An empirical analysis of the PLM implementation effects in the aerospace industry

Marco Cantamessa, Francesca Montagna *, Paolo Neirotti

Department of Production Systems and Business Economics, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
1. Introduction
The survival of rms in competitive markets is signicantly
associated to new product development (NPD) capabilities [1,2],
and NPD management is tightly related to the use and re-use of
product information and knowledge. For this reason, there is an
ever-increasing opportunity for using IT to improve the perfor-
mance of the product development process throughout its entire
life cycle [3]. Product lifecycle management (PLM) systems are IT
application frameworks that are widely acclaimed for supporting
this objective, along with enhancing knowledge management
capabilities and coordination among the functional areas involved
in NPD.
In general, PLM systems integrate [4]:
- Systems and technologies to support design activities (i.e., visuali-
zation/viewing applications, CA-X integration, product data
management, engineering change management tools, congura-
tion management tools, etc.), in the context of interdisciplinary
and distributed teams (i.e., data exchange and collaboration
technologies, design coordination tools).
- Knowledge management systems (i.e., document management,
content management systems, etc.).
- Project management and workow management tools.
- Systems and technologies to support relations through the supply
chain (i.e., customer-oriented and supplier-oriented applications,
or information tracking systems).
Not only the wide diffusion of such enabling technologies in industry,
but also their high costs, makes it important to understand the real
benets that can derive from PLM implementations. This under-
standing obviously cannot do without empirical evidence. In fact,
despite the promise of great benets, PLM may be deployed in an
ineffective way, and rms might nd themselves quite far from the
expected operational or strategic outcomes.
Literature usually focuses on effects of PLM, however there is no
contribution (with the exception of [4]) that jointly considers the
impact and understanding of PLM on individuals work, on
business operations and routines and on the entire rm.
Really, a number of aspects are usually neglected at each of the
three levels. When considering individuals, PLM requires a burden
to adopters in terms of the knowledge needed to achieve an
effective application [5]. Furthermore, and differently to the well-
known case of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems [6],
PLM technologies are less prescriptive on the way activities must
be performed (i.e., PLM can strictly manage procedures but does
not oblige individuals to do specic transactions). Hence, even if
PLM is expected to be used in the daily life for the management of
all engineering changes, the use of PLM technologies nowadays can
still vary among employees, depending on the advantage they
experience with respect to the previous working conditions.
From an organizational point of view, and again differently from
ERP, PLM systems support inherently less predictable, more
knowledge-intensive (and often dependent on tacit knowledge)
processes, that have a very long duration (especially in industries
like aerospace) and involve very large teams across the company
and its supply chain. So, a relatively effective but non-uniform
assimilation of such technologies at the individual level may not
Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 10 January 2011
Received in revised form 29 September 2011
Accepted 13 January 2012
Available online 16 February 2012
Keywords:
New product development (NPD)
Product lifecycle management (PLM)
A B S T R A C T
The provision of an effective IT support to product development processes still remains an open research
question, because of the complexity that is inherent to this area of corporate activity. According to the
current state of the art, product lifecycle management (PLM) systems can be considered as important
enablers for achieving true coordination and effective management of product development processes.
However, few contributions in literature investigate the central issue of understanding how company
implementation approaches can mutually interact and can determine the actual effects of PLM
introduction.
The paper presents a framework for representing PLMimplementation effects at three different levels
(individual, organizational, and strategic) jointly to an empirical investigation in a major Italian
aerospace company.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author at: C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, Torino, Italy.
Tel.: +39 011 0907213; fax: +39 011 0907299.
E-mail address: francesca.montagna@polito.it (F. Montagna).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers in Industry
j o ur n al hom epage: www. el s evi er . c om/ l ocat e/ co mp i nd
0166-3615/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2012.01.004
automatically lead to their effective deployment at the organiza-
tional level, because of the effects related to network externalities
[7,8] and learning-by-using among adopters [9].
At a strategic level, there can be a negative impact if
management misjudges the effort required. Moreover, the success
of any PLM implementation (and consequently its strategic
outcomes) depends on organizational characteristics. These are
markedly different across rms, and this can signicantly alter the
implementation strategy and its outcomes.
The research question faced in the paper is to analyze PLM
implementation effects at different levels. In particular, the paper
theorizes and empirically validates the existence of three distinct
dimensions (operational, organizational, and strategic) in the
implementation and their interactions. Besides these elements
that are more deeply considered in the paper, the entire research
regarded, also other factors affecting PLM assimilation such as
learning-by-using effects, end users acceptance of the technology,
etc. The underlying idea is that, through this analysis, it is possible
to make the relations among the elements which can lead to
effective PLM implementations emerge.
The rst part of the paper is based on literature review, with the
objective of identifying the diverse dimensions of the problem and
the focal points of the analysis. The second step is represented by
the construction of a theoretical model that summarizes the
different perspectives coming from literature. Starting from the
main PLM system functionalities declared in literature, the paper
proposes three incidence matrices for analyzing effects interac-
tions, and then investigates the impact of PLM on individual work,
on organizational processes and at a strategic level. Finally, the
three dimensions of PLM effects are investigated by an explorative
study in a large enterprise operating in the aerospace industry. The
last section deals with conclusions and managerial implications.
2. Literature review
Many contributions in academic literature and among practi-
tioners give different denitions of PLM and propose a number of
viewpoints, which can be summarized in Table 1. The table does
not refer to specic areas of PLM implementation, but to diverse
investigation perspectives. The main aspects which are objects of
investigation in literature are the implementation industrial
scenario [1], approaches [2], operative modalities [3] and
implementation effects [4].
At the same time, two main perspectives are present, depending
on whether contributors focus on adopters (i.e., a demand-side
perspective) or on systems and their vendors (i.e., a supply-side
perspective). Considering the industrial scenario [1], the demand-
side perspective focuses on drivers that lead rms to adopt PLM
systems (e.g. [10]) or integrated managerial approaches to NPD
process (e.g. [11]). Conversely, a supply-side perspective, quite
often found in practitioner-oriented papers (e.g. [12]), focuses on
enabling technologies. In this context it is possible to recognize
two technological trajectories, one that views PLM as a progressive
broadening of the scope of CAD systems (e.g. the one proposed by
Dassault/IBM, Siemens/UGS, Enovia, think3, etc.), the other as a
specic module of enterprise systems (e.g. SAP PLM; Oracle PLM,
etc.).
Concerning implementation approaches [2], a rst stream
concerns a top-down perspective on the NPD process and
considers PLM a holistic and strategic activity addressing many
components such as products, organizational structure, working
methods, processes, people and information systems [4]. The
second stream is related to a bottom-up perspective, leading from
tools to problems. It considers that knowledge of available tools
can allow nding appropriate solutions for company-specic
problems. This perspective identies PLM as a set of tools for
gathering, managing, spreading and using information and
knowledge on products. It focuses on specic technological
solutions, and is stressed by consultants and business analysts
(for a survey, see [13]).
Some authors [14,15] claim that PLM should be approached
through these two perspectives together. The implementation of
tools without the comprehension of strategy and business
processes cannot be useful, just like the application of business-
level PLM fundamentals without an adequate knowledge of the
supporting technologies.
This dichotomy is present also when dealing with implemen-
tation operative modalities [3]. According to the rst perspective,
the key focus should be on understanding and eventually re-
engineering the business processes in which products are
developed [14,15]. According to the other perspective, implemen-
tation decisions should be guided by the features and functionali-
ties of IT applications (e.g. product data management systems, data
exchange and collaboration technologies). In this sense, rms must
look for the specic applications they need, and not all possible
tools will be adopted.
At last, a somewhat limited amount of research contributions
has been dedicated to investigate the effects, in term of benets
and problems, of PLM implementation [4].
One way is to assess the impact of PLM in improving
effectiveness, efciency and control of the NPD process. It regards
the reduction of design mistakes [16], the improved possibility of
design alternative comparisons [13,14,16], a better understanding
of product architecture and components features [13], the
achievement of design parameter optimization [17], the reuse of
past design information (e.g. [14,16,18]), the anomaly detection in
Table 1
Investigation perspectives on PLM in literature.
Implementation industrial scenario [1] Implementation approaches [2] Implementation
modalities [3]
Implementation effects [4]
Demand side Basic drivers
- Saaksvuori and Immonen [16];
- Dutta and Ameri [41];
- Sharma [21].
- Rangan et al. [10]
Integrated approaches to NPD
- Hage et al. [11];
- Nobelius and Sundgren [42];
- Von Corswant and Tunlv [43].
Comprehensive approach to NPD
and product information management
- Stark [4]);
- Rangan et al. [10]
Focus on processes
- Grieves [15];
- Schuh et al. [14].
Impact given by the adoption
of a PLM strategy
- Schuh et al. [14];
- Stark [4]
Supply side Existent supporting technologies
- Garetti, et al. [12]
- Dassault/IBM UGS, Enovia,
Think3, SAP PLM; Oracle PLM, etc.
Tool- driven approach in order to
provide a specic support to specic
processes [13]
Focus on technological
choices
- Garetti, et al. [12];
- Sudarsan et al. [44]
Benets given by specic
solutions
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 244
the rst phases of NPD and the management of design changes
[16,19]. This impact can be considered as an enabler of the
development of more innovative products [14]. Moreover, data
integration, reduction of data redundancy, real-time updating
[16,20] and, more in general, integrated information and
knowledge management (e.g. [4,14]), as provided by PLM systems,
enhances cross-functional collaboration among employees [21
23]. This leads to a decrease of transaction costs in the NPD process
[38], more effective project coordination and control on product
engineering [13,14,24,25], besides a greater rigor in the manage-
ment of NPD, especially for product planning [4,14].
Finally, it is also possible to attempt an evaluation of the
revenue increase or the cost reduction that PLM can lead to. These
bottom line results stem from an improved management of
design alternatives, a greater design diversication [14,16], a
deeper comprehension of product architecture and components
features [14], a lower impact of product changes on process
[16,26], the possibility of re-using past design information
[14,16,18], a higher quality of design and a lower number of
design mistakes [16], an improved management of complex tasks
[27], the reduction of time needed for information research [14,16]
and for low added-value activities [16], the anomaly detection in
the rst phases of NPD and the management of design changes
[16,19], an effective support for teamwork and cross-functional
collaboration [2123].
3. Theoretical model developed and focal points of the analysis
None of the previously mentioned contributions examines the
elements of the rm on which PLM impacts by considering
different implementation levels.
Stark [4] considers three levels of PLM implementation in the
pursuit of opportunities and benets, but does not consider the
associated organizational issues. This is an important limitation,
since PLM systems require the reengineering of relevant business
processes [28,29], with a dramatic impact on the rms organisa-
tion [30].
This paper attempts to take into account the organizational
effects of PLM implementation by considering workers in the NPD
process as the unit of analysis. In so doing, the paper distinguishes
between three different dimensions of PLM impact, individual
operational effects, organizational process effects, and strategic
effects. The rst dimension analyzes the impact of PLM on users
individual work and operational procedures. The second dimen-
sion reects the benets that users may have perceived in the
entire NPD process, in terms of impacts on coordination routines,
idea exchanges and workows. The third dimension reects how
employees perceived how PLM affected rm performance from a
strategic point of view. The basic idea is that, through the
identication of the effects of PLM at different levels, the dealings
among the elements which lead to effective PLM implementations
can result.
Table 2 shows the effects as described in literature and classies
them in the dened three categories.
Really despite these three dimensions are likely to go together
within a rm, it is plausible to expect that when PLM effects are
investigated at the individual level, some users may have perceived
benets in their individual job without experiencing concrete
results at the NPD process level. This is more likely where the
technology is scarcely used as a coordination tool, but simple as a
knowledge repository for his/her own use. Vice versa, some other
users may have not perceived any particular impact in their
individual work, despite at the process level PLM resulted into
improved coordination and knowledge management. This is more
likely in individuals with a low acceptance of the new technology.
In addition, some individuals may do not have a greater vision or
sensitiveness on the strategic implications of PLM implementation
despite their use of PLM is regular and the advantages on their
coordination routines is evident. This is the reason why the study
of the perception of the users about these diverse effects is the rst
focal point of the analysis.
After having considered the three levels of PLM implementation
effects, the mutual interactions among them remain to be
explored. Operational effects can inuence the development
process and in turn this can have an inuence at strategic
level. This knowledge on the PLM implementation effects and
relations at multiple levels (by referring to Table 1, [4]) may allow
to understand its antecedents concerning modalities [3],
approaches [2] and industrial scenarios [1].
In order to assess the mutual relations at different levels,
incidence matrices can be used to explore potential causal links
among effects [31], systematically reporting in the matrices the
ndings deriving from literature.
Specically, three matrices have been considered. The rst
matrix connects PLM functionalities (i, on the rows) to individual-
level operational effects (j, on the columns). The second matrix
connects functionalities i or the individual-level operational effects
j on the rows to process-level effects (r, on the columns). The third
matrix connects the operational-level j or process-level effects r
(on the rows) to strategic effects (s, on the columns). These
matrices can be translated in a causal map that shows the different
interactions, as in Fig. 1. Obviously, it is important to underline that
the possibility of a direct link between two distant groups is
allowed by the model. For instance, the direct link between a PLM
individual operative effect and a strategic effect can be allowed
even without intermediate individual and operative effects.
Table 2
PLM effects classication.
Individual operative effects Organizational process effects Strategic effects
Improved possibility of design alternative
comparisons and management [14,16]
Reduction of data redundancy and real-time
data integration [16,20]
Higher product innovation level [14]
Better comprehension of product architecture
and components features [14]
Information and knowledge management [4,14] Product cost reduction [14,16]
Past design information reuse [14,16,18] Transaction cost reduction in the NPD process [38] Time to market reduction [14]
Reduction of design mistakes [16] More effective project coordination and control [14,24,25] Process cost reduction [14]
Support for complex task execution (e.g. [27]) More rigorous NPD Management (especially for
product planning) [4,14]
Customer satisfaction [14]
Design optimization [17] Product diversication [14]
Time reduction for research and
information gathering [14,16]
Higher design quality [16]
Reduction of low value added activities [16] Anomaly detection in the rst phases of
NPD and design changes [16,19]
Support for design in team and
cross-functional collaboration [2123]
Lower impact of product changes on process [16,26]
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 245
Matrix X, as shown in Fig. 2 and whose description below
explains the logic used for its construction, considers the relations
between PLM functionalities (as listed in the introduction and
described in [4]) on the rows and the main individual operative
effects, which are claimed by literature on PLM systems (as shown
in Table 2), on the column. Matrix Y and Z are similarly constructed
and shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
This theoretical model has then been validated by a panel of
industry experts, however must also be validated on a broader
empirical base. Moreover, especially in the evaluation of user
perception, moderator effects due to individual traits of PLM users
(e.g. age, gender, type of tasks performed) and to the organizational
context (e.g. the functional department and its involvement in the
NPD process, the facilitating conditions set the and middle
managers for encouraging and supporting the PLM use) may be
relevant and may affect the interdependencies among the PLM
effects described by the matrices.
The rst point is completely treated in the paper. Results
described here are obtained by using a scale that has been
validated statistically through a Principal Components Analysis, of
the three identied dimensions and their relations.
The second point is mainly related to the nature of PLM as a
complex technology that can be accepted to a different extent by
individuals depending on the individual traits and their organiza-
tional context. The Technology Acceptance issue does not only affect
individuals but, due to network externalities in the organizational
processes, can also affect the benets of the technology at
organizational and business process level. This issue was part of
the study and guided the construction of questionnaires but it is only
briey mentioned in the paper. This because as Fig. 5 shows, the
focus of the analysis in this paper is on the operational,
organizational and strategic effects and their linkages of PLM
implementation; readers are referred to [34] for further details.
4. The survey
Two business units of an Italian industrial group, which
operates in the aerospace industry, were the setting for the
Fig. 1. Causal relation matrices.
Fig. 2. Matrix X-PLM functionalities vs individual operative effects.
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 246
empirical analysis. In both cases, PLM implementations were
driven by the willingness to enforce stronger relationships in the
rms network of customers, suppliers, and partners, together with
the need for a better management of concurrent engineering
activities. The business units introduced different PLM functional-
ities, with product data and conguration management, process
planning and resources management being the most important.
The study was based on a quantitative analysis conducted
through a structured questionnaire addressed to all adopters of
PLM systems in the two units. A representative sample made by
300 respondents in the two units was involved into the study: this
sample reected the distribution of the population of PLM end-
users regarding age, educational level and type of organizational
function. 133 usable responses were obtained (63 from rst
Business Unit and 74 from the second one), which correspond to
about a 20% response rate in each of the two organizations. To
check for non-response bias, the respondents were compared with
the non-respondents through contingency tables, KruskallWallis
non-parametric tests and a logit analysis.
In the surveyed sample 110 respondents were part of a cross-
functional product development team and 72 were afliated with
the product design department. On average, 61% of PLM users
working time was spent performing tasks associated with product
development projects. With respect to age, the sample was well
balanced (49.6% of the surveyed workers were under the age of 40).
Age was found to highly correlate with seniority (Pearson
correlation was 0.788 with a 0.1% p-value), thereby highlighting
the low turnover rates of the surveyed users.
Data were collected following a three stage process. A
preliminary round of interviews was made with senior managers
accountable for the PLM implementation project and with some
program managers, in order to analyze the organizational impact
of PLM and the type of implementation. A structured questionnaire
was then sent to all the end users of PLM system. Findings obtained
from the survey were at last discussed and validated with the top
management.
Outcomes emerging from this survey can be generalized at the
industry level, as rms in the aerospace industry exhibit similar
business processes, with a high degree of standardization and
limited room for idiosyncratic operations, routines and human
capital. Standardization occurs because players in this industry
often work together in R&D alliances and tend to follow similar
practices both to ensure operating compatibility with partners and
to imitate partners good practices. Thus, when generalized, results
reect how PLM is accepted and assimilated in the operational
routines and processes of large aerospace rms one year after its
implementation.
4.1. The questionnaires and measures
Based on previous PLM-specic literature, the questionnaire
included the measures presented in Table 3. Each item was
expressed on a 5-level Likert scale, wherein the value 0
0
corresponds to a neutral position between a strong disagreement
(2
0
) and a strong agreement (+2
0
). In order to identify higher-
level factors, item responses were analyzed using factor analysis.
Fig. 3. Functionalities and Individual operative effects vs. organizational process effects.
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 247
We employed a loading threshold of 0.5 for component identica-
tion and a level of 0.6 for the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of
sampling adequacy. Items were aggregated into factors after
controlling for the internal consistency of the measures using
Cronbachs alpha. A reliability threshold of 0.7 was used for this
purpose. Given the lack of previous theoretical studies that clearly
separated the individual from process-level dimensions of PLM
impact, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify the dimen-
sions of PLMs organizational impact was used.
5. Analysis of the results
5.1. PLM impact
Table 4 reports descriptive statistics and EFA results for factors
related to PLM impact. This analysis separated three dimensions of
benets experienced by users. Each item loaded higher on only one
factor, thereby supporting the discriminant validity of the
measures.
The rst factor identied by the analysis refers to the perception
that PLM produces strategic benets: that it reduces the rms
product costs and enhances the development of new products
starting from platforms. It was labelled Perceived Strategic
Benets and conrms the rst typology of effects considered by
the theoretical model.
Also the second factor EFA revealed conrms the theoretical
model and refers to process effects. It explains the benets users
perceived in the organization of NPD activities thanks to PLM use
and was labelled Perceived Impact on the NPD process. This factor
considers: (1) more effective collaboration with colleagues, (2)
Fig. 4. Individual operative effects and organizational process effects vs. strategic effects.
Fig. 5. Factors that describe PLM impact.
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 248
better cross-functional coordination and idea exchange, (3) more
structured ways to manage workows, and (4) more frequent use
of component carryover. Among these items, there was diffused
agreement among users that PLM facilitated a more structured
way of managing workows (item 2.3). Conversely, the perception
that PLM supports the coordination and exchange of ideas (item
2.4) exhibited a limited diffusion among the surveyed users.
The third factor too conrms the developed theoretical model
and refers to the impact of PLM on individual work and operational
procedures. This was labelled Perceived Impact on Individual
Work and encompasses: (1) easier product data retrieval, (2) a
reduction in time wasted due to either re-inventing the wheel or
to doing useless work because data is inaccurate or not updated;
(3) an increase in time devoted to individual technical work and (4)
individual productivity increase (i.e., less time needed to perform a
job). Among these factors, the items that describe the impact of
PLM on overall individual productivity (item 3.1) and the reduced
waste of time (item 3.2) show the lowest means and the highest
standard deviations. Conversely, diffused agreement was on the
greater ease of retrieving product data. These results are consistent
with descriptive statistics of how users view the impact of PLM on
the allocation of their working time (see Table 5). On average, PLM
Table 3
Measures in the questionnaire.
PLM perceived benets Item Main references
Impact on individual work 1. Increased ease of retrieving product data See Table 2 column 1
2. Increased individual productivity
3. Increased time available for individual technical work
Reduction in the time spent re-inventing the wheel or re-doing
the same activity due to a prior use of wrong/non-updated product data
Impact on the NPD process 1. Enhanced cross-functional coordination See Table 2 column 2
2. Enhanced data integration and improved collaboration tools
3. Enhanced product knowledge re-use
More effective process management tools in NPD (i.e., workow management)
Strategic effects 1. Product and process cost reductions See Table 2 column 3
2. Time-to-market reductions and more innovative product platforms
Table 4
Factors that describe PLM impact.
Type of effects Mean
a
S.D. Median Factor loadings
F1 F2 F3
F1. Perceived strategic effects 1.1 PLM generated a reduction in product
development costs
***
0.23 0.79 0 0.76 0.39 0.25
1. 2 PLM favoured the development of
product platforms
***
0.28 0.68 0 0.60 0.26 0.29
F2. perceived impact on
the NPD process
2.1 PLM has favoured a more effective
collaboration among employees
***
0.27 0.75 0 0.21 0.59 0.34
2.2 PLM supported more idea exchange
and more cross-functional coordination
0.02 0.77 0 0.12 0.64 0.49
2.3 PLM encouraged employees to work in a
more structured way, following
workows rules for validating/authorising
changes to product data
***
0.64 0.80 1 0.23 0.67 0.34
2.4 PLM favoured product carry-over
***
0.31 0.75 0 0.37 0.64 0.32
F3. Perceived impact on
individual work
3.1 PLM contributed to reducing the time
required to do many tasks of my job
0.04 1.07 0 0.34 0.32 0.79
3.2 Thanks to PLM, I do not have to spend
time re-inventing the wheel or re-doing the
same task due to product data inconsistencies
0.12 0.92 0 0.08 0.39 0.80
3.3 Thanks to PLM, I can more easily develop
new and effective solutions since I can spend
more time on technical aspects
0.05 0.76 0 0.45 0.39 0.76
3.4 Once PLM has been implemented,
product data are more easily available
and more rapidly retrievable
***
0.69 0.89 1 0.47 0.44 0.87
Initial eigenvalue 3.646 1.266 1.016
Proportion of variance explained [%] 36.4 12.6 10.2
Cumulative variance explained [%] 36.4 49.1 59.2
Cronbachs Alpha 0.60 0.70 0.73
KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling 0.80
a
+2 = strongly agree; 2 = strongly disagree.
***
p-Value < 0.1% (Students t-test for assessing whether a variables mean signicantly differs from 0).
Table 5
Estimated changes in the allocation of working time for PLM users after PLM
implementation.
Increased estimated percentage
of time spent doing
No. obs Mean Standard deviation
Individual technical work
***
97 5.14% 12.84%
Internal meeting 97 0.67% 4.87%
Reporting 96 0.52% 6.80%
Data retrieval
***
98 5.55% 8.00%
***
p-Value < 0.1% (Students t-test for assessing whether a variables mean
signicantly differs from 0).
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 249
favoured a reduction in time spent retrieving information, as well
as an increase in time spent on individual technical work. The
average magnitude of this substitution effect was approximately
5% of users working time (a t-test underscored that these changes
were signicantly different from zero at a 0.1% p-value).
5.2. PLM use as a coordination tool
The item 2.4 of Table 4 shows a limited agreement among the
surveyed users about the perception of PLM as a support to the
coordination. This result induced the idea of analyzing the role of
PLM in the NPD specically in term of coordination. Obviously,
because the data collected, this has been made only considering
the collaborative technologies that were present in the company,
even is authors know that more collaboration oriented tools exist.
Two dimensions were considered (Table 6): the frequency of use
(F) and its signicance (I) to employees in allowing them to get
information they need. MannWhitney non-parametric tests
highlighted different coordination patterns associated to users
functional departments, but not to age. Users estimated that and
formal meetings are the most important coordination modes for
getting information relevant to their own tasks. In the product
design department although PLM is more frequently used for
coordination than in the other departments, it is both less used and
less important than direct verbal communication or exchanges
(paired samples t-test revealed signicant differences at a 1% p-
value). Thus, the role of PLM in supporting knowledge exchange
does not go through explicit communication but, rather, in
allowing easier access to product data and embedded tacit
knowledge.
5.3. Implication of outcomes
Some considerations can be made on these results. The rst one
is related to the PLM role in individual activities. The most
important benet perceived from an individual point of view is
that PLMhelps a reduction in time spent retrieving information, as
well as an increase in time spent on individual technical work. This
outcome is coherent with literature [14,16] and emerges very
clearly by the survey. An explanation could be that these benets
are short term perceivable in an explicit way. On the contrary,
understand that the own competence in developing design
solutions is improved surely requires more experiential time
besides a bigger effort of internalization.
Another important result is related to the PLM role in
coordination. In literature, PLM is described as a facilitating
system for coordination [13,14,21,24,25] but users do not perceive
it in the same way. Table 4 shows that PLM is not commonly
perceived as a support to the coordination and Table 6 shows that
and formal meetings are considered more important than PLM for
coordination. This should be due to the fact that and formal
meetings are proved procedures.
The importance attributed to PLM does not t to frequency in
use and in fact what is really interesting is analyzing the
frequencies. The dichotomy between and informal communica-
tions on one side, in respect to PLM and formal meetings on the
other side is evident. It seems that PLM, obliging somehow to
formalize procedures, becomes de facto assimilated in its use to
formal meetings. This induced formalism in the procedures
actually persuades users to prefer for coordination informal
mechanisms, such as emails and direct contacts.
This is signicant, more than even before, if one considers the
product design department. Although here PLM is more frequently
used for coordination than in the other departments, it is both less
used and less important than direct verbal communication or
exchanges. The reason therefore may be, on the one hand, that PLM
would not provide the right technological solutions for coordina-
tion and hence users prefer other tools, on the other hand, the
studied implementations may be immature so that users have not
completely assimilated PLM potentialities.
These results anyway stimulate specic managerial implica-
tions. They make evident that in order to take advantage of all the
possible benets that PLM can provide, technology, changes in
business processes and organization must be combined consis-
tently. It is important take into account cultural issues that easily
recognize in the PLM systems the data gathering facilities, but
impose resistance for an effective use of knowledge sharing tools.
Rather than, it is important keep in mind the user inertia in the
process reshaping and standardization; considering that users
easily agree to a better workow management but slowly,
familiarize with new coordination procedures.
6. Conclusive remarks
At the moment, there is debate in literature on how obtain
successful PLM implementations. The paper presents an investi-
gation on PLM implementation effects at different levels. In
particular, the paper has theorized and empirically validated the
existence of three distinct dimensions (operational, organizational,
and strategic).
The outcomes generally conrm what is stated by literature.
The real contribution of the paper consists in the way they are
obtained. In order to evaluate benets and effects of a PLM
implementation, besides anecdotal evidence on the impact of IT on
NPD processes at the macro-level, as usually made in literature, the
paper proposes a micro-level analysis on the impact of the
technology on individuals job that allows to analyze the linkages
between the individual use, the impact on the NPD process and the
strategic implications. This analysis, by using statistical methods,
allowed a deeper knowledge of the individual and organizational
phenomena linked to PLM implementations.
Two types of contribution for managers arise from these results.
First, the paper provides managers with a framework to measure
the benets produced by PLM technologies. Second, the results
Table 6
Frequency and importance of different coordination modes.
Exchanges Formal meetings Informal direct verbal
communication
PLM
F I F I F I F I
Product design department 1.77 1.67 0.97 1.53 1.39 1.32 0.91 1.22
Other departments 1.57 1.48 0.98 1.31 1.36 1.26 0.67 1.39
Entire sample 1.68 1.59 0.98 1.43 1.38 1.29 0.81 1.29
p-Value (ANOVA) 5.7% 5.5% 92.5% 5.0% 75.2% 66.6% 9.1% 25.9%
p-Value (MannWhitney test) 9.4% 6.6% 92.7% 3.8% 96.2% 79.6% 9.2% 23.4%
F = frequency of use; I = importance for getting key information to accomplish own job (1 = low; 3 = high).
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 250
above presented make evident that PLM implementations must be
designed combining the introduction of the technology with
complementary organizational changes.
Some limitations are present in the study. A single survey in one
industry has been performed. The study should be extended to
rms in industries that show differences in product complexity
and organizational characteristics. Second, the study focused on a
cross-sectional analysis of the data, thus relying on theory to
support its claims to causality. In the future, longitudinal analyses
should be conducted in order to strengthen the direction of the
causality proposed in the theory discussed in this work. These
limitations notwithstanding, we believe that our study makes a
number of signicant contributions and prompts further research
in the business value of PLM technologies.
References
[1] R.G. Cooper, S. Edgett, E. Kleinschmidt, Portfolio management for new product
development: results of an industry practices study, R&D Management 31 (4)
(2001) 361380.
[2] M.A. Schilling, C.W.L. Hill, Managing the new product development process:
strategic imperatives, Academy of Management Executive 12 (3) (1998) 6781.
[3] S. Nambisan, Information systems as a reference discipline for new product
development, MIS Quarterly 27 (1) (2003) 118.
[4] J. Stark, Product Lifecycle Management: 21st Century Paradigm for Product
Realization, Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 2005.
[5] P. Attewell, Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business
computing, Organization Science 3 (1) (1992) 119.
[6] V.A. Mabert, A.K. Soni, M.A. Venkataramanan, The impact of organization size on
enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementations in the US manufacturing
sector, OMEGA 31 (2003) 235246.
[7] M.L. Katz, C. Shapiro, Technology adoption in the presence of network external-
ities, Journal of Political Economy 94 (4) (1986) 822841.
[8] M.L. Markus, Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media: universal
access, interdependence and diffusion, Communication Research 14 (5) (1987)
491511.
[9] N. Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982.
[10] R.M. Rangan, S.M. Rohde, R. Peak, B. Chadha, Streamlining product lifecycle
processes: a survey of product lifecycle management implementations, direc-
tions, and challenges, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineer-
ing 5 (3) (2005) 227238.
[11] J. Hage, G. Jordan, J. Mote, Y. Whitestone, Designing and facilitating collaboration
in R&D: a case study, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 25 (4)
(2008) 256268.
[12] M. Garetti, S. Terzi, N. Bertacci, M. Brianza, Organizational, Change and knowledge
management in PLM implementation, International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Management 1 (1) (2005) 4350.
[13] G. Schuh, D. Assmus, E. Zancul, Product structuringthe core discipline of product
lifecycle management, in: Proceedings of the 13th CIRP International Conference
on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium, 2006.
[14] G. Schuh, H. Rozenfeld, D. Assmus, E. Zancul, Process oriented framework to
support PLM implementation, Computers in Industry 59 (2008) 210218.
[15] M. Grieves, Product Lifecycle Management: Driving the Next Generation of Lean
Thinking, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2006.
[16] A. Saaksvuori, A. Immonen, Product Lifecycle Management, Springer, New York,
2002.
[17] Y.D. Wang, W. Shen, H. Ghenniwa, WebBlow: a Web/agent-based multidisciplin-
ary design optimization environment, Computers in Industry 52 (2003) 1728.
[18] A. Chakrabarti, s. Kota, N. Rao, S. Chowdary, Product development platform for
real-time capture and reuse of evolving product information, International
Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 2 (3) (2007) 207227.
[19] D. Bergsjo, A. Catic, J. Malmqvist, Implementing a service-oriented PLMarchitec-
ture focusing on support for engineering change management, International
Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 3 (4) (2008) 335355.
[20] H.B. Jun, D. Kiritsis, P. Xirouchakis, Research issues on closed-loop PLM, Compu-
ters in Industry 58 (2007) 855868.
[21] A. Sharma, Collaborative product innovation: integrating elements of CPI via PLM
framework, Computer-Aided Design 37 (13) (2005) 14251434.
[22] G. Pol, C. Merlo, J. Legardeur, G. Jared, Implementation of collaborative design
processes into PLM systems, International Journal of Product Lifecycle Manage-
ment 3 (4) (2008) 279294.
[23] X.G. Ming, J.Q. Yan, X.H. Wang, S.N. Li, W.F. Lu, Q.J. Peng, Y.S. Ma, Collaborative
process planning and manufacturing in product lifecycle management, Compu-
ters in Industry 59 (2008) 154166.
[24] S. Mesihovic, J. Malmqvist, P. Pikosz, Product data management system-based
support for engineering project management, Journal of Engineering Design 15
(4) (2004) 389403.
[25] X.H. Wang, X.G. Ming, F.B. Kong, L. Wang, C.L. Zhao, Collaborative project
management with supplier involvement, Concurrent Engineering 16 (2008)
253261.
[26] A.M. Goanta, L. Daschievici, D. Ghelaze, Modern PLMintegrated design tools that
meet the principles of concurrent engineering, in: ICOSSSE10 Proceedings of the
9th WSEAS International Conference on System Science and Simulation in
Engineering, 2010, pp. 143148.
[27] K. Rahmani, V. Thomson, Managing subsystem interfaces of complex products,
International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 5 (1) (2011) 7383.
[28] J.H. Panchal, M.G. Ferna ndez, C.J.J. Paredis, J.K. Allen, F. Mistree, Designing design
processes in product lifecycle management: research issues and strategies, in:
Proceedings of DETC04, ASME 2004 Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA,
2004.
[29] M. Bertoni, M. Bordegoni, U. Cugini, D. Regazzoni, C. Rizzi, PLMparadigm: howto
lead BPR within product development eld, Computers in Industry 60 (7) (2009)
476484.
[30] U. Cugini, M. Wozny, From geometric modeling to shape modeling, in: Proceed-
ings of the IFIP WG 5.2, International Workshop on Geometric Modeling, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 2001, , IFIP 208, 256 pp..
[31] J.L. Gross, J. Yellen, Graph Theory and Its Applications, 2nd ed., CRC Press, 2006.
[34] M. Cantamessa, F. Montagna, P. Neirotti, Understanding the organizational im-
pact of PLMsystems: evidence froman aerospace company, International Journal
of Operations and Production Management 32 (2) (2012).
[38] N. Tanmoy, S. Craig, Drivers of information technology use in the supply chain,
Journal of Systems and Information Technology 12 (1) (2012) 7084.
[41] D. Dutta, F. Ameri, Product lifecycle management: closing the knowledge loops,
Computer-Aided Design & Applications 2 (5) (2005) 577590.
[42] D. Nobelius, N. Sundgren, Managerial issues in parts sharing among product
development projects: a case study, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management 19 (1) (2002) 5973.
[43] F. Von Corswant, C. Tunlv, Coordinating customers and proactive suppliers: a
case study of supplier collaboration in product development, Journal of Engi-
neering and Technology Management 19 (2002) 249261.
[44] R. Sudarsan, S.J. Fenves, R.D. Sriram, F. Wang, A product information modeling
framework for product lifecycle management, Computer-Aided Design 37 (13)
(2005) 13991411.
Marco Cantamessa is full professor at the School of
Industrial Engineering and Management of the Poli-
tecnico di Torino, where he teaches Management of
Innovation and Product Development. He has had a
number of lecturing appointments at other European
universities and business schools such as ESCP-EAP,
EPFL and SIMT. He has authored or co-authored more
than one hundred scientic papers of which several
have appeared in international refereed journals in
the elds of manufacturing systems engineering and of
management of innovation. He is a member of
INFORMS, PDMA, the Strategic Management Society
and The Design Society (where he sits on the Advisory
Board) and has served on the Scientic Boards of a number of international
conferences. Since 2008 he is Chairman of the Board and CEO of I3P, one of the
leading university incubators in Italy.
Francesca Montagna, Ph.D, is assistant professor of
Manufacturing Technology and Systems at Politecnico
di Torino. Research topics range from Management of
Innovation, Engineering Design and the management of
complexity and multidimensional features of a
manufacturing system (particularly in networked
contexts). Lecturing has been mainly carried out in
the curriculum degree of Industrial Engineering and
Management or Mechanical Engineering at both
undergraduate and postgraduate level. She is member
of A.I.TE.M., Design Society (http://www.designsocie-
ty.org). She usually serves as reviewer on conferences of
the Design Society (e.g. ICED, DESIGN conferences) and IFAC (e.g. INCOM) or CIRP.
Paolo Neirotti is assistant professor at the Politecnico
di Torino, where he teaches Management Accounting
and Strategic Management of Information Systems. He
holds a Ph.D. in Economics and Management from the
Politecnico di Milano. His main research interest is on IT
diffusion, IT governance and the organizational and the
economic impact that IT has in rms. Since 2010 he is
visiting professor at lInstitut dAdministration des
Entreprises (IAE) de Grenoble Universite` Pierre
Mendes. He is a member of Academy of Management,
CiNET, BIT (Business and Information Technology)
Network and A.i.I.G.
M. Cantamessa et al. / Computers in Industry 63 (2012) 243251 251