Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 375–394 | Cite as

Capturing and reusing knowledge in engineering change management: A case of automobile development

  • Hong Joo Lee
  • Hyung Jun Ahn
  • Jong Woo Kim
  • Sung Joo Park


The development of complex products, such as automobiles, involves engineering changes that frequently require redesigning or altering the products. Although it has been found that efficient management of knowledge and collaboration in engineering changes is crucial for the success of new product development, extant systems for engineering changes focus mainly on storing documents related to the engineering changes or simply automating the approval processes, while the knowledge that is generated from collaboration and decision-making processes may not be captured and managed easily. This consequently limits the use of the systems by the participants in engineering change processes. This paper describes a model for knowledge management and collaboration in engineering change processes, and based on the model, builds a prototype system that demonstrates the model’s strengths. We studied a major Korean automobile company to analyze the automobile industry’s unique requirements regarding engineering changes. We also developed domain ontologies from the case to facilitate knowledge sharing in the design process. For achieving efficient retrieval and reuse of past engineering changes, we used a case-based reasoning (CBR) with a concept-based similarity measure.


Automobile development Case-based reasoning Engineering change management Knowledge capturing Knowledge reuse Semantic web 



The authors acknowledge the help of the many interviewees at the host Korean automobile company in conducting the case study and research survey.


  1. Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kühn, O., & Sintek, M. (2000). Context-aware, proactive delivery of task-specific information: The knowmore project. Information Systems Frontiers, 2(3/4), 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, P. S., & Clark, K. B. (1991). Behind the learning curve: A sketch of the learning process. Management Science, 37(3), 267–281.Google Scholar
  3. Agostini, A., De Michelis, G., & Grasso, M. A. (1997). Rethinking CSCW systems: The architecture of Milano. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
  4. Ahn H. J., Lee, H. J., Cho, K. H., & Park, S. J. (2005). Utilizing knowledge context in virtual collaborative work. Decision Support Systems, 39, 563–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergmann, R., & Schaaf, M. (2003). Structural case-based reasoning and ontology-based knowledge management: A perfect match? Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9(7), 608–626.Google Scholar
  7. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American; May.Google Scholar
  8. Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., & Harmelen, F. (2003). Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In J. Davies, D. Fensel, & F. Harmelen (Eds.), Towards the semantic web: Ontology-driven knowledge management (pp. 71–89), West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, C., & Huang, C. (2001). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information & Management, 41, 839–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, K. B., & Wheelright, S. C. (1993). Managing new product and process development: Text and cases. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(4), 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Decker, S., Mitra, P., & Melnik, S. (2000). Framework for the semantic web—an RDF tutorial. IEEE Internet Computing, 4(6), 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delteil, A., Faron-Zucker, C., & Dieng, R. (2001). Learning ontologies from RDF annotations. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Ontology Learning, p. 38.Google Scholar
  15. De Michelis, G., & Grasso, M. A. (1994). Situating conversation within the language/action perspective: The Milan Conversation Model. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on CSCW, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar
  16. Golebiowska, J., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Corby, O., & Mousseau, D. (2001). Building and exploiting ontologies for an automobile project memory. In Proceedings of K-CAP’01, Victoria, October.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, R. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management practice. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 450–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang, G. Q., & Mak, K. L. (1998). Computer aids for engineering change control. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 76, 187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang, G. Q., Yee, W. Y., & Mak, K. L. (2001). Development of a web-based system for engineering change management. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang, G. Q., Yee, W. Y., & Mak, K. L. (2003). Current practice of engineering change management in Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 139, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karvounarakis, G., Magkanaraki, A., Alexaki, S., Christophides, V., Plexousakis, D., Scholl, M., et al. (2003). Querying the semantic web with RQL. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 42(5), 617–640.Google Scholar
  24. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Loch, C. H., & Terwiesch, C. (1996). Accelerating the process of engineering change orders: Capacity and congestion effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorenzo, M. M. G., & Perez, R. E. B. (1997). A model and its different application to case-based reasoning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maus, H. (2001). Workflow context as a means for intelligent information support. In Akman, V. et al (Eds.), CONTEXT 2001, LNAI, Vol. 2116, pp. 261–274.Google Scholar
  28. May, A., Carter, C., & Joyner, S. (2000). Virtual team working in the European automotive industry: User requirements and a case study approach. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10(3), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. May, A., & Carter, C. (2001). A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melnik, S. (2000). Representing UML in RDF. Available at
  31. Melink, S., & Decker, S. (2000). A layered approach to information modeling and interoperability on the web. In Proceedings of ECDL’00 Workshop on the Semantic Web, Lisbon, Portugal, September.Google Scholar
  32. Monplaisir, L. (1999). An integrated CSCW architecture for integrated product/process design and development. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 15, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1999). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.Google Scholar
  34. Numata, J., & Taura, T. (1996). A case study: A network system for knowledge amplification in the product development process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(4), 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pikosz, P., & Malmqvist, J. (1998). A comparative study of engineering change management in three Swedish engineering companies. In Proceedings of DETC’98, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Ramesh, B., & Tiwana, A. (1999). Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in New Product Development Teams. Decision Support Systems, 27, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. RDF. Resource Description Framework, 1999. Available at
  38. RDFS. RDF Schema, 2000. Available at
  39. Resnik, P. (1999). Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 95–130.Google Scholar
  40. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Salton, G., & McGill, M. (1983). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Terwiesch, C., & Loch, C. H. (1999). Managing the process of engineering change orders: The case of the climate control system in automobile development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong, S., & Burton, R. M. (2000). Virtual teams: What are their characteristics, and impact on team performance? Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 6, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright, I. C. (1997). A review of research into engineering change management: Implications for product design. Design Studies, 18, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yoo, S. B., & Kim, Y. (2002). Web-based knowledge management for sharing product data in virtual enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 75, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong Joo Lee
    • 1
  • Hyung Jun Ahn
    • 2
  • Jong Woo Kim
    • 3
  • Sung Joo Park
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Coordination SciencesSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Management Systems, Waikato Management SchoolUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of BusinessHanyang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Graduate School of ManagementKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations