IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00278071.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

PLM opportunities and weaknesses to support collaborative engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Valery Merminod

    (CERAM - CERAM Business Cchool)

  • Eric Blanco

    (G-SCOP_CC - Conception collaborative - G-SCOP - Laboratoire des sciences pour la conception, l'optimisation et la production - UJF - Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - INPG - Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the opportunities and the weaknesses of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) technology to support collaborative design process. Whereas Product Lifecycle Management tools are deployed in many firms, only few studies highlight their impact on design processes. Engineering literature focus on the technology itself (and not on processes) and management literature does not deeply investigate this matter. The study is based on a 3 years analysis of a PLM system project in a large French company, int the sector of small domestic appliances. The research design is based on a single case study which corresponds to a business unit dedicated to Linen Care product family. In the first part, we highlight how PLM offers functionalities that facilitate the stakeholder coordination during the design process (Stark 2004). This IT tool offers a structured framework for collaborative Engineering and fosters the definition and standardisation of workflows and intermediary objects that are produced and used during the design process. In the second part of the paper, we discuss the weaknesses of that technology to support the day to day collaboration and the creation of new objects. We show that PLM enables to share elaborated design information whenever it fails to support data elaboration process. Social aspects of collaboration like confidence, engagement are not taken into account in the PLM systems. Finally, we highlight that the implicit model of coordination in PLM exclude cooperation. This case study allows us to discuss the necessity fort different collaborative workspaces which refer to different design collaboration needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Valery Merminod & Eric Blanco, 2008. "PLM opportunities and weaknesses to support collaborative engineering," Post-Print hal-00278071, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00278071
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00278071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00278071/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eversheim, Walter & Roggatz, Axel & Zimmermann, Hans-Jurgen & Derichs, Thomas, 1997. "Information management for concurrent engineering," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 253-265, July.
    2. Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "Exchanging Preliminary Information in Concurrent Engineering: Alternative Coordination Strategies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 402-419, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    2. Grazyna Urbanik-Papp, 2017. "Developing Corporate Entrepreneurship by Adopting Learning Practices of Startups (Rozwijanie korporacyjnej przedsiebiorczosci poprzez wykorzystanie praktyk uczenia siê start-upow)," Research Reports, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(24), pages 30-40.
    3. Susan Bogus & Keith Molenaar & James Diekmann, 2006. "Strategies for overlapping dependent design activities," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 829-837.
    4. Lin, Ching-Torng & Wu, Wen-Jui & Cheng, Li-Min, 2015. "Towards understanding integration of heavyweight-product managers and collaboration software in collaborative product development: An empirical study in Taiwan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 156-167.
    5. Gülru F. Özkan-Seely & Cheryl Gaimon & Stylianos Kavadias, 2015. "Dynamic Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Development for Product and Process Design Teams," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 177-190, May.
    6. Mohammad H. Eslami & Nicolette Lakemond, 2016. "Internal Integration In Complex Collaborative Product Development Projects," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(01), pages 1-28, January.
    7. Christopher M. Schlick & Soenke Duckwitz & Sebastian Schneider, 2013. "Project dynamics and emergent complexity," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 480-515, December.
    8. Oliver Baumann, 2015. "Distributed Problem Solving in Modular Systems: the Benefit of Temporary Coordination Neglect," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 124-136, January.
    9. Morris A. Cohen & Teck H. Ho & Z. Justin Ren & Christian Terwiesch, 2003. "Measuring Imputed Cost in the Semiconductor Equipment Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(12), pages 1653-1670, December.
    10. Indranil R. Bardhan & Vish V. Krishnan & Shu Lin, 2007. "Project Performance and the Enabling Role of Information Technology: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Alignment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 579-595, May.
    11. Qian, Yanjun & Xie, Min & Goh, Thong Ngee & Lin, Jun, 2010. "Optimal testing strategies in overlapped design process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 131-143, October.
    12. Longzheng Du & Zhenglin Zhang & Taiwen Feng, 2018. "Linking green customer and supplier integration with green innovation performance: The role of internal integration," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1583-1595, December.
    13. Victoria L. Mitchell & Barrie R. Nault, 2007. "Cooperative Planning, Uncertainty, and Managerial Control in Concurrent Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 375-389, March.
    14. Damien Talbot, 2015. "Contrôles et proximités au sein de la supply chain aéronautique," Post-Print hal-02351969, HAL.
    15. Forza, C. & Salvador, F., 2001. "Information flows for high-performance manufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 21-36, March.
    16. Paulo J. Gomes & Nitin R. Joglekar, 2008. "Linking modularity with problem solving and coordination efforts," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(5), pages 443-457.
    17. Jürgen Mihm & Christoph H. Loch & Dennis Wilkinson & Bernardo A. Huberman, 2010. "Hierarchical Structure and Search in Complex Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 831-848, May.
    18. Franck Marle & Hadi Jaber & Catherine Pointurier, 2019. "Organizing Project Actors for Collective Decision-Making about Interdependent Risks," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-18, March.
    19. Christoph H. Loch, 2017. "Creativity and Risk Taking Aren't Rational: Behavioral Operations in MOT," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 591-604, April.
    20. Rajiv D. Banker & Indranil Bardhan & Ozer Asdemir, 2006. "Understanding the Impact of Collaboration Software on Product Design and Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 352-373, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00278071. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.