See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239406251

Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management: A survey

of methodologies and practices

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · August 2008
DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1045

CITATIONS READS

66 8,628

5 authors, including:

Lianyu Zheng Chris Mcmahon

Beihang University (BUAA) University of Bristol
82 PUBLICATIONS   936 CITATIONS    236 PUBLICATIONS   4,213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lian Ding Jafar Jamshidi

34 PUBLICATIONS   401 CITATIONS   
Cranfield University
26 PUBLICATIONS   519 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wearable AR/VR devices enabled smart assembly for cables and tubes View project

Wearable AR/VR devices enabled smart assembly for Large-Scale Space Mechanism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lianyu Zheng on 08 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 989

Key characteristics management in product lifecycle

management: a survey of methodologies and practices
L Y Zheng1*, C A McMahon2, L Li1, L Ding2, and J Jamshidi2
1
School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University, Beijing, China
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK

The manuscript was received on 6 November 2007 and was accepted after revision for publication on 29 April 2008.

DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1045

Abstract: Key characteristics (KCs) play a significant role in product lifecycle management
(PLM) and in collaborative and global product development. Over the last decade, KCs
methodologies and tools have been studied and practiced in several domains of the product
lifecycle, and many world-class companies have introduced KCs considerations into their pro-
duct development practices. However, there has been no systematic survey of KCs techniques,
methodologies, and practices in this respect. This paper aims to give a comprehensive survey of
KCs methodologies, and practices from the perspective of enterprise integration and PLM.
The paper firstly presents a holistic framework of KCs methodologies and practices through
the product lifecycle, and summarizes the fundamentals of KCs including their definition and
classification, KC flowdown, and the identification and selection of KCs. A review of the KCs
methods and practices in the product lifecycle is then presented, particularly in engineering
design, manufacturing planning, production and testing as well as information and knowledge
management respectively. Finally, the problems and challenges for future research on KCs
techniques are discussed.

Keywords: key characteristics, product lifecycle management, information and knowledge

management, dimensional management, variation management, quality management, product
development

1 INTRODUCTION throughout a product lifecycle are the key issues that

In the past decade, product development systems have
significantly changed due to globalization and techno-
logical innovation. Companies are now increasingly
focusing on business globalization and collaboration
with technology partners across the product lifecycle
[1]. As the people, departments, and partners involved
in product development tend to be geographically
dispersed, there are increasing demands to globally
coorporate during the design phase and outsource
manufacturing processes [2]. In a significant change
from 20 years ago when design and manufacturing
automation (e.g. computer-aided design (CAD) and
computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)) was the major
driver to improve product development processes,
nowadays, information management and integration
*Corresponding author: School of Mechanical Engineering and
Automation, Box 720, No. 37, Xueyuan Road, HaiDian District,
Beijing, China. email: lyzheng@buaa.edu.cn
need to be addressed if companies are to succeed. Pro-
duct lifecycle management (PLM) is the most impor-
tant systematic strategy and enabling technique to
realize this emerging paradigm shift in the manufac-
turing industry. PLM is a strategic business approach
that applies a consistent set of business solutions in
support of the collaborative creation, management,
dissemination, and use of product definition informa-
tion across an extended enterprise. The approach is
applied from concept to the end of life and it integrates
people, processes, business systems, and information
[3]. It takes a system perspective to facilitate the effi-
cient use, dissemination, creation, and change of pro-
duct-related information through representations
that efficiently capture ‘product semantics’ to opti-
mize business processes and system integrations
spanning multiple phases of the product lifecycle [4].
Key characteristics (KCs) are a subset of product
information, but as the word key implies, KCs, by

JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
990 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
carrying important product semantics, play a sig-
nificant role throughout the product lifecycle. In
particular, for complex products such as aircraft
and automobiles, it is not economically or logisti-
cally feasible to control thousands of parameters
(e.g. material properties, dimensions, and tolerances)
and processes. Instead, companies have to devote
most of their attention to those critical product char-
acteristics, and further drive collaborative and global
product development by communicating, sharing
and coordinating KCs. As Motley pointed out, KCs
are a powerful tool for communication between part-
ners in an extended enterprise and they are deserving
of increased attention and resources [5]. Many world-
class leading companies have been using the KCs
approach for nearly a decade. Nowadays, an increas-
ing number of commercial firms are making KCs
a non-negotiable technical requirement in their
product development activities [6].
This paper aims to give a comprehensive survey of
KCs methodologies and practices from the per-
spective of enterprise integration and PLM. The sub-
Fig. 1 Framework of KCs management methodologies and practices
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
sequent content is organized as follows; section 2
presents a holistic view of KCs through the product
lifecycle; the fundamental issues of KCs are described
in section 3, including their definition and classi-
fication, KC flowdown, and the identification and
selection of KCs; sections 4 and 5 review KCs
methods and practices, particularly for product
design and manufacturing, and information and
knowledge management respectively; section 6 dis-
cusses five applications of KCs management; and
finally, the problems and challenges for future
research on KCs are discussed and summarized.
2 A FRAMEWORK OF KCs MANAGEMENT
Figure 1 illustrates a framework of KCs management
methodologies and practices through the product
lifecycle. First of all, the fundamentals of KCs, includ-
ing definition, classification, flowdown and transfer,
and identification and designation lay a solid founda-
tion for their practices and applications. Second, as a
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
backbone thread, KCs cover all phases throughout
the product lifecycle as follows.
1. Requirements development: to capture customer
requirements and to identify initial charac-
teristics.
2. Engineering design: to flow down KCs to lower
levels of the design process; to implement KCs-
based design for manufacturing and assembly
(DFMA); to define supplier deliverables; to deli-
ver KCs via robust tolerances design; and to
select components by KCs.
3. Manufacturing planning and validation: to
develop manufacturing plans, quality control
plans and tooling to deliver KCs; to assess and
validate high-risk process capability; and to
implement failure mode and effect analysis
(FMEA).
4. Production and testing: to perform statistical
process control (SPC) for KCs, variation reduc-
tion and process improvement, as well as KCs
measurement and data collection.
5. Maintenance and repair: to find spare
parts according to KCs and to perform product
FMEA.
Third, KCs-centric knowledge and information
management (KCs-KIM) is regarded as the backbone
of PLM. Under programme planning, management
and control, KCs-KIM can support all the activities
listed above thoughout the product lifecycle.
Finally, since KCs principles and methodologies
are not easy to implement, the best or typical prac-
tices and applications in industries of complex pro-
ducts, such as aerospace and automotive, are as
important as their methodologies. Therefore, the
study and investigation of more advanced KCs meth-
odologies and practices for application during the
product lifecycle are encouraged.
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF KCs
In this section, a definition of KCs and their classifi-
cation into several categories are presented, the hier-
archical flowdown of KCs through assemblies to
details and processes is described, and the identifica-
tion and selection of KCs is presented.
3.1 What is a KC
Currently there is no unique definition for a KC.
Some typical definitions are given as follows. The
Boeing advanced quality system standard D1-9000
defines a KC as a feature whose variation has the
greatest impact on the fit, performance, or service
life of the finished product from the perspective of
the customer [7]. D1-9000 has been adapted as
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
991
Aerospace Standard AS9103. The AS9103 defines a
KC as a feature of a material, process, or part/assem-
bly whose variation has a significant influence on
product fit, performance, service life, or manufactur-
ability [8]. As a result of their common background,
the two definitions are almost the same. Specialty
Engine Components’ L.L.C. quality assurance proce-
dure defines a product characteristic as a physical,
chemical, or visual characteristic of a final product
or part that is specified on product documentation
such as blueprints or standards. They are classified
as either standard or key product characteristics
(KPCs). Examples of KPCs are lengths, diameters, tor-
ques, positions, hardnesses, chemistry, colours,
finishes, involute forms, sizes, presence, etc. Reason-
ably anticipated variation of a KPC could significantly
affect a product’s safety/compliance or is likely to
significantly affect a product’s fit/function, or
safety/compliance [9]. Lee and Thornton [10] defined
KCs as the product, subassembly, part, and process
features that significantly impact the final cost, per-
formance, or safety of a product when the KCs vary
from nominal. Other world-class companies, such
as Rolls-Royce and Northrop Grumman, have also
given similar definitions for KCs in their published
specifications and guidelines [11, 12].
Although the KC terminology, definitions, and
implementation schemes may vary between corpora-
tions, the organization-specific methods have com-
mon goals, i.e. to identify a small set of critical
features for an organization to focus on during design
and manufacturing [13].
3.2 Classification
KCs can be divided into several categories according
to different viewpoints as shown in Fig. 2.
1. According to the main phases of product
design and development, KCs are classified as
KPC and key process characteristics, depending
on whether the characteristic in question is that
of a product or a process. The key process char-
acteristics can be further divided into manufac-
turing KCs (MKCs) and assembly KCs (AKCs).
Key process characteristics are also called key
control characteristics (KCCs). KPCs, MKCs, and
AKCs enable KCs establishing the critical path
from design to manufacturing [10].
2. Based on the scope/level of the product model
that the KCs belong to, KCs are classified as fol-
lows: product KCs, subsystem KCs, component
KCs, feature KCs and feature face KCs [14, 15].
With the above classification, KCs flow down
from product to subsystem, components, and
further details. This classification is particularly
suitable for identification and designation during
engineering design and product modelling.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
992 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
Fig. 2 Categories of KCs from three viewpoints
This applies not only to engineering drawings but
also to three-dimensional models.
3. Based on the disciplines that the characteristics
belong to, Zheng and Chin [16] argue that KCs
can be classified into four categories for mecha-
nical products: geometric characteristics (such
as dimension and tolerance, and roughness),
mechanical characteristics (such as hardness and
strength), physical characteristics (such as mat-
erial density and weight), and chemical character-
istics (such as chemical ingredients of component
materials, corrosion resistance of surfaces). The
advantage of this classification is that it is easy to
map product characteristics to the appropriate
manufacturing processes. For example, geometric
characteristics are usually assured by the primary
manufacturing processes such as forging, casting,
and machining, whereas mechanical characteris-
tics need property enhancement processes such
as heat treatments [17].
3.3 Flowdown and transfer
KC flowdown is a hierarchical approach to flow a KC
for an assembly or product down to KCs on those sub-
assemblies, details, and processes believed to affect
variation of the top-level characteristic [7]. In general,
the KPCs are at the top of the hierarchy and each KPC
has several contributing subsystem-KCs. These, in
turn, are a function of the part-KCs and process-KCs
[14]. Higher level KPCs are influenced by lower level
KPCs, and lower level KPCs are generated by KCCs.
Thus, variation in a KCC impacts upper level KPCs
and overall system performance. Identification of
KPCs with flowdown to employees and suppliers
ensures alignment to customer’s concerns [18].
Furthermore, a transfer mathematical model can be
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
built based on the flowdown relationships and histor-
ical data and knowledge [14, 19]. Figure 3 shows the
flowdown of KCs for a missile fin. The KPCs of the
main spar are followed down in different layers
including product, component, part, and manufac-
turing process.
3.4 Identification and designation
Selection and evaluation of KCs are performed
throughout the whole product lifecycle, as early as
in the product definition phase through to design,
fabrication, assembly, and operation. There are var-
ious methods and tools that can be used by teams
(e.g. IPT (integrated product team)) to identify and
select KCs. They cover variation, loss function, risk
analysis, statistical variation analysis (SVA), historical
data analysis, design of experiments (DOE), etc. The
primary methods used depend on the situation and
the goal [7, 20].
SEC and Raytheon have developed the key charac-
teristic designation system (KCDS) [9, 18]. The aim of
KCDS is to outline a common system for the identifi-
cation of KPCs defined by the customer and/or com-
pany, and the related KCCs that apply to products so
as to continuously improve and reduce variation and
finally achieve customer satisfaction. KCDS consists
of four responsibilities [9]: product engineering to
identify KPCs; manufacturing engineering and qual-
ity engineering to identify KCCs and develop control
plans and reaction plans; fabrication and assembly
to implement continuous improvement, variation
reduction, and control plan maintenance; and on-
going review of the KPCs and the KCCs.
KCs are usually identified and marked on drawings
or in specifications. A unique identifying number or
label should be assigned to each KC so that related
data can be tracked and mapped to the production
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
Fig. 3 KCs flowdown of a missile fin
processes that create the KCs. Table 1 lists the typical
designation symbols used in the automotive and
aerospace industries. It can be seen that different
companies or industries adopt different symbols. As
shown in Table 1, in the automotive industry, the
inverted delta (!) is used to designate safety and gov-
ernment regulated KCs, while a diamond ( ) is 
usually used to mark-up performance, fit, or appear-
ance KCs [9]. The designation symbol ‘ ’ is adopted
for mark-up of a KC in the aerospace and defence
industries [7].
4 KC METHODS IN PRODUCT DESIGN AND
MANUFACTURING
Table 2 lists the main KCs methodologies in product
design and manufacturing. In terms of the proposed
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
993
framework as shown in Fig. 1, they are categorized
into four topics as follows: engineering design, man-
ufacturing process planning, production and test,
and knowledge and information management. The
following subsections and section 5 review these
methodologies in detail.
4.1 Engineering design
KCs variation analysis and control in assembly design
is a most important issue during engineering design.
Many efforts have been made to tackle this issue in
the last decade.
Mantripragada and Whitney [21] presented a top-
down design approach to link the logical design of
assembly layouts with KC flowdown, assembly
sequence, and tolerance analyses, and to create
assembly sketchers and analysers capable of analys-
ing assembly processes before the detailed geometry
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
994 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
Table 1 Typical designation symbols used in automotive and aerospace industry [7, 9]
Industry Customer
Automotive Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
SEC (Specialty Engine
Component) L.L.C
Aerospace Boeing
Airbus
has been designed. In order to capture their funda-
mental structure in the top-down design process,
the concept of a datum flow chain (DFC) was pro-
posed. DFCs relate datum logic explicitly to the
product’s KCs, assembly sequences, and choice of
mating features, and provide the information needed
for tolerance analyses. DFCs are an efficient tool to
analyse how geometric KCs are delivered through
datum relationships represented as directed edges
in DFCs among parts and the degrees of freedom
joints carry. Whitney [22] further studied the role of
KCs in the design of mechanical assemblies. His
research included defining the intent of the design,
identifying key assembly-level dimensions called
KCs to embody the intent, designing an architecture
for the assembly that delivers each KC within the sta-
ted tolerance, and conveying the intent and architec-
ture in the form of a DFC diagram. It was shown that
the design and achievement of KCs is a joint respon-
sibility of engineering and manufacturing [22].
Mathieu and Marguet [23] and Marguet [24] made
efforts to improve product producibility (assembl-
ability) based on KPCs. They proposed an industrial
method in which the main idea is that the geo-
metrical variation flows belong to the assembly pro-
cess. In their method, in the preliminary design, the
first step is to identify the KCs of a product. This
identification uses a top-down process going from
functional product requirements to geometrical
characteristics. The second step performs a qualita-
tive product analysis in order to eliminate the worst
assembly sequences. This analysis is based on
oriented graphs. The last step selects the most prom-
ising assembly sequences by a quantitative analysis.
This integrated method has been successfully applied
to aircraft assembly.
Downey et al. [25] introduced smart assemblies as
a means of achieving design robustness. Smart
assemblies make it possible to maintain KCs even in
the presence of significant variation. By formalizing
the design method, the authors believe smart assem-
blies are more accessible to designers.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Term Symbol
Critical characteristics Diamond () / <D>*
Critical verification Pentagon ( ) / <P>*
Critical characteristic Inverted delta (!)
Fit/function key product characteristic Diamond () /<F/F>*
Safety/compliance KPC Inverted delta (!) /
<S/C>*
Fit/function KPC Diamond () / <F/F>*
Safety/compliance KPC Inverted delta (!) /
<S/C>*
Critical safety characteristics KCs Arrow tag with key ( )
Critical safety characteristics KCs Arrow tag with key ( )
Kern et al. [26] present a new approach to design a
product that can be produced with an acceptable
level of quality, will meet customer needs, and will
be robust against manufacturing variation. The
approach relies on the use of historical process cap-
ability data and simulated process capability data.
The data are used to set design parameter values
that optimize the expected value of a product charac-
teristic while considering the product’s sensitivity to
manufacturing variation. These authors thought that
it is typical to only track the dimensions designated
as KCs because KCs have a strong effect on a
product’s performance and they should be tightly
controlled during production [26]. They also pre-
sented a quantitative approach to define KCs using
probabilistic sensitivity to rank the importance of a
random variable (i.e. design parameter) to the pro-
duct performance variability defined. A design exam-
ple of an engine valve train was used as an illustration
of how this approach can be used [26].
Pilling [27] identified that KCs are key for robust
product design. A working practice and procedure
for the selection of KCs during the early stages of pro-
duct design was proposed. The process involves four
major stages/levels: customer-identified KCs on a
product, component-identified KCs, component-
identified key features/dimensions, and manufactur-
ing hand-over. The proposed process is being tried
and tested on a number of ongoing projects.
Nataraj et al. [28] described how the inherent mod-
elling of product and process requirements in KCs
can be used to express and capture the product
design intent. A prototype software program (Varia-
tion Risk Management Tool) was developed to house
all the critical design data for process optimization
and its eventual reuse. They established a systematic
process for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risk
in the early stages of design for a windtone class of
automobile electric horn, based on a robust design
concept.
Lyu et al. [29] presented a method for optimally
synthesizing multi-component structural assemblies
of an aluminium space frame (ASF) vehicle body.
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008

Table 2
Topics
Engineering design
Manufacturing process
planning
Production and testing
Knowledge and
information management
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management 995
Summary of KC methodologies in product design and manufacturing
Authors and references Methodologies and features Case study/example
Mantripragada and A concept called the DFC to capture their Horizontal stabilizer
Whitney [21] fundamental structure in a top-down design assembly
process. The DFC relates the datum logic explicitly
to the product’s KCs and assembly sequences.
Whitney [22] A method to convey the intent and architecture Office stapler and car
through KCs in the form of a DFC diagram door
Mathieu and Marguet [23] A methodology to improve product producibility A380 fuselage
Marguet [24] based on product KCs assembly
Downey et al. [25] Smart assemblies design method that maintain One-way clutch
KCs’ robustness in the presence of significant
variation
Kern et al. [26] An approach to optimizing the expected value of An engine valve train
a product characteristic by using historical
process capability data and by considering the
product’s sensitivity to manufacturing variation
Nataraj et al. [28] Inherent modelling of product and process Automobile electric
requirements in KCs horn
Lyu et al. [29] An approach to finding the optimal subassembly ASF vehicle body
Lee and Saitou [30] partitioning through the in-process adjustability
of key product dimensions (KCs)
Zhao et al. [31] A generic framework for prediction of assembly 787 vertical fin
variation that moves assembly variation analysis
into early stages of aircraft development
Phoomboplab and A design synthesis framework for dimensional Automotive underbody
Ceglarek [32] management in multi-stage assembly systems subassembly
Whitney [36] A systematic method to select the necessary part Aircraft skin panel
features, tool and machine capabilities for
achieving KCs
Wang and Ceglarek [37] A methodology for Q/SP, which considers SUV side aperture
product quality in terms of product KCs
Chin and Zheng [38] A hybrid approach to process planning for quality Satellite middle frame
assurance by combining QFD with FMEA
Zheng et al. [17] A methodology for KC-based rough-cut process Missile fin
planning
Chen [39] An optimal selection method for inspection plan Aircraft wing contour
Chen and Thornton [40] using the KC flowdown model and Monte Carlo
simulation
Maropoulos et al. [42] The use of aggregate product modelling as a Tooling jig of satellite
Maropoulos et al. [43] vehicle for integrating dimensional management
into complex product design and assembly
Thornton [14] A mathematical framework for the KC variation Car door
propagation
Thornton [46] A VRM framework using KCs as drivers Airplane wing bar
Thornton [48] A mathematical model capable of optimally Airplane wing bar
allocating VR resources
Ceglarek and Shi [44] A SOVA methodology that is used for modelling, Automotive body
Ceglarek et al. [49] analysis, and performance prediction of multi- assembly
stage manufacturing processes
Huang et al. [50] A generic 3D SOVA model for 3D rigid part Automotive underbody
Huang et al. [51] assembly in single and multi-station system and a track cab assembly
Loose et al. [52] A variation source identification methodology Automotive hood
in the presence of relational dimension assembly
measurements
Chakhunashvili et al. [53] A statistically based engineering method called Heavy-duty diesel
Johansson et al. [54] VMEA that systematically looks for noise factors engine
affecting KPCs
Huang et al. [55] Methods to implement KC information Office knife
management by means of bill of material and
flow process chart
Rezayat [56] KCs and XML together provide a practical Automotive design
ontology and communication mechanism
Balogun et al. [57] A product and process database to manage Gas turbine engine
complex product specification and process
capability in terms of KCs
Hassan et al. [58] An integrated information model for FMEA and Centring system of
KC to facilitate the reuse of the KCs’ knowledge fixture
Hellemann et al. [59] A web-based process capability management US patent (without
system for KCs case study)
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
996 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
This method simultaneously considers structural
stiffness, manufacturing and assembly costs, and
dimensional integrity under a unified framework
based on joint libraries. The dimensional integrity of
a candidate assembly is evaluated as the adjustability
of the given critical product dimensions (KCs), using
an internal optimization routine. This routine finds
the optimal subassembly partitioning of an assembly
for in-process adjustability. A case study on an ASF
of a midsize passenger vehicle demonstrated the effec-
tiveness of the method by modelling a simplified ASF
with five KCs [29]. Lee and Saitou [30] further
enhanced the optimal method of assembly synthesis
for in-process dimensional adjustability in term of
KCs. A genetic algorithm was adopted to generate can-
didate assemblies based on a joint library specified for
an automotive space frame domain. Each candidate
assembly is evaluated by solving a subassembly parti-
tioning problem for optimal in-process adjustability,
posed as an equivalent minimum cut problem on
weighted graphs. A case study on a simplified three-
dimensional automotive space frame with four KCs
and the accompanying joint library was presented.
In order to identify and develop variation predic-
tion methods that can precede detailed geometric
design and make estimates accurate enough to
uncover major assembly risks, Zhao et al. [31] pre-
sented methods to move assembly variation analysis
into the early stages of aircraft development where
critical partitioning, sourcing, and production deci-
sions are often made for component parts that have
not yet been designed. A generic framework for
prediction of assembly variation was developed. An
efficient, top-down approach was adopted. Instead of
taking measurements everywhere, the variation analy-
sis starts with aeroplane-level requirements (e.g. load
capabilities, orientation of horizontal/vertical stabi-
lizers), and then assembly requirements (mainly
geometric dimensioning and tolerancing callouts,
quantifiable in Quality Control) are derived. Next the
contributors to a particular assembly requirement
are identified through a DFC analysis. Finally, the
major contributors are further characterized through
a sensitivity study of metamodels or three-dimen-
sional variation analysis models. A case study of a ver-
tical fin was used to demonstrate the validity of the
proposed framework [31].
Phoomboplab and Ceglarek [32] proposed a design
synthesis framework for dimensional management in
multi-stage assembly systems which integrate three
critical design tasks: tolerance optimization, multi-
fixture layout design, and part-to-part joint design.
The proposed framework is based on the develop-
ment of the following.
1. A new hybrid design structure matrix which inte-
grates design tasks with design configurations of
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
KCCs, and which has the capability to model
and analyse the interdependencies among design
tasks and constraints.
2. A Task flow chain which represents the hierarchy
of design tasks and is used to generate the
sequence of design tasks.
The design synthesis methodology is illustrated and
validated in the process of designing configurations
for an automotive under body subassembly.
Apart from the above KCs delivery issue which is
solved through KCs flowdown, variation flow analysis
and robust design during assembly design, KCs can
be used as important drivers to select components
during the engineering design phase. Ong and Guo
[33] used KCs, which are typical properties of a pro-
duct in aspects, as an enabler to capture the embodi-
ment design information and the design evolution
from the qualitative stage to the quantitative stage.
They argued that, from these KCs, users can have a
brief but overall idea of the products from many per-
spectives. Hence, KCs serve as a good enabler for
knowledge capture and a linkage between the con-
cept design and detailed design. Since KCs are
unique for a design, they can be used for indexing
and retrieval to achieve a highly efficient and accu-
rate search result. In Ong and Guo’s research, KCs
are used together with a product family (PF). For a
PF, a group of KCs is defined. Each KC has a name
and a value which can be either quantitative or quali-
tative. Since the content of a KC is a reflection of the
concept, layout, and geometrical structure of a whole
family of products, they are used to retrieve PFs. The
values of the KCs reflect the differences among indivi-
dual products inside a PF. Hence, the values of the KCs
are used further to retrieve a specific product within a
PF [33]. Based on the methodology, Ong and Guo
then developed an online web-based environment for
the reuse of detailed design [34].
The US Navy’s Best Manufacturing Practise pro-
gramme is known as a continuous survey study of
producibility practices throughout US defence indus-
try companies. One of the significant outcomes of
this programme is ‘Producibility System Guidelines
- The Five Steps to Success’ for product development
[35]. KCs are recognized as the crucial drivers in these
five steps, including producibility infrastructure,
determining process capability, addressing produci-
bility during conceptual design and detailed design
respectively, and producibility measurement.
4.2 Manufacturing process planning
During the manufacturing process planning phase,
although research work involving KCs is not as preva-
lent as in the engineering design phase, many efforts
have been made to develop manufacturing or build
plans to deliver KCs. Manufacturing process planning
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
generally includes assembly planning, (fabrication)
process planning, and inspection or measurement
planning.
For assembly planning, Whitney [36] proposed a
systematic method to select the necessary part fea-
tures, tool and machine capabilities. This method
focused on achieving KCs. The KCs are established
and flowed down to assembly planners, and then
become a set of requirements for structured assem-
bly process analysis. This method is supported by a
number of computational and analytical tools to
rapidly consider a large number of potential assem-
bly sequences and part features. This is because the
focus is maintained on the important features, which
the process must deliver. This approach enables
assembly process decisions to be traceable to pro-
duct performance issues and therefore allows clarifi-
cation of assembly issues in a concurrent engineering
environment. A case study on a family of aircraft skin
panels at a major US aircraft assembly supplier was
used to illustrate the method. Wang and Ceglarek
[37] developed a methodology for quality-driven
sequence planning (Q/SP), which considers product
