Static Product Structures: An Industrial Standard on the Wane

  • Stefan Kehl
  • Carsten Hesselmann
  • Patrick D. Stiefel
  • Jörg P. Müller
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 492)


This paper aims at closing the gap between early phases (e.g. design) and later phases (e.g. procurement or production) of the Product Development Process (PDP) by proposing a Virtual Product Model (VPM) as a collection of individual components (VPMCs) without the need for a static structure. Based on an analysis of the requirements on product development in the automotive industry, the main problems we observe are limited transparency, limited continuity, and limited reusability throughout different phases of the PDP. Virtual Product Model Components (VPMCs) can be used in different products and allow the reflection of changes throughout the PDP as well as the derivation of domain-specific views on the overall product at runtime. We illustrate these concepts by use case scenarios derived from an analysis of automotive product development practices.


Product Line 


  1. 1.
    Adolphy, S., Grosser, H., Kirsch, L., Stark, R.: Method for automated structuring of product data and its applications. Procedia CIRP 38, 153–158 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bender, J., Kehl, S., Müller, J.P.: A comparison of agent-based coordination architecture variants for automotive product change management. In: Müller, J., Ketter, W., Kaminka, G., Wagner, G., Bulling, N. (eds.) MATES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9433, pp. 249–267. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27343-3_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bucciarelli, L.L.: Designing engineers. Inside technology, Institute of Technology (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatras, C., Giard, V., Sali, M.: High variety impacts on bill of materials structure: carmakers case study. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3), 1067–1072 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng, H., Chu, X.: A network-based assessment approach for change impacts on complex product. J. Intell. Manuf. 23(4), 1419–1431 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarkson, J.P., Simons, C., Eckert, C.: Predicting change propagation in complex design. In: ASME 2001 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cross, N.: Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kees, M., Seibertz, A.: Compositional variant management and its application in embedded software development, 29 April 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galle, P.: The ontology of Gero’s FBS model of designing. Des. Stud. 30(4), 321–339 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N.H.M., Clarkson, P.J.: A holistic categorization framework for literature on engineering change management. Syst. Eng. 16(4), 473–505 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jarratt, T., Eckert, C.M., Caldwell, N., Clarkson, P.J.: Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature. Res. Eng. Des. 22(2), 103–124 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kehl, S., Stiefel, P., Müller, J.P.: Changes on changes: towards an agent-based approach for managing complexity in decentralized product development. In: International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 2015), Milan, Italy, vol. 3, pp. 219–228 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McMahon, C.A.: Observations on modes of incremental change in design. J. Eng. Des. 5(3), 195–209 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oldham, K., Kneebone, S., Callot, M., Murton, A., Brimble, R.: MOKA - a methodology and tools oriented to knowledge-based engineering. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Integration in Manufacturing, Göteborg, Sweden, 6–8 October 1998, vol. 8, p. 198 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roucoules, L., Noel, F., Teissandier, D., Lombard, M., Debarbouille, G., Girard, P., Merlo, C., Eynard, B.: IPPOP: an open source collaborative design platform to link product, design process and industrial organisation information. In: 6th International Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering, IDMME 2006, p. CDROM (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tekin, E.: A method for traceability and “as-built product structure” in aerospace industry. Procedia CIRP 17, 351–355 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tseng, M.M., Jiao, J.: Mass customization: 25. In: Handbook of Industrial Engineering, pp. 684–709. Wiley (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Kehl
    • 1
  • Carsten Hesselmann
    • 1
  • Patrick D. Stiefel
    • 2
  • Jörg P. Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsClausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany
  2. 2.Volkswagen GroupWolfsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations