Based on the requirements for MCM effectiveness and efficiency (cf. section 1.4), the three case studies are cross-analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively if determinable with accessible data (e.g., for the process structure). Overall, two different MCM approaches have been identified. Company A and B utilize several processes for MCM, while company C applies one single, ECM-based process. MCs are described with various attributes in different documents, for the processes basic descriptions of process content and often rudimentary process architectures are available.
From a content perspective, especially reactive and partly proactive activities are considered for the identification and planning of changes. The adaptation of processes includes two aspects – the tailoring of the processes and the selection of relevant roles.
Both are mainly based on experience or checklists (for the role selection). Different roles are described and mostly allocated to the processes, for example, a change man-ager, a change committee, or a work planner. Despite central coordination functions,
MCs are only occasionally aligned and coordinated; reviews and lessons learned are not conducted. In addition to this brief summary, for each MCM requirement the detailed results are described in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Current practice of MCM in industry: findings from the cross-case analysis
Requirement:Systemic perspective (Holistic view)
– Decentralized MCM approachwith a focus on manufacturing planning (A,B) oradapted ECM processwith a focus on the description and alignment of MCs (C)
– Attribute-based MC description, various documents (e.g., change profile, proposal) – One (C) or several processes (A,B) for MCM with mostly reactive, partly proactive
activities; few deliverables defined;basic process structureavailable and described (C) Requirement:Stakeholder involvement & interfaces (Holistic view)
– Usuallyearly identification and involvement of relevant stakeholders, butno repeated review and updateduring the MCM process; involvement of customers not considered Requirement:Enterprise-independent applicability (Applicability)
– Company-specific conceptsapplied for MCM
Requirement:Transparency & simplicity (Applicability)
– Basic process descriptions available(textual and flow charts), butfew information about process detailslike deliverables, in- and outputs, dependencies, etc.
– One (C) or various (A,B)documents with attributesavailable to describe MCs Requirement:Clear roles & responsibilities (Applicability)
– Different roles for MCM, allocated to the process (e.g., change requester, project manager, work planner, change committee); usually one main responsible
Requirement:Defined process structure (Process orientation)
– Description ofprocess phases, activities, and their sequence, but limited information on deliverables, in- and outputs, etc.; structure of processes is highly linear with few dependencies and no activity clusters
– Few (planned) iterationsin the MCM process (about 12% to 26% of the activities) – Some feedback loopsandtermination points, few or no reviews and approvals described – Different degree ofparallelization of activities(from no to almost 39%)
Requirement:Coordination & information flow (Process orientation) – Limited consideration ofsynchronization pointsduring the process
– Centralized coordinationestablished (A,C) or planned (B); conducted by achange com-mitteeor sometimes by achange manager
– No differentiation of activitiesregarding, e.g., required quality of output, thoroughness Requirement:Process adaptation (Process orientation)
– MC- and experienced-based selectionof processes (A,B),standardized MCM process with minor tailoringto account for (non-)obligatory MCs (C)
– Experienced-based(A,B) orchecklist-based(C)selection of rolesand stakeholders Requirement:Change identification (Proactivity)
– Individual,decentralized identificationof need for change, partly with planned activities;
early process phasesaddress the change identification (A,B) or the change request (C) Requirement:Early change evaluation (Proactivity)
– Rough estimationof expected costs, required resources, and efforts during the initiation of an MC;impact analysissometimes conducted (C) or not considered (A,B)
– MCs oftenprocessed as separate changes; except (C),almost no cross-MC review, align-ment, and coordinationapplied (A,B)
Requirement:Cause & impact analysis (Problem solving & analytic capabilities)
– Heterogeneous approaches for cause and impact analysis(e.g., detailed analysis, analy-sis after detailed change planning, impact analyanaly-sis with stakeholders)
– Detailed cost or cost-benefit analysisduring change planning
Requirement:Solution finding & implementation (Problem solving & analytic capabil.) – Concept developmentas part of the MCM process (A,B); concept required as part of the
change request to start the MCM process (C)
– Detailed change planningas part of the MCM process;implementation planningnot or only partly considered;implementationpartly or fully considered
Requirement:Archiving & tracing of information (Knowledge management)
– Individual MC documentationwith subsequent digital documentation (A,B),continuous digital MC documentationduring the MCM process (C)
Requirement:Control of success & lessons learned (Knowledge management)
– Process ends with successful implementation of MC, most oftenno evaluation of the change, no documentation of learnings
– Archiving of all information / final report, butno selection and consolidation of documents / data / informationwith closure of MC
Requirement:Efficient processing (MCM efficiency)
– No specific measures identified; costs for processing MCs range between e1,000 and e1,600; amounts of up to several thousand MCs per year
4.4 Conclusion
These findings contribute to answering the four research questions Q1 to Q4 (cf. section 1.3.1) complementing the state of the art (cf. section 3.7).
The companies utilize company-specific MCM approaches neglecting a holistic, system-oriented perspective on MCM (cf. research question Q1). Although certain aspects from the state of the art (e.g., process-orientation, description of MCs) could be identified, an MCM-specific system and context model is not available.
The description of MCs (cf. research question Q2) is based on different change attributes and documents (such as a change profile). However, a consistent, detailed MC model holistically describing any MC is not available at any of the three companies.
Also, a detailed MCM process to efficiently and effectively manage MCs is not available (cf. research question Q3). The companies use one or more processes mainly addressing the reactive identification and planning of changes. Proactivity and knowledge management are barely reflected within the processes. In addition, the processes are documented as highly linear sequences only, iterations, parallelization, and feedbacks are scarcely considered.
In contrast, different roles for MCM are described providing a valuable supplement to the scarce state of the art for this aspect. Regarding the adaptation of processes, the companies mainly apply an experienced-based selection of processes and roles, a change-specific adaptation approach is not available.
By the time of the case studies, an evaluation of the benefits of MCM (cf. research question Q4) has not been conducted by the three companies. Although the practitioners agreed upon the fundamental benefit of a process-based management of MCs, only estimations of costs for
processing MCs and the amount of MCs could be provided. These are generally in line with findings from the state of the art for ECs.
Overall, these case study findings corroborate the need to support practitioners in managing MCs effectively and efficiently (cf. section 1.2), i.e., to develop a process-based MCM approach. Complementing the state of the art, the case studies and the findings from literature together provide a broad data basis for the subsequent development of the MCM approach.
As a first major part of the prescriptive study (cf. 1.3.3), this section comprises the conceptual design of the MCM approach – the MCM context model. As expressed by its very name, this context model seeks to not only represent MCM as a separate, independent object, but together with its accompanying setting / circumstances and “in terms of which it can be fully understood” (OXFORD DICTIONARIES2016). The MCM context model is developed based on the MCM requirements, findings from the literature review (cf. section 3.1) and current practice in industry. Starting with the concept development, the overall composition and structure of the model is defined, followed by the design of the general and the specific MCM system architecture. The results have been carefully reviewed with the case study partners and other researchers and are critically discussed in the conclusion of this section.1
5.1 Concept development for the MCM context model
The MCM context model is intended to support an enterprise-independent, detailed develop-ment of MCM while also supporting clarity and intelligibility of the overall approach. By this, the MCM context model specifically contributes to the first two categories of MCM effectiveness – “holistic view” and “applicability” – but shall as well reflect and substantiate the remaining categories and allocated requirements (see section 1.4 and the appendix, table A.1 for further details).
Accounting for the concept of systems thinking and systems engineering (cf. section 1.3.3), different but complementary approaches are applied: a non-formalized graphical and textual approach to create and visualize the overall MCM context model, and a matrix-based approach (MDM) to capture the detailed architecture of the model and create a structured conceptual basis for the development of the MCM approach.
1 Note, that a prior version of the models presented in this chapter has been published in KOCHet al.
(2015a) and KOCHet al. (2016a).
The formal MCM context model consists of nodes and edges, modeling elements as nodes and their relations as edges. Each element may be a sub-system itself and contain hierarchically arranged elements and their relations if necessary. The elements considered relevant are either physically tangible or intangible and are clearly termed based on the definitions provided in chapter 2, if not stated otherwise. Together, the elements determine the composition and structure of the overall system, the MCM context model. Accounting for the general purpose of the MCM context model, the MCM requirements, and findings from literature and industrial practice, the following elements are considered relevant (see table 5.1). For each, a brief explanation regarding the selection is provided.
Table 5.1: Elements considered for the MCM context model
Element Details regarding the selection
Change cause Fundamental origin of any Manufacturing Change or Engineering Change, comprises relevant events or triggers leading to changes Manufacturing Change Object of observation of any change management activity in the
field of manufacturing
Factory Subject to any occurring Manufacturing Change, might also create causes for further changes
MCM process Main design element for a process-oriented MCM concept Engineering Change Object of observation of any change management activity in the
field of engineering
Product Subject to any occurring Engineering Change, might also create causes for further changes
ECM process Main design element for a process-oriented ECM concept
Process support Relevant objects supporting the implementation and operation of MCM, for example, roles or methods
Besides these, the following elements have not been considered for the context model, but might be incorporated in a further evolved version of the model (see table 5.2). If needed, additional elements and dependencies might be added to adjust the model to company-specific requirements.2
Accounting for both the fundamental similarities and dependencies of ECM and MCM as well as the various differences (cf. sections 2.1 and 2.2), the context model is symmetrically
2 Generally, other processes like the product development process or technology planning represent potential sources of change causes. For the MCM context model, change causes are considered as a distinct element. In case other processes are considered relevant and do not represent potential change causes, those might be added to the model.
Table 5.2: Elements not considered for the MCM context model
Element Details regarding the non-selection
Factory planning process MCM mainly addresses factories in operation Product development process Mainly relevant for ECM
Additional processes For example, purchasing or technology planning; mainly serve as potential sources of change causes
Organization Application- and company-specific
IT Application- and company-specific
separated into two sections: one for MCM and one for ECM (see figure 5.1). They are closely interrelated, but also able to operate independently. In other words, MCM constitutes the counterpart of ECM in the manufacturing domain.3 Both sections comprise the same type of elements: a change management process, the change itself, and the object of the change. In addition to their direct interrelations, the two sections are linked by two elements: the change cause and the process support. Together, the context model represents a system with eight elements, of which some also represent systems.
The change processes are located in the very center of the context model reflecting their relevance for the intended process-oriented MCM design. The other elements of the MCM section (change cause, MC, and factory) are arranged from left to right according to their causal relationship (change cause leads to MC, which impacts the factory). The same applies for their counterparts in the ECM section. The process support is located beneath all other elements accounting for its assisting character for MCM (and ECM).