Untitled

Impact of product configuration systems on product profitability and costing accuracy

“…Measurement Reduction in lead time for making specifications [1,5,7,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] From 5-6 days to 1 day [10] The real working time for preparing offers and production instructions is near zero [11] 75-99.9 % reduction in the quotation lead time [7] 15-25 days to 1-2 days [12] Reduction in lead time for delivering the product [11,[14][15][16][17][18] Delivery time reduced from 11-41 days to 1 day [11] Saved work-hours [1,10,12,[15][16][17][18][19] The engineering hours for creating quotations were reduced from 5 work-weeks to 1 to 2 work-days [12] Throughput cycle was reduced from 6 days to 1 day [19] Increased quality of product information/specifications [1,6,10,[12][13][14][15][16][18][19][20][21][22][23] Reduction to almost zero of errors in configurations released by the sales office…”

“…PCSs are used to support design activities throughout the customization process, where a set of components and their connections are pre-defined and where constraints are used to prevent infeasible configurations [4]. Companies that have implemented PCSs have achieved numerous benefits such as shorter lead times, more on-time deliveries, improved quality, less rework and increased customer satisfaction [1,[5][6][7]. In addition, the supportive function of the PCS enables improved decision making in the early phases of engineering and sales processes [8].…”

The impact of applying product-modelling techniques in configurator projects

“…The literature emphasizes the need for formal modelling methods to structure and formalize knowledge in configurator projects (Aldanondo, Rougé, and Véron 2000;Forza and Salvador 2002a;Ardissono et al 2003;Felfernig et al 2004Felfernig et al , 2014Hvam 2006a;Stark 2007;Shafiee et al 2017). However, the impact of utilizing modelling techniques in configurator projects remains relatively unaddressed.…”

“…Peltonen et al (1998) define concepts for modelling configurable products based on hierarchical product structure, with the configuration model divided into an explicit structure (based on bills of materials [BOM], with optional, alternative pars and parametric components; other constructs also can be described, such as connection ports) and constraints (which can be related to specifications, implementation, or structure). Aldanondo, Rougé, and Véron (2000) propose a method that builds on a function-breakdown structure and a physical-breakdown structure that, in turn, build on an object-modelling technique that represents both functions and components regarding objects, dependencies, and composition operators. Felfernig, Friedrich, and Jannach (2001) propose a conceptual modelling technique for configurators, which they built onto their previous research (Felfernig, Friedrich, and Jannach (2000), in which UML is used to structure the domain knowledge, and that work is further extended to incorporate functional architecture (Mittal and Frayman (1989).…”

“…Configurator projects can be defined regarding the tasks required to build a configurator, which includes analysis and redesign of the business processes, modelling of the product range, selection of configurator software, programming of the configurator, implementation, and maintenance (Hvam, Mortensen, and Riis 2008). In configurator projects, one of the primary tasks is to structure and represent the knowledge of the configuration model (Aldanondo, Rougé, and Véron 2000;Ardissono et al 2003;Forza and Salvador 2002a;Felfernig et al 2004Felfernig et al , 2014Hvam 2006a;Stark 2007;Shafiee et al 2017). However, if companies are highly dependent on domain experts' knowledge, there is a risk of incomplete communication or cognitive conflicts, which can result in loss of knowledge, making it difficult to formalize and document (Tseng, Chang, and Chang 2005).…”