Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T12:56:41.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Product changes from various viewpoints along the product lifecycle – an empirical study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Julia Beibl  and
Dieter Krause
Julia Beibl*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
Dieter Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
*
julia.beibl@tuhh.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

From an economic perspective, the appeal of a product diminishes over time. However, volatile markets and divergent technological advancements make it challenging to anticipate when and to what extent changes will be necessary. Therefore, it is important to be able to integrate changes after a product's launch. This paper provides an overview of different perspectives on the product lifecycle. In addition, the paper presents an empirical study on implementing changes at an automobile manufacturer.

Keywords

change managementdesign for x (DfX)product familiesproduct lifecycle
Type
Systems Engineering and Design
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 2503 - 2512
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

Albers, A., Lanza, G., Klippert, M., Schäfer, L., Frey, A., Hellweg, F., Müller-Welt, P., Schöck, M., Krahe, C., Nowoseltschenko, K. and Rapp, S. (2022), “Product-Production-CoDesign: An Approach on Integrated Product and Production Engineering Across Generations and Life Cycles”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 109, pp. 167–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beibl, J., Lee, J., Krause, D. and Moon, S.K. (2023), “Flexibility - Grand Challenge for Product Design and Production: Review and Status”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 119, pp. 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, A. and Blessing, L. (2008), “GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLEXIBLE PRODUCTS”. 10th International Design Conference Design, Dubrovnik, Croatia pp. 289–300.Google Scholar
Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W. (2014), Interviews mit Experten, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19416-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T. and Stark, R. (2016), “A systematic literature review on modular product design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 488–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1166482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brüsemeister, T. (2008), “Aspekte empirischer Sozialforschung”, in Brüsemeister, T. (Ed.), Qualitative Forschung, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 11–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91182-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigner, M. and Stelzer, R. (2009), “Der Produktentstehungsprozess im Wandel”, in Eigner, M. and Stelzer, R. (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/b93672_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricke, E. and Schulz, A.P. (2005), “Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerth, N. (2015), “Prozesse im IT-Marketing”, in Gerth, N. (Ed.), IT-Marketing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 167–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46927-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, E., Fuchs, C., Hamraz, B., Windheim, M. and Krause, D. (2021), “Design for future variety to enable long-term benefits of modular product families”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 1, pp. 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, K., Eubanks, C.F. and Di Marco, P. (1994), “Design for product retirement and material life-cycle”, Materials & Design, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO 14040 (2006), Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework. Beuth, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kratzer, M.J., Bauch, L., Burkert, T., Szost, B. and Bauernhansl, T. (2021), “Reasons for Engineering Changes Affecting Part-specific Tools: An Investigation in the Automotive Industry”, in pp. 477–481. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM50564.2021.9672777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, D. and Gebhardt, N. (2023), “The Potential of Modular Product Families”, in Krause, D. and Gebhardt, N. (Eds.), Methodical Development of Modular Product Families, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 81–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65680-8_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2016), Handbuch Produktentwicklung, Hanser eLibrary, Hanser, München. http://www.hanser-elibrary.com/doi/book/10.3139/9783446445819Google Scholar
Nascimento, L.d.C.N., Souza, T.V. de, Oliveira, I.C.D.S., Moraes, J.R.M.M. de, Aguiar, R.C.B. de and Da Silva, L.F. (2018), “Theoretical saturation in qualitative research: an experience report in interview with schoolchildren”, Revista brasileira de enfermagem, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 228–233. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2016-0616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T.W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. and Ki Moon, S. (2016), “Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.-H. (2007), Konstruktionslehre: Grundlagen erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung ; Methoden und Anwendung, Springer-Lehrbuch, 7. Aufl., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34061-4Google Scholar
Rajan, Palani, van Wie, P.K., Campbell, M., Wood, M.I., Otto, K.L., K.N. (2005), “An empirical foundation for product flexibility”, Design Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 405–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrick, I.J. and Echols, A.E. (2004), “Technology roadmapping in review: A tool for making sustainable new product development decisions”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 71 No. 1-2, pp. 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(03)00064-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudberget, D.S., Levandowski, C., André, S., Isaksson, O., Elgh, F. et al. . (2017), “Supporting design platforms by identifying flexible modules”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED. Vol. 3 (DS87-3), p. 191-200.Google Scholar
Salvador, F. (2007), “Toward a Product System Modularity Construct: Literature Review and Reconceptualization”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.893996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, R. (2004), “Creating Modular Platforms for Strategic Flexibility”, Design Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2004.tb00151.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, G., Riesener, M. and Breunig, S. (2017), “Design for Changeability: Incorporating Change Propagation Analysis in Modular Product Platform Design”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 61, pp. 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, G., Rudolf, S., Tonnes, C. and Aleksic, S. (2016), “Release frequency for technical changes of modular product platforms: How to synchronise technical changes and product releases during the lifecyle of a product platform”, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), 14.03.2016 - 17.03.2016, Taipei, Taiwan, IEEE, pp. 1045–1050. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2016.7474898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwede, L.-N., Greve, E., Krause, D., Otto, K., Moon, S.K., et al. . (2022), “How to Use the Levers of Modularity Properly—Linking Modularization to Economic Targets”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 144 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilstra, A.H., Backlund, P.B., Seepersad, C.C. and Wood, K.L. (2015), “Principles for designing products with flexibility for future evolution”, International Journal of Mass Customisation, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 22. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMASSC.2015.069597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, Y., Daimon, T. and Kondoh, S., “Life cycle option selection based on the difference of value and physical lifetimes for life cycle design”, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design 2007.Google Scholar
Weck, O. de (2007), “On the role of DSM in designing systems and products for changeability”, in Danilovic, M., Deubzer, F., Kreimeyer, M., Lindemann, U. and Maurer, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International DSM Conference: Munich, 16-18 October 2007, 1. Aufl., Shaker, Herzogenrath.Google Scholar