See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320625618

Managing engineering change requirements during the product development

process

Article  in  Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications · October 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1063293X17735359

CITATIONS READS

4 490

5 authors, including:

Inayat Ullah Dunbing Tang

Marine System Limited Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics
22 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   1,490 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Leilei Yin Ishfaq Hussain

24 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   
Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics
16 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Prediction of change propagation paths during product development process View project

Implementation of DGTD Method for Sloving EM problems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ishfaq Hussain on 17 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Standard Article

Concurrent Engineering: Research

and Applications
Managing engineering change 1–16
Ó The Author(s) 2017
requirements during the product Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

development process DOI: 10.1177/1063293X17735359

journals.sagepub.com/home/cer

Inayat Ullah1, Dunbing Tang1, Qi Wang1, Leilei Yin1

and Ishfaq Hussain2

Abstract
Product redesign is not a straightforward task, specifically for complex commodities. Engineering change requirements
can be evoked in any phase of the product development process, thus making engineering change management a challen-
ging task. The motive of this study is to explore the best possible way of managing engineering change requirements tak-
ing execution sequence of change requirements into consideration. In this article, a new approach supporting
engineering change requirements implementation sequence, by considering the risk associated with engineering changes,
is presented. The risk of the redesign is hard to foresee since the engineering change effects are being dispersed from
the instigating component to other associated components. In this article, the term of rework-risk is used for the
amount of rework needed to be done to redesign the products’ components. The practicality of suggested method is
analyzed using the redesign of an optical mouse as a case study. Managing engineering change requirements in a group
with proper sequence can ensue with a 15% decrease in the redesign duration as compared with the prompt implemen-
tation of engineering change requirements. Conversely, it can also cause 36.23% increase in the redesign duration, if not
handled in an appropriate sequence. The results from a single, simple case, indicates that running engineering change
requirement batches can be beneficial.

Keywords
engineering change requirement, product development process, rework-risk, redesign duration, design change urgency

Introduction and problem-oriented changes (Lindermann and

Reichwald, 1998). First, ECRs are considered as a
In today’s competitive environment, managing engi- source of innovation and notably influential driving
neering change requirements (ECRs) efficiently cannot factors of product design improvement (Eckert et al.,
be devalued. Time to market is a critical issue in the 2004). Second, ECRs cause reworks: the extraneous
manufacturing industry. In design and production effort of redesigning an activity or a process that was
firms, there is a growing awareness that skilfully man- erroneously realized the first time (Love, 2002). The
aging ECRs is the key to success (Inness, 1994). It is, outcome of both changes leads to a value-added prod-
therefore, essential to explore the best possible way of uct. ECRs can be initiated at any stage during the
managing ECRs to reduce the product redesign time. product development (PD) process, thus making the
In this article, two different techniques, that is, individ-
ual and batch processing, are presented to manage
ECRs. 1
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of
Product design and development is primarily driven Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
by needs and stakeholder requirements (Hull et al., 2
College of Electronic and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of
2005). In the literature, requirements are defined as Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
statements, identifying system, or product constraints
Corresponding author:
necessary for satisfying stakeholder needs (INCOSE, Dunbing Tang, College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing
2010; Palmer et al., 2010). ECRs can be taken in two University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China.
different perspectives: changes triggered by innovation Email: d.tang@nuaa.edu.cn
2 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

management of engineering changes (ECs) a challen- Background

ging task (Vianello and Ahmed-Kristensen, 2012).
ECRs play a critical role in the PD process. Besides,
In early decades, ECs were predominantly seen as a
identifying, maintaining, and satisfying a system’s
problem and people were reluctant to implement the
requirement are essential to the project’s success (Pahl
engineering change management (ECM) system (Acar
and Beitz, 1998; Ullman, 2003; Ulrich and Eppinger,
et al., 1998). From the last few decades, industrialists
1995). Due to requirement issues, PD failure and unne-
construed it as an opportunity and source of innova-
cessary increase in the cost, time, and quality problems
tion (Balogun and Jenkins, 2003; Eckert et al., 2004).
have been observed by Worinkeng and Summers
Every organization experiences ECs, therefore, its man-
(2014), which are illustrious contributing factors of
agement practices need to evolve. ECs can benefit the
competitive advantage in the market. ECRs are identi-
organization in many aspects such as cost reduction,
fied as the second leading source that challenges the
on-time delivery, and quality enhancement if they are
project’s success (The Standish Group, 1995).
managed appropriately and implemented efficiently. It
One of the major problems in managing ECRs is the
can also elevate the firm’s reputation in the market.
lack of planning when changing them (Hull et al.,
ECRs should be categorized in a most refined manner,
2005). ECs may have severe implications on the design
depending on the class and the significance of the
time, cost, and quality of a product if not managed
change and should be managed with distinct techniques
effectively (Hamraz et al., 2013). The literature related
to minimize the lead time (Balcerak and Dale, 1992).
to ECM is comparatively limited to the other topics
Wright (1997) differentiated the research in the field of such as the product life cycle management (Jarratt
ECM into two broad classes. First, tools to investigate et al., 2011). ECRs are one of the dominant determi-
ECM issues, and second, techniques to minimize the nants that encourage disruptions and cost overrun of
impact of changes in various aspects. projects, which subsequently cause claims, conflicts,
According to the classification made by Wright and consumer’s disappointment. The clients usually
(1997), this research work falls into the second category instigate most of the ECRs as new requirements or by
with an aim to minimize the impact of ECs. Two differ- the firm as improved specifications. ECRs can also be
ent techniques, individual and batch processing, are stirred during an artifact’s use due to faults’ rectifica-
presented, and the comparison is made to decide the tion, parts’ substitution, or alterations for upgrading
best possible option. In the literature, discussion about near the end of product life (Nadia et al., 2006).
the execution sequence of ECRs in batch processing Inefficient management of ECRs can cripple the pro-
has not been found. Therefore, this article focuses on ductivity of a firm.
the influence of execution sequence in batch processing In PD process, the components that are considered
to provide a technique for the better management of to be completed might have a chance to change (Huang
ECRs during PD process. Change propagation model and Mak, 1999). Due to an inadequate ECM system,
based on the component design structure matrix sometimes the defective product is launched to the mar-
(DSM) is applied to explore different change propaga- ket, thus affecting the customers. Moreover, it can also
tion paths (CPPs) in the product’s structure. The tech- impair firms’ reputation in the market and can incur
nique is based on time computing models, where substantial recovery cost. A study conducted by
iterations of earlier design activities are also considered. Wasmer et al. (2011) showed that 20%–40% of the
Redesign change propagation evolution is carried out lead time could be reduced by properly managing ECs.
by considering two types of mapping, that is, ‘‘And’’ In a new PD process, the occurrences of design changes
and ‘‘Or.’’ Finally, to demonstrate the usefulness of the can affect productivity up to 24% and lead time up to
proposed technique, an optical mouse is examined as a 44% (Li and Moon, 2012). Process modeling and a
case study. In the rest of this article, section simulation-based approach were used to manage the
‘‘Background’’ presents a brief overview of the previous ECRs in a new PD process (Nadia et al., 2006). It is
related work, while detailed clarification of the sug- revealed from the literature that cumulative effect of
gested method is presented in section ‘‘Model frame- ECR propagation at any scale can have detrimental
work and rework-risk assessment.’’ The evaluation of consequences on the project (Giffin et al., 2009;
the proposed algorithms is explained in section Morkos and Summers, 2010; Shankar et al., 2012).
‘‘Algorithms for managing single and multiple ECRs,’’ Limited research has been performed to effectively
and the case study is discussed in section ‘‘Case descrip- model and manage ECRs fluctuations and changes
tion.’’ Finally, the conclusion and some directions for (Harker et al., 1992; Lam and Shankararaman, 1999;
future research are presented in section ‘‘Concluding Sugden and Strens, 1996). Most of the research work,
remarks and future work.’’ done so far in the field of ECRs management, is of
Ullah et al. 3

