Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www . elsevier . com/locate/compind

Establishing a maturity model for design automation in sales-delivery processes of


ETO products
Olga Willner

a,

Switzerland

*, Jonathan Gosling , Paul Schnsleben

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

within tendering or order fulfillment. Approaches


aiming at a computerised automation of tasks related
to the design process, often termed design automation
or knowledge-based engineering, are generally
regarded as an effective means to achieve lead time
and cost reductions while maintaining, or even
improving product quality. In this study we propose a
maturity model as a framework for analyzing and
improving such activities in ETO companies. We
contribute to the literature in being the first to
investigate design automation in the ETO sector from
a maturity perspective. Beyond that, we extend the
extant literature on design automation, which is of a
highly technical nature, by providing a framework
considering organizational and managerial aspects.
The findings indicate that five different levels of
maturity can be achieved across the dimensions
strategies, processes, systems, and people. Empirical
cases give insight into these different levels. Our
investigation draws from extant literature and a
comparative case study involving four companies
over two years.

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

2016 Elsevier B.V.


All rights reserved.

improving product quality


[68]. For example, case
studies
conducted
by
Raffaeli et al.

[9] and

1*

Correspondi
ng author.
E-mail
addresses:
owillner@ethz.ch,
olga.willner@gmx.de
(O. Willner),

Frank et al. [10] found that


GoslingJ@cardiff.ac.uk
design automation based on
(J.
integrating
product Gosling),
configurators and CADpschoensleben@ethz.ch
(P. Schnsleben).
systems may result in a
reduction of the engineering
time by up to 90%.
Empirical evidence furtherh
t
suggests that the
t
p
:
/
/
d
x
.

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

to better on-time delivery, aand supporting the


decrease in personnel effortsidentification
of
and quality improvementsdesign
automation
along both product and
opportunities [7,16].
process
dimensions
More
specifically,
[11,12].
Cederfeldt and Elgh
While technical aspects
[16] in a sample of
of design automation (e.g.
eleven
ETO
system architecture, product
manufacturers
modelling)
are
well
identified scope of
researched [9,13
15],implementation (e.g.
of
studies
related
toimplementation
organizational
andsales configurators,
managerial requirements ofengineering
design
automation
areconfigurators, CAD
systems, or spreadhardly available [16,17].
sheet macros) and
Researchers
particularly
how far to push the
emphasize the need for a
automation level as
framework guiding the
topics
requiring
design automation process

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

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

customer penetrates into the


often uncertain which steps to take in design phase, often operating
in
project
specific
approaching design automation.
environments. Since ETO
To fill this gap, the present paper products either have to be
examines the following research question:fully developed or adapted to
specifications
What stages do ETO companies undergocustomer
in automating their design processes and [4,5], engineering tasks have
to be conducted within
how can we describe them?
We base our investigation on atendering or order execution.
comparative case study with four ETOThis can lead to a range of
manufacturers from the mechanicalco-ordination issues in terms
engineering sector. The concept of theof integrating engineering
maturity model was selected to guide theand production [21].
investigation due to its suitability for
describing organizational development
The
ETO
sector
paths
[18,19]
and
supportingencompasses a broad range
of
industries,
including
transformation processes [20].
mechanical
engineering,
construction, and ship-buildThis study contributes to the literature
ing. A number of ETO
in being the first to investigate design
archetypes may also be
automation in the ETO sector from a
identified, based on volume
maturity perspective. Beyond that, it
and the amount of order
extends the extant literature on design
specific engineering work to
automation, which is of a highly technical
performed
[22].
nature, by providing a frameworkbe
Customers
in
this
considering organizational and managerial
aspects. It further provides companies challenging sector often wish
with a step-wise guideline on how tofor lead times to be short and
approach design automation in sales-are not willing to pay high
delivery processes as a means to foster a price premiums
[2325].
competitive
advantage.
Following
Hence,
companies
that
Verhagens [7] call for research, we operate
in
an
ETO
further suggest that our maturity modelenvironment face the difficult
can be used as an instrument for assessing prospect of undertaking
order-driven design and
design automation oppor-tunities.
engineering activities while
customers wait impatiently,
This paper is structured as follows. often making last minute
requests for changes. This
Section 2 provides an overview of the
leads to unpredictable work
related work and state of the art. Section
flows, rush jobs, out-of-date
3 describes our methodological approach
information, and distorted
and introduces the empirical setting in
which we conducted our research. Indelivery dates [26].
Section 4, a maturity model for design
automation is conceptually drafted,
From an engineering
thereafter empirically refined through a
design perspective, ETO
comparative case study and finally
might be considered as the
validated. Lastly, the conclusion section
extent to which orders
highlights the theoretical and managerial
penetrate the scientif-icimplications and proposes opportu-nities
technical flow of design
for further research.
activities [27]. Hence, we
might consider a spectrum
2. Related work and state of the art
between pure engineer-tostock, where designs are
2.1. Engineer-to-order
held in stock, to pure ETO,
where new designs must be
A number of papers have sought to
developed [2]. Despite this
define and categorize ETO situations, as
continuum
being
well
well as give insight into their complex
recognized, the appropriate
nature. Gosling and Naim [5] define andesign approach along it has
ETO supply chain where production is not
been
addressed
customized for each order and where thecomprehensively in the ETO

literature.

Design automation is predominantlyautomation in the literature


seen as an approach for minimizing the
(see [7,10,16,29,40]). In this
effort required for repetitive design tasks
paper we apply the definition
[7,13,16]. However, engineering ETO
of design automation by
products encompasses the execution of
both repetitive and creative design tasks. Cederfeldt and Elgh [16] as
Consequently,
product
structurescomputerised automa-tion of
distinguishing between components thattasks that are related to the
already exist and therefore can be reused design process through the
in a repetitive manner and components implementation
of
that have to be engineered for a particular information and knowledge
in tools or systems.
order are a prerequisite [28,29]. A review
of the literature shows that various
A broad range of
terminology has been applied to break
literature related to the
down the structures of ETO products. A
techical aspects of design
proliferation of terms from the design
automation exists (see Elgh
literature seek to describe ways of
[6] for a detailed review),
responding to the challenge of configuring
whereas literature discussing
and designing to customer order.
the
organizational
and
Examples include modular design [30],managerial aspects is scarce.
platform designs [31], and configurationBoth

Elgh

[6]

and

design [32]. Jiao et al. [33] show theCederfeldt


[16] give
considerable range of terms that have recommendations
for
emerged. Further, the terms commonplanning design automation
features, base product
[28], fixedin ETO compa-nies. While
[6] proposes an
components [34] and standard parts andElgh
information model for design
modules [35] have been proposed toautomation in quotation
describe the standard components of an
preparation, Cederfeldt [16]
ETO product. The terms parameterized
conducts a study with ETO
features, reused variants
[28],manufacturers on the need
configurable components
[34] andand perceived potential for a
design
automation
generic product structure
[35] allframework. In describing the
describe its configurable components. Tomove from ETO to mass
describe the components that are trulycustomization, Haug et al.
engineered for a specific customer order[41] identify five dimensions
the terms special features, new(product variety, customer
components [28], special componentsview, manufacturing costs,
purpose,
[34], parts which are developed based onbusiness
configurator
challenge)
norms and standards [35] and whitewhich they regard as relevant
spots [36] can all be found. In this paper,for deciding to what extent to
we use the terms standard components,standardize and automate.
configurable components and special
Scholars in our field of
components to distinguish between the
regard
design
different components of ETO products. study
automation for ETO as
highly similar to KBE
[7,42,43] or respectively
regard KBE as one of its
2.2. Design automation

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

lifecycle management (PLM)


systems
are
generally
regarded as enablers for
sharing product data along
entire supply chains or
product lifecycles
[47],
there exists no consensus on
how well these systems are
equiped to cope with the
challenges
the
ETO
environment presents. While
Hicks and

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

detailed designs linked to


specific customer projects. In
McGovern
[48] found that some
the following, we refer to
functionalities of PLM systems are
design activites conducted
applicable for ETO products, it still
within tendering and order
remains to be determined how big their
execution that are linked to
overall value is when lifecycles are short
customer projects as orderand volumes low. An empirical study
specific engineering. This
conducted in the shipbuilding sector
paper investigates design
confirms that PLM systems have been
automation in sales-delivery
designed with predominantly assemble-toprocesses
while
design
order (ATO) and make-to-order (MTO)
automation in new product
enivronments in mind and require
development is not within its
adaptions for a successful implementation
scope. Our main rationale for
in ETO environments [49]. Additionally,excluding design automation
in new product development
Hani et al. [50] report that PLM systems
from this investigation is that
do not sufficiently suport the reuse of
design automation in this
design process knowledge through
phase encompasses very
identifying appropriate workflows within
similar challenges for a
previous projects.
broad variety of product
types. On the other hand, the
Literature describing how standard
ETO environment has very
and configurable compo-nents, which are
unique requirements for
characteristic for MTO products, can be
design automation within
stored in IT applications and later
tendering
and
order
retrieved for reuse abounds (see Zhang
execution.
[51] for a review). However, these
approaches
neglect
the
special
requirements of the ETO environment,
such as the execution of creative design
2.3. Maturity models
tasks for the development of order-specific
solutions. Silventoinen et al.
[52] The Oxford English
conducted an entire study exploring andDictionary
describes
classifying the factors hindering anmaturity as the state of being
information reuse in ETO companies. In complete, perfect, or ready
describing the ETO situation, McGovern [55].
Maturity
models
et al. [53] state that a limited reuse of (MMs) are widely applied
engineering designs is not uncommon. tools for assessing the
They further refer to anecdotal evidence maturity of organizations and
highlighting that designers appreciate the provide a framework for
task of developing new designs. Further,process improvements or
[19]. They
Brire-Ct et al. [28] report that project-bench-marks
usually
consist
of
a series of
specific data tends to be regarded as
stages
representing
an
transient and is therefore often not linked
desired,
or
to the lifecycle of the product family. In anticipated,
logical
organizational
our literature review, we could identify
first attempts targeting the designevolution path [18] with the
automation challenges characteristic forbottom stage describing a
the ETO environment. Brire-Ct et al. very low degree of maturity
[28] propose a product structure conceptand the highest degree of
systematically promoting the reuse of maturity located at the top.
order-specific solutions. Kristianto et al.Besides generic MMs, which
[54] develop a system level configuratorare suitable for a very broad
that processes incomplete configurationsfield of applications, such as
and engineering changes.
the Quality Management
Maturity Grid
[56], the
Capability Maturity Model
In the ETO environment, design [57], or the Capability
automation can be applied either for the Maturity Model Integration
generation of conceptual new designs as(CMMI)
[58], models
part of new product development or in explicitly
focusing
on
later project stages, such as tendering and narrower defined domains
order execution, for the development ofcan be found in the literature

59

(e.g. [20,59,60]).

In recent years, efforts to


generalize
the
MM
development process aiming
at a theoretically sound and
replicable MM design

have been made (see [18,61 63]). Therooted in the procedure


model developed by Becker
proposed guidelines for MM development
include a problem identification phase inet al. [18]. As presented in
which purpose and scope of the model are Fig. 1, we slightly adjusted
determined, a model development phasethe guideline to make it more
in which model and assessmentapplicable to our specific
instruments are defined, and anresearch setting.
implementation and validation phase in
Prior
to
MM
which the model is evaluated based on
development, the relevance
empirical cases.
of the problem that the
We present an overview of the extant model is meant to address
maturity-related literature in the realms of has to be demonstrated, and
ETO and design automation in Table 1.the target group of the model
There exists general consensus that MMs should be defined (step 1:
can contribute to an analysis of the ETOproblem identifica-tion). As
environment but require some tailoring to
presented in Sections 1 and
unlock their full potential [48,64,65]. In2, both empirical evidence
none of the papers did we find such agained from preliminary
tailoring. Tiihonen and Soininen [66]interviews with company
conducted a survey on methods, practices,representatives as well as an
literature
review
and tools supporting product configurationinitial
tasks. They conclude that companies can revealed that the automation
be at different stages regarding the use of of design processes is crucial
enhancing
the
product configurators and propose theto
MM as instrument for understanding andcompetitiveness of ETO
improving
configuration
processes.manufacturers. Yet both the
extant literature as well as
Cederfeldt and Elgh [16] and Cederfeldtempirical insights obtained
[17] conducted empirical studies in the from
company
field of design automation. They associaterepresentatives
con-firmed
potential for design automation with athat there is a lack of
companys degree of product and processestablished frameworks or
maturity. Making the link between ETOguidelines assisting ETO
and design automation is not within thecompanies in automating
scope of any of the reviewed papers.
their design processes.
According to Becker et
al. [18], the need for a new
MM must be confirmed by
3. Methodology
an analysis of the existing
As outlined in the previous section,models (step 2: comparison
the literature proposes a variety of of existing MMs). We
a
structured
guidelines and frameworks for developing conducted
literature
review
to
identify
maturity models. We decided to use the
four-step guideline for MM developmentthe MMs predominant in our
field of research. As search
introduced in Neff et al. [20], which is

terms we used maturity


model
combined
with
engineer-to-order, designto-order, design automation
or product configu-ration.
Major databases, such as
Science Direct, Emerald, Pro
Quest, and Google Scholar,
were used to search for
related works. Since we were
unable to identify any
domain-specific MMs within
our field of research, we
choose to broaden our
research scope to maturityrelated literature within the
realms of ETO and design
automation. Based on a
content
check,
we
determined
which
publications to consider
relevant with respect to our
research interest. Within the
relevant
papers,
we
conducted backward and
forward searches with the
objective
of
detecting
additional material. In total,
we identified six publications
(see Section 2, Table 1)
that we analyzed in detail.

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

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

Table 1
Maturity-related literature in the realms of ETO and design automation.
Author

Title

Research design and method

Contents

Contribution to maturityrelated aspects

ETO
Veldmann & Klingenberg
[64]

Hicks & McGovern [48]

Krkkinen & Myllrniemi


[65]

Applicability of the

Maturity assessment for

Empirical (multiple case study)

analysis of the potential of a PLM maturity assessment in ETO com-panies

implementing and using


product lifecycle
management in projectoriented engineering
companies

states that companies are at


different levels of maturity
in respect to product
configuration

proposes MM as (1) suitable


tool for asses-sing
configuration pro-cesses and
product data management
and (2) improvement
roadmap for product
configura-tion

focus on process matu-rity


(see Cederfeldt 2007)
Cederfeldt & Elgh [16]

Cederfeldt [17]

analysis of characteris-tics of ETO companies


(e.g. markets, products, internal processes and
supply chains)

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

evaluation of applicability of CMMI on ETO


companies

Product life cycle


management in engineerto-order industries

Design automation
Tiihonen et al. [66]

Empirical (single case study)

capability maturity model


for engineer-to-order
firms

focus on process and


product maturity: attributes
the potential for design
automation to a companys
degree of product and
process maturity
definition of product
maturity as known rules
in relation to all rules

definition of process
maturity as level of task
and knowledge formalization

concludes that CMMI


has to be enhanced to
become applicable for
ETO companies (e.g. logistics, construction
and maintenance are
not sufficiently covered)
states
ty assessthat
ment
MM
based on
is a
an
suitab
existing
le
PLM
tool
MM is
for
conducte
mand
aging
the
outlines that
ETO
generic
life
MMs
cycle
require
tailoring to
become
PL
applicable
M
in ETO
ma
settings
turi

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

Output & relation


to
paper

Used
techniques
Empirical Conceptual

Performed
activities

Problem
identification
Problem identification and
motivation
Definition of target group

Initial literature review (ETO,


design automation, maturity
models)
Preliminary interviews with
company representatives

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)

Technical Director China,


Technical Director Italy);
9 h in total

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

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

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

Focus group workshops

Design
Automation

n/a

3 participants (Managing Director, Head of Design


Automation Division; Research Engineer); 4 h in total

Corporate
Technology

6000

n/a

Elevator

200

40

1 participant (Director Product


Development and Engineering);
3 h in total

3 participants (Program Manager Modularization,


Program Manager Product Portfolio Management,
Researcher); 2 h in total

Figures of 2014 for the division.

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

Fig. 2. A-priori maturity model.

define the specifications of his order


since the solution space is completely
open. Processes are ad-hoc, and
hardly any systems supporting
tendering and order execution are
available. Level 5 is characterized by
specified and implemented processes
and systems that allow full
automation of the tendering and order
execution processes. Since a fixed
solution space is regarded as a
prerequisite for a full automation
[46], we argue that in practice only
fully configurable products (MTO)
can reach level 5. By definition, the
solution space of an ETO product has
to remain at least partially open and
therefore the maturity of an ETO
organization can at most converge
towards level 5.

4.2. Model elaboration and


refinement
To empirically elaborate and
refine the a-priori model into a fullscale maturity model, a comparative
case study involving four ETO
manufacturers was conducted. The
investigated products

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

63

(testing chamber, turbomachine, asphalt mixing plant, high-rise Outlook


At the time of investigation, ALPHA
elevator) of all four participating manufacturers have been on
the market for more than 30 years and can therefore be stored its product structures in an ERP
considered mature and well-established. All four companies system. It is expected that sales might need a
serve both developed, mainly Central Europe, as well asconfigurator to support tendering in the
emerging markets, particularly China. Since our cases future. The Technical Director further
demonstrate very similar degrees in product and market reported that some departments might require
due
to
the
product
maturity, we believe that they are not suitable for investigating restructuring
the impact of product and market maturity on design standardization. While today ALPHA has a
automation. Instead, our unit of analysis is the corporate large department solely responsible for the
division and our study investigates what stages ETO companies order-specific engineering, in the future
undergo in automating their design processes. First, we presentALPHA will have to distinguish between the
the four empirical cases individually. Second, we aggregate our task of defining standard/configurable
findings by means of a cross-case analysis and from there
elaborate and refine the model.

4.2.1. Company ALPHA


ALPHA participated in the case study with its site producing
special testing chambers, part of the environmental simulation
division. The division develops and produces testing chambers
in five countries at seven different locations. In 2014, the site
participating in our study built 200 special testing chambers,
each requiring 500 h of engineering on average.
Level 1ultimate freedom
For a long time, the management at ALPHA regarded testing
chambers as one-of-a-kind products and made no efforts
towards standardization and automation. A consistent product
structure did not exist, and both engineering and production
departments frequently customized products during order
execution. Most employees had the mindset of craftsmen and
enjoyed following their own processes and ideas when
engineering products. Engineers generally preferred to design
everything from scratch instead of using existing solutions. Plus,
they were often not aware of the order-specific solutions their
colleagues have developed in the past since no proper database
with search functionalities existed. A systematic retrieval and
reuse of similar projects and/or components tends was almost
impossible. Consequently, the company had problems with
costs, quality, and lead times.

Level 2product standardization (today)


In 2010, the top management at ALPHA changed and it
became a core objective of the new management team to
increase the profitability of the division. The Technical Director
reported that an essential step towards this objective was the
definition of a consistent product structure. He explained: Many
of our projects did not really require order-specific engineering.
Instead, a well-elaborated, modular product structure would
have allowed a frequent reuse of components.
When asked for the expected benefits of product standardization, he explained: We expected a standardization to result in
cost and lead time reductions as well as quality improvements. It
was also supposed to allow us to build the exact same products
at different locations. He then continued: Today, we still have
some difficulties with the new product structures. It takes our
engineers more time to combine our new templates for standard
components instead of simply using old projects and adapting
them. However, this should not be an issue anymore once our
product structures have been properly implemented in a
configurator.

components and the task of executing the


engineering for individual orders.

4.2.2. Company BETA


BETA is a large multinational corporation
that participated in the case study with one of
its turbomachine divisions. The division was
founded less than 10 years ago and shows
characteristics of a start-up (e.g. high growth
rate, low formalization and routinization of
processes, no established product portfolio).
In 2014, the division received orders for ten
turbomachines, each requiring 11,500 h of
order-specific development and engineering
on average.

Level 1ultimate freedom


The turbomachine R&D department was
founded in 2008. In its beginnings, very
limited customer intelligence that could be
used for a delimitation of the solution space
was available. Product structures were not
fully defined and processes were ad hoc,
partially inefficient, and redundant. A large
number of design iterations and subsequent
design reviews were required for each order.
Level 2product standardization
Initially, BETA structured its machine
types into different performance clusters and
defined standardized components covering
the clusters. When asked for his motivation
for product standardization, the Director of
Engineering at BETA explained:
Beyond a reduction in costs and lead times,
standardized product structures allows us to
compare the prices of purchased parts and
bundle orders for parts of a similar or
identical design. Plus, I believe that
consistent product structures are a
prerequisite for automation. He also
reported: Even today, our product portfolio is
by far not complete. Our current strategy is to
participate in tenders for a large array of
different machine sizes and application types.
Obviously, it takes more time to engineer a
first-of-its-kind since the number of
engineering hours required decrease with
experience. However, it helps us in
broadening our knowledge and product base.
If you have seen many different variants of a
product, it becomes easier to develop modular
product structures allowing a reuse of
components for many different orders.
Level 3automation of tendering (today)
In its third year of business, BETA
introduced sales configurators to support an
automated generation of tender documents.
Most recently, the commercial product
structures stored in the configurators were
remodeled to allow cost calculations for
different production stages instead of only the
final turbomachine. As a manager of BETA
explained: I believe the remodeling of the

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.

4.2.3. Company GAMMA


GAMMA is a construction equipment
producer that participat-ed in the case study
with its division developing and producing
asphalt mixing plants. In recent years, the
division expanded its global operations by
opening new development and production

64

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

India have already worked


sites abroad. In 2014, the company sold on highly similar ordersolutions
200 asphalt mixing plants, each requiring specific
1400 h of order-specific engineering onsimultaneously and only
realized this after project
average.
end.
Company
Level 1ultimate freedom
Initially, processes were only roughly representatives unanimously
defined and bill-of-materials were oftenexpressed that they regard
incomplete or not fully specified. Tendersfurther automation of order
and orders were handled according to theexecution as the next step. At
understanding
and
knowledge
oftime of the investigation, the
individuals. A product manager of the division faced the challenge
division described the level of automation of identifying the product
for
which
at that time as follows: I believe thatfamilies
automation only happened in the mind ofautomation promised the
people. Some of us automated processeshighest savings.
for ourselves.
Level 2product standardization
In 2009, GAMMA launched Project4.2.4. Company DELTA
DELTA participated in
Optima, which aimed at reducing costs
and lead times. The reductions were to be the case study with its
achieved by a concise definition of thedivision delivering high-rise
technical product structure, accompaniedelevators. The division,
by a guideline explaining how the new which designs and produces
product structure was to be used. As aelevators for particularly
manager explained: As a result of Optimahigh and often extremely
it wasnt possible to order parts by simply challenging buildings, is
describing them anymore. Instead,known for its innovativeness
material numbers had to be specified.and strong global market
Before Optima our engineering had topresence. In 2014, the
confirm every single order. Optima division sold 2000 elevators,
achieved that orders not requiring specialeach requiring eleven hours
parts could go straight into workof order-specific engineering
preparation.
on average. In merely
requiring eleven hours of
Level 3automation of tendering
order-specific engineering on
(today)
average, elevators are not the
GAMMA uses sales configurators formost extreme type of ETO
the generation of tender documents.
However, the commercial product(see Willner et al. [22] for
structures stored in the sales configuratorsan analysis of different ETO
are not coherently linked with the types).
technical product structures stored in the
ERP system and used for order execution.
Level 1ultimate
To date, no interface between the two
freedom
systems exists. Component groups are
Until the early 1990s,
manually copied into the ERP system after
DELTA engineered every
an order has been won. Custom-built
high-rise elevator basically
software for the configura-tion of core
from scratch. As a director
parts is scattered throughout the
pointed out: At that time,
engineering department. Since most of the
every single order required
solutions are complex and require a
engineering. We had not yet
certain expertise, the tool developers and
discussed which components
their close peers primarily use them.
could be pre-engineered and
which should be engineeredto-order. We simply accepted
Outlook
orders the way they came in.
In its quest for global market presence,
The division hardly used
GAMMA seeks to advance its current
supporting IT systems for
level of standardization and automation to
improve operations efficiency. A major
challenge related this aspect is the fact
that the division conducts the orderspecific engineering at five different
locations and that each location stores
their order-specific solutions locally. In the
past, the engineering sites in China and

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

selected within tendering were to be used


to automatically generate engineering
drawings and purchase orders later on.
Just the special components not included
in the fixed solution space should be
calculated and designed manually by the
department in charge of order-specific
engineering. Additionally, a database for
storing order-specific engineering requests
with search functions allow-ing the
retrieval and reuse of engineering
solutions from previous projects was
introduced. As a director expressed when
discussing the changes: Processes had to
be redesigned again, and calculation rules
had to be validated. In the beginning, it
was difficult for some of our engineers to
trust in the automated order process.
Previously, our engineers had calculated
safety margins based on their individual
experiences. Now, we had intense debates
if the tolerances and rules proposed by the
systems were correct.

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

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

65

Sales Configurators
Split-up PD & ENG

Automated generation of drawings &


purchase orders
Engineering database

Level 3

Product lines & index price lists

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.

4.4. Summary and


discussion
Fig. 4 presents
the maturity model

Level 3

model for
design
automatio
n.
Fig. 4. Maturity

66

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

both part numbers as well as


automation) that are delimited by the bill-of-materials, PDM/PLM
criteria that a change of activities hassystems do not play a big
taken place through all four dimensions role in the sales-delivery
of
our
case
(e.g. an overall level 3 is achieved onlyprocess
when a level 3 or higher is achieved companies. Some of them
across all four dimensions). We used ause PLM systems in product
bottom-up approach for developing thedevelopment but we could
distinct maturity levels in determining thenot identify a single case
required activities first and then recordedwhere a PLM system is used
the appropriate names that reflect these.as leading system along the
entire product lifecycle. In
According to De Bruin et al. [63] such alevel 3 and 4, configurators
bottom-up approach should be used forwith interfaces to CAD
the development of maturity models insystems are implemented to
more established domains.
enable the automation of
repetitive design tasks for
Along the strategies dimension, thestandard/configurable
four cases supported us in identifying thecomponents.
Correspondsteps required to develop a solution space ingly, we noticed that
promoting design automation. In thatengineering databases are set
context, our case studies brought to light up to facilitate the reuse of
that mature product structures are anspecial components and
important prerequisite for successfulorder-specific
solutions.
design automation. Companies have toContrary to the common
distinguish
between
standard,notion that design automaconfigurable, and special compo-nents totion is mainly applicable for
reach level 2 in this dimension. Advancingrepetitive design tasks (e.g.
to level 3 and 4 entails formalizing the [7,13,16]), the cases studies
solution space through the implementationdemonstrated that creative
of product structures in configurators.design tasks can also benefit
Level 5 requires a fixed solution space,from design automation.
meaning that a product is fullyCompany representatives at
configurable and does not contain anyDELTA reported how their
special components.
engineers
deliber-ately
retrieve former projects
Along the processes dimension, westored in an engineering
observed that processes evolve togetherdatabase and use them as
with strategies and systems. In level 2,inspiration for creating new
companies start to develop nascent order-specific solutions. In
processes and replicate these acrosslevel 5, fully integrated IT
locations.
Distinct
processes
for systems for tendering and
standard/configurable
and
specialorder execution are in place.
components are required for advancing to
level
3.
Processes
for
standard/configurable components are
fully defined in level 4 while metaprocesses (higher-order processes used to Along
the
people
dimension,
we
found
that
the
construct other processes [71]) exist for
required skill sets and
special components. In our view, the
behaviors of people change
concept of the meta-process is closely
with automation. While
linked to the ETO-enabling process
success initially depends on
introduced in Schnsleben [24] and basedindividual skills and heroic
on
the
capability
of
routinizedperfor-mance,
the
improvisation (see people dimension). In importance of collective
level 5, all processes are fully defined andeffort and a comprehensive
coordinated.
integration of tasks and roles
later on gains momentum. As
Along the systems dimension, the case demonstrated by the cases,
studies helped to determine which IT moving to level 3 requires
systems to implement in which order for the formation of groups and
design automation. In level 2, productspecialization. The empirical
structures are stored in a large variety of cases demonstrates how it is
IT applications, which are not necessarily distinguished between the
suitable for handling complex andpeople
in
charge
of
hierarchical product structures coherently.developing the solution
Beyond serving as data repositories forspace and defining the MTO

process (called product line managementorganizational


and
at ALPHA), the ones handling the ordermanagerial aspects into
execution (called work preparation ataccount. Second, our cases
BETA), and the ones who improvise the revealed
that
design
ETO (called application engineer-ing atautomation is not exclusively
ALPHA). In level 4, emergent routines applicable
to
repetitive
design tasks but also
(defined by Nelson and Winter [72] as
supports
creative
tasks.
patterns of action that store tacit
Through identifying this
knowledge and function as organizational
additional opportunity for
memory) contribute to automated order
design
automation,we
execution
for
standard/configurable
augmentprevious
research
components. We use the term routinized
inour field. Third, we
improvisation (defined by Tan [73] asadopted the concepts of
and
routinized
repeated improvisation that entailsroutines
simultaneous planning and execution) toimprovisation from the field
describe how special components, whichof organizational studies to
are often character-ized by a high degree understand
how
tacit
can
be
of novelty and complexity, are handledknowledge
efficiently and consistently.
incorporated
in
ETO
processes. We believe that
additional studies applying
these concepts on the
5. Conclusion
operational challenges of the
ETO sector might yield
This paper proposes a maturity modelpromising results.
as a framework for analyzing and
Managers can apply the
improving design automation activities in
ETO companies. Through integratingmodel as a guideline on how
approach
design
evidence from literature, case studies, and to
focus group workshops, we identified fiveautomation in sales-delivery
distinct maturity stages across theprocesses. This should help
dimensions strategies, processes, systems them reduce the time and
and people. Empirical cases gave insight effort required for designin the activities happening at the differentrelated tasks leading to
stages and allowed us to describe them in competitive advantage. We
argue that the model also
detail.
supports the assessment of
automation
Our investigation makes a number ofdesign
contributions to the literature. First, we opportunities. In its current
bring together several literature streams,form, managers can use the
which have formerly been disconnected, model to determine where
in investigating design automa-tion in the they stand today and what
ETO sector from a maturity perspective. the next steps should be. As
Beyond that, we extend the extantthe validation rounds brought
literature on design automation byup, future research could
providing a framework that takesseek to develop stage
indicators that help assess

which degree of design


automation should ultimately
be targeted in a particular
line of business.

This study has only


begun to explore the
organizational
and
managerial requirements of
design automation in the
ETO sector. The maturity
model for design automation
was developed with cases
from
the
mechanical
engineering industry. Future
inves-tigations may wish to
assess the applicability of the
model in a broader range of
industries
and
identify
industry-specific adap-tions
the model might require. For
example, we believe that an
application
in
the
construction industry might
make
a
particularly
interesting case allowing a
comparison
of
the
similarities in requirements
between design automation
and building informa-tion
modelling.

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.

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

67
review of knowledge-based

automation?

7. How far are your product

Appendix A. Interview guideline

structures
developed?

General information

1. Interviewee

Information
(name,
position, in the position since when).

currently

8. Which challenges did you


encounter during design
automation?

9. What is the future design

2. Division

information (name, main


products, # employees, annual
revenue).

automation path of your


division?

References
Engineer-to-order

1. How does your division define ETO?


2. Name the different ETO products of
your division. Estimate how many
units of each product are sold annually
and
how
many
order-specific
engineering hours are required per unit
on the average.

3. Describe

the ETO processes of your


division (product develop-ment, sales,
customer-specific
engineering,
production & logistics, delivery).
Which departments are involved in
each of the process phases?

4. How do you expect your share of ETO


products to develop within the next 10
years?

[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

does a standardization and


automation of design processes imply
for your division?

2. What are the main drivers for

design

automation in your division?

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

different degrees of automation for


different types of ETO products? If this
is the case, which criteria do you apply
to decide to which degree to automate
for which product type?

4. Please

describe the current status of

design automation in your division.


Which elements of your design
processes are automated?

5. Describe

the pathway of your design


automation along the dimensions
strategies, processes, systems and
people.

6. Which data did you require for design

supply chain management: a


literature review and research
agenda, Int. J. Prod. Econ.
122 (2009) 741754,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijpe.2009.07.002.

[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

engineering: an identi fication


of research challenges, Adv.
Eng. Inf. 26 (2012) 515,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.aei.2011.06.004.

[8]

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

A. Haug, L. Hvam, N.H. Mortensen,

. im.2014.05.001.

De finition and evaluation of product


configurator development strategies,

[21]

M.H. Mello, J.O.


Strandhagen, E. Alfnes,
Analyzing the factors

Comput. Ind. 63 (2012) 471481, doi:


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2012.02
.001.

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]

Manage. 35 (2015) 1005


1031,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02683940010305270.

[22]

O. Willner, D.
Powell, M. Gerschberger,
P. Schnsleben,

G. Frank, D. Entner, T. Prante, M.

Schwarz, Towards a generic framework of


engineering design automation for creating
complex CAD models, Int. J. Adv. Syst. Meas.
7 (2014) 179 192.

[11]

L. Hvam, S. Pape, M.K. Nielsen,


Improving the quotation process with product
configuration, Comput. Ind. 57 (2006) 607
621,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compind.2005.10.001.

[23]

[12]

L. Hvam, N. Mortensen, J. Riis,


Customization, Springer, Berlin,

Product
2008.

[13]

K. Amadori, M. Tarkian, J. lvander,

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,

P. Krus, Flexible and robust CAD models for


design automation, Adv. Eng. Inf. 26 (2012)

[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

Development Report 1, Industrial Research

support a fast and ef ficient

and
Development Corporation, Mlndal,
1998.

design-to- order process for


parameterized
product
families, CIRP Ann. Technol.

[15]

M.

Stokes,

Managing

61 (2012) 179 182.

Engineering Knowledge: MOKA


Methodology for Knowledge Based
Engineering Applications, ASME Press,
London, 2001.

Y. Tu, Production
planning and control in a
virtual One-of-a-Kind
Production company, Comput.

M. Cederfeldt, F. Elgh, Design


automation in SMEs-Current state, potential,
need and requirements, ICED 05 15th Int.
Conf. Eng. Des. Eng. Des. Glob. Econ.,

Ind. 34 (1997) 271 283,


doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0166-3615(97)00046-8.

Melbourne, 2005. (accessed July 8, 2014)


http://search.informit.com.au/
documentSummary;dn=390095181685561;res
=IELENG.

[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]

M. Cederfeldt, Planning Design


Automation, PhD Dissertation, Jnkping
University, Sweden, 2007.

sector, Prod. Plan. Control.


(2014) 116,

[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]

R. Wendler, The maturity of maturity


model research: a systematic mapping study,
Inf. Softw. Technol. 54 (2012) 1317 1339.

[20]

A. Neff, F. Hamel, T. Herz, F.


Uebernickel, W. Brenner, J. vom Brocke,
Developing a maturity model for service
systems in heavy equipment manufacturing
enterprises, Inf. Manage. (2014) 1 17,

J.R. Dixon, Design


Engineering: Inventiveness,
Analysis,
and
Decision
Making, McGraw-Hill, New
York NY, 1966.

[28]

A. Brire-Ct, L.
Rivest, A. Desrochers,
Adaptive generic product
structure

Ind. 61 (2010) 53 65,


doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.101
6/j.compind.2009.07.005.

[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]

C.Y. Baldwin, K.B.


Clark, Design Rules: the
Power of Modularity, MIT,
Press,
2000.

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]

B.J. Wielinga, A.T.


Schreiber, Configuration
design problem solving, IEEE
Expert 12 (1997) 4956.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie
wdoc/summary?
doi=10.1.1.1.2118.

[33]

J. Jiao, T.W. Simpson,


Z. Siddique, Product family
design and platform-based
product development: a stateof-the-art review, J. Intell.
Manuf. 18 (2007) 5 29,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10845-007-0003-2.

[34]

[25]

[16]

design reuse in engineer-toorder products, Comput.

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

O. Willner et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (2016) 5768

[38]

153
167,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1504/IJTM.2009.024913.

D. Macmillen, R. Camposano, D. Hill,

T. Williams, An industrial view of electronic


design automation, IEEE Trans. Comput. Des.

[49]

Integr. Circuits Syst. 19 (2000) 1428 1448.

[39]

T. Tomiyama, Intelligent computeraided design systems: past 20 years and future


20 years, AI EDAM Artif. Intell. Eng. Des.
Anal. Manuf. 21 (2007) 27
29,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S089006040707
0114.

[40]

F. Elgh, Supporting management and


analysis of quotations in a design automation
approach to customization, New World
Situation: New Directions in Concurrent
Engineering, vol. 46, Springer, London, 2010,
pp. 361368, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-024-3.

[41]

A. Haug, K. Ladeby, K. Edwards,


From engineer-to-order to mass
customization, Manage. Res. News 32
(2009) 633644,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01409170910965233.

[42]

P. Bermell-Garcia, W.J.C. Verhagen,


S. Astwood, K. Krishnamurthy, J.L. Johnson,
D. Ruiz, et al., A framework for management
of knowledge-based engineering
applications as software services: enabling
personalization and codification, Adv. Eng.
Inf. 26 (2012) 219 230,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
aei.2012.01.006.

[43]

C. van der Velden, C. Bil, X. Xu,


Adaptable methodology for automation
application development, Adv. Eng. Inf. 26
(2012) 231 250, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.aei.2012.02.007.

[44]

T. Olofsson, P. Jensen, A. Rnneblad,

Con figuration and design automation of


industrialised building systems, Proceeding
CIB W78 27th International Conference
(2010).

[45]

C. Forza, F. Salvador, Managing for

variety in the order acquisition and


fulfilment process: the contribution of product
configuration systems, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 76
(2002) 87 98.

[46]

M. Mkip, P. Paunu, T. Ingalsuo,


Utilization of design configurators in order
engineering, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 3
(2012) 223231.

[47]

A. Silventoinen, H.J. Pels, H.


Krkkinen, H. Lampela, Towards future
PLM maturity assessment dimensions,
Proceeding 8th Intenational Conference
Conference
on
Product
Lifecycle
Management (2011) 480 492.

[48]

C. Hicks, T. McGovern, Product life


cycle management in engineer-to-order
industries, Int. J. Technol. Manage. 48 (2009)

J.H. Lee, J. Lee,


Features of data management
in PLM customised for ship
design adopting engineering
to order strategy, Int. J. Prod.
Lifecycle Manage. 7 (2014)
292317,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/
IJPLM.2014.066818.

[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

foster the continuous


reduction of energy
consumption in companies, J.

Management. Towards
Knowledge-rich
Enterprises, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2016.

[51]

Curtis, M.B. Chrissis, C.


Weber, Capability Maturity

L.L. Zhang, Product

con figuration: a review of


the state-of-the-art and future
research, Int. J. Prod. Res. 52
(2014)
63816398,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2014.942012.

[52]

Clean. Prod. (2014) 110,


doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.07.001.

[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

(2014) 720 732,


doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1

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

(1999) 147 159.

Technology-DESRIST 09

[54]

Y. Kristianto, P. Helo,
R.J. Jiao, A system level
product con

figurator for

engineer- to-order supply


chains, Comput. Ind. 72
(2015)
8291,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compind.2015.04.0
04.

[55]

J.A.
Simpson,
E.S.C. Weiner, The Oxford
English
Dictionary,
University Press, Oxford
UK, 1989.

[56]

P.B. Crosby, Quality


is Free: the Art of Making
Quality Certain, McGrawHill, New York NY, 1979.

[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

on Information Systems (2005) 819.


(accessed 03.03.15) http://eprints.qut.
edu.au/25152/.

[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]

J. Tiihonen, T. Soininen, State of the

practice in product con figuration a survey


of 10 cases in the finnish industry, in: S.F.T.
Tomiyama, M. Mntyl (Eds.), Knowledge
Intensive CAD1, Chapman-Hall, London,
1996.

[67]

M.B.
Miles,
M.
Huberman,
Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded
Sourcebook,
1994.

Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,

[68]

R.G. Cooper, Stage-gate systems: a


new tool for managing new products, Bus.
Horiz.
33
(1990)
4454,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00076813(90)90040-I.

[69]

H. sterle, Business in the


Information Age: Heading for New
Processes, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010.

[70]

T. De Bruin, M. Rosemann, Towards a


business process management maturity
model, ECIS 2005 Proceeding Thirteen
European Conference on Information Systems
(2005).
(accessed
18.08.14)
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/25194/.

[71]

Collette Rolland, A comprehensive


view of process engineering, Advanced
Information
Systems
Engineering,
Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 1 24.

[72]

R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, An


Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1982, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2232409.

[73]

B. Tan, S.L. Pan, T.-C. Chou, J.-Y.


Huang, Enabling agility through routinized
improvisation in IT deployment: the case of
chang chun petrochemicals, ICIS 2010
Proceeding (2010).
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/2
25.
Dr Olga Willner is a
Senior Researcher at
the BWI Center for
Industrial
Management at ETH
Zurich. Her research
agenda centers on the
engineer-to-order
environment with a
particular focus on
design automation and

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

of Berlin as well as a Postgraduate


Certificate in International Studies
from the University of Sydney.
Dr
Jon
Gosli
ng is
a
Senior
Lectur
er in
Suppl
y
Chain
Mana
gemen
t
in
the
Logist
ics
and
Opera
tions
Mana
gement
Sectio
n at
Cardif
f
Busin
ess
Schoo
l,
teachi
ng
purch
asing,
supply
chain
manag
ement
and
operat
ions
manag
ement.
Prior
to
becom
ing an
acade
mic,
he
worke
d as a
supply
chain
analys
t for
Unipa
rt/Jag
uar.
He
works
closel
y with
a
range
of
organi
zation
s
to
better
unders
tand
appro
priate
strateg

ies for engineer-toorder supply chains,


and his work has been
published in a range of
operations
management
and
engineering journals.
He is currently leading
a funded research
project in the area of
appropriate
contracting
for
complex engineering
proj-ects
and
supervising
a
Knowledge Transfer
Partnership to

deliver a new and reconfigured product range for a


manufacturer of prefabricated building products.
Paul Schnsleben is
Professor
for
Industrial Engineering
and Management at
ETH
Zurich,
Switzerland.
Paul
Schnsleben studied
Mathematics
and
Operation Re-search
at ETH Zurich. He
obtained
a
Ph.D.
degree
in
1980.
Several
years
of
responsibilities
for
computer
and
organization
departments
of
industrial companies

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

Management Within and Across


Companies was published in
German by Springer, Germany and
in English by CRC/Taylor &
Francis Group/Auerbach.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen