TOWARDS CYCLE-ORIENTED TRACEABILITY IN ...

INTERNATIONALDubrovnik

TOWARDS ENGINEERING CHANGE M

N. ChucholowskiLindemann

Keywords:management

1. IntroductionDynamic marketforce companies to make changes and adaptions standing for product service systems, PSS)technologieslead to target deviations. That meansstate anymore. among the productconcept of engineering change managementcycles within product development These engineartifacts such as commonly seenother requirements is have unforeseen effects on the fulfilment of requirements Changed reintegration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cyclesThe following section describes requirements on the interface between the two topicsbefore theSection 6 concludes the paper

2. Research In order to analyze thchanges are considered integrally change management and requirements already known publications [Wiegers 2009which directly associate engineering change management and requirements additionallywe further

INTERNATIONAL DESIGN CONFERENCE Dubrovnik - Croatia, May

TOWARDS CYCLEENGINEERING CHANGE M

N. Chucholowski, T. Lindemann

Keywords: engineering change management, requirements anagement, traceability

Introduction ynamic markets, regulatory environment

companies to make changes and adaptions standing for product service systems, PSS)technologies, changing market needs

o target deviations. That meansstate anymore. Hence, companies need to adapt their products, processes and production continuously among the product lifecycle concept of engineering change managementcycles within product development

ngineering changesartifacts such as productcommonly seen as possibleother requirements is have unforeseen effects on the fulfilment of requirements

hanged requirementintegration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cyclesThe following section describes requirements management and engineering change managementon the interface between the two topicsbefore the approach towards traceability in engineering change managementSection 6 concludes the paper

Research MethodologyIn order to analyze thchanges are considered integrally change management and requirements already known publications Wiegers 2009], that give a good overview about the respective topics.

which directly associate engineering change management and requirements additionally searched in we further conducted a backward and forwa

DESIGN CONFERENCE May 19 - 22, 20

CYCLE-ORIENTED TRACEABILITENGINEERING CHANGE M

T. Wolfenstetter,

engineering change management, requirements , traceability

regulatory environment

companies to make changes and adaptions standing for product service systems, PSS)

, changing market needso target deviations. That means

Hence, companies need to adapt their products, processes and production continuously lifecycle [Huang and Mak 1999

concept of engineering change managementcycles within product development

ering changes (ECs)production processes

possible triggers for engineering changes, other requirements is considered only by have unforeseen effects on the fulfilment of requirements

quirements are handled by requirements managementintegration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cyclesThe following section describes

management and engineering change managementon the interface between the two topics

approach towards traceability in engineering change managementSection 6 concludes the paper and

ethodology In order to analyze the current state of the art in research onchanges are considered integrally change management and requirements already known publications [Jarratt et al. 2011

, that give a good overview about the respective topics. which directly associate engineering change management and requirements

searched in online literature databaseconducted a backward and forwa

DESIGN CONFERENCE - DESIGN 20, 2014.

ORIENTED TRACEABILITENGINEERING CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Wolfenstetter, M. C. Wickel

engineering change management, requirements

regulatory environments companies to make changes and adaptions

standing for product service systems, PSS) [, changing market needs, rising competition

o target deviations. That means the actual state of a product does not meet the desired nominal Hence, companies need to adapt their products, processes and production continuously

Huang and Mak 1999concept of engineering change management cycles within product development [Langer and Lindemann 2009

(ECs) not only affection processes [Huang and Mak 1999

triggers for engineering changes, considered only by little literature

have unforeseen effects on the fulfilment of requirements are handled by requirements management

integration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cyclesThe following section describes our research methodology before s

management and engineering change managementon the interface between the two topics. In section 4 we then pr

approach towards traceability in engineering change managementand gives an outlook

state of the art in research on

changes are considered integrally we conducted a systematic literature reviewchange management and requirements management

Jarratt et al. 2011, that give a good overview about the respective topics.

which directly associate engineering change management and requirements literature database

conducted a backward and forward search within

DESIGN 2014

ORIENTED TRACEABILITANAGEMENT

M. C. Wickel, H. Krcmar


and other external and internal companies to make changes and adaptions to their

[Langer et al. 2011rising competition

the actual state of a product does not meet the desired nominal Hence, companies need to adapt their products, processes and production continuously

Huang and Mak 1999]. Those processes of adaption are addressed by the (ECM) [Huang et al. 2001

Langer and Lindemann 2009not only affect the product and its design but also

Huang and Mak 1999triggers for engineering changes,

little literature. have unforeseen effects on the fulfilment of requirements

are handled by requirements managementintegration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cycles

our research methodology before smanagement and engineering change management

In section 4 we then prapproach towards traceability in engineering change management

outlook for future research

state of the art in research onwe conducted a systematic literature review

management. We started our analysis byJarratt et al. 2011], [Lindemann and Reichwald 1998


literature databases. As recommended by rd search within

4

ORIENTED TRACEABILITANAGEMENT

, H. Krcmar and


and other external and internal to their products (product as a general term also

Langer et al. 2011]. For instance, rrising competition, errors or uncertainties during development


. Those processes of adaption are addressed by the Huang et al. 2001

Langer and Lindemann 2009]. the product and its design but also

Huang and Mak 1999]. While changtriggers for engineering changes, the effect of an engineering change on

However, changing one have unforeseen effects on the fulfilment of requirements which are

are handled by requirements management. In this work we examine integration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cycles

our research methodology before smanagement and engineering change management, ending with

In section 4 we then present approach towards traceability in engineering change management

for future research

state of the art in research on how engineering changes and requirement we conducted a systematic literature review

. We started our analysis byLindemann and Reichwald 1998


As recommended by rd search within the publications

ORIENTED TRACEABILITY IN

and U.

and other external and internal cyclic s (product as a general term also

For instance, revised or uncertainties during development


. Those processes of adaption are addressed by the Huang et al. 2001] and are interpreted as internal

the product and its design but alsoWhile chang

the effect of an engineering change on hanging one

which are not directly related to that n this work we examine

integration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and how companies can benefit from traceability in their development cycles.

our research methodology before section 3 gives an overview on , ending with the description of issues

esent implications for the interface approach towards traceability in engineering change management is described in section 5

for future research.

how engineering changes and requirement we conducted a systematic literature review

. We started our analysis by Lindemann and Reichwald 1998

, that give a good overview about the respective topics. In order to find publications which directly associate engineering change management and requirements

As recommended by [Webster and Watson 2002publications initially

cyclic influence factorss (product as a general term also

evised laws, emerging or uncertainties during development


. Those processes of adaption are addressed by the and are interpreted as internal

the product and its design but also other While changed requirements are

the effect of an engineering change on hanging one part of a product

not directly related to that n this work we examine

integration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and

gives an overview on the description of issues

implications for the interface is described in section 5

how engineering changes and requirement we conducted a systematic literature review about engineering

initially investigating Lindemann and Reichwald 1998], [Pohl 2010

In order to find publications which directly associate engineering change management and requirements management

Webster and Watson 2002initially selected.

influence factors s (product as a general term also

emerging or uncertainties during development


. Those processes of adaption are addressed by the and are interpreted as internal

other related requirements are

the effect of an engineering change on part of a product can

not directly related to that part. n this work we examine how an

integration of engineering change management and requirements management could look like and

gives an overview on the description of issues

implications for the interface is described in section 5.

how engineering changes and requirement about engineering

investigating Pohl 2010],

In order to find publications management, we

Webster and Watson 2002] selected. In total

DESIGN ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 1491

we selectedperformed a qualitative content analysis in order to draw a in engineering change managemeAdditionally to the analysis of literaturepractitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering changIn literature and in management and requirements the following research questions:

1. Which requirements

2. How do cycles in engineering change management and requirements with

3. How can traceability among different development artifacts contribute to managing engineering changes?

3. Overview:

3.1 Requirements In the early phases understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is concerned with defining the problem domain is commonly knWhen talking about Requirements describe qualitative and/or quantitative properties or conditions for a product [Ehrlenspiel 2009standards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its development must satisfy”also from Leffingwell and Widrig [1999]managementthe system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers and the project team on the changing requirements of the system. requirements engineering canmanagementbeen developed, we further use this defini

The management of requirement changestasks of functionalityidentifying the encountermanagement processchanges. Each activity

selected 95 publications that foperformed a qualitative content analysis in order to draw a in engineering change managemeAdditionally to the analysis of literaturepractitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering changIn literature and in the focus group management and requirements the following research questions:

Which knowledge items are produced and required in enginrequirements How do cycles in engineering change management and requirements with each otherHow can traceability among different development artifacts contribute to managing engineering changes?

Overview: Requirements

Requirements Management and Requirements In the early phases understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is concerned with defining the problem domain is commonly knWhen talking about Requirements describe qualitative and/or quantitative properties or conditions for a product Ehrlenspiel 2009]. A more detailed definition of the term requir

standards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its development must satisfy”also from other stakeholders like the engineers developing the product [Leffingwell and Widrig [1999]management (RM) and the system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers and the project team on the changing requirements of the system. requirements engineering canmanagement [Berkovich et al. 2009been developed, we further use this defini

Figure

The management of requirement changestasks of requirements managementfunctionality or product propertyidentifying the encounter

anagement processchanges. Each activity

publications that foperformed a qualitative content analysis in order to draw a in engineering change managemeAdditionally to the analysis of literaturepractitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering chang

the focus group management and requirements managementthe following research questions:

knowledge items are produced and required in enginrequirements managementHow do cycles in engineering change management and requirements

each other in terms of process management and organizationHow can traceability among different development artifacts contribute to managing engineering changes?

Requirements

Management and Requirements In the early phases of product development the problem needs to be stated in a form that can be understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is concerned with defining the problem domain is commonly knWhen talking about RE it is important to clear out what is meant by the term requirement. Requirements describe qualitative and/or quantitative properties or conditions for a product

]. A more detailed definition of the term requirstandards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its development must satisfy” [Radatz et al. 1990

stakeholders like the engineers developing the product [Leffingwell and Widrig [1999]

and describe the system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers and the project team on the changing requirements of the system. requirements engineering can also

Berkovich et al. 2009been developed, we further use this defini

Figure 1. Considered activities of RE based o

The management of requirement changesrequirements management

or product propertyidentifying the encountered situation,

anagement process: Create changechanges. Each activity consists

publications that form the sample for our analysis. performed a qualitative content analysis in order to draw a in engineering change management and requirements Additionally to the analysis of literature, we got insights into current practice through discussions with practitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering chang

the focus group discussionsmanagement

the following research questions: knowledge items are produced and required in engin

management? How do cycles in engineering change management and requirements

in terms of process management and organizationHow can traceability among different development artifacts contribute to managing

Requirements Management

Management and Requirements product development the problem needs to be stated in a form that can be

understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is concerned with defining the problem domain is commonly kn

it is important to clear out what is meant by the term requirement. Requirements describe qualitative and/or quantitative properties or conditions for a product

]. A more detailed definition of the term requirstandards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its

atz et al. 1990stakeholders like the engineers developing the product [

Leffingwell and Widrig [1999] do not describe it as the eliciting, organizing, and documenting of the requirements of

the system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers and the project team on the changing requirements of the system.

also be divided Berkovich et al. 2009]. Since we focus on requirement changes after they already have

been developed, we further use this definition of RM

. Considered activities of RE based o

The management of requirement changes (RCs)requirements management. For

or product property a requirement is addressed and a potential change is identified. After situation, a change request leads to several activities in the change change request

s of several sub

rm the sample for our analysis. performed a qualitative content analysis in order to draw a

t and requirements managementwe got insights into current practice through discussions with

practitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering changdiscussions, we particularly

interface with each other

knowledge items are produced and required in engin

How do cycles in engineering change management and requirements in terms of process management and organization

How can traceability among different development artifacts contribute to managing

Management and Engineering Change Management

Management and Requirements Engineeringproduct development the problem needs to be stated in a form that can be

understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is concerned with defining the problem domain is commonly kn


]. A more detailed definition of the term requirstandards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its

atz et al. 1990]. These requirements not only stem from customerstakeholders like the engineers developing the product [

do not distinguish the eliciting, organizing, and documenting of the requirements of


be divided into requirements development and requirements Since we focus on requirement changes after they already have

tion of RM which is described in the following

. Considered activities of RE based o

(RCs) and the traceability of requirements are the two main instance, w

a requirement is addressed and a potential change is identified. After a change request leads to several activities in the change

request, determine attainabilityseveral sub-activities to ensure customers’, stakeholders’ and

rm the sample for our analysis. performed a qualitative content analysis in order to draw a summarizing

management. we got insights into current practice through discussions with

practitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering change particularly investigated

interface with each other

knowledge items are produced and required in engin

How do cycles in engineering change management and requirements in terms of process management and organization


and Engineering Change Management

Engineering product development the problem needs to be stated in a form that can be

understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is concerned with defining the problem domain is commonly known as requirements engineerin


]. A more detailed definition of the term requirement can be found in the IEEE standards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its

These requirements not only stem from customerstakeholders like the engineers developing the product [

between the terms the eliciting, organizing, and documenting of the requirements of


into requirements development and requirements Since we focus on requirement changes after they already have

which is described in the following

. Considered activities of RE based on Berkovich

and the traceability of requirements are the two main instance, when a customer desires


determine attainabilityactivities to ensure customers’, stakeholders’ and

rm the sample for our analysis. For this set of publications we summarizing picture of the state o

we got insights into current practice through discussions with practitioners who are part of our industrial focus group on engineering change management

investigated how engineering change interface with each other. Altogether we want to answer

knowledge items are produced and required in engineering change management and

How do cycles in engineering change management and requirements managementin terms of process management and organization?



product development the problem needs to be stated in a form that can be understood by engineers and used to find a solution. The part of product development that is

own as requirements engineerinit is important to clear out what is meant by the term requirement.

Requirements describe qualitative and/or quantitative properties or conditions for a product ement can be found in the IEEE

standards: “Requirements are statements of what the system must do, how it must behave, the properties it must exhibit, the qualities it must possess, and the constraints that the system and its

These requirements not only stem from customerstakeholders like the engineers developing the product [Pohl 2010

between the terms REthe eliciting, organizing, and documenting of the requirements of

the system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers and the project team on the changing requirements of the system. As illustrated in Figure 1


which is described in the following

Berkovich et al.

and the traceability of requirements are the two main a customer desires


determine attainability, plan, implement and evaluate activities to ensure customers’, stakeholders’ and

For this set of publications we picture of the state o

we got insights into current practice through discussions with e management.

how engineering change Altogether we want to answer

eering change management and

management




own as requirements engineerinit is important to clear out what is meant by the term requirement.



These requirements not only stem from customerPohl 2010].

RE and requirements the eliciting, organizing, and documenting of the requirements of

the system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers illustrated in Figure 1


which is described in the following.

et al. [2009]

and the traceability of requirements are the two main a customer desires a new or changed


implement and evaluate activities to ensure customers’, stakeholders’ and

For this set of publications we picture of the state of the art

we got insights into current practice through discussions with

how engineering change Altogether we want to answer

eering change management and

interface




own as requirements engineering (RE). it is important to clear out what is meant by the term requirement.



These requirements not only stem from customers but

and requirements the eliciting, organizing, and documenting of the requirements of

the system in a systematic way. It further aims to establish and maintain agreement between customers illustrated in Figure 1


and the traceability of requirements are the two main or changed


implement and evaluate activities to ensure customers’, stakeholders’ and

1492 DESIGN ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

producers’ requirements.cycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section requirements needs evolveadvantageIn general, crequirements emerge after the requirements specification has been considered complete. usually change with a monthly rate up to 5%, normalized to the total project effort. Over the entire project prog2010]. New or changed requirements during the project period must follow the same process and proceduredecided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be defined [are accepted or received in an uncconstantly readditional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoptrequirements and a transparent communication of the effects of c

3.2 Engineering Change ManagementThe definitions of the term engineering changeoften only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [Wright 1997process engineering change management (ECM)the documentation of all impacted product data [history of all changesavoidancethere are by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literaturedocumentation is reckoneddocumentationto [Hamraz et al. 2013publications.with an EC request and finishing with its successful implementation (or its disapproval before) Jarratt and Clarkson 2005and Clarkson [2005]

Figure

ECM also processes) as well as old and nand Caskey 2003German DIN 199standards such as ISO 9001 or with the requirements of their OEM customer (e.g. VDA 4965).

producers’ requirements.cycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section requirements are continuous and inevitable, because

evolve, competitors introduceadvantage, and political, organizational and technical environments change.In general, changes requirements emerge after the requirements specification has been considered complete. usually change with a monthly rate up to 5%, normalized to the total project effort. Over the entire project progress requirements vary between 30% and 60% of the initial requirements analysis

. New or changed requirements during the project period must follow the same process and procedures as original requirements. Any changedecided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be

[Versteegen et al. 2003are accepted or received in an uncconstantly re-tuning ofadditional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoptrequirements and a transparent communication of the effects of c

ineering Change ManagementThe definitions of the term engineering changeoften only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [Wright 1997], nowadays process is considered asengineering change management (ECM)the documentation of all impacted product data [history of all changesavoidance and anticipationthere are different perspectivesby a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literaturedocumentation is reckoneddocumentation and strategic per

Hamraz et al. 2013publications. From a with an EC request and finishing with its successful implementation (or its disapproval before) Jarratt and Clarkson 2005and Clarkson [2005]

Figure 2. Generic engineering change process based on

also deals with the constprocesses) as well as old and nand Caskey 2003]). This can also be seen as the view of industrial standardGerman DIN 199-4 and DIN 6789standards such as ISO 9001 or with the requirements of their OEM customer (e.g. VDA 4965).

producers’ requirements. This step is supported by requirementcycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section

continuous and inevitable, because competitors introduce

and political, organizational and technical environments change.hanges are noticeable in two ways.

requirements emerge after the requirements specification has been considered complete. usually change with a monthly rate up to 5%, normalized to the total project effort. Over the entire

ress requirements vary between 30% and 60% of the initial requirements analysis . New or changed requirements during the project period must follow the same process and

s as original requirements. Any changedecided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be

Versteegen et al. 2003]. Any change must be agreed through a specified instance. If changes are accepted or received in an unc

tuning of previously recorded requirementsadditional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoptrequirements and a transparent communication of the effects of c

ineering Change ManagementThe definitions of the term engineering changeoften only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [

], nowadays any alteration to released considered as an EC

engineering change management (ECM)the documentation of all impacted product data [history of all changes of products and its associated documents [

anticipation of ECs perspectives o

by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literaturedocumentation is reckoned as the main objective of ECM.

strategic persHamraz et al. 2013] who performed a comprehensive literature review and cate

From a process perspectivewith an EC request and finishing with its successful implementation (or its disapproval before) Jarratt and Clarkson 2005] and proviand Clarkson [2005] suggest a generic change process in six basic steps shown in Figure

. Generic engineering change process based on

deals with the constprocesses) as well as old and new states of product documents (

. This can also be seen as the view of industrial standard4 and DIN 6789

standards such as ISO 9001 or with the requirements of their OEM customer (e.g. VDA 4965).

This step is supported by requirementcycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section

continuous and inevitable, because competitors introduce products and processes that help to give them a competitive

and political, organizational and technical environments change.are noticeable in two ways.



s as original requirements. Any changedecided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be

. Any change must be agreed through a specified instance. If changes are accepted or received in an uncontrolled manner, this might lead to even more requirements or

previously recorded requirementsadditional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoptrequirements and a transparent communication of the effects of c

ineering Change Management The definitions of the term engineering changeoften only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [

alteration to released EC [Jarratt, et al. 2011

engineering change management (ECM) [Jarratt and Clarkson 2005the documentation of all impacted product data [

of products and its associated documents [of ECs [Lindemann and Reichwald 1998

on ECM in literature. by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literature

as the main objective of ECM.spective in the following

performed a comprehensive literature review and cateocess perspective, ECM is the processing of engineering changes, i.e. starting

with an EC request and finishing with its successful implementation (or its disapproval before) and providing respective methods and tools within the process steps

suggest a generic change process in six basic steps shown in Figure


deals with the constant documentationew states of product documents (

. This can also be seen as the view of industrial standard4 and DIN 6789-3) which aim to ensure that companies comply with


This step is supported by requirementcycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section

continuous and inevitable, because - while the product is being developedproducts and processes that help to give them a competitive

and political, organizational and technical environments change.are noticeable in two ways. Either existing requirements change or new



s as original requirements. Any change in requirements decided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be

. Any change must be agreed through a specified instance. If changes ontrolled manner, this might lead to even more requirements or

previously recorded requirementsadditional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoptrequirements and a transparent communication of the effects of c

The definitions of the term engineering change (EC) slightly often only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [

alteration to released parts, documents or softwareJarratt, et al. 2011]

Jarratt and Clarkson 2005the documentation of all impacted product data [Rouibah and Caskey 2003

of products and its associated documents [Lindemann and Reichwald 1998

n ECM in literature. Jarratt, et al. [2011]by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literature

as the main objective of ECM.in the following

performed a comprehensive literature review and cateECM is the processing of engineering changes, i.e. starting

with an EC request and finishing with its successful implementation (or its disapproval before) ding respective methods and tools within the process steps



documentation of changes, regarding change activities (EC ew states of product documents (

. This can also be seen as the view of industrial standardwhich aim to ensure that companies comply with


This step is supported by requirements traceability, which deals with the life cycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section

while the product is being developedproducts and processes that help to give them a competitive

and political, organizational and technical environments change.Either existing requirements change or new



in requirements must be decided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be


previously recorded requirements by stakeholdersadditional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoptrequirements and a transparent communication of the effects of changes are possible solutions.

) slightly differ in literatureoften only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [

parts, documents or software]. The handling of these changes

Jarratt and Clarkson 2005Rouibah and Caskey 2003

of products and its associated documents [Huang and Mak 1999Lindemann and Reichwald 1998]

Jarratt, et al. [2011]by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literature

as the main objective of ECM. Hence, we differentiate in the following. For a more detailed




. Generic engineering change process based on Jarratt and Clarkson

of changes, regarding change activities (EC ew states of product documents (e.g. [

. This can also be seen as the view of industrial standardwhich aim to ensure that companies comply with


s traceability, which deals with the life cycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section

while the product is being developedproducts and processes that help to give them a competitive

and political, organizational and technical environments change. Either existing requirements change or new



must be anadecided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be


by stakeholders. As a result, there will be additional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adopt

hanges are possible solutions.

in literature. While in the past often only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [

parts, documents or softwarehe handling of these changes

Jarratt and Clarkson 2005]. Other authors additionally see Rouibah and Caskey 2003], the documentation

Huang and Mak 1999] as part of ECM.

Jarratt, et al. [2011] categorize the EC literature by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literature

e differentiate For a more detailed categorization we refer




Jarratt and Clarkson

of changes, regarding change activities (EC [Huang and Mak 1999

. This can also be seen as the view of industrial standards (e.g. ISO 26262 or the which aim to ensure that companies comply with


s traceability, which deals with the life cycle of a requirement (traceability will be explained in more detail in section 5.1.). Change

while the product is being developed - products and processes that help to give them a competitive

Either existing requirements change or new requirements emerge after the requirements specification has been considered complete. Requirements usually change with a monthly rate up to 5%, normalized to the total project effort. Over the entire


analyzed, evaluated and decided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be


. As a result, there will be additional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adopt

hanges are possible solutions.

. While in the past often only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [

parts, documents or software during the design he handling of these changes

. Other authors additionally see the documentation

Huang and Mak 1999], or also the as part of ECM. This shows

categorize the EC literature by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literature

e differentiate between a process, categorization we refer

performed a comprehensive literature review and categorized 427ECM is the processing of engineering changes, i.e. starting


suggest a generic change process in six basic steps shown in Figure 2.

Jarratt and Clarkson [2005

of changes, regarding change activities (EC Huang and Mak 1999], [

(e.g. ISO 26262 or the which aim to ensure that companies comply with other industrial


s traceability, which deals with the life hanges in customer

products and processes that help to give them a competitive

Either existing requirements change or new Requirements

usually change with a monthly rate up to 5%, normalized to the total project effort. Over the entire ress requirements vary between 30% and 60% of the initial requirements analysis [Ebert

. New or changed requirements during the project period must follow the same process and , evaluated and

decided. For a controlled change of requirements in running projects a fixed change process must be . Any change must be agreed through a specified instance. If changes

ontrolled manner, this might lead to even more requirements or a . As a result, there will be

additional costs and delays in the project process. The setting of deadlines for the adoption of hanges are possible solutions.

. While in the past ECs often only referred to modifications made to product components that were already in production [e.g.

during the design is called

. Other authors additionally see the documentation of the

or also the This shows that

categorize the EC literature by a process perspective, tool perspective and product perspective. This categorization neglects the view on the different strategies regarding all perspectives and the fact that in some literature the

a process, categorization we refer

427 ECM ECM is the processing of engineering changes, i.e. starting

with an EC request and finishing with its successful implementation (or its disapproval before) [e.g. ding respective methods and tools within the process steps. Jarratt

2005]

of changes, regarding change activities (EC [Rouibah

(e.g. ISO 26262 or the other industrial

standards such as ISO 9001 or with the requirements of their OEM customer (e.g. VDA 4965). Yet, as


indicated above, ECM additionaand documentation past.

3.3 Issues regarding the interfacemanagementIn order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC product documentationThe term counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed product by requirement artifacts.A planned change of a solution artifact (requirementsanother solution artifact. The same is valid the other changedartifacts. solution artifacts other, SA 1 and SA 2to RA 2. Then, if RA 2 has to be adapted, also SA 4 couldependency between SA 1 and SA 4al. 2012])

Figure

Within the often referenced ECM and link of ECM to configuration management gives a small hint to requirement artifacts, since configuration management aims to characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e. requirements) [Only few2012], [Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of matrices, where known dependencies are modeled ausing matrices weightings for the dependencies, diseveral propagatdependencies in order to estimate change propagation, without describing implications for ECM and RM from the process and organizational perspective.Further articlesmanagementmention the terms without investigating the When looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.company seeing them as a trigger for ECs.

indicated above, ECM additionaand documentation of ECs. I

Issues regarding the interfacemanagement In order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC product documentationThe term ‘requirement artifaccounterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed product by requirement artifacts.

planned change of a solution artifact (requirements, because several requirements can be affected indirectly and lead to the need to change another solution artifact. The same is valid the other changed (i.e. a RC)

. As illustrated in Figure tion artifacts and also dependencies

other, SA 1 and SA 2to RA 2. Then, if RA 2 has to be adapted, also SA 4 couldependency between SA 1 and SA 4

]).

Figure 3. Dependencies between requirement artifacts (RAs) and solution artifacts (SAs)

the often referenced ECM and link of ECM to configuration management gives a small hint to requirement artifacts, since configuration management aims to characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e. requirements) [Jarratt, et al. 2011Only few publication

[Morkos et al. 2012Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of matrices, where known dependencies are modeled a

matrices bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if weightings for the dependencies, diseveral propagated indirect dependencies dependencies in order to estimate change propagation, without describing implications for ECM and RM from the process and organizational perspective.

articles regardemanagement [e.g. Andersson et al. 2003mention the terms without investigating the

looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.company that is represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides seeing them as a trigger for ECs.

indicated above, ECM additionaof ECs. It further

Issues regarding the interface

In order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC product documentation) we use the term

rement artifact’ (RA)counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed product by requirement artifacts.

planned change of a solution artifact (, because several requirements can be affected indirectly and lead to the need to change

another solution artifact. The same is valid the other it can affect other requirement artifacts

illustrated in Figure and also dependencies

other, SA 1 and SA 2 fulfill RA 1to RA 2. Then, if RA 2 has to be adapted, also SA 4 couldependency between SA 1 and SA 4

ependencies between requirement artifacts (RAs) and solution artifacts (SAs)

the often referenced ECM and link of ECM to configuration management gives a small hint to requirement artifacts, since configuration management aims to characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e.

Jarratt, et al. 2011publications are found that

Morkos et al. 2012]. They initially come from ECM and research on change propagationIndirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of matrices, where known dependencies are modeled a

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if weightings for the dependencies, di

ed indirect dependencies dependencies in order to estimate change propagation, without describing implications for ECM and RM from the process and organizational perspective.

regarded as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data e.g. Andersson et al. 2003

mention the terms without investigating the looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.

represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides seeing them as a trigger for ECs.

indicated above, ECM additionally pursues further aims to avoid

Issues regarding the interface between requirements

In order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC we use the term ‘solution artifact

(RA) represents counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed

planned change of a solution artifact (i.e. an

, because several requirements can be affected indirectly and lead to the need to change another solution artifact. The same is valid the other

it can affect other requirement artifactsillustrated in Figure 3, there are

and also dependencies in-betweenRA 1. When there is an EC of SA 1, it could affect RA 1, which is related

to RA 2. Then, if RA 2 has to be adapted, also SA 4 couldependency between SA 1 and SA 4 (an illustrative example for these correlations is given in [


the often referenced ECM and RM literature thelink of ECM to configuration management gives a small hint to requirement artifacts, since configuration management aims to characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e.

Jarratt, et al. 2011]. found that directly associate

. They initially come from ECM and research on change propagationIndirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of matrices, where known dependencies are modeled a

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if weightings for the dependencies, different kinds of dependencies,

ed indirect dependencies have to be considered. Moreover, the authors look at the dependencies in order to estimate change propagation, without describing implications for ECM and RM from the process and organizational perspective.

d as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data e.g. Andersson et al. 2003]. They

mention the terms without investigating the implications for the interface.looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.

represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides seeing them as a trigger for ECs. In another company

ursues strategies besides theaims to avoid and anticipate

between requirements

In order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC solution artifact

represents a goal or counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed

i.e. an EC) should not be considered without looking at the , because several requirements can be affected indirectly and lead to the need to change

another solution artifact. The same is valid the other way around. When a requirement artifact is it can affect other requirement artifacts

are known interrelations between. For instance

When there is an EC of SA 1, it could affect RA 1, which is related to RA 2. Then, if RA 2 has to be adapted, also SA 4 coul

(an illustrative example for these correlations is given in [


RM literature there is nolink of ECM to configuration management gives a small hint to requirement artifacts, since configuration management aims to characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e.

directly associate RM. They initially come from ECM and research on change propagation

Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of matrices, where known dependencies are modeled and indirect depen

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if fferent kinds of dependencies,

have to be considered. Moreover, the authors look at the dependencies in order to estimate change propagation, without describing implications for ECM and RM from the process and organizational perspective.

d as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data . They refer to

implications for the interface.looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.

represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides In another company require

besides the effective and efficient processing anticipate ECs and t

between requirements management

In order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC solution artifact’ (SA) which

or a requirementcounterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed

EC) should not be considered without looking at the , because several requirements can be affected indirectly and lead to the need to change

way around. When a requirement artifact is it can affect other requirement artifacts directly or

known interrelations or instance, RA 1 and RA

When there is an EC of SA 1, it could affect RA 1, which is related to RA 2. Then, if RA 2 has to be adapted, also SA 4 could be affected. Hence, there is an unknown



re is no interface directly addressed. link of ECM to configuration management gives a small hint to consider both, solution artifacts and requirement artifacts, since configuration management aims to overlook all functional and physical characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e.

RM and ECM. They initially come from ECM and research on change propagation

Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of nd indirect depen

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if fferent kinds of dependencies,

have to be considered. Moreover, the authors look at the dependencies in order to estimate change propagation, without describing implications for ECM and

d as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data refer to RM as well as

implications for the interface.looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.

represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides requirements also have a code number and are

effective and efficient processing ECs and to learn from ECs from the

management and engineering change

In order to refer to an artifact that can be regarded as the object of an EC (e.g. which is part of the solution domain

a requirement. The problem domain is the counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed


way around. When a requirement artifact is directly or indirectly via several solution

known interrelations within requirement artifactsRA 1 and RA

When there is an EC of SA 1, it could affect RA 1, which is related d be affected. Hence, there is an unknown



nterface directly addressed. consider both, solution artifacts and

overlook all functional and physical characteristics and their changes and to verify the compliance with product specifications (i.e.

ECM [Koh et al. 2008. They initially come from ECM and research on change propagation

Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of nd indirect dependencies are derived.

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if fferent kinds of dependencies, conditional dependencies


d as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data as well as to ECM

implications for the interface. looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different.

represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides ments also have a code number and are

effective and efficient processing o learn from ECs from the

and engineering change

(e.g. parts, componentpart of the solution domainThe problem domain is the

counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed


way around. When a requirement artifact is indirectly via several solution

requirement artifacts 2 are related to each




nterface directly addressed. consider both, solution artifacts and


Koh et al. 2008], [Koh, et al. . They initially come from ECM and research on change propagation

Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of cies are derived. However,

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if conditional dependencies


d as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data ECM, but they rather just

looking into practice, the treatment of RCs and ECs can be very different. For instance, in one represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides

ments also have a code number and are

effective and efficient processing o learn from ECs from the

and engineering change

, components or part of the solution domain. The problem domain is the

counterpart to the solution domain and characterizes the problem that is addressed by the developed


way around. When a requirement artifact is indirectly via several solution

requirement artifacts and are related to each


(an illustrative example for these correlations is given in [Koh et


nterface directly addressed. Only the consider both, solution artifacts and


Koh, et al. . They initially come from ECM and research on change propagation.

Indirect dependencies through requirement and solution artifacts are investigated with the help of However,

bears some weaknesses, as they quickly become confusing if they grow in size or if conditional dependencies and


d as relevant mainly deal about product lifecycle management and product data , but they rather just

For instance, in one represented in our focus group RCs are not considered integrated with ECs, besides

ments also have a code number and are


thereby treated the same as product components or its documentation in their product data management (PDM) system. In However, the consideration of all naffected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational level, teams are built who have to assess and decide on the request.

4. Implicationsengineering change managementThis paper does not investigatefrom a procedural and organizational perspective. This is important, theoretically leads to ahas to decide upon. The conceivable procedural interactions between ECs and RCs are depictFigure 4by a deficient actual state (i.e. product does not meet requirements) or by a deficientnominal state (for example misunderstood or changed customer requirements) [[Herberg et al. 2010domain (EC)both in the solution domain and in the pdepicted with gray arrows in Figure 4)and RCs should not be seen separated.

The information that is needed for over a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.concept of process information errors or adevelopment cycles.

5. CycleEven though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs andRCs directly, it is encountered indirectly. There are approachesto assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships. Furthermorerelevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that commiHowever, since the synchronization is not prescribed in a Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people (and thereby their knowledge)necessary investigation of interrelations between ECs and RCs.


Implications engineering change managementThis paper does not investigatefrom a procedural and organizational perspective. This is important, theoretically leads to ahas to decide upon. The conceivable procedural interactions between ECs and RCs are depict

4. When there is a tarby a deficient actual state (i.e. product does not meet requirements) or by a deficientnominal state (for example misunderstood or changed customer requirements) [Herberg et al. 2010

(EC) or in the problem domainboth in the solution domain and in the pdepicted with gray arrows in Figure 4)

RCs should not be seen separated.

Figure

The information that is needed for over a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.concept of traceability

can be stored systematicallyinformation they can improve the efficiency of errors or additional work by reducing unforeseen changesdevelopment cycles.

Cycle-orientedEven though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs andRCs directly, it is encountered indirectly. There are approachesto assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships. Furthermore, in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that commiHowever, since the synchronization is not prescribed in a Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people (and thereby their knowledge)necessary investigation of interrelations between ECs and RCs.


for the interface between engineering change managementThis paper does not investigate from a procedural and organizational perspective. This is important, theoretically leads to another change request (regardless if it concerns a RC or EC), which somebody has to decide upon. The conceivable procedural interactions between ECs and RCs are depict

When there is a target deviation, the change procedure is triggered.by a deficient actual state (i.e. product does not meet requirements) or by a deficientnominal state (for example misunderstood or changed customer requirements) [Herberg et al. 2010]. In both cases a

or in the problem domainboth in the solution domain and in the pdepicted with gray arrows in Figure 4)


Figure 4. Change cycle

The information that is needed for over a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.

traceability this information on eachcan be stored systematically

they can improve the efficiency of dditional work by reducing unforeseen changes

oriented traceabilityEven though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs andRCs directly, it is encountered indirectly. There are approachesto assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships.

in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that commiHowever, since the synchronization is not prescribed in a Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people (and thereby their knowledge) necessary investigation of interrelations between ECs and RCs.

thereby treated the same as product components or its documentation in their product data management (PDM) system. In a third companyHowever, the consideration of all necessary affected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational level, teams are built who have to assess and decide on the request.

for the interface between engineering change management

change propagation in order to assess change effects, but from a procedural and organizational perspective. This is important,

change request (regardless if it concerns a RC or EC), which somebody has to decide upon. The conceivable procedural interactions between ECs and RCs are depict

get deviation, the change procedure is triggered.by a deficient actual state (i.e. product does not meet requirements) or by a deficientnominal state (for example misunderstood or changed customer requirements) [

]. In both cases an initialor in the problem domain (RC)

both in the solution domain and in the problem domaindepicted with gray arrows in Figure 4). This leads us to the conclusion, that the management of


. Change cycles within and between RM and ECM

The information that is needed for a holistic estimation of over a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.

information on eachcan be stored systematically. If companies are able to use this hidden and distributed

they can improve the efficiency of dditional work by reducing unforeseen changes

raceability for the management of changesEven though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs andRCs directly, it is encountered indirectly. There are approachesto assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships.

in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that commiHowever, since the synchronization is not prescribed in a Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people

exit the company. Traceability bears the potential to formalize the necessary investigation of interrelations between ECs and RCs.

thereby treated the same as product components or its documentation in their product data a third company, requirements are stored in a special IT system.

ecessary solution artifacts and requirement artifactsaffected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational level, teams are built who have to assess and decide on the request.

for the interface between




n initial change is necessary (RC). However, the change can make other changes necessary

roblem domainThis leads us to the conclusion, that the management of

s within and between RM and ECM

holistic estimation of over a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.

information on each artifact that is generated during the development . If companies are able to use this hidden and distributed

they can improve the efficiency of their change processesdditional work by reducing unforeseen changes

for the management of changesEven though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs andRCs directly, it is encountered indirectly. There are approachesto assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships.

in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that commiHowever, since the synchronization is not prescribed in a Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people


thereby treated the same as product components or its documentation in their product data requirements are stored in a special IT system.

solution artifacts and requirement artifactsaffected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational level, teams are built who have to assess and decide on the request.

for the interface between requirements management and




is necessary and requested . However, the change can make other changes necessary

roblem domain (i.e. further ECs or RCs are requested as This leads us to the conclusion, that the management of


holistic estimation of the effects of one changeover a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.

artifact that is generated during the development . If companies are able to use this hidden and distributed

their change processesdditional work by reducing unforeseen changes and hence avoid or shorten their

for the management of changesEven though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs andRCs directly, it is encountered indirectly. There are approaches [Koh to assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships.

in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that commiHowever, since the synchronization is not prescribed in a formal process, there is potential for errors. Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people



solution artifacts and requirement artifactsaffected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational

requirements management and

change propagation in order to assess change effects, but from a procedural and organizational perspective. This is important, since every propagated change


get deviation, the change procedure is triggered. ECs are either triggered by a deficient actual state (i.e. product does not meet requirements) or by a deficientnominal state (for example misunderstood or changed customer requirements) [

and requested . However, the change can make other changes necessary

(i.e. further ECs or RCs are requested as This leads us to the conclusion, that the management of


the effects of one changeover a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.


their change processes. Furthermore, they can avoid and hence avoid or shorten their

for the management of changes Even though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs and

et al. 2012], to assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships.

in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry state that people who control the requirements are also part of that committee in their companies.

process, there is potential for errors. Errors may originate e.g. because some domains affected by the change can be forgotten or people

exit the company. Traceability bears the potential to formalize the


solution artifacts and requirement artifacts that could be affected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational


change propagation in order to assess change effects, but lookssince every propagated change


ECs are either triggered by a deficient actual state (i.e. product does not meet requirements) or by a deficient or nominal state (for example misunderstood or changed customer requirements) [Fricke et al. 2000

and requested either in the solution . However, the change can make other changes necessary

(i.e. further ECs or RCs are requested as This leads us to the conclusion, that the management of


the effects of one change is often distributed over a large variety of documents or it is only tacit knowledge that single engineers have.


. Furthermore, they can avoid and hence avoid or shorten their

Even though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs and, [Morkos et al. 2012

to assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships. in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all

relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry ttee in their companies.




that could be affected by one change request does not follow a structured formal process. On an organizational


looks at it since every propagated change

change request (regardless if it concerns a RC or EC), which somebody has to decide upon. The conceivable procedural interactions between ECs and RCs are depicted in

ECs are either triggered or changed

et al. 2000], either in the solution

. However, the change can make other changes necessary (i.e. further ECs or RCs are requested as

This leads us to the conclusion, that the management of ECs

is often distributed With the


. Furthermore, they can avoid and hence avoid or shorten their

Even though neither ECM literature nor RE/RM literature addresses the synchronization of ECs and et al. 2012]

to assess change propagation not only on a component level, but also via requirement relationships. in ECM it is suggested to build an engineering change board including people from all

relevant domains who could be affected by the change. Members in our focus group from industry ttee in their companies.




5.1 Theoretical background to traceability With the ongoing digitalization more and more know-how is stored in documents as presentations, reports or construction plans. The implementation of a systematic organization and reuse of those documents awards companies with a competitive advantage [Liebowitz 1999]. Traceability aims to reuse such knowledge. Hence, experiences of individual and organizational knowledge become available and can be provided for future activities in order to improve processes and engineering designs [Hicks et al. 2002]. Moreover, knowledge-based product development aims to reuse best practices, reduced cycle times and improvements in product quality and variety [Rezayat 2000]. Traceability jointly connects single knowledge items or fragments in order to generate, dispose, retrieve, transform and apply them. Especially the ability to follow the life of software artifacts has been used as a quality attribute for software [Winkler and Pilgrim 2010]. Defining, describing, capturing and following traces from and to artifacts of a software development are driven by requirements. Therefore the requirements engineering community has been the largest driver of traceability research. Traceability is defined in the IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology as: [Radatz et al. 1990]

1. “The degree to which a relationship can be established between two or more products of the development process, especially products having a predecessor–successor or master–subordinate relationship to one another. [...]

2. The degree to which each element in a software development product establishes its reason for existing.”

To document the various dependencies, known or unknown, direct or indirect traceability links show the influence between the artifacts [Winkler and Pilgrim 2010]. Two kinds of linkages must be differentiated: A unidirectional depends-on or a bidirectional alternative-for link. Both can indicate an order in time or causality. [Spanoudakis and Zisman 2005] define eight different classes of traceability links listed in Table 1. They are partly used in our data model for traceability in change management in the following section.

Table 1. Classes of traceability links [Spanoudakis and Zisman 2005] Traceability links Explanation Dependency Indicates that the existence of an artifact depends on another Generalization/Refinement Shows the complexity of an artifact Evolution Reflects the change of an artifact Satisfaction Indicates, that an artifact was satisfied by another Overlap An intersection of two artifacts Conflicting Shows conflicts and inconsistencies between artifacts Rationalization Specifies the justification of the evolution of artifacts Contribution Shows the relationship between requirements and stakeholders

Traceability information helps to assess the effect of a requirements change and links to related requirements. It is the ability to verify an item by documented recorded identification. Model-driven development (MDD), an area where parts of the software development process are executed automatically, is able to leverage traceability by automatously generating these documented recorded identifications [Winkler and Pilgrim 2010]. It can be identified at any time, where, when and by whom solution artifacts are developed, manufactured, processed, stored, transported, used or disposed. This linking of requirements to system models increases the comprehensibility of the system. The impact of changing stakeholder requirements during the project is easier to assess. An explicit linking and traceability between requirement artifacts and solution artifacts facilitate crosschecking of system models with the associated requirements. Outside the software and requirements engineering community the concept of traceability has attracted less attention among researchers. However, recently there has been significant progress in this area, for example on the field of tracing engineering information [Pavković et al. 2013]. While software


development by its very nature produces artifacts (e.g. codeby machines so that traceable requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanicdifferent.development projects well as human factors and the design process itself. of traceability in engineering design is that onlmet by explicitly artifacts that are affected by the change on the other hand.

5.2 A data Štorga et al. [2011]process related traceability elements regarding the four perspectives requirements, change, characteristics and traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not address the different stages a change can evolve to. summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to solve the change issue, theimplement thechange has to be integrated, regardless if the initican even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the reference model by ‘change’ from a single product component modificatiorequirement artifacts, solution artifacts or production artifactsdata model shown in Figure

The data model for traceability in ECM does not describe structure of how information regarding different artifacts within the ECM process is interconnected. An upcoming entity changerequest process determines attainability and plansevolves collected and associated with change request responsibilities, also for subchange order is also directly linked to the entity change further linked to three artifact

development by its very nature produces artifacts (e.g. codeby machines so that traceable requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanicdifferent. Štorga [2004]development projects well as human factors and the design process itself. of traceability in engineering design is that onl

explicitly documenting different change states of an EC or RC on the one hand and artifacts that are affected by the change on the other hand.

ata model for Štorga et al. [2011]process related traceability elements regarding the four perspectives requirements, change, characteristics and decision traceability. Hence, they provide a useful holistic framework to achieve traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not address the different stages a change can evolve to. summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to solve the change issue, theimplement the change. For every evolving stage,change has to be integrated, regardless if the initican even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the reference model by ‘change’ from a single product component modificatiorequirement artifacts, solution artifacts or production artifactsdata model shown in Figure

Figure 5

The data model for traceability in ECM does not describe structure of how information regarding different artifacts within the ECM process is interconnected.

upcoming issue change. The change

request process determines attainability and plansevolves into a change ordercollected and associated with change request responsibilities, also for subchange order is also directly linked to the entity change

linked to three artifact

development by its very nature produces artifacts (e.g. codeby machines so that traceable elements can be mostly created automatically and managed by common requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanic

Štorga [2004] argues that thedevelopment projects due to the incompatibility of information among heterogeneous design tools as well as human factors and the design process itself. of traceability in engineering design is that onl

documenting different change states of an EC or RC on the one hand and artifacts that are affected by the change on the other hand.

odel for traceability in Štorga et al. [2011] present a reference model for traceability records that considers product and process related traceability elements regarding the four perspectives requirements, change,

decision traceability. Hence, they provide a useful holistic framework to achieve traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not address the different stages a change can evolve to. summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to solve the change issue, the change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to

change. For every evolving stage,change has to be integrated, regardless if the initican even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the reference model by Štorga et al. [2011]‘change’ from a single product component modificatiorequirement artifacts, solution artifacts or production artifactsdata model shown in Figure 5.

5. Data model for traceability in


(i.e. target deviation). The change proposal

request process determines attainability and planschange order where all information of issue, change proposal and change request are

collected and associated with change request responsibilities, also for subchange order is also directly linked to the entity change

linked to three artifact types:

development by its very nature produces artifacts (e.g. codeelements can be mostly created automatically and managed by common

requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanicargues that there are

the incompatibility of information among heterogeneous design tools as well as human factors and the design process itself. of traceability in engineering design is that onl


raceability in engineering cpresent a reference model for traceability records that considers product and

process related traceability elements regarding the four perspectives requirements, change, decision traceability. Hence, they provide a useful holistic framework to achieve

traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not address the different stages a change can evolve to. summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to

change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to change. For every evolving stage,

change has to be integrated, regardless if the initican even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the

et al. [2011] can be complemented by ‘change’ from a single product component modificatiorequirement artifacts, solution artifacts or production artifacts

odel for traceability in


(i.e. target deviation) leads proposal then evolves

request process determines attainability and planswhere all information of issue, change proposal and change request are


types: requirement artifact, solution artifact and production artifact.

development by its very nature produces artifacts (e.g. codeelements can be mostly created automatically and managed by common

requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanicre are difficulties in achieving traceability in p

the incompatibility of information among heterogeneous design tools as well as human factors and the design process itself. An important issue regarding the implementation of traceability in engineering design is that only things that leave traces are traceable.


engineering change present a reference model for traceability records that considers product and


traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not address the different stages a change can evolve to. The esummarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to

change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to change. For every evolving stage, every domain directly or indirectly affected by the

change has to be integrated, regardless if the initially triggered change was an EC or can even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the

can be complemented by ‘change’ from a single product component modification to a network of several related changes to requirement artifacts, solution artifacts or production artifacts

odel for traceability in engineering


leads to a change proposalevolves into a change request

request process determines attainability and plans the where all information of issue, change proposal and change request are


requirement artifact, solution artifact and production artifact.

development by its very nature produces artifacts (e.g. code or documentation) that are interpretable elements can be mostly created automatically and managed by common

requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanicdifficulties in achieving traceability in p

the incompatibility of information among heterogeneous design tools as An important issue regarding the implementation

y things that leave traces are traceable. documenting different change states of an EC or RC on the one hand and

artifacts that are affected by the change on the other hand.

hange managementpresent a reference model for traceability records that considers product and


traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not The evolving stages

summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to

change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to every domain directly or indirectly affected by the ally triggered change was an EC or

can even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the can be complemented by expanding the understanding of a

n to a network of several related changes to requirement artifacts, solution artifacts or production artifacts. These correlations are modeled in a

engineering change m

The data model for traceability in ECM does not describe the change process itself butstructure of how information regarding different artifacts within the ECM process is interconnected.

change proposalchange request

change. A successful change request where all information of issue, change proposal and change request are

collected and associated with change request responsibilities, also for subchange order is also directly linked to the entity change through a refers


or documentation) that are interpretable elements can be mostly created automatically and managed by common

requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanicdifficulties in achieving traceability in p


y things that leave traces are traceable. documenting different change states of an EC or RC on the one hand and

anagement present a reference model for traceability records that considers product and


traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not volving stages of ECs

summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to

change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to every domain directly or indirectly affected by the ally triggered change was an EC or

can even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the expanding the understanding of a

n to a network of several related changes to These correlations are modeled in a

change management

change process itself butstructure of how information regarding different artifacts within the ECM process is interconnected.

change proposal which then is connectedchange request in the static model

A successful change request where all information of issue, change proposal and change request are

collected and associated with change request responsibilities, also for sub-activities for each part. The refers-to connection.



requirements engineering tools, the situation with the development of mechanical products is quite difficulties in achieving traceability in p


y things that leave traces are traceable. This challenge is documenting different change states of an EC or RC on the one hand and all

present a reference model for traceability records that considers product and process related traceability elements regarding the four perspectives requirements, change,

decision traceability. Hence, they provide a useful holistic framework to achieve traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not

of ECs or RCssummarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to

change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to every domain directly or indirectly affected by the ally triggered change was an EC or RC. This view

can even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the expanding the understanding of a

n to a network of several related changes to These correlations are modeled in a

anagement

change process itself but givesstructure of how information regarding different artifacts within the ECM process is interconnected.

which then is connectedin the static model. The change

A successful change request where all information of issue, change proposal and change request are

activities for each part. The connection. A c



al products is quite difficulties in achieving traceability in product


This challenge is all kinds of

present a reference model for traceability records that considers product and process related traceability elements regarding the four perspectives requirements, change,

decision traceability. Hence, they provide a useful holistic framework to achieve traceability of information objects within engineering design. However, the reference model does not

or RCs can be summarized as follows: A change proposal is triggered by an issue (i.e. target deviation), which then evolves to a change request if it is decided to go after it. Finally, when there is a promising option to

change request becomes a change order which is the starting shot to every domain directly or indirectly affected by the

This view can even be extended to other domains in the product lifecycle, such as production. Thus, the

expanding the understanding of a n to a network of several related changes to

These correlations are modeled in a

gives a static structure of how information regarding different artifacts within the ECM process is interconnected.

which then is connected to the The change

A successful change request then where all information of issue, change proposal and change request are

activities for each part. The A change is

requirement artifact, solution artifact and production artifact. The


latter refers to all artifacts within production that are related to a product such as production processes or tools. They also have to be considered, since ECs can not only have direct impact on production processes or tools, but also changes in production artifacts often require other changes. The solution artifact is often related to itself and can offer various solution options. Requirement artifacts and solution artifacts are linked through a relationship named ’satisfies’, denoting which of the final solution artifacts are based on which requirements. A requirement artifact can additionally be related to another one. The solution artifact is tested through a test artifact, which verifies if the requirement artifact is satisfied by the solution artifact. We believe that the tight connection between ECs and RCs should be reflected by deeply integrated tools or even a single tool for both RM and ECM. This way, analyzing the impact of ECs on requirements and vice versa can be facilitated. For solution, test and production artifacts on the other hand it seems promising to manage them in separate specialized tools and represent those artifacts as traceability records as proposed by [Štorga et al. 2011]. The presented data model builds a basis to show the interrelations between different artifacts in the context of changes. With its help, traceability in ECM can be established, where not only ECs on a component level but all kind of product changes (including changes in service artifacts of a PSS), changes in requirements, changes in production processes or tools and changes in testing are considered. The following section gives an illustrative example of the data model.

5.3 Academic example For an illustrative explanation of the data model we refer to an academic example of a pick and place unit of an industrial plant (for more details see [AIS 2014]). The unit grabs different work pieces (WP) that are stored in a stack and puts it into a stamping module where a specific note is stamped on the WP. Afterwards the WPs are transported to a sorting belt and are distributed to different slides depending on their material (white plastic, black plastic or metal). During the development of the system a customer changed one requirement so that not every WP had to be stamped anymore but only those made of metal. The changed customer requirement as an upcoming issue leads to a change proposal where the artifact that has to be changed is identified. This is the requirement “R1: All WPs have to be stamped” in our example. The change proposal then evolves into a change request that suggests changing the requirement to “R1*: Metal WPs have to be stamped, other materials can be stamped optionally”. The required change leads to other potential changes of the already developed system. For instance, the three options “EC1: install additional inductive sensor that differentiates material”, “EC2: modify software and use other existing sensors” or ”EC0: no modification” are considered. The first two alternatives require further RCs, ECs or changes in production. Information about the affected artifacts and their respective relationships is stored in the entity change and thus can be retraced for the different options. After the decision on which option to implement, the change request evolves into a change order. The concept of cycle-oriented traceability helps to react to further cyclic influence factors that lead to changes by providing information about the history of past changes not only to solution artifacts, but also to requirement artifacts and production artifacts.

6. Conclusion and outlook Engineering changes and requirement changes strongly interfere with each other. With the help of traceability in engineering change management this interface can be formalized on a process and organizational level. Thereby, unforeseen changes promoted by the initial change, errors and forgotten dependencies can be avoided. Further, the processing time of a change can be shortened. By describing the organizational structure of potential interrelations of changes within the requirement and solution domain we aim towards a cycle-oriented management of changes. At the same time, the investigation of the underlying procedures for changes shows that the processes are very similar for all kinds of changes. Based on these findings, we presented a data model as research in progress where different evolving stages of a change and different artifacts related to the change are included. The data model should be seen as complementary to the reference model for traceability records elaborated by Štorga et al. [2011]. The elements of the data model indicate knowledge items that are required or produced in a change process. The concept of traceability facilitates the access to necessary


information about relations and dependencies between solution artifacts, requirement artifacts and production artifacts. Hence, the effects of a change to one artifact can easily be estimated and relevant people for the decision about a change and the implementation of a change can be identified. This leads to less errors and unforeseen effects of a change. The approach towards a cycle-oriented, integrated management of any kinds of changes with the help of traceability bears potential and has to be further developed. Moreover, also changes in other company departments such as sales, marketing, quality management, etc. that are influenced by various internal and external factors could be managed by a cycle-oriented traceability. Therefore we plan to extend the data model with artifacts regarding these departments and with their respective dependencies. The data model will then be tested as initial evaluation in a student research project. Another potential given by the use of traceability in ECM regards the learning from previous changes. [Sharafi et al. 2010] argue that especially in large organizations and in the context of complex products, engineering change management can be supported by hidden, but valuable knowledge. This knowledge can be discovered in the history of former change processes. The knowledge from former cycles can be utilized through successful data management to speed up iterative change and engineering processes [Sharafi et al. 2010]. An important factor for the reuse of knowledge is traceability. Through the compound of elements the knowledge becomes contextualized. This in turn enables its transfer and successful reuse [Ramesh 2002].

Acknowledgement We thank the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG) for funding this project as part of the collaborative research center ‘Sonderforschungsbereich 768 – Managing cycles in innovation processes – Integrated development of product-service-systems based on technical products’. Additionally, we thank the practitioners in our industrial focus group on engineering change management for the prosperous collaboration.

References AIS, Institute for Automation and Information Systems: The Pick and Place Unit, available at: http://www.ais.mw.tum.de/ppu/, 2014. Andersson, F., Sutinen, K., Malmqvist, J., "Product Model for Requirements and Design Concept Management: Representing Design Alternatives and Rationale", International Conference on Systems Engineering, SE-412, Citeseer, 2003. Berkovich, M., Esch, S., Leimeister, J. M., Krcmar, H., "Requirements engineering for hybrid products as bundles of hardware, software and service elements – a literature review", Tagungsband der 9. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2009. Ebert, C., "Systematisches Requirements Engineering: Anforderungen ermitteln, spezifizieren, analysieren und verwalten", dpunkt. verlag, Heidelberg, 2010. Ehrlenspiel, K., "Integrierte Produktentwicklung: Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit", Hanser, München, 2009. Fricke, E., Gebhard, B., Negele, H., Igenbergs, E., "Coping with changes: causes, findings, and strategies", Systems Engineering, Vol.3, No.4, 2000, pp. 169-179. Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N. H. M., Clarkson, P. J., "A Holistic Categorization Framework for Literature on Engineering Change Management", Systems Engineering, Vol.16, No.4, 2013, pp. 473-505. Herberg, A., Langer, S., Netter, F., Lindemann, U., "Characterizing triggers of reactive cycles within design processes based on process observation", IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), IEEE, 2010, pp. 972-976. Hicks, B., Culley, S., Allen, R., Mullineux, G., "A framework for the requirements of capturing, storing and reusing information and knowledge in engineering design", International journal of information management, Vol.22, No.4, 2002, pp. 263-280. Huang, G., Mak, K., "Current practices of engineering change management in UK manufacturing industries", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.19, No.1, 1999, pp. 21-37. Huang, G. Q., Yee, W. Y., Mak, K. L., "Development of a web-based system for engineering change management", Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.17, No.3, 2001, pp. 255-267. Jarratt, T., Clarkson, J., "Engineering change", in: Clarkson, J., Eckert, C. M. (Eds.), Design process improvement, Springer, London, 2005, pp. 262-285.


Jarratt, T. A. W., Eckert, C. M., Caldwell, N. H. M., Clarkson, P. J., "Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature", Research in engineering design, Vol.22, No.2, 2011, pp. 103-124. Koh, E., Keller, R., Eckert, C., Clarkson, P., "Influence of feature change propagation on product attributes in concept selection", International Design Conference - DESIGN 2008, Dubrovnik - Croatia, 2008, pp. 157 - 166. Koh, E. Y., Caldwell, N. M., Clarkson, P. J., "A method to assess the effects of engineering change propagation", Research in Engineering Design, Vol.23, No.4, 2012, pp. 329-351. Langer, S., Lindemann, U., "Managing Cycles in Development Processes - Analysis and Classification of External Context Factors", 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Bergendahl, M. N., Grimheden, M., Leifer, L. (Eds.), Stanford University, California, USA, 2009, pp. 1-539 - 531-550. Langer, S., Herberg, A., Körber, K., Lindemann, U., "Integrated system and context modeling of iterations and changes in development processes", Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED11), 2011, pp. 499-508. Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D., "Requirements Management. A Unified Approach", Addison-Wesley, München, 1999. Liebowitz, J., "Knowledge management: handbook", CRC press, 1999. Lindemann, U., Reichwald, R., "Integriertes Änderungsmanagement", Springer, Berlin, 1998. Morkos, B., Shankar, P., Summers, J. D., "Predicting requirement change propagation, using higher order design structure matrices: an industry case study", Journal of Engineering Design, Vol.23, No.12, 2012, pp. 905-926. Pavković, N., Štorga, M., Bojčetić, N., Marjanović, D., "Facilitating design communication through engineering information traceability", Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol.27, No.02, 2013, pp. 105-119. Pohl, K., "Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques", Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010. Radatz, J., Geraci, A., Katki, F., "IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology", IEEE Std, Vol.610121990, 1990, pp. 121990. Ramesh, B., "Process knowledge management with traceability", Software, IEEE, Vol.19, No.3, 2002, pp. 50-52. Rezayat, M., "Knowledge-based product development using XML and KCs", Computer-aided design, Vol.32, No.5, 2000, pp. 299-309. Rouibah, K., Caskey, K. R., "Change management in concurrent engineering from a parameter perspective", Computers in Industry, Vol.50, No.1, 2003, pp. 15-34. Sharafi, A., Wolf, P., Krcmar, H., "Knowledge Discovery in Databases on the Example of Engineering Change Management", Industrial Conference on Data Mining-Poster and Industry Proceedings, 2010, pp. 9-16. Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A., "Software traceability: a roadmap", Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol.3, 2005, pp. 395-428. Štorga, M., "Traceability in product development", Proceedings of the International Design Conference, DESIGN, Dubrovnik, 2004. Štorga, M., Marjanović, D., Savšek, T., "Reference model for traceability records implementation in engineering design environment", Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED2011), Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. Versteegen, G., Heeler, A., Heßeler, A., Hood, C., Missling, C., Stücka, R., "Anforderungsmanagement: formale Prozesse, Praxiserfahrungen, Einführungsstrategien und Toolauswahl", Springer, New York, 2003. Webster, J., Watson, R. T., "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review", MIS Quarterly, Vol.26, No.2, 2002, pp. 13–23. Wiegers, K. E., "Software Requirements", Microsoft Press, 2009. Winkler, S., Pilgrim, J., "A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development", Software & Systems Modeling, Vol.9, No.4, 2010, pp. 529–565. Wright, I. C., "A review of research into engineering change management: implications for product design", Design Studies, Vol.18, No.1, 1997, pp. 33-42. Dipl.-Ing. Nepomuk Chucholowski, Research Assistant Technical University of Munich, Institute of Product Development Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.pe.mw.tum.de


TOWARDS CYCLE-ORIENTED TRACEABILITY IN ...

Documents