qualitative nature and emphasizing particular case EC implementation (DiPrima, 1982; Maull et al.,
studies in a specific firm (Reidelbach, 1991; Watts, 1992):
1984). Therefore, it is essential to manage ECRs to
ensure that the effects are not detrimental (Nuseibeh  Immediate changes must be executed on a priority
and Easterbrook, 2000). A designer may save time and basis to resolve the issues. Safety- and defect-related
money if the overall effects of ECRs could be assessed concerns fall into this category. Safety-related
before its implementation (Ollinger and Stahovich, affairs have no concern with economic boundaries
2001). (Inness, 1994).
 Mandatory changes should be implemented as soon
as possible, but there is some time flexibility. New
EC legislation or certification requirement, repair and
An EC is a fact and should be considered as a routine maintenance, and product quality-related issues fall
job. EC is defined by numerous researchers (Huang into this category.
 Convenience changes can be carried out at the man-
and Mak, 1999; Terwiesch and Loch, 1999; Wright,
1997) in a different perspective. The complete definition ufacturer’s ease. Changes related to the product’s
is given by Jarratt et al. (2004) by considering the esthetics, the customer’s request regarding improve-
scope, size, time, and type of change. Numerous ment in range, the performance of the product, and
researchers (Eckert et al., 2004; Nadia et al., 2006; new technology are regarded as convenient
changes.
Terwiesch and Loch, 1999) categorized ECs based on
the artifact such as coming from the products (emer-
gent changes) and originated from outside of the prod- EC impact. EC request plays an important role during
uct (initiated changes). ECs can trigger at any point the PD process (Pahl and Beitz, 1998; Ullman, 2003).
during PD process (Huang et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2006; To evaluate the possible impact of ECs is the most cru-
Terwiesch and Loch, 1999), which are considered as cial task in change propagation process. Clarkson et al.
the means by which the product evolves (Masmoudi (2004) define impact as ‘‘the average proportion of the
et al., 2017). design effort that will require being redone if the
EC need is raised from different sources as a result change propagates.’’ Three determinants have influ-
of numerous reasons such as technology evolution, enced the impact of a change on a product: product
product functionality improvement, innovation, cur- structure, product intricacy and the degree of innova-
rent legislative requirements, safety concerns, and cus- tion within the product (Jarratt et al., 2011).
tomer requirements (Eckert et al., 2003; Huang and Numerous methods have been proposed to simulate
Mak, 1998; Keller et al., 2009; Mohringer, 2006; Pikosz and analyze the change propagation in an artifact, to
and Malmqvist, 1998; Wright, 1997). According to allocate resources, cost, and time according to the
Mohringer (2006), ECs can be originated at the firm’s impact of the change (Cohen et al., 2000; Hamraz
level due to three main origins or sources, that is, sup- et al., 2012; Li and Zhao, 2014; Tang et al., 2016). The
pliers, customers, and internal departments. Earl et al. connectivity between product’s components via rework
(2005) studied ECs in terms of changing descriptions. probability and impact allows the flow of information
Kidd and Thompson (2000) in their study summarized between components. The values of both rework prob-
the economic significances of ECs, which are made dur- ability and impact may be achieved from the history of
ing the design process. ECs were classified into minor, previous design changes and/or interviewing the expert
general, and major changes by Yu et al. (2013). In a designers (Clarkson et al., 2004). The risk defined by
study conducted by Balcerak and Dale (1992), the Van Bossuyt et al. (2013) as ‘‘the possibility of happen-
authors concluded that categorization of changes ing of an event multiplied by the intensity of its conse-
should be established by two determinants: first, the quences’’ is adopted in this article. In this research
urgency of change and second, the impact of change on work, two types of rework-risks, namely, initial and
the product. propagated rework-risk are considered. Initial rework-
risk depends on the severity of ECR and is divided into
three different categories as detailed in Table 1.
EC urgency. ECs can arise in different circumstances to Whereas, propagated rework-risk depends on the con-
address the need. It depends on the requirement that nectivity and iterations between the design compo-
how quick response is required to implement the nents. The summation of both risks is termed as
desired change. ECs are classified into three distinct accumulated risk, which varies from 0 to 1. Besides, in
categories, that is, immediate, mandatory, and conveni- the suggested model 1 indicates maximum risk and 0
ence changes, which indicate a degree of urgency for refers to no risk.
4 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 1. Initial rework-risk categorization. evaluate the progress of PD process over time, to inves-
tigate the optimal way of managing ECRs. These mod-
S. no. Risk classification Risk range els require information about different design
1 Low initial rework-risk (LIR) 0 \ LIR  0.35 components that integrate the PD process, that is,
2 Medium initial 0.35 \ MIR  0.7 rework probability and impact, logical dependencies,
rework-risk (MIR) component design duration, and instigating compo-
3 High initial rework-risk (HIR) 0.7 \ HIR  1 nents. The components’ rework probability and impact
are presented in the form of DSM, which is a square
matrix. A DSM provides an easy way to recognize the
Research motivation and assumption structure of event linkages as illustrated in Figure 1(a).
The authors of the extant studies in this field have not A marking ‘‘ 3 ’’ in the off-diagonal cell represents the
focused on the execution sequence of ECRs in a batch information flow between the corresponding design
processing. Therefore, the objective of this article is to components. The off-diagonal cell in the ith row
address this gap in the pertinent literature by answering (Component B) and the jth column (Component D)
the following research questions: denotes the relationship that is defined as the ith row
component ‘‘B’’ affects the jth column component ‘‘D.’’
 What is the best feasible way to execute ECRs? Which implies that the jth column component ‘‘D’’
 What is the impact of the ECRs execution sequence receives information from the ith row component ‘‘B.’’
on the PD process? In a complex product design, the components are
interconnected in a closed fashion; therefore, logical
Following three assumptions are made in the sug- relationships ‘‘And’’ and ‘‘Or’’ exist between them. The
gested techniques: logic relationship ‘‘And’’ represents that various down-
stream components are affected by an upstream
 ECRs will fall into the category of convenience and component simultaneously. Conversely, the logic rela-
mandatory changes. tionship ‘‘Or’’ accounts for the fact that only one down-
 When the accumulated risks become greater than stream component is influenced by an upstream
‘‘1,’’ it should be replaced by ‘‘1.’’ component at a time. Due to the presence of logical
 Each ECR is specifically related to each relationships between components, parallel and sequen-
component. tial change propagation patterns exist in the design pro-
cess. A logical dependency matrix for illustrated
example is shown in Figure 1(b). The numerals in the
Model framework and rework-risk cells indicate the existence of logical dependency
assessment between the components. If digits in a row are the same,
then ‘‘And’’ logical dependency exists between the cor-
Change propagation network for single and multiple responding components. Otherwise, the logical depen-
ECRs dency ‘‘Or’’ occurs. For instance, if component D is
In this article, two distinct models, namely, single and modified, then components B and C may be changed
multiple ECRs, are presented. The suggested models concurrently due to the presence of ‘‘And’’ logical

Figure 1. (a) DSM—information flow interaction and (b) logical dependencies between components.
Ullah et al. 5

between components. Change initiated in one compo-

nent propagates to the other connected components.
Therefore, the total execution cost comprises the rede-
signing cost of the initial aspects of design and also
caused by change propagation. Once the component
dependencies have been captured, the possible CPPs
can be determined. Distinct ECRs have different initial
rework-risks, termed as, planned rework-risk, that
depend on the degree up to which the initiating compo-
nent should be affected by the change request. One
CPP as a result of ECR(s) is highlighted in Figures 2
and 3.
Figure 2. Change propagation network in a product’s
structure as a result of single ECR. Change initiated in Rework-risk propagation and assessment
component c1 due to engineering change requirement (ECR).
Layers1 2 k represent the change steps. Quantitative risk analysis based approach is suggested
to manage ECRs during the PD process. Information
interaction between design components as a result of
dependency. However, if change propagates to compo- product functionality usually leads to rework in PD
nent A, it may be changed alone because of ‘‘Or’’ logical process. The links between product’s components by
dependency. The change flow between the components rework probability and impact permit the changes to
is explained by considering a product consisting of m propagate to the associated components. The rework
components as shown in Figures 2 and 3. probability and impact have values between 0 and 1.
For managing ECRs, two primary approaches are Rework-risk by its very nature always has some nega-
considered. First, ECRs are implemented on an imme- tive impact in terms of cost, schedule, and quality. The
diate basis when they are raised as shown in Figure 2. proposed model relates the rework-risk to the amount
Second, ECRs are accumulated and then executed at of rework needed to be done to accomplish the ECRs.
once as presented in Figure 3. In both methodologies, Let us consider a product comprising of m compo-
same ECRs are utilized to explore an effective strategy. nents. As a result of ECR, component ci propagates
In Figures 2 and 3, c1 to cm denote the number of prod- the change to component cj with the rework probability
uct’s components, whereas K2p represents the number of RPij and rework impact of RIij. Then, according to
of change steps as a result of ECR2. In both cases, n Van Bossuyt et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2015), the
distinct ECRs are initiated during the PD process in a rework-risk RR(ci, cj) between directly connected com-
single product. The arrow lines depict the dependency ponents can be expressed as

Figure 3. Change propagation network in a product’s structure as a result of multiple ECRs. Change initiated in different
components c3, c2, and c1 due to multiple engineering change requirements (ECRs). Layers represent the change steps for a
particular change requirement.
6 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

RR(ci , cj ) = RPij 3 RIij ð1Þ In equation (6), k1 up to kn represent the number of

