4.1.1. Support the design and build for product safety and environmental considerations

The design, build and in-service support of an ETO product must use processes to ensure that safety, health and environmental (SHE) obligations are correctly managed. PLM may be used to support this objective through providing processes that enable the necessary SHE information to be captured and managed throughout the product’s lifecycle. Stark (Reference Stark2015) stated that PLM can provide assistance in capturing and formatting information to meet SHE regulations, as well as providing audit trails of decision-making traceability. Duque et al. and Barreto et al. discussed how PLM may be used to support green manufacturing and sustainability by tracking materials used in the product throughout its lifecycle. This was supported through the interviews such as with A-1 who stated that PLM provides evidence with regard to the management of information to support product safety. Providing evidence of design for product safety is an important element of all NPD, is particularly challenging within ETO and PLM should provide this evidence when required. Investigations of previous product failures such as with the Nimrod crash, identified a lack of evidence of design for product safety and included in recommendations for improvement (Haddon-Cave Reference Haddon-Cave2009).

The challenges specific to ETO products require robust PLM processes relating to SHE such as ensuring correct data formatting and attribution (McKendry et al. Reference McKendry, Whitfield and Duffy2022). However, as stated by A-24, PLM also allows appropriate engagement from the product safety team to ensure that they can influence the design. This is achieved in a number of ways including access to the emerging product information across the extended enterprise throughout the lifecycle. As the data are structured in a configured way with a full audit history displaying how the data evolved, it makes it considerably easier whilst undertaking the business processes to understand any SHE implications. A-20 also stated that safety considerations are a key business objective for PLM. This enables the NPD stakeholders to support and monitor the evolving product development throughout its long lifecycle, and provide SHE reports directly from the PLM environment. It will also provide evidence to the appropriate regularity bodies that SHE legislation is being met.

4.1.2. Enable quality through right first time and reduction in rework

ETO products typically lack a physical prototype – an FoC naval ship is both a physical prototype and the delivered product (McKendry et al. Reference McKendry, Whitfield and Duffy2022). They have overlapping life phases with design areas reaching maturity at different times with emergent product development behaviours impacting the programme. Hicks and McGovern (Reference Hicks and McGovern2009) stated that “ETO products are subject to product change through the lifecycle of the programme.” These can result in quality issues that can have a significant impact on the programme schedule and cost due to unplanned rework. The cost of quality increases as the programme matures, with resultant cost, schedule and reputational damage.

Quality is a topic that was consistently discussed both in the literature and in the interview responses. The literature in Section 2 highlighted the role that PLM has in improving quality and reducing rework throughout the lifecycle of the product. A-2 and A-25 raised a key objective for PLM to support the reduction in rework due to improving quality, therefore reducing cost to the programme. A-12 provided the example of ‘lifed’ items, described as those components that have a specific life, when they are required to be replaced. The information and related processes must be managed effectively, including item description, location, fitting date and maximum life span before replacement.

In ETO products, these components number in the many thousands and a poor PLM implementation in this respect will result in considerable cost in the manufacturing phase as the programme stakeholders attempt to understand what items need replacing and when. A-10 and A-20 both stated that in hazardous ETO environments such as a nuclear facility or a particle collider, the quality considerations are critical as rework has a considerable cost: once an item has been fitted in a radiated environment, for example, it cannot be easily removed. PLM supports improving quality and reducing rework by managing the evolving design, build and maintaining the product in-service, and assists with the management of emergent product development behaviours throughout the product’s lifecycle. This includes identifying the implications of these behaviours to ensure that quality is not impacted and rework is reduced.

4.1.3. Enable product development and build collaboration across all stakeholders

PLM is required to assist with the mobilisation, integration and collaboration of stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the ETO product. Due to the scale and long lifecycle of the ETO product, there are thousands involved who have various skills and functional objectives. They will be in different geographical locations and from different organisations. As discussed earlier, enabling collaboration throughout the NPD process is a widely considered and fundamental objective of PLM in the literature. Gomez et al. highlighted how PLM removes traditional problems of silos of information and will enhance collaboration across the extended enterprise (Gomez et al. Reference Gomez, Baxter, Roy and Kalta2008). The ability to mobilise disparate and physically dispersed stakeholders towards collaborating on a design was also captured throughout the interviews by A-14 and A-17. Examples include the integration of engineering processes with those of manufacturing planning to ensure that the design can be effectively built, supporting a shared situational awareness. This also allows manufacturing planning to have visibility of the design to allow them to undertake their planning processes earlier, therefore reducing the lifecycle of the programme and consequently reducing risk. The same can be said for other business processes such as collaboration with engineering, product safety and the commissioning of the build as raised by A-2. The interviewees did not widely raise collaboration as an objective of PLM considering its importance and relevance. This may be due to collaboration using PLM being a fundamentally accepted requirement for their organisations, similar to security, export and IPR requirements.

The PLM processes deployed must ensure that each stakeholder understands how to achieve their deliverables including the interfaces with the processes used by other business functions. These processes may be used by thousands of stakeholders across multiple geographical locations. ETO products will rely on PLM to support understanding of the emergent process behaviours such as product change, and its impact on the various business function processes.

4.1.4. Cost, profit, risk reduction and value for money

An objective of PLM is to assist in the management of risk through processes that enable the capturing and presentation of the programme information. This supports the management team in identifying and reacting to programme performance. The need for cost management as an objective for PLM was also captured within the interview responses. A-22 stated that PLM must support profit for the business providing more for less, and supported by appropriate metrics. A-5 stated that information is the building block to drive and sell your product, and that if you can control your information, you can better control cost and therefore your price. Without PLM within ETO programmes, the effective management of programme cost and schedule would be compromised.

The importance of profitability to an organisation was raised by A-26 as a key objective of PLM. This is due to the ability of PLM to reduce rework and as a risk reduction for exposure to warranty costs. A-26 stated that PLM is a key resource for customer satisfaction through providing value for money and improved assurance that the product meets the customers’ requirements. PLM helps in supporting understanding of customer risks; therefore, they can be managed more effectively that will drive risk reduction, as was identified by A-24. Therefore, PLM will also assist in managing the programme performance and provide assurances to the customer that they are receiving value for money by proving appropriate metrics on programme performance, such as with the design maturity against the plan or the status of identified risks.

4.1.5. Enable standardised design and build

As described in Sections 1 and 2, the literature on PLM for ETO products is relatively sparse. The objective of providing standard design and manufacturing processes to the design and build of large-scale, complex products given their unique challenges is not widely discussed. Pulkkinen, Leino, and Papinniemi (Reference Pulkkinen, Leino and Papinniemi2017) discussed how PLM could enable the standardisation of manufacturing processes, but also commented that further research was required in order to achieve this. PLM enables standardisation of processes such as with the Siemens Process Framework (Rohloff Reference Rohloff2009), but these do not provide guidance on the challenges of ETO products and the difficulties with standardisation. These challenges include the high levels of customisation characterised within ETO products as discussed earlier, which results in difficulties with standardising design and manufacturing processes.

The lack of a physical prototype also means that design and manufacturing processes cannot be refined using prototypes. Due to the highly customised nature of ETO products and the lack of a prototype, there are a significant number of processes that are non-standard and therefore not repeatable, particularly in the build phase. This leads to inefficiencies and risks to quality and safety due to the limited opportunity for continuous process improvement.

One interviewee stated that a key objective of PLM was to enable standardisation in the design and build. A-12 stated that there was a need to introduce standardisation as the whole product could not be prototyped; instead prototyping aspects of the product, examples include identifying repeatable manufacturing processes in build and relating back to the design process. Therefore, an objective of PLM is to assist in the identification and management of processes that can be standardised, with the resultant opportunities for continuous improvement. These improvements can be used to influence other stakeholder processes, such as improving design for build or support.

4.2.1. Creating processes that meet business objectives and are not overly complicated

There were numerous examples from the interview analysis where PLM processes were developed and implemented to meet ETO business objectives that have been over engineered. A-2 stated how they incorrectly made their electronic process workflows in the PDM system overly complicated and prescriptive, resulting in difficulties when something went wrong and needed to be fixed. The result was that they had to reengineer their workflows to make them simpler. The creation of complicated processes, including those that are replicated in the PDM workflows, is understandable given the complexity of ETO products, but flexibility is required to manage emergent product process behaviours such as change. Moreover, an objective of PLM in ETO products is to manage security, IPR and export obligations as discussed in earlier, and these require PLM processes with multiple stakeholders and strict rules, which if breached can have significant consequences.

A-1 highlighted the difficulties associated with identifying IPR information that cannot be shared across different ETO programmes, and used the example of a diesel generator that might have information embedded in the detail that cannot be shared. A consequential failure to implement processes to manage obligations may result in a breach of security, IPR or export controls.

Another example of the challenges of managing process complexity is with non-recurring activities. ATO products typically have repeatable processes that can be refined and improved upon, with associated learning gained from each application. A-16 highlighted the difficulties associated with planning of non-recurring tasks that are typified within the novel nature of ETO products, where the processes may be defined and used for the first time. The difficulties associated with creating a programme plan were highlighted, if processes are at a high-level, and cited the example of managing product reviews.

The challenge is therefore to achieve an appropriate balance between overly complicated processes that lack flexibility, and processes that are too simple lacking the detail required to support the business objectives. Processes should also not be constrictive due to the level of uncertainty in ETO products. A-17 discussed the challenges related to the focus on schedule adherence when implementing improvements on the programme, one of which related to insufficient attention being paid to realising strategic objectives. This balance between having the right level of process detail to manage uncertainty in the programme, having processes that can be applied to accomplish programme objectives and to measure cost and schedule adherence, as well as the overall programme performance, is a challenge that needs to be addressed.

A-12 discussed how their business is building a bespoke product that is tailored to meet unique customer requirements, that consequently necessitated the development of tailored business processes. A-12 introduced new processes to identify products that can be manufactured repeatedly. This was a new approach with a greater level of flexibility, required in order to adapt their business processes as they learn through the ETO programme lifecycle. Ensuring that these processes are not overly complicated is difficult when they have never been applied before. Another difficulty in ensuring that processes meet the business objectives is guaranteeing that all the stakeholders in the ETO programme are using the same approach. Differing, non-standard processes can result in a significant impact to ETO product delivery due to a misalignment on objectives. A-26 cited an example where partners in his programme have different specifications for testing, resulting in constant rewrites of the test specifications to meet business objectives.

It is also important to adhere to processes that have been agreed. A-2 described that a challenge for the successful use of PLM is with process documentation, as people often work around processes, tailoring them to satisfy their need, and therefore problems or improvements are not captured as these workarounds are local and not documented. A-10 also stated that there needs to be more focus on process adherence to support the PLM deployment. A-27 described that a challenge with standardising processes is that they have a business model that was developed before their PLM implementation and the associated technology. A-27 added that it is a challenge to standardise their business processes, not least because there are many different opinions across multiples programmes that go through different lifecycles. It was then stated that understanding what those processes are and what data are required to be managed is difficult, particularly for those who are new to PLM. Therefore, there is a challenge with integrating and standardising processes to meet the objectives of different programmes.

Overly complicated processes will not only inhibit the ETO product design and build, but will also lead to failures in meeting mandatory regulations such as safety, health, environment, security, IPRs or export controls as onerous processes are bypassed. Where processes are bypassed, workarounds are not documented and potential improvements are lost with problems not communicated to the responsible stakeholders. Due to the customised nature of ETO products and the lack of a prototype, processes may require to be created as the business objective or challenge emerges. This results in a novel approach that may have been used for the first time. Therefore, there are difficulties in ensuring that a process is fit for purpose before deployment, such as managing security, maturity, design reviews or with business improvement initiatives in design or build. Other product types, such as automotive manufacturing, have repeatable processes that are proved and enhanced through testing on prototypes, and continuous improvement techniques such as Lean. There is also the challenge of ensuring that processes do not strip out necessary detail, and are therefore not fit for purpose, in an attempt to ensure that they are not overly complicated. Processes should manage the uncertainty in the programme, but also support the schedule and cost to ensure overall programme performance.

4.3.1. PLM business process ownership, development, standardisation, LFE and adherence using suitable expertise within a dedicated cross-functional team

The PLM business processes used to support ETO NPD should have appropriate ownership for development and maintenance to support the various business functional activities that they represent. The processes should also be standardised to support the various interconnections of the business functions to ensure that disparate processes that only support individual programmes or activities are not created. A dedicated cross-functional PLM team will enable not only both ownership and development of the processes, but also integration with the other business units. This team will also ensure adherence within their own business functions and target any disparate processes that do not support the PLM objectives of the business. Ensuring that LFE is captured from within the programme, any legacy programmes and across industry and academia will also be enabled by the team.

A-14 stated the importance of ensuring that the PLM strategy is not driven by an individual programme, but spans all programmes within the business. A-14 added that they have used PLM differently across a number of programmes as each is tailored to individual programme needs. They typically start PLM from ‘scratch’ for each programme with the resulting effect of having a slightly different PLM system for each programme. It was then stated that PLM should be owned by the business and not driven by the programme, but with a central function managing PLM. There should be standardised business-wide processes and technology that will drive consistency with the way people behave and will assist in eliminating data quality issues experienced by the programme. A-14 provided examples of how, across programmes, people bring their own ideas, resulting in variations in the processes, technology and in the designs themselves. As a result of these variations, the business does not always get the benefits from translating design content from one programme to another and that, accordingly, people become frustrated. Further examples were provided that illustrated if there is standardisation of PLM across the business, then it would reduce the time to undertake tasks, resulting in improved schedule adherence and making the business more cost effective. A-14 also described how the requirement for training would be reduced if there was standardisation across the business as more process variation usually means more training.

In order to ensure standardisation across the business, a cross-functional PLM process team with the appropriate authority and Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP) should be created. This will include process development, ownership, ensuring adherence and also providing central communication to the technology providers to ensure that requirements meet whole business objectives and not just those of the individual programme. This will reduce technology variations across the business, resulting in reduced customisation, lower risk to the programme and will enable the IT function to better focus their resources on the key business requirements.

A-13 described how an enhancement to their PLM environment would be to have improved team integration with different functions embedded within teams to advance the way they work together; this would also enable quick access to the right skillsets. The ETO product is complex, so there are skilled resources supporting the various processes across the functions, such as system design engineers, detail design engineers, supply chain professionals, programme managers, finance personnel, manufacturing planner, manufacturing engineers, test and commissioners and in-service support engineers. Having representation from these functions would assist with the success of the PLM approach by ensuring that the processes and enabling PLM technology meet the needs of all functions across the lifecycle of the product.

A central PLM team was also supported by A-9 who stated that to resolve the issues associated with PLM delivery, it would be beneficial to have a centralised team to provide PLM administration, standardisation and ensuring that it is consistently practicable. It was added that they would provide economies of scale where the overall programme would benefit by utilising key resources centrally to leverage their skillsets to meet programme objectives. A-9 also stated that this central team can be used to enable LFE and that, ultimately, centralisation would provide benefits that ensures that the same problems are not repeated, which has been the case on previous programmes. It was cautioned that this may be seen as empire building by some, but that can be mitigated by gaining buy-in from across the organisation, not least by explaining the benefits centralisation will bring.

A-14 stated that they do not have a surplus of resources who have the knowledge and experience in the PLM processes and technology and that it is difficult to recruit SQEP due to the unique nature of their product and its complexity. It was questioned whether external resources would understand the difficulties with their product and whether they would understand the processes. Internal skilled resources, however, have other demands placed on them to meet the challenging programme schedule and that they often rely on resources for the PLM implementation that have other responsibilities. Therefore, there is a lack of dedicated focus on the PLM implementation from these skilled resources. A-14 speculated that their organisation does not do enough to establish the relationship between the issues and the technology requirements, causing difficulties with implementing a solution into the PLM environment that addresses these requirements. The solution is typically implemented whilst undertaking the product development activities. Having a dedicated PLM team would enable the focus to be on the PLM implementation without being distracted by other activities. There would also need to be a balance between replacing these skillsets and building up experience in other team members.

A-10 described the difficulties with using the technology providers to assist as they do not understand the requirements of the ETO product, they have a very IT approach, and they focus on selling their products. A-3 stated that an improvement to their PLM environment that meets their business objectives would be to use PLM earlier in the lifecycle; however, it must be appropriate to the needs of the programme and be scalable to support business processes with the necessary control. The dedicated SQEP PLM team would provide this improvement by introducing repeatable processes and enabling technology proved in previous programmes. This team would have the necessary skills and experience from across the business. A-2 also supported the use of a dedicated PLM team, and stated that their organisation has process owners, but that they also undertake ETO product development activities, so they will not have the capacity to create these processes. A-2 added that they overcame this challenge by creating a central team that creates and maintains these processes, in alignment with the core PLM architecture and principles that can be explained to the business.

4.3.2. Guidelines and governance over process complexity to ensure that they are simple and usable

Ensuring that processes deliver the business objectives whilst not being overly complicated was identified as the only process-oriented challenge. A-9 stated the importance of ensuring simplicity with the processes, for example, ensuring that electronic workflows in the PDM system are not technology-driven with vendors directing the solution. This was added to stating that if a dedicated PLM team is created and there are integrated processes and systems with a master record approach, then this will assist with process simplicity. A-16 cautioned that the business should not be too prescriptive and that flexibility is required to assist with the complexity of the programme. A-7 described how there is a need to ensure that there are no local approaches to using PLM as that may result in quality issues, resulting in a lack of information required to understand the root cause. This point was embellished stating that PLM can be used to mandate how the business operates.

A-14 stated they must not have processes that are too onerous, for example, where electronic workflows are too complicated, adding that they keep the processes simple and endeavour to continue to do so. A-2 also highlighted how they made their electronic workflows in their PDM system too complicated and prescriptive as they believed that everyone would use the same workflow. This led to it becoming too large to support all the process variations, and that if something went wrong in the workflow, it was difficult to fix. A-2 described how they had to completely reengineer the workflows to make them simpler and easier to support, with the key being to keep things simple. As shown earlier, there was evidence to demonstrate that due to the complexity of the ETO product, processes are created that reflect this complexity, and subsequently make them unusable. A balance must be struck between ensuring that the processes are robust and meet the business needs, but that they are also simple, usable and are easy to understand across the large number of personnel in the programme from various functions and backgrounds. This simplicity will also aid in ensuring that those electronic workflows, which are based on the business processes, can be maintained and are flexible to meet the emergent needs of the programme. Therefore, there should be guidelines and governance managed by the central PLM team to ensure that the processes do not become overly complicated when attempting to meet the business objectives.

4.3.3. Mandate utilisation of PLM processes internally, to partners and the supply chain

There is minimum advantage to the ETO NPD if PLM processes are created to support business objectives, but these are not made mandatory for use by all those involved in the extended enterprise. A-21 used a supplier perspective to describe how important it is for suppliers to understand the programme’s maturity management approach and the relationship with the product information they provide. The information provided by suppliers is used to progress the evolution of the design and often this is at various levels of maturity at different life phases in the programme depending on the level of customisation, as discussed in Section 2.

A-21 stated that, as a supplier they want more knowledge of the design systems their product will interface with across the ETO product and how they can help with the integration. This relationship between the supplier information and the maturity management is an important enabler for a successful PLM implementation on ETO products as the suppliers provide technical information used to evolve the product development in the programme. To ensure a successful maturity management approach, key suppliers, especially those for critical design systems, should understand how the information they are providing is being used by the programme to reflect the maturity of the product.

A-26 described how to start from the beginning of the programme and ensure that the contracts have clauses stating that stakeholders and relevant suppliers must adhere to the PLM approach. A-26 added that it should be stipulated that they must use the same integrated environment and that they cannot subsequently create their own technology systems, which is an important point in relation to achieving a single point of truth.

As there are many stakeholders in ETO programmes, having contractual obligations is important to ensure the prevention of disparate, unintegrated systems, with the resultant information quality issues. In conjunction with the contractual obligations, the stakeholders must also be supported by the PLM team who can provide support and help to ensure buy-in of the programme’s PLM approach. The PLM team can also aid in assuring that adherence to the PLM approach is maintained.

As described by A-21, suppliers would be willing to support the PLM approach if they understood it. However, without the contractual obligations, as stated by A-26, there is a risk that when costs and schedule impact the delivery to the programme, the stakeholders may fail to follow the PLM approach. Having an appropriate balance between supplier engagement and overly constraining them by the PLM processes is important. A-17 highlighted the importance of allowing suppliers to innovate to assist with the product development process.

A-20 stated that they would prefer long-term collaboration with suppliers to build relationships and highlighted the difficulties with having to go out to the market for each new programme in order to meet value for money conditions set by the customer. A-20 stated a preference for a healthy supply chain that is not overly reliant on their business. Since ETO products have a long lifecycle, there is a risk that if a supplier is too reliant on a single programme, they may become insolvent within the product development cycle. This would impact the information used to progress the product development as well as the final delivery of the hardware during the manufacturing phase. In addition to engaging with suppliers on their responsibilities within the PLM approach, monitoring the wider health of their business is important. Through this engagement, the skillsets of the supply chain and the wider stakeholders will increase, improving the understanding of PLM in the programme.