
Mana
gemen
t
Opera
tions
and
Suppl
y
Chain