Reconciling engineer-to-order uncertainty by supporting front-end decision-making

Abstract

This paper presents the dynamics of engineer-to-order (ETO) practice through Integration Definition for Function Modelling (IDEF) practice. The paper describes and defines how an ETO manufacturer utilised IDEF-QA in order to manage project uncertainties within the tendering process. The research is conceptualised through an empirical action research approach, involving an active role in the assessment of the ETO process. The paper revisits the use of IDEF, showcasing an assessment of output quality. It also suggests a road map for resource uncertainty within ETO, specifically when scoping the supply chain for ETO projects. The paper then presents an IDEF Quality Assessment model for improving the tendering process of ETO, and it examines the importance of evaluating project behaviour for supporting new future projects. The principal contribution is in how a structured approach provides IDEF with a quality assessment of resources, thereby consolidating and establishing a relationship for highlighting the uncertainties experienced by ETO manufacturers within the decision-making process.

A decade of engineering-to-order (2010–2020): Progress and emerging themes

“…The review also underlined a need for a better understanding of the engineering dimension and its interface with the production dimension, as per the twodimensional customer order decoupling point (CODP) conceptualised by Wikner and Rudberg (2005). 13 (Adrodegari et al, 2015;Denicol et al, 2020;Gosling et al, 2013Gosling et al, , 2015aGuillaume et al, 2013;Jansson et al, 2015;Li et al, 2017;Lian and Ke, 2018;Mello et al, 2015aMello et al, , 2017Pacagnella et al, 2019;Pal et al, 2017;Reid et al, 2019) 2 (Birkie et al, 2017;Birkie and Trucco, 2016) 16…”

“…Planning and control techniques 24 (Adrodegari et al, 2015;Ahmadian et al, 2016;Alfieri et al, 2011;Bortolini et al, 2019;Carvalho et al, 2017Carvalho et al, , 2016Carvalho et al, , 2015Dal Borgo and Meneghetti, 2019;Ghiyasinasab et al, 2020;Grabenstetter and Usher, 2014Jiang and Xi, 2019;Kim et al, 2020;Medini, 2015;Mourtzis et al, 2016;Nam et al, 2018;Pacagnella et al, 2019;Poeschl et al, 2019;Riezebos, 2010;Sjøbakk et al, 2015;Telles et al, 2019;Wesz et al, 2018;Yang, 2013) 7 (Bataglin et al, 2020;Cannas et al, 2018;Dallasega et al, 2018;Gejo García et al, 2020;Mahmood et al, 2018;Villar-Fidalgo et al, 2019) 31 Uncertainty/risk management 2012; Reid et al, 2019;Shen et al, 2011;Shurrab et al, 2020aShurrab et al, , 2020bSylla et al, 2020) Industry 4.0 10 ( Dallasega, 2018;Fox and Do, 2013;Kozjek et al, 2020;Oettmeier and Hofmann, 2016;…”

“…Studies that covered the 'uncertainty/risk' theme aimed at defining methods and developing instruments to identify uncertainty, measure risk and react to them (Ferreira et al, 2018;Gosling et al, 2013bGosling et al, , 2013aGuillaume et al, 2013;Hernadewita and Saleh, 2020;Kayis and Karningsih, 2012;Li et al, 2017;Lian and Ke, 2018;Radke and Tseng, 2012;Reid et al, 2019;Shen et al, 2011;Shurrab et al, 2020aShurrab et al, , 2020bSylla et al, 2020). While the majority of papers in this theme were analytical and theoretical papers, the empirical evidence presented is primarily concerned with illustrating and characterising causes and categories of risk and uncertainty (e.g.…”

Ambidextrous learning in a customer order–based context

“…Various functions and competences are required to be in direct customer contact to define the product to be designed and produced (Engström and Käkelä, 2019), meaning that engineers, planners and purchasers who are otherwise back office associated instead step forward to the front office. These two polar opposites – MTS and ETO – represent profoundly different environments, with the former associated with mass production and standardization and the latter with tailored customization and highly complex project-based operations (Reid et al , 2019; Yang, 2013). In between are assemble-to-order (ATO), make-to-order (MTO) and configure-to-order (CTO) strategies.…”

Status of engineering change management in the engineer-to-order production environment: insights from a multiple case study

“…ETO products are one-off by their nature, but can range from those that are built on a base of existing sub-solutions to completely new designs (Johnsen and Hvam 2019;Willner et al 2016;Wikner and Rudberg 2005;Gosling, Hewlett, and Naim 2017). Existing literature agrees that the level of uncertainty is higher in ETO comparing to the other production environments (Ghiyasinasab et al 2020;Reid, Bamford, and Ismail 2019;Muntslag 1994;McGovern, Hicks, and Earl 1999). Specifically, product mix, volumes and specifications are dependent on customers and difficult to forecast (Muntslag 1994).…”