Product and customer lifecycle phases

Traditionally, the product lifecycle describes the different phases that the product goes through from its conception to operation and the retirement and recycling of the product.

The lifecycle is managed and represented with elements of the manufacturer’s Enterprise Architecture (EA) that consists of the organisational, process, information and IS architecture. This can be regarded as an information based inside-out view of the product and its behaviour. It is important to make the distinction what defines the product and what defines the context that product is existing or operating in. The concept of the continuous lifecycle is to facilitate the information change over time between the different EA element creating a closed loop where information flow back and forth (Kiritsis, et al., 2008).

The product lifecycle can be divided into the Beginning of Life (BOL), Middle of Life (MOL) and End of Life (EOL) (Kiritsis, et al., 2008). In this division, the focus is on the product, which is closely related to the manufacturers view of the business environment they are operating in. This Enterprise Architecture views the way the product is managed from the manufacturer’s point-of-view and should not confused with the manufacturer or user lifecycle view (Stark, 2006). In addition, we can also identify the customer lifecycle view that is how the customer views acquisition and use of the product (Polaine, et al., 2013) that may not be the same as the actual user of the product. However, none of these clearly align to the manufacturer’s and customer’s business processes or overall EA and explain the phases the product goes through from the different stakeholders. Table 2.2 is an example that summarises how the different views and their phases are seen differently.

Table 2.2: PLM Lifecycle views adapted from (Kiritsis, et al., 2008) (Stark, 2006) Product View

(Kiritsis, et al., 2008) Manufacturer View

(Stark, 2006) User View

(Stark, 2006) Customer View (Polaine, et al., 2013)

Beginning of Life (BOL) Ideate Imagine Aware

Middle of Life (MOL) Develop Identify Join

End of Life (EOL) Manufacture Acquire Use

Support Use Develop

Retire Dispose Leave

The BOL phase represents activities related to the product design and manufacturing of the product. In addition, this phase also benefits from a feedback loop from the MOL and EOL phases that can improve the product (Kiritsis, et al., 2008). This concept is known as closed loop PLM where data flow between the different phases. The manufacturer view can be divided into two sub-phases that are ideate and develop phases where a product is first an idea and then developed into a product. The same phases can be seen in the user view where the user imagines the type of product needed and then identifies if the product is offered or under development (Stark, 2018). In contrast, the goal of the customer view closely related to services, and is also divided into two phases that are the awareness that a needed and this service exists and take the decision to join or acquire or develop the services (Polaine, et al., 2013). To improve customer satisfaction in the MOL phase, the

2.2 Product Lifecycle Management 33

customer voice is needed in the product development phase, but PLM approaches are still product and manufacturer centric. The inclusion of the customer into the product development process must be a continuous process that improves over time based on the collected information. This information collection must have industry context and be available for product development continuously. (Schulte, 2007)

The MOL phase represents the delivery, operational use and support of the product.

Viewing this phase against the EA, the delivery phase includes the manufacturing and supply chain management related process and data that is used to realise the product. In this phase, the product moves from the virtual into the real world. This phase is the internal process that are used to take the decision to acquire the product and ready the organisation to use it. The MOL phase needs and uses the product definition information created in the BOL phase. The MOL phase can include the delivery related service like construction, for example, in cases of Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) deliveries. Post-delivery support can be divided into, for example, maintenance and upgrades (Kiritsis, et al., 2008). The operational data start to be available to verify and improve the performance of the product and the manufacturing process. The status of the operational product can be collected from Internet of Thing (IoT) connectivity (Grieves, 2006) (Kiritsis, et al., 2008). This phase requires that the manufacturer provides, for example, support and spare parts to ensure the continued use of the product (Stark, 2006) that also benefits from the information provided about other operational products in the MOL and EOL phases (Kiritsis, et al., 2008). In the MOL phase the product information or Bill of Material (BOM) changes during the operation life and needs to be maintained (Grieves, 2006).

This also creates information that is needed to manufacture and deliver the product. In the Customer View (Polaine, et al., 2013), the MOL phase is divided into Use that describes the customer interaction with service and the Develop sub-phase that focus is on expanding the service usage that can be for example additional cost to the customer.

The EOL for the manufacturer is the decision and process to retire the product from the offering that first removes it from the active product portfolio and then ending support for it (Grieves, 2006). From the user's point of view, the product is removed from use or replaced with a new product to ensure business continuation (Kiritsis, et al., 2008) (Stark, 2006) In the Customer View, the phase is when the customer leaves or stops using the service. This can be momentarily occurring event, or it can be decision to stop using the service completely (Polaine, et al., 2013). In this lifecycle phase, the legislation and environmental aspects require the manufacturer and customer dissemble, dispose and recycle the parts of the product (Basirati, et al., 2019).

Another approach to view the lifecycle management is, for example, the configuration management standards (EIA, 2019) used in the aerospace and defence industries where the division of the product is divided into Configuration Identification (CI), Configuration Control (CC), Configuration Status Accounting (CSA) and Configuration Audit (CA) (Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, October 2011). In this division, the CI is the method how the product or services are identified and managed with different

2 Literature review: Smart Connected Product-Service System 34

types of structures across the lifecycle (Balslev, 2010). CC defines the way how the product structure is changed over its lifecycle and CSA is the way that the changes are tracked and managed. Finally, CA defines the processes how the collected information can be audited along the lifecycle to ensure risk free and continuous operation of the product. CA also recognises the need to align the functional and physical product information to ensure continued operations and with the real-world and virtual product.

This maturity is built through lifecycle phases that follow system engineering principles where the lifecycle of the product can be broken down into multiple reviews from requirement approval to decommissioning of the system (Figure 2.6). This approach highlights the project management and alignment need of the system in Engineering-to-Order (ETO) delivery where the system information leads the definition and is continuously linked to the definition information (virtual system) (NASA, 2007). In NASA (2007), the phases managing the virtual product are from Pre-Phase to Phase C, which culminates with the Production Readiness Review (PRR). From Phase C onwards both the physical and virtual product are managed together and verified finally ending in the Decommissioning Review (DR) when the system is removed from operations. This lifecycle approach also shows a customer lifecycle (NASA) centricity.

Figure 2.6: NASA project lifecycle and system phases used to manage the system definition (NASA, 2007).

In all the lifecycle approaches defining PLM, the process and information differences between a product, service, system or PSS is left at generic level.

Pre-Phase A - Concept Studies

•Mission Concept Review (MCR)

Phase A - Concept & Technology Development

•Sytem ReequirementReview (SRR)

•System Definition Review (SDR)

•Mission Defintion Review

Phase B - Preliminary Design & Technology Completion

•Preliminary Design REview (PDR) Phase C - Final Design and Fabrication

•Critical Design Review (CDR)

•Production Readiness Review (PRR)

•System Integration Review (SIR)

Phase D - System Assembly, Integration & Test, Launch

•Test Readiness Review (TRR)

•System Acceptance Review (SAR)

•Operational Readiness Review (ORR)

•Flight Readiness REview (FRR) Phase - Operations & Sustainment

•Post-Launch Assesment REview (PLAR)

•Critical Event REadiness Review (CERR)

•Post-Flight Assesment Review (PFAR) Phase F - Closeout

•Decommissioning Review (DR)

2.2 Product Lifecycle Management 35