This paper investigates the obstacles to configuration management (CM) success in both the aerospace and defence industries, from a project management (PM) perspective. Configuration management is a management activity that manages the definition of a product, system or process from its earliest definition all the way through the lifecycle. In many cases, this is also required to be managed post disposal, in cases where access to data or documentation may be required for regulatory purposes. CM helps project professionals ensure that products and systems meet their defined functional and physical requirements and that any changes to these requirements are tightly controlled, carefully identified, and accurately recorded (Samaras, 1988). With clear rewards in terms of reducing product development time, minimizing through life cost, and enhancing overall product quality, CM is an essential part of the project delivery strategy. However, CM initiatives have been undermined and implemented in a haphazard way even in the presence of a sound structured methodology and sufficiently detailed requirements standards (Burgess et al., 2005). CM is based on sound business principles to establish product configurations, identify and manage changes to them through life, account for all incorporated/approved changes, and maintain the integrity of the configuration by validating and verifying compliance wherever required. Turner (1997) very eloquently puts this into a PM perspective as thus ‘CM is not a radical discovery that revolutionizes the way the facility is developed and maintained. It is a set of good working practices for coping with uncertainty and change and gaining commitment of the projects participants as the design evolves’.
CM was first formally introduced by the US Department of Defence in the 1950/60's where its need was instigated through lack of data uniformity and change control issues in the race for a successful missile launch in the 1950's (Samaras, 1988). In the 1990s, CM was increasingly evident in more commercially oriented sectors to extend this concept and help them with through life management of product and system status. During this period the International Organization of Standardization issued their first guideline on CM in the form of ISO-10007 in 1994 with a major reflection being the inclusion of CM in the requirements based aerospace standards such as AS-9100. CM has remained one of the most critical process areas throughout the process maturity models developed by the Software Engineering Institute. CM is not limited in scope to just the aerospace & defence industries and extends to other sectors for example nuclear, conventional power generation, petrochemical, construction, and shipbuilding (Fowler, 1992 and Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997) and has played a major part in business process improvements across the board (Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997).
CM is considered, by many, to be an integral element of the project management (PM) function which is a barrier to effective application is perhaps in itself. Several studies have identified that the CM process extends beyond the project, across engineering, support and disposal. Use of a common process is critical in ensuring conformance. Effective management of a project requires consistent and repeatable processes and methodologies to manage the constraints of scope, time, cost and quality, and to ensure project success. The PM professional requires CM to actively support the project direction and infrastructure (PMI, 2007). CM is a through life activity, which invariably extends beyond the traditional project lifecycle, and is encapsulated in a variety of engineering, project management and manufacturing management methods (Burgess et al., 2003). It is an on-going and repetitive activity to establish and maintain integrity of an evolving product/system throughout the lifecycle, whether it be at product, asset, system or project level, while PM is specifically concentrated on the definition and execution of the lifecycle at a project level. CM is an integral part of the system engineering function (Team, 2006 and Sage and Rouse, 2009) whereas PM, quality management, engineering management, and logistics management are principal stakeholders in the ownership of the CM process (Kidd and Burgess, 2007).
The academic literature in the field of configuration management is unexpectedly and extremely limited with no formal study to date on the barriers to configuration management success. Several studies for example Burgess et al. (2003), Burgess et al. (2005), Huang and Mak (1999), Fowler (1996), have addressed several of the issues but have specific limitations on their own, namely in terms of their focus, and their scope of the discipline. The majority of studies focus purely on change management, and not CM in general. On the other hand extensive studies in allied professional activities such as quality management (Bhat and Rajashekhar, 2009 and Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003), knowledge management (Riege, 2005 and Sun and Scott, 2006), and project management (Atkinson et al., 2006) show the importance of research in the understanding of barriers. Studies on the topic highlight the core issues which facilitate the development of a road-map towards maturity of a process (Niazi et al., 2005 and Yeo and Ren, 2008). This current research will not only help in organizational enhancement of the configuration function but also facilitate the exploration of ways to avoid obstacles and devise frameworks to establish excellence in CM practices for project management.
Configuration management is not practised to its full potential and is perceived in a similar way to that of quality management in Western organizations prior to its increased level of awareness in the 1980's (Burgess et al., 2005). Indeed, there is a common path for the development in that quality rose from a culture of quality control, through assurance and then on to management. CM, similarly, is very much entrenched in a culture of control/assurance. Burgess et al. (2005) further confirmed that achieving a highly performing CM system is not simple and needs further study to investigate the obstacles involved in implementing high-grade CM systems. To further investigate that very issue, this research is designed with the aim of highlighting the main barriers in the effective implementation of the CM process in both aerospace and defence industries. This study identify barriers associated with managing configuration management application, prioritize them with the help of differential statistics, categorize them into more manageable groups of factors through factor analysis, and analyse the effects of multiple factors e.g. academic education, gender differences, CM experience and types of organization on the perception of CM practitioners in the process of application and finally rating these factors through the application of inferential statistics.
With in-depth interviews and questionnaire surveys, nineteen (19) barriers were finalized and prioritized on the basis of their mean values which are grouped into three groups namely ‘managerial and organizational barriers’, ‘planning and process barriers’, and ‘implementation barriers’. Significance is found in the CM practitioner's perceptions based on the typology of organizations in which they work.
This study was carried out to identify and prioritize barriers
to effective implementation of a configuration management
process in both aerospace and defence industries. A list of
nineteen barriers is identified which is further extracted into
three groups (managerial and organizational barriers, planning
and process barriers, and implementation barriers) based on
their inherent relationship to facilitate professionals in targeting
specific areas for improvements. Emphasis is drawn in revealing
any significant differences in the perceptions of CM practitioners
on the basis of gender, academic qualification, CM experience, or
types of organization. While configuration managers perceive the
existence of these barriers in both aerospace and defence sectors,
in general, the responses suggest that these barriers are more
evident in the commercial aerospace sector. It is validated
through the use of inferential statistics that significant difference
is observed in the perception of CM professionals on the basis of
the organization in which they work. These results are quite
significant since CM is well understood in the defence sectors
and is contractually mandatedthrough the meeting ofthe required
defence standards evoked by the customers.
This research contributes to existing knowledge by identifying
critical barriers to CM application to facilitate CM practitioners in
planning ahead and minimizing potential consequences. The
research outcome is quite significant since it highlights obstacles
related to areas such as management support, governance,
training, principles and policies, planning, authority to implement,
stakeholders support, communication, and resource requirements
which are not only considered the most influential factors for the
successful implementation of configuration management (e.g.
Ali
and Kidd, 2013
) but also for other allied fields such as projectmanagement (e.g.
Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Fortune and White,
2006
),and knowledgemanagement (e.g.
Wong, 2005
). This study
should attract the attention of many organizations to in giving
special importance to these factors which could in turn lead them
to a more effective implementation of the CM process.
It is believed that several of these barriers have not only
affected the organizational image of the process but have also
impacted the implementation of the process over the years.
These barriers require special attention since it is obvious that
some of the factors which are believed to be the root cause for
many other barriers may substantially affect the effective
implementation of the CM function. It is observed that the
delivery of effective training and education programmes across
the organization will not only help to get the required support
from top management but may also help to alleviate the lack of
recognition and perceived importance of the CM process across
the organization. Effective CM planning, on the other hand,
may take control on other aspects like lack of maintaining
consistency in CM practices across the projects and lack of
flexibility in CM practices. Organizations need to pay special
attention to these barriers, and target areas of concern in order
to establish an action based strategy providing focussed, value
added solutions.
There is a growing body of knowledge evolving in CM, with
several new or revised standards having been, or about to be,
delivered. This initiative will undoubtedly be slowed down if
organizations cannot, or fail to, identify critical barriers prior to
them attempting to meet the requirements of such documents.
The study of
Ali and Kidd (2013)
provides baseline guidelines
on process improvement methodologies in the form of a CM
activity model. The study emphasized the need for understanding
and documenting requirements based on CM methodologies
defined in the latest international standard(s).
The outcome of this research is already influencing ongoing
research in the group at University Manchester. A new study on
the governance of CM across the supply chain will use the
critical success factors and barriers from this study, and apply
them in a different context down the supply chain tiers.
Holistically, this will make a much needed step change in our
understanding of how we manage CM in our projects and
systems.