change steps in the same CPP for specific change
In equation (1), i and j denote the change instigating
requests. Iterations are the essential characteristic of
and affected components, respectively. CPPs are the
the design process, and even small changes in iteration-
chain of changes that consist of two distinct types of
likelihoods can have substantial impacts on process
rework-risk, that is, planned rework-risk PlRR and
effort and duration in concurrent design processes
propagated rework-risk PrRR. Planned rework-risk is
(Shapiro et al., 2015). Iterations are mostly triggered by
caused as a result of ECR because it must be executed
incomplete information (Hollins and Pugh, 1990).
to fulfill the need. Conversely, propagated rework-risk
During each iteration, designer’s familiarity and experi-
is produced due to the change propagation. Both the
ence boost regarding product design. Therefore, less
risks can be expressed as
effort is needed to accomplish the design tasks in suc-
cessive iterations (Maier et al., 2014). Each iteration
Pl RR(r, ci ) = RPr, i 3 RIr, i ð2Þ
serves to improve the results and increase the product
Pr RR(ci , c1 ) = RPi, 1 3 RIi, 1 ð3Þ quality. In the proposed model, computation of the PD
time is facilitated by incorporating the learning effect.
In equation (2), RPr,i and RIr,i are the rework probabil-
During the change propagation process, the component
ity and impact because of the change request r, respec-
affected by an upstream component to a small amount
tively. Whereas, in equation (3), PrRR(ci, c1) is the
will also influence the downstream component to a lit-
propagated rework-risk between the instigating compo-
tle extent and vice versa. Therefore, the risk propagated
nent ci and the directly connected component c1.
to the downstream component depends on the change
Likewise, change propagation takes place throughout
risk of an upstream component. Thus, the risk propa-
the whole product structure. The rework probability
gated from a component i to j in the xth change itera-
and impact are defined for the components that are
tion, considering the learning effect, can be expressed
directly linked to each other. However, changes can
as follows
propagate to other components, which are not directly
connected. By considering both effects of change pro-
RR(ci , cj )½x = (RPij 3 RIijx ) 3 RR(ci1 , ci ) ð7Þ
pagation, the predictive model is extended to calculate
the cumulative rework-risk, as a result of single ECR Andersson et al. (1998) defined a curve termed as
and can be expressed as ‘‘learning-by-doing,’’ in which the accomplishment time
decreases because of each iteration with an associated
RRkr (ci , cj ) = Pl RR(r, ci ) 3 Pr RR(ci , c1 ) 3 Pr RR(c1 , c2 ) learning curve function. Therefore, equation (7) is
3    3 Pr RR(ck2 , ck1 ) 3 Pr RR(ck1 , cj ) derived based on the assumption that the component
ð4Þ change impact has a nonlinear relationship with the
number of iterations between each pair of components
In equation (4), RRkr (ci , cj ) is the rework-risk between to incorporate the learning effect. The total redesign
the instigating component ci and the end component cj duration (TRD) of any CPP to be resolved completely
to realize ECR r in k change steps through k 2 1 com- can be expressed as
ponents. Equation (4) can be generalized for n number
of change requests as follows
9
RRKr1 r2 rn (ci , cj ) = ½   ½½Pl RR(r1 , ci1 ) 3 Pr RR(ci1 , cr11 ) 3 Pr RR(cr11 , cr21 ) 3    3 Pr RR(crk11 2 , crk11 1 ) 3 Pr RR(crk11 1 , ci2 ) >
>
+ Pl RR(r2 , ci2 ) 3 Pr RR(ci2 , c1 ) 3 Pr RR(c1 , c2 ) 3    3 Pr RR(ck2 2 , ck2 1 ) 3 Pr RR(ck2 1 , ci3 ) >
r2 r2 r2 r2 r2 r2 >
>
>
=
..
. ð5Þ
.. >
>
>
>
. >
>
rn rn rn rn rn rn ;
+ Pl RR(rn , cin ) 3 Pr RR(cin , c1 ) 3 Pr RR(c1 , c2 ) 3    3 Pr RR(ckn 2 , ckn 1 ) 3 Pr RR(ckn 1 , cj )

In equation (5), cin represents the instigating compo-

nents, while crknn 2 denotes the intermediary components
X
y
for a particular ECR in the CPP. Moreover, k indicates TRD = RRi1, i 3 DDci ð8Þ
the whole number of change steps in the CPP to realize i=1
the desired n number of change requests in a product
and can be expressed as In equation (8), y denotes the number of changes
caused by ECRs in a single CPP to fulfill the desired
K = k1 + k2 + k3 +    + kn ð6Þ need, and DDci represents the component design
Ullah et al. 7

Figure 4. Flowchart for exploring propagation paths as a result of single ECR.

duration. The design duration of each component may initiating component before exploring any successor of
be in days or months, depending on the project. its child components. Both the algorithms systemati-
cally search the paths to explore every component,
which is reachable from the instigating component.
Algorithms for managing single and In a single ECR algorithm, two data arrays are
multiple ECRs introduced, that is, traced array and propagated path
For the better management of ECRs during the PD array. Whereas, in a multiple ECRs algorithm, one
process, two algorithms based on the above-mentioned additional array named as instigating components
mathematical model in different formats are proposed. array is presented. Traced array in both algorithms is
First, execute the change request promptly when it used to keep track of the in-process CPPs, while propa-
occurs, as explained in Figure 4. gated path array maintains a record of the completed
Second, the ECRs are accumulated, which is fol- paths. Instigating components array in multiple ECRs
lowed by execution when a certain lot size is grouped, algorithm stores the data of change initiating compo-
as detailed in Figure 5. nents, which depend on the number of ECRs. The in-
Graph-based search technique is used to explore dif- process CPPs are stored in the form of layers in traced
ferent CPPs in the suggested algorithms because the array, and it serves on the rule of FIFO queue. From
graph takes account of cycles, which represent itera- the literature, it is revealed that changes can usually
tions in the PD process. The algorithm proposed by propagate up to four change steps (Pasqual and De
Dijkstra (1959) is used to explore the shortest paths Weck, 2012); therefore, it is used as a stop criterion in
from a single initiating node to all other nodes in the the suggested algorithms.
graph. Whereas, the advanced algorithms can discover Inputs to both the algorithms are rework probability
the most time-saving CPPs initiating from a single or and impact matrices, logical dependency matrix, com-
multiple components to the associated components. ponent design duration, instigating components, and
Moreover, the Dijkstra algorithm is used to explore the the number of change steps. When the simulation is
paths between finite nodes, and the node once visited run, the planned rework-risk as a result ECR r1 is cal-
will never be checked again; consequently, no stop cri- culated and all the child components along with the
terion and iteration are considered in the algorithm. parent component are stored in the succeeding layer of
Queue data structure is applied, which works on the the traced array. In each step, it will assess the type of
principle of first-in, first-out (FIFO). It implies that the logical dependency that exists between the components.
child components attained by expanding the parent Then, the process will check the repetition of the design
component are added to the FIFO queue, and they are component pair to add the learning effect in the pro-
explored in the same order in which they arrived. In the cess. Whereas, in the case of multiple ECRs, it will also
proposed algorithms, when the instigating component check that the new component is an instigating compo-
is selected, it explores all the descendants of the nent or not. In the case of instigating component, the
8 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Figure 5. Flowchart for exploring propagation paths as a result of multiple ECRs.

planned rework-risk due to change request rn will be components and add it to the traced array along with
calculated and added to the propagated rework-risk. If the parent component in the succeeding layer and
the accumulated rework-risk becomes greater than ‘‘1,’’ repeat the process. The simulation will be executed
then it should be replaced by ‘‘1,’’ which means that the until the traced array is empty. Thus, all the CPPs from
whole design of the component should be changed. In different instigating components to the associated com-
both algorithms, if the number of change steps in pro- ponents are explored.
pagated path reaches up to four, then the path will be
stored in the propagated path array along with TRD.
Next, the simulation run will go back to the traced Case description
array to pick the succeeding path and hence repeat the To demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed meth-
process. Conversely, if the number of change steps is ods, the design project of an optical mouse is consid-
less than the defined value, then it will pick all the child ered. The dependencies between the components and
Ullah et al. 9

Table 2. Completion time of design components (Kang and a rework probability of 0.3 at the position of the design
Hong, 2009). component (i, j) means that there is a 30% probability
for changes to propagate to the component j when
S. no. Design components Completion time (days)
component i is completed. The logical dependencies
1 Connection cable 2 between components have been acquired by consulting
2 Top case 11 the designers from the manufacturing firm, as shown in
3 Bottom case 8 Figure 7.
4 Wheel mechanism 6 For instance, a design change is made in Bottom case
5 Main board 8
6 Microprocessor 8 (E3), which has a 70% probability to propagate the
7 Click mechanism 3 changes to Microprocessor (E6), with the rework
8 Balance weight 2 impact of 90%. The rework-risk for a given design com-
9 Optical sensor 6 ponent can be estimated by multiplying the respective
values of rework probability and impact. Moreover,
component redesign time can be computed by multiply-
their design duration are taken from the article by ing the rework-risk by the expected completion time.
Kang and Hong (2009). The designers’ team from the Three design changes in an optical mouse are proposed
optical mouse manufacturing company was consulted by the designer to explore the best possible approach
regarding the initial assessment of the suggested for managing ECRs. The designer based on his experi-
approaches. The designers have vast experience in the ence suggests the initiating components, that is, Bottom
related field. Both the approaches were evaluated by case (E3), Microprocessor (E6), and the Optical sensor
the designers, and it was found that the methods could (E9) having initial rework-risk of 0.5, 0.9, and 0.7,
help to better focus discussions on management strate- respectively. The following sub-sections explain that
gies of design change requests. The optical mouse com- how ECRs can be implemented in two different ways.
ponent list, along with expected completion time, is
presented in Table 2. However, numeric DSMs provide
information regarding dependencies and logical rela-
Immediate implementation of ECRs
tionships between components, as illustrated in In this method, ECRs are executed without any delay,
Figures 6 and 7. and the rework is done immediately. In this case study,
In Figure 6, the number above the line in each cell instigating components are categorized based on the
represents the rework probability, whereas the number risks mentioned in Table 1, and it is considered that
below the line denotes the rework impact. For instance, change initiating components have medium and high

Figure 6. Probability and impact matrix for optical mouse design process (Kang and Hong, 2009).
10 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Figure 7. Logical dependencies between the components of optical mouse.

Figure 8. Redesign duration of CPPs in three different cases.

initial rework-risks. The change requests are implemen- CPPs also varies. The Bottom case (E3) has medium
ted separately in three distinct components, and as a initial rework-risk of 0.5; therefore, it gives minimum
result, several CPPs are achieved. The redesign duration redesign duration as compared to other instigating
of all possible CPPs in three different cases are shown components. In Bottom case (E3), a sudden increase in
in Figure 8. the redesign duration can be seen in Figure 8: this rise
It is evident from Figure 8 that all the CPPs have is due to high propagated risk between components
different redesign duration, as well as the number of Bottom case (E3) and Microprocessor (E6), as shown in
Ullah et al. 11

Table 3. Accumulative number of distinct change components

involved in several CPPs.

S. no. Number of CPPs CPPs (%) Number of distinct

components

1 6 0.18 2
2 42 1.25 3
3 116 3.44 4
4 236 7.00 5
5 627 18.59 6
6 1408 41.76 7
7 830 24.61 8
8 107 3.17 9

CPP: change propagation path.

consider Tables 3 and 4. The number of distinct change

components involved in different CPPs is presented in
Figure 9. Number of distinct components in various CPPs for Table 3, whereas accumulative redesign duration and
all the three initiating components. CPPs are shown in Table 4.

Figure 6. The Optical sensor (E9) and Microprocessor ECRs implementation in batch
(E6), both have high initial rework-risk of 0.7 and 0.9, In batch processing, an appropriate sequence of ECRs
respectively. Therefore, they contribute substantially to is identified to avoid futile effort during the redesign
accumulative redesign duration. From the above, it can process. Whereas, an appropriate sequence can be
be inferred that for any instigating component, the defined as ‘‘the best possible sequence of ECRs that
number of CPPs depends on three factors, that is, (1) provides minimum redesign duration for the implemen-
the number of directly connected components, (2) tation of initiated change requests.’’ First, ECRs are
rework probability and impact values, and (3) the pres- gathered in a group of a predefined size, followed by
ence of logical dependency between components. the execution process. In this case study, a group size of
Different CPPs have distinct design components. It three ECRs has been defined. Therefore, each sequence
can be seen in Figure 9 that the frequency distribution comprises three components. The Bottom Case,
of propagated path containing different design compo- Microprocessor, and Optical Sensor are the instigating
nents varies for all the three instigating components. components for each ECR. To implement the design
For Bottom case (E3), the number of distinct compo- changes, the designer should decide the execution
nents reaches up to nine, while in the case of sequence of ECRs. In this case study, following six pos-
Microprocessor (E6) and Optical sensor (E9), it reaches sible sequences of design changes can be implemented:
up to eight. Although Microprocessor (E6) and Optical
sensor (E9) have high initial rework-risk, the number of  Bottom case (E3)–Microprocessor (E6)–Optical sen-
distinct components is less than Bottom case (E3). It sor (E9);
owes to the fact that Bottom case (E3) propagates  Bottom case (E3)–Optical sensor (E9)–
changes to the components, which have ‘‘And’’ logical Microprocessor (E6);
dependency, as shown in Figure 7.  Microprocessor (E6)–Bottom case (E3)–Optical sen-
It can also be witnessed from Figure 9 that in sor (E9);
Bottom case (E3), 45.35% and 30.80% of CPPs contain  Microprocessor (E6)–Optical sensor (E9)–Bottom
seven and eight numbers of distinct components, case (E3);
respectively. Whereas, in Microprocessor (E6) 32.61%  Optical sensor (E9)–Bottom case (E3)–
and Optical sensor (E9) 25% of CPPs comprise seven Microprocessor (E6);
number of distinct components. From this analysis, it  Optical sensor (E9)–Microprocessor (E6)–Bottom
can be established that increase in a number of CPPs case (E3).
and distinct components not only depends on the initial
rework-risk but also on the components to which the In all the six sequences, changes are initiated in dif-
change is propagated and the logical dependencies ferent instigating components to satisfy the change
between them. To analyze the accumulative results, requirements. As a result, several CPPs are obtained to
12 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 4. Accumulative redesign duration and number of CPPs.

S. no. Component Minimum redesign Maximum redesign Average redesign Propagation

description duration (days) duration (days) duration (days) Paths

1 Bottom case 4.19 6.94 4.29 2516

2 Microprocessor 7.28 8.45 8.24 696
3 Optical sensor 6.54 8.07 7.09 160
Total 18.01 23.46 19.62 3372

CPP: change propagation path.

Table 5. Redesign time and CPPs for six different sequences.

S. no. Sequence Minimum redesign Maximum redesign Average redesign Propagation

duration (days) duration (days) duration (days) Paths

1 E3–E6–E9 15.62 45.13 26.74 968

2 E3–E9–E6 15.60 48.07 26.64 442
3 E6–E3–E9 15.64 22.12 18.80 23
4 E6–E9–E3 17.73 33.61 24.19 532
5 E9–E3–E6 10.73 32.38 18.82 78
6 E9–E6–E3 12.29 24.04 17.06 82

CPP: change propagation path.

duration than the cumulative maximum redesign dura-

tion in individual processing. In product designing,
some tolerances are kept in the component parameters,
which decrease over a period due to the incorporation
of changes. Moreover, the strategy of design freeze is
used for standardized and expensive components.
Therefore, the designer should avoid the propagated
path, which contains such components, despite the fact
that they have minimum redesign duration. In view of
the above, the conclusion is made on the basis of aver-
age redesign duration because it represents the entire
sets of propagated paths. The average redesign duration
of three sequences, that is, E6–E3–E9, E9–E3–E6, and
E9–E6–E3 provide better results than the individual pro-
cessing as highlighted in Table 5, while other three give
Figure 10. Redesign duration of CPPs in batch processing. the worst result as compared with individual processing.
It can be apprehended from Figure 11 that the path
distribution in all the six sequences is different in per-
implement the changes. The redesign duration of all spective of a numbers of distinct design components. It
the propagated paths in the entire sets of sequences is is evident from Figure 11 that seven and eight numbers
presented in Figure 10. of distinct components are involved in 85.54% and
The redesign duration and number of CPPs of the 88.69% of CPPs in sequences E3–E6–E9 and E3–E9–E6,
entire sets of sequences are indicated in Table 5. All the respectively. Whereas, in sequences E9–E6–E3 and E6–
six sequences have different minimum and maximum E3–E9, the path distribution is almost uniform. The
redesign duration to resolve the change requests as entire sets of sequences have 71.55% of propagated
shown in Table 5. By comparing the results of both paths, which contain seven and eight numbers of dis-
approaches, it can be observed that all the six sequences tinct change components while only 5.04% of CPPs
in batch processing have a smaller minimum redesign contain nine numbers of distinct change components as
duration than the accumulated minimum redesign dura- shown in Figure 11. In most cases, the propagated path
tion in individual processing. However, only one comprising a fewer number of change components will
sequence E6–E3–E9 has a smaller maximum redesign be easier to execute the changes with lesser time. The
Ullah et al. 13

initiation, ECRs are implemented immediately and the

rework is done without any delay. While in the second
approach, ECRs are treated in a batch and the execu-
tion takes place when a group of predefined size is col-
lected. In batch processing, six possible sequences of
design changes are implemented. The sequence E9–E6–
E3 causes 15% decrease in the redesign duration of
CPPs whereas another sequence E3–E6–E9 results in
36.23% increase in the redesign duration of CPPs as
compared with individual processing. Based on the case
study, it can be inferred that the number of CPPs and
distinct design components not only depends on the ini-
tial rework-risk but also on the components to which
the change is propagated and the logical dependencies
Figure 11. Number of distinct change components in various between them. The results from a single, simple case
CPPs for six different sequences. study indicates that running ECR batches with proper
sequence can be beneficial.
results from the above-conducted study show that per- The authors, however, admit that more work is
forming ECRs in a batch with a proper sequence has a required to validate the modeling approach further. The
significant impact on the design process duration. To case study discussed in this research work is simple, hav-
verify these findings further, the outcomes were later ing a few coupled components, whereas the component
presented to the designer team from the optical mouse dependencies increase substantially in complex products.
manufacturing company. The designers appreciated Therefore, the suggested approach may be extended to
achieved results and stated that they have no idea that complex systems, which as a result increases the research
the execution sequence of ECRs has such drastic effects scope and also provides opportunities to assess the tech-
on the redesign duration of CPPs. The designers’ team niques against more complex products. The proposed
suggested that the proposed technique may be assessed approach has one limitation: it cannot be applied if
further by considering more complex case examples. ECRs are of safety critical nature. Because, in safety crit-
ical nature ECRs, an immediate action is required as the
Concluding remarks and future work process is much more focused on the quality and func-
tionality of the product rather than the lead time or cost.
Managing ECRs in a batch processing with appropri-
ate sequence provides better results than individual
processing. Moreover, ECRs execution sequence has a Acknowledgements
substantial effect on the PD process in terms of lead The authors express their gratitude to the anonymous
time. In this article, two different techniques individual reviewers for their insightful feedback.
and batch processing were introduced to manage ECRs
during the PD process. These techniques are based on Declaration of conflicting interests
the time computing models where iterations of the ear-
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
lier design components are also considered. The process respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
starts with building the product model in view of the article.
rework probability and impact matrices. The product
design process is described by considering the logical
relationships ‘‘And/Or’’ between the components. Funding
ECRs are categorized by urgency and rework-risk, The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
whereas the term rework-risk is applied to the amount port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
of rework required to be done to redesign the product’s article: This work was supported by the National Natural
components. All the CPPs are explored in product’s Science Foundation of China under grant number 51575264
and Qing Lan Project.
structure using the proposed algorithms and a mathe-
matical model.
An example based on an optical mouse design pro- References
cess illustrated the feasibility of the suggested methods. Acar BS, Benedetto-Neto H and Wright IC (1998) Design
Three ECRs having different initial rework-risks are change: problem or opportunity. In: Engineering design
considered to compare the outcomes of both conference, Brunel University, UK, 23–25 June 1998, pp.
approaches. In the first method, after the change 445–454. London, UK: Professional Engineering Publishing.
14 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Andersson J, Pohl J and Eppinger SD (1998) A design Huang GQ, Yee WY and Mak KL (2003) Current practice of
process modeling approach incorporating nonlinear engineering change management in Hong Kong manufac-
elements. In: ASME 10th international conference on turing industries. Journal of Materials Processing Technol-
design theory and methodology, Atlanta, GA, 13–16 ogy 139(1–3): 481–487.
September. Hull E, Jackson K and Dick J (2005) Requirements Engineer-
Balcerak KJ and Dale BG (1992) Engineering change admin- ing. London: Springer.
istration: the key issues. Computer Integrated Manufactur- INCOSE (2010) Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for
ing Systems 5(2): 125–132. System Life Cycle Processes and Activities (INCOSE-TP-
Balogun J and Jenkins M (2003) Re-conceiving change man- 2003-002–03.2). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
agement: a knowledge-based perspective. European Man- Inness J (1994) Achieving Successful Product Change. London:
agement Journal 21(2): 247–257. Financial Times/Pitman Publishing.
Clarkson PJ, Simons C and Eckert CM (2004) Predicting Jarratt TAW, Clarkson PJ and Eckert CM (2004) Engineering
change propagation in complex design. Journal of Mechan- change. In: Clarkson PJ and Eckert CM (eds) Design Pro-
ical Design 126(5): 788–797. cess Improvement: A Review of Current Practice. London:
Cohen T, Navathe SB and Fulton RE (2000) C-FAR, change Springer, pp. 262–285.
favorable representation. Computer Aided Design 32(5–6): Jarratt TAW, Eckert CM, Caldwell NHM, et al. (2011) Engi-
321–338. neering change: an overview and perspective on the litera-
Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion ture. Research in Engineering Design 22(2): 103–124.
with graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1(1): 269–271. Kang C and Hong YS (2009) Evaluation of acceleration effect
DiPrima M (1982) Engineering change control and implemen- of dynamic sequencing of design process in a multiproject
tation considerations. Production and Inventory Manage- environment. Journal of Mechanical Design 131(2): 021008
ment 23(1): 81–87. (11 pp.).
Earl CF, Eckert CM and Clarkson PJ (2005) Design change Keller R, Eckert CM and Clarkson PJ (2009) Using an engi-
and complexity. In: 2nd workshop on complexity in design neering change methodology to support conceptual design.
and engineering, Glasgow, 10–12 March. Journal of Engineering Design 20(6): 571–587.
Eckert C, Clarkson PJ and Zanker W (2004) Change and cus- Kidd MW and Thompson G (2000) Engineering design
tomisation in complex engineering domains. Research in change management. Integrated Manufacturing Systems
Engineering Design 15(1): 1–21. 11(1): 74–77.
Eckert CM, Pulm U and Jarratt TAW (2003) Mass customi- Lam W and Shankararaman V (1999) Requirements change:
zation, change, and inspiration–changing designs to meet a dissection of management issues. In: 25th EUROMICRO
new needs. In: Folkeson A, Gralen K, Norell M, et al conference: informatics: theory and practice for the new mil-
(eds) 14th international conference on engineering design, lennium, Milan, 8–10 September, pp. 244–251. New York:
Stockholm, Sweden, 19–21 August, pp. 1–10. Glasgow: IEEE.
The Design Society. Lee HJ, Ahn HJ, Kim JW, et al. (2006) Capturing and reus-
Giffin M, De Weck O, Bounova G, et al. (2009) Change pro- ing knowledge in engineering change management: a case
pagation analysis in complex technical systems. Journal of of automobile development. Information Systems Frontiers
Mechanical Design 131: 081001. 8(5): 375–394.
Hamraz B, Caldwell NHM and Clarkson PJ (2012) A multi- Li W and Moon YB (2012) Modeling and managing engi-
domain engineering change propagation model to support neering changes in a complex product development pro-
uncertainty reduction and risk management in design. cess. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Journal of Mechanical Design 134(10): 100905. Technology 63(9): 863–874.
Hamraz B, Hisarciklilar O, Rahmani K, et al. (2013) Change Li YL and Zhao W (2014) An integrated change propagation
prediction using interface data. Concurrent Engineering: scheduling approach for product design. Concurrent Engi-
Research and Applications 21(2): 141–154. neering: Research and Applications 22(4): 347–360.
Harker SDP, Eason KD and Dobson JE (1993) The change Lindermann U and Reichwald R (1998) Integriertes Ander-
and evolution of requirements as a challenge to the ungsmanamement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
practice of software engineering. In: IEEE international Love PED (2002) Influence of project type and costs in build-
symposium on requirements engineering, San Diego, CA, ing procurement method on rework construction projects.
USA, 4–6 January 1993, pp. 266–272. IEEE. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management:
Hollins B and Pugh S (1990) Successful Product Design. Lon- ASCE 128(1): 18–29.
don: Butterworths. Maier JF, Wynn DC, Biedermann W, et al. (2014) Simulating
Huang GQ and Mak KL (1998) Computer aids for engineer- progressive iteration, rework and change propagation to
ing change control. Journal of Materials Processing Tech- prioritise design tasks. Research in Engineering Design
nology 76(1–3): 187–191. 25(4): 283–307.
Huang GQ and Mak KL (1999) Current practices of engineer- Masmoudi M, Leclaire P, Zolghadri M, et al. (2017) Change
ing change management in UK manufacturing industries. propagation prediction: a formal model for two-
International Journal of Operations & Production Manage- dimensional geometrical models of products. Concurrent
ment 19(1): 21–37. Engineering: Research and Applications 25(2): 174–189.
Ullah et al. 15

Maull R, Hughes D and Bennett J (1992) Special feature. The Sugden RC and Strens MR (1996) Strategies, tactics and
role of the bill-of-materials as a CAD/CAPM interface methods for handling change. In: IEEE symposium and
and the key importance of engineering change control. workshop on engineering of computer based systems, Frie-
Computing & Control Engineering Journal 3(2): 63–70. drichshafen, 11–15 March, p. 457. New York: IEEE Com-
Mohringer S (2006) From design errors to chances—a puter Society.
computer-based error tracking system in practice. In: Tang D-B, Yin L-L, Wang Q, et al. (2016) Workload-based
International design conference, Dubrovnik, 15–18 May, change propagation analysis in engineering design. Concur-
pp. 943–950. Bristol: The Design Society. rent Engineering: Research and Applications 24(1): 17–34.
Morkos B and Summers JD (2010) Requirement change pro- Terwiesch C and Loch CH (1999) Managing the process of
pagation prediction approach: results from an industry engineering change orders: the case of the climate control
case study. In: ASME international design engineering tech- system in automobile development. Journal of Product
nical conferences, Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–18 August, Innovation Management 16(2): 160–172.
pp. 111–121. New York: ASME. The Standish Group (1995) The Standish group report. Chaos
Nadia B, Gregory G and Vince T (2006) Engineering change 1: 8.
request management in a new product development pro- Ullman D (2003) The Mechanical Design Process. New York:
cess. European Journal of Innovation Management 9(1): McGraw-Hill Education.
5–19. Ulrich KT and Eppinger SD (1995) Product Design and Devel-
Nuseibeh B and Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineer- opment. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
ing: a roadmap. In: Conference on the future of software Van Bossuyt DL, Dong A, Tumer IY, et al. (2013) On mea-
engineering, Limerick, 4–11 June, pp. 35–46. New York: suring engineering risk attitudes. Journal of Mechanical
ACM. Design 135(12): 1–13.
Ollinger GA and Stahovich TF (2001) RedesignIT – a Vianello G and Ahmed-Kristensen S (2012) A comparative
constraint-based tool for managing design changes. In: study of changes across the lifecycle of complex products
ASME design engineering technical conferences, Pittsburgh, in a variant and a customised industry. Journal of Engi-
PA, 9–12 September, pp. 197–207. New York: ASME. neering Design 23(2): 99–117.
Pahl G and Beitz W (1998) Engineering Design: A Systematic Wasmer A, Staub G and Vroom RW (2011) An industry
Approach. London: Springer. approach to shared, cross-organisational engineering
Palmer G, Morkos B and Summers JD (2010) Investigation change handling–the road towards standards for product
of design tools as complexity management techniques. In: data processing. Computer-Aided Design 43(5): 533–545.
ASME international design engineering technical confer- Watts F (1984) Engineering changes: a case study. Production
ences, Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–18 August, pp. 511–522. and Inventory Management 2(4): 55–62.
New York: ASME. Worinkeng E and Summers JD (2014) Analysing requirement
Pasqual MC and De Weck OL (2012) Multilayer network type influence on concept quality and quantity during
model for analysis and management of change propaga- ideation: an experimental study. In: ASME international
tion. Research in Engineering Design 23(4): 305–328. design engineering technical conferences, Buffalo, NY, 17–
Pikosz P and Malmqvist J (1998) A comparative study of 20 August.
engineering change management in three Swedish compa- Wright IC (1997) A review of research into engineering
nies. In: ASME design engineering technical conference change management: implications for product design.
(DETC98), Atlanta, GA, 13–16 September, pp. 1–11. Design Studies 18(1): 33–42.
New York: ASME. Yu X, Yang Z, Wang G, et al (2013) Study on design change
Reidelbach PE (1991) Engineering change management for review for small and medium-sized enterprises. In: 2013
long-lead-time production. Production and Inventory Man- IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and
agement 32(2): 84–89. engineering management, Bangkok, Thailand, 10–13
Shankar P, Morkos B and Summers JD (2012) Reasons for December, pp. 556–560. New York: IEEE.
change propagation: a case study in an automotive OEM. Zhang J, Song X, Chen H, et al. (2015) Optimisation of criti-
Research in Engineering Design 23(4): 291–303. cal chain sequencing based on activities’ information flow
Shapiro D, Hamraz B, Sommer AF, et al. (2015) Investigating interactions. International Journal of Production Research
the impact of changes in iteration-likelihoods on design 53(20): 6231–6241.
process performance. Concurrent Engineering: Research
and Applications 23: 250–264.
 16 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Appendix 1
Notation
kn number of change steps as a result of nth change request
K total number of change steps in a single CPP
m number of product0 s components
n number of change requirements
Pl RR(r, ci ) planned rework  risk from change request 0 r0 to instigating component 0 ci 0
Pr RR(ck2 , ck1 ) propagated rework  risk between any two successive components
RIij rework  impact between component 0 i0 and 0 j0
RPij rework  probability between component 0 i0 and 0 j0
RR(ci , cj ) rework  risk between component 0 i0 and 0 j0
RRKr1 r2 rn (ci , cj ) rework  risk propagated from component 0 i0 to 0 j0 as a result of 0 n0 change requests in 0 K 0 steps
TRD total redesign duration of propagated path
x number of iterations
y number of changes caused by change requests

Author biographies
Inayat Ullah is a Ph.D. candidate at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing, China. He received his Master degree in industrial and manufacturing engineering from
University of Engineering and Technology Taxila, Pakistan in June 2010. His research is mainly
focused on Engineering Design, Engineering Change Propagation, Design Change analysis and
optimization.

Prof. Dr. Dunbing Tang earned his Ph.D. from Nanjing University of Science and Technology
(NUST). During 2002-2005, he conducted the scientific research at Aachen University (Germany)
and Cranfield University (UK). He joined Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics at
the end of 2005. Prof. Tang’s research interests include Intelligent Manufacturing System and
Automation, Product Design Theory and Methodology.

Qi Wang is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. His research interests include Product
Design Theory and Methodology.

Leilei Yin is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. His research interests include Product
Design Theory and Methodology, Design Change analysis and optimization.

Ishfaq Hussain is currently pursuing the M.S. degree (Communication and Information System) at
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China. His research interests include
programming, algorithm development, computational electromagnetics, and communication
systems.

View publication stats