2. Problem analysis and state of the art

The product creation process, as considered in this paper, includes the combination of product design and production system design. Product design, also referred to as product development, involves the iterative creation of marketable products based on specific requirements and predefined goals, such as cost efficiency or functional fulfillment (Reference Gericke, Bender, Pahl, Beitz, Feldhusen and GroteGericke et al., 2021; Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., 2019). On the other hand, production system design, also referred to as production system development or production development, focuses on the planning and development of workflows, workplaces, and production logistics, as well as material flow, often as part of factory planning (Reference Cochran, Arinez, Duda and LinckCochran et al., 2001; Reference SinnwellSinnwell, 2020). While these processes are distinct, their interdependencies necessitate close coordination to ensure that the designed product can be manufactured efficiently and cost-effectively. To address these interdependencies, the concept of integrative (sometimes also defined as “integrated”) product and production system development has been introduced. This approach emphasizes the simultaneous and coordinated consideration of product and production system design. By doing so, integrative development aims to optimize product quality, reduce rework, shorten time-to-market, and ensure adaptability to changing market demands (Reference Bullinger, Kugel, Ohlhausen and StankeBullinger et al., 1995; Reference Eigner and StelzerEigner & Stelzer, 2009; Reference Gausemeier, Dumitrescu, Echterfeld, Pfänder, Steffen and ThielemannGausemeier et al., 2019; Reference Gräßler, Pöhler and HentzeGräßler et al., 2017).

The field of integrative product and production system development has evolved significantly since foundational works like Olsson's early contributions (Reference OlssonOlsson, 1985). Over decades, new methodologies have emerged, reflecting the domain's ongoing relevance, and addressing the increasing complexity of both product development and manufacturing processes, as well as the growing demand for efficiency and flexibility (Reference Gräßler, Pöhler and HentzeGräßler et al., 2017).

Existing methods (Table 1) can be categorized into domain-specific approaches, such as Nöcker's condition-based factory planning (Reference Nöcker, Aachen and HochschNöcker, 2012), which focuses on production system design while integrating aspects of product development, and fully integrative approaches, like Gausemeier’s 4-Cycle Model, which equally addresses product and production system development (Reference Gausemeier, Dumitrescu, Echterfeld, Pfänder, Steffen and ThielemannGausemeier et al., 2019). These integrative frameworks bridge the gap between the two domains by systematically addressing dependencies and interactions.

Some approaches, however, are more difficult to classify because they incorporate elements of both categories. ISO 15288, for instance, provides a framework for the development of technical systems by defining system lifecycle processes. While it offers comprehensive guidance on product development, it lacks a methodological connection to production system development. This partial coverage makes it less integrative than approaches explicitly designed to address both domains equally. As a result, despite its broad applicability, ISO 15288 is classified in this paper as a domain-specific approach.

Despite their clear advantages, integrative approaches for product and production system development remain underutilized in industrial practice (Reference Disselkamp, Cieply, Dyck, Grothe, Anacker and DumitrescuDisselkamp et al., 2023; Reference Humpert, Disselkamp, Schierbaum, Zagatta and DumitrescuHumpert et al., 2024; Reference Schäfer, Günther, Martin, Lüpfert, Mandel, Rapp, Lanza, Anacker, Albers and KöchlingSchäfer et al., 2023). Industries often prefer sequential approaches or partial parallelization under simultaneous engineering frameworks, limiting the adoption of fully integrative methods (Reference GranerGraner, 2015; Reference Gräßler, Pöhler and HentzeGräßler et al., 2017). Key challenges include unclear interfaces between product and production system design, inadequate information exchange, insufficient tools for visualizing complex processes, a lack of consideration of the technical feasibility of integrative methods, and only partial consideration of information management (Reference Disselkamp, Schütte, Lick, Westphal, Hoveman and DumitrescuDisselkamp, Schütte, & Dumitrescu, 2024; Reference Stoffels, Vielhaber, Weber, Husung, Cantamessa, Cascini, Marjanovic and GraziosiStoffels & Vielhaber, 2015). Additionally, these methods often fail to leverage knowledge from prior projects and may be too technically demanding for companies seeking adaptable and low-effort solutions (Reference Albers, Lanza, Klippert, Schäfer, Frey, Hellweg, Müller-Welt, Schöck, Krahe, Nowoseltschenko and RappAlbers et al., 2022; Reference Disselkamp, Cieply, Dyck, Grothe, Anacker and DumitrescuDisselkamp et al., 2023; Reference Francalanza, Borg, Vella, Farrugia and ConstantinescuFrancalanza et al., 2018).

One of the most significant barriers to the adoption of integrative methods is the inconsistency in terminology and frameworks. While many approaches share similar goals and processes, their differing wordings, and terminologies obscure underlying commonalities, making it challenging to compare and assess their relevance or influence. Furthermore, it is often unclear which specific aspects of integrative product and production system development these methods address or how they interconnect.

Addressing these challenges requires a structured framework, such as a taxonomy, to bring clarity and standardization to the field. A taxonomy can systematically organize and compare the various approaches, making it easier for researchers and practitioners to identify similarities and differences. By offering clear visualizations and detailed descriptions of interdependencies and relationships, a taxonomy provides the foundation for better communication, collaboration, and decision-making across departments and organizations. It ensures that the potential of integrative methods is fully realized and supports the development of innovative solutions.

While regulatory frameworks exist for the problem and solution spaces in product creation (Reference WallWall, 2015), they often fail to account for the unique characteristics of integrative product and production system development. A well-structured taxonomy can bridge this gap by enabling a deeper understanding of existing approaches while paving the way for more effective applications in both research and industry. This systematic framework can facilitate the widespread adoption of integrative methods, addressing current challenges and fostering innovation in the years to come.

Table 1.

Overview of methods for integrative product and production system development

3. Research methodology

To address the need for clarity in the dependencies between product development and production system development, a taxonomy was developed as part of this paper. The taxonomy was constructed using the method proposed 2013 by Nickerson et al., which outlines seven steps for taxonomy development (Figure 1). Five of these steps are iteratively executed in a cyclical process (Reference Nickerson, Varshney and MuntermannNickerson et al., 2013).

In the first step, the meta-characteristic was determined, defining the focus on “high-level interactions and interdependencies in product development and production system development”. Subsequently, the ending conditions were specified in the second step, encompassing both objective and subjective criteria. As an objective ending condition, the taxonomy requires that no more relevant objects are added within an iteration. The subjective ending condition required the taxonomy to be concise, robust, comprehensive, extendible and explanatory. The steps three to seven were conducted in four iterations.

The initial iteration used a literature analysis as the empirical foundation. In this step, nine dimensions with relevance for the integrative product and production system development of the product creation process were identified, including (Reference Gausemeier, Dumitrescu, Echterfeld, Pfänder, Steffen and ThielemannGausemeier et al., 2019; Reference Kriwet, Zussman and SeligerKriwet et al., 1995; Reference OlssonMartin et al.; Reinerth & Lickefett, 2020): 1) Business environment, 2) Customer requirements, 3) Corporate strategy, 4) Planning triggers, 5) Planning situations and prerequisites, 6) IPP (Integrative Product and Production System Development) processes, 7) IPP tools, 8) System models, 9) Involved roles.

Figure 1.

Overview of the process used to develop the taxonomy for integrative product and production system development

In the next step, the dimensions were clustered based on their temporal allocation within the product creation process. Activities preceding the integrative product and production development, such as corporate strategy, were assigned to the problem space, while directly related artifacts, such as processes, were placed in the solution space. A preliminary taxonomy draft was then created. However, the ending condition was not met as new elements were identified and added during this iteration. In the first iteration in particular, various aspects of advanced systems engineering were adapted to the taxonomy proposed in this paper. Both the distinction between a problem space and a solution space and the PMTO (process, method, tool and organisation) aspects were taken into account.

The second iteration adopted a conceptual to empirical approach through collaboration with industry partners. This iteration particularly focused on addressing the subjective ending conditions. Concrete examples were added to dimensions, such as specific cases for planning situations (e.g., “Greenfield”). Furthermore, dependencies between artifacts and the integrative product and production system development were emphasized. Despite the progress, the ending condition was not fulfilled as further elements were identified.

The third iteration combined literature analysis with expert interviews to identify missing elements. This step introduced a new object, IPP methods in the development process (Reference Wilke, Grothe, Bretz, Anacker and DumitrescuWilke, Grothe, et al., 2023; Reference Wilke, Schierbaum, Anacker and DumitrescuWilke, Schierbaum, et al., 2023), and refined existing objects, such as the business environment. Special attention was given to emphasizing interdependencies between phases and highlighting cross-connections within integrative product and production system development. Given the addition of new elements and refinements, the ending condition remained unmet.

The fourth and final iteration involved workshops with industry partners to analyse the taxonomy's practical applicability. No additional objects or dimensions were identified during this phase. All previously defined ending conditions were satisfied, concluding the taxonomy development process.

4. Suggested taxonomy

The taxonomy presented in this paper (Figure 2) for the integrative development of products and production systems is designed to assist companies in planning improvements, fostering a shared understanding across departments, and selecting appropriate methods for optimizing corporate processes. The taxonomy schematically represents the central elements, interactions, and interdependencies of integrative product and production system development. It serves as a structured framework for understanding and improving these critical processes.

The taxonomy distinguishes between ten key artifacts, which are described in detail in Table 2. These artifacts are organized in a chronological sequence, separating the problem space, which addresses the early stages of product creation, and the solution space, which focuses on artifacts directly involved in the integrative development process. To enhance usability, the taxonomy has been enriched with general examples (e.g. facelift and quality problems as part of planning triggers) and real-world examples from the automotive industry (e.g. autopilot as part of customer requirements), enabling users to better relate the framework to practical applications (Figure 2).

Table 2.

Overview of key artifacts of the taxonomy

The taxonomy emphasizes the interdependencies and interactions within integrative product and production system development. Two primary focus areas highlight these dependencies:

• Interdependencies with broader corporate processes: The integrative development of products and production systems cannot occur in isolation from other corporate processes. For instance, corporate strategy directly influences product development by setting long-term goals, such as reducing carbon emissions or increasing modularity. These strategic objectives cascade into decisions made during the design and planning phases, shaping both product features and production capabilities. For example, an automotive company aiming to meet stricter environmental regulations may prioritize lightweight materials in product design, which in turn requires adapting production systems to handle these new materials.

• Interactions within integrative product and production system development: Within the taxonomy, particular emphasis is placed on how processes, methods and tools interact with each other. This triad is essential for addressing tasks efficiently and effectively. The red arrows in the taxonomy visually highlight the dynamic interactions between product development and production system development. For example:

Figure 2.

Taxonomy for integrative product and production system development

• A change in a product’s design, such as modifying the dimensions of a car chassis, directly impacts the production process by requiring adjustments to manufacturing equipment or workflows.

• Conversely, limitations in production capabilities, such as restricted tooling flexibility, might constrain design options for the product.

By mapping these interactions, the taxonomy helps users identify potential bottlenecks and misalignments early, enabling smoother coordination between the two domains.

To resolve ambiguities, the following explanations clarify key aspects of the taxonomy. A key distinction is the separation between the system model and tools, which are treated separately in this work due to their distinct functions. Additionally, various methods, tools, and processes address challenges in the problem space, but only IPP-specific elements are considered here. Different arrow types highlight interactions: red arrows represent IPP interactions, while gray arrows indicate interactions within and between the problem and solution spaces. Opposing arrows in the center illustrate repeated data exchanges within a phase. In terms of process visualisation, many processes receive inputs or have relationships and dependencies, but not all are shown in Figure 2 for readability. For example, the Strategic Product Planning phase receives inputs (e.g. triggers) but is simplified for clarity. A more detailed overview can be found in the literature (Reference Disselkamp, Schütte, Lick, Westphal, Hoveman and DumitrescuDisselkamp, Schütte, Lick, et al., 2024). The second level in the IPP-Process PD highlights complex sub-processes, while PSD also includes a second level for its sub-processes. The arrows between Product Concept and Preliminary Draft overlap but remain separate. Finally, requirements are not only derived from customer input or the business environment but can emerge during development. This is why the taxonomy specifically refers to “customer requirements” rather than “requirements” in general. If new requirements arise from the product, they can be integrated into the system model and used throughout the development process.

To demonstrate the practical application of the taxonomy, the development of an electric vehicle in the automotive industry provides a relevant example. In the problem space, the business environment and customer requirements define the initial context. For instance, regulatory pressures to reduce CO2 emissions and customer demands for extended battery range drive the project’s objectives. The corporate strategy emphasizes sustainable production practices, which influence planning triggers, such as introducing a new battery platform, and planning situations, which consider whether to retrofit existing production lines or build entirely new facilities.

In the solution space, IPP methods include approaches specific to product development, such as the morphological chart, and production system planning, such as Sankey diagrams. These methods are applied within IPP processes, ensuring that product design and production planning are aligned and supported by appropriate methodologies. For example, using IPP tools like CAD systems integrated with PLM software, engineers design battery modules while simultaneously planning production workflows. The system model links these workflows with product data, and the involvement of diverse roles, such as production planners and design engineers, ensures alignment across departments. This example demonstrates how the taxonomy captures the complex dependencies and provides a structured approach to managing them.