Identification of Factors During the Introduction and Implementation of PLM Methods and Systems in an Industrial Context

  • Vahid SalehiEmail author
  • Chris McMahon
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 467)


The automotive engineering process is characterized by a long and complex design activity which starts with requirements formulation and the first sketches in the preliminary design phase and extends to the final detailed and physical models. Every design phase includes different process steps and tasks which are closely interconnected with each other. The different design stages demand Product Life Cycle (PLM) systems, which are able to handle the different kinds of design and manufacturing information. Currently the implementation of PLM systems in an industrial context is a huge challenge. The reason therefore is that the companies are not only faced with the technical issues of such systems but also with the organization aspects like the “human factor”. Furthermore the companies are faced with problems, which are not directly linked to the functionalities of PLM systems but rather to the integration or implementation phase of such systems in companies. The key research question in this case is: what are the important factors, which influence the integration and implementation of PLM systems. The following paper will try to identify these factors by means of action research in the automotive industry. This paper reports the first stages from a research programme into the implementation factors of PLM systems adopting the design research methodology (DRM) according to Blessing. The focus of this paper is to define method and systems implementation approaches and present the results of the descriptive study which has been accomplished to identify the challenges, problems and weaknesses involved in the implementation of PLM systems.


Product life cycle management Success factors PLM PLM implementation PLM integration 


  1. Danner, S., Reske, M.: Systematic design in practice: target finding for product and process. In: Lindemann, U., Birkhofer, H., Meerkamm, H., Vajna, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering Design, pp. 233–236. TU München, Garching (1999)Google Scholar
  2. Streich, B.: Change Management I – Lernen lernen Dozent: Prof. Dr. Thomas Bartscher Institut für Personal- und Unternehmensmanagement, pp. 1–13 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Beskow, C., Johansson, J., Norell, M.: Changing the product development process: a study of QFD implementations in Swedish industry. Research report. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (1998)Google Scholar
  4. Stetter, R.: Method implementation in integrated product development, Ph.D. thesis an der Technischen Universität München (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Tamimi, N., Sebastianelli, R.: The barriers to total quality management. Qual. Prog. 31(6), 57–60 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. Ritzén, S., Beskow, C., Norell, M.: Continuous improvement of the product development process. In: Lindemann, U., Birkhofer, H., Meerkamm, H., Vajna, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering Design. TU München, Garching (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Lindemann, U.: Benchmarking von Produktentwicklungsprozessen. In: Wildemann, H. (ed.) Produktklinik. Wertgestaltung von Produkten und Prozessen. Methoden und Fallbeispiele. München: TCW Transfer-Centrum, pp. 112–135 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. Pikosz, P., Malmström, J., Malmqvist, J.: Strategies for introducing PDM systems in engineering companies. In: Proceedings of CE 1997. Rochester (1997)Google Scholar
  9. Lettice, F., Evans, S., Smart, P.: Understanding the concurrent engineering implementation process - a study using focus groups. In: Duffy, A. (ed.) The Design Productivity Debate, pp. 187–202. Springer, London (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weber, C.: A new approach to modelling products and product development processes: “Characteristics-Properties Modelling” (CPM), leading to a new methodical concept to develop products: “Property-Driven Development/Design” (PDD) Saarland University – Universität des Saarlandes, Engineering Design (2007)Google Scholar
  11. Usher, J.: Implementing concurrent engineering in small manufacturing enterprises. Eng. Manag. J. 8(1), 33–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Munich University of Applied SciencesMunichGermany
  2. 2.University of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations