Understanding how and why changes propagate during engineering design is critical because most products and systems emerge from predecessors and not through clean sheet design. This paper examines a large data set from industry including 41,500 change requests that were generated during the design of a complex sensor system spanning a period of 8 years. In particular, the networks of connected parent, child, and sibling changes are resolved over time and mapped to 46 subsystem areas of the sensor system. These change networks are then decomposed into one-, two-, and three-node motifs as the fundamental building blocks of change activity. A statistical analysis suggests that only about half (48.2%) of all proposed changes were actually implemented and that some motifs occur much more frequently than others. Furthermore, a set of indices is developed to help classify areas of the system as acceptors or reflectors of change and a normalized change propagation index shows the relative strength of each area on the absorber-multiplier spectrum between −1 and +1. Multipliers are good candidates for more focused change management. Another interesting finding is the quantitative confirmation of the “ripple” change pattern previously proposed. Unlike the earlier prediction, however, it was found that the peak of cyclical change activity occurred late in the program driven by rework discovered during systems integration and functional testing.

1.
Sterman
,
J. D.
, 2000,
Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking & Modeling for a Complex World
,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
,
New York
.
2.
Eckert
,
C.
,
Clarkson
,
P.
, and
Zanker
,
W.
, 2004, “
Change and Customization in Complex Engineering Domains
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
15
, pp.
1
21
.
3.
Brown
,
J.
, 2006,
Managing Product Relationships: Enabling Iteration and Innovation in Design
,
Aberdeen Group
,
Boston
.
4.
Wright
,
I. C.
, 1997, “
A Review of Research Into Engineering Change Management: Implications for Product Design
,”
Des. Stud.
0142-694X,
18
, pp.
33
42
.
5.
Pikosz
,
P.
, and
Malmqvist
,
J.
, 1998, “
A Comparative Study of Engineering Change Management in Three Swedish Engineering Companies
,”
Proceedings of the DETC98 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference
, pp.
78
85
.
6.
Martin
,
M. V.
, and
Ishii
,
K.
, 2002, “
Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
13
, pp.
213
235
.
7.
2002, United States, DoD Directive 5015.2, Department of Defense Records Management Program, Jun. 19.
8.
Giffin
,
M.
, 2007, “
Change Propagation in Large Technical Systems
,” SM thesis, System Design and Management Program, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
9.
Huang
,
G. Q.
, and
Mak
,
K. L.
, 1999, “
Current Practices of Engineering Change Management in UK Manufacturing Industries
,”
Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage.
0144-3577,
19
(
1
), pp.
21
37
.
10.
Clarkson
,
J.
,
Simons
,
C.
, and
Eckert
,
C.
, 2004, “
Predicting Change Propagation in Complex Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
126
(
5
), pp.
788
797
.
11.
Keller
,
R.
,
Eger
,
T.
,
Eckert
,
C.
, and
Clarkson
,
J.
, 2005, “
Visualising Change Propagation
,”
15th International Conference on Engineering Design
, pp.
62
63
.
12.
2006,
Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications
,
T. W.
Simpson
,
Z.
Siddique
, and
J.
Jiao
, eds.,
Springer
,
New York
.
13.
Suh
,
E. S.
,
de Weck
,
O. L.
, and
Chang
,
D.
, 2007, “
Flexible Product Platforms: Framework and Case Study
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
18
(
2
), pp.
67
89
.
14.
Terwiesch
,
C.
, and
Loch
,
C. H.
, 1999, “
Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders: The Case of the Climate Control System in Automobile Development
,”
J. Prod. Innovation Manage.
0737-6782,
16
, pp.
160
172
.
15.
Cohen
,
T.
, and
Fulton
,
R. E.
, 1998, “
A Data Approach to Tracking and Evaluating Engineering Changes
,”
Proceedings of the DETC98 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference
, Paper No. DETC98/EIM5682.
16.
Eppinger
,
S.
,
Whitney
,
D.
,
Smith
,
R. P.
, and
Gebala
,
D. A.
, 1994, “
A Model-Based Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
6
, pp.
1
13
.
17.
Smaling
,
R.
, and
de Weck
,
O. L.
, 2007, “
Assessing Risks and Opportunities of Technology Infusion in System Design
,”
J. Syst. Eng.
0022-4820,
10
(
1
), pp.
1
25
.
18.
Earl
,
C.
,
Eckert
,
C.
, and
Clarkson
,
J.
, 2005, “
Design Change and Complexity
,”
Second Workshop on Complexity in Design and Engineering
.
19.
Jarratt
,
T.
,
Eckert
,
C.
, and
Clarkson
,
J.
, 2004, “
Development of a Product Model to Support Engineering Change Management
,”
Proceedings of the TMCE , Fifth International Symposium on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineerin
g, Lausanne, Switzerland, April 13–17.
20.
Jarratt
,
T.
,
Eckert
,
C.
, and
Clarkson
,
J.
, 2005, “
Pitfalls of Engineering Change: Change Practice During Complex Product Design
,”
Advances in Design
, pp.
413
424
.
21.
Keller
,
R.
,
Eckert
,
C.
, and
Clarkson
,
J.
, 2005, “
Viewpoints and Views in Engineering Change Management
,” GIST Technical Report No. 1.
You do not currently have access to this content.