quality in term of KPCs. The proposed Q/SP metho-
dology is based on three steps.
1. Generating all possible line configurations/layouts.
2. Representing dimensional quality as a product
variation propagation model using a beam-based
model.
3. Evaluating assembly sequences and line config-
urations using the multivariate process capability
index.
A simulation for an industrial case study involving an
SUV car aperture was carried out, which allows selec-
tion of the three best assembly line configurations
and sequences.
For process planning, Chin et al. [38] proposed a
hybrid approach to rough-cut process planning for
quality assurance. The approach aims to determine
process alternatives with an adequate process cap-
ability during the initial planning stage of the product
development cycle based on KCs. It consists of four
steps.
1. Identification of quality characteristics, particu-
larly KCs.
2. Planning of the process quality by combining
QFD with FMEA.
3. Selection of process alternatives.
4. Assessment of process quality through a quality
measure index.
The process alternatives for which adequate process
capability has been determined can be used not
only as the guidelines for detailed process planning
but also as feedback for the product design for design
evaluation and improvement. Zheng et al. [17]
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
997
proposed a three-phase process planning model
including initial, rough, and detailed process plan-
ning. KCs were proposed to represent the rough-
granularity and incomplete product information,
and a strategic framework of KC-based rough-cut
process planning was established. Approaches to cru-
cial issues involved in rough-cut process planning
were presented, including identification of KCs from
product information, multi-level resolution-based
manufacturing processes classification and selection,
extensible core process planning, and producibility
evaluation based on difference degree of KCs.
For measurement or inspection planning, Chen
[39] and Chen and Thornton [40] demonstrated that
an optimal inspection plan can be quantitatively
selected using the KC flowdown model and Monte
Carlo simulation. On the one hand, the research laid
the foundation for formulating analytical equations
to evaluate inspection plans; on the other hand, the
research has provided a methodology to help select
the optimal inspection plan based on modelling,
simulation, and optimization. The KC flowdown
model provides a way to understand, visualize, and
capture the way variation propagates from feature-
level KCs to system requirements through multiple-
level cause-and-effect relationships. The Monte Carlo
simulation calculates the cost and benefit of an
inspection plan. Running multiple simulations in an
optimization process provides a way to find an opti-
mal inspection plan. Suri et al. [41] introduced a
technique that can be used in the early manufactur-
ing process design stage to select from among the
set of quality characteristics a smaller set that is ade-
quate to ensure a product meets yield specifications.
The critical subset of quality characteristics needed
to ensure yield are identified, based upon a condi-
tional probability model that ensures all specifica-
tions are met, given that the critical subset is met.
The approach has been demonstrated using a sheet
stretch forming manufacturing system from the aero-
space industry. Maropoulos et al. [42] proposed the
use of aggregate product modelling as a vehicle for
integrating dimensional management into complex
product design and assembly. Dimensional manage-
ment captures key tolerance attributes, which are
the main KCs of a mechanical product at the design
stage and manages dimensional variation during
subsequent manufacture and assembly stages in a
coordinated fashion. Error propagation models were
developed to quantify the contribution of different
error sources to the overall uncertainty of a specific
assembly process through tolerance-enriched feature
modelling and measurement planning focused on
a few key product attributes. The analysis could
be applied to the whole design, assembly, and mea-
surement process in a closed loop fashion, clearly
illustrating the use of dimensional management
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
998 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
in practice. As a move towards closed-loop dimen-
sional management for KCs, Maropoulos et al. [43]
further used large volume metrology (LVM) as digital
integrator for large and complex products between
the product definition and actual manufacturing or
production activities.
4.3 Production and testing
During production and testing phases, the most
important task is to identify and isolate the root causes
of faults caused by process variations for a production
or manufacturing system/line [44, 45]. The use of KCs
is a powerful tool to help identify and reduce sources
of variability. Reduction of variability can eventually
result in greater product performance, fewer defects,
and lower manufacturing cost. There are two major
sources of variability in technical processes [5].
1. The inherent variability of manufacturing pro-
cesses. Every factor in a manufacturing process
possesses inherent variability.
2. The inherent variability of measurement sys-
tems. Several large manufacturing firms believe
that variability in their measurement system
initially contributed 20–25 per cent to the pro-
blems and defects found in their shop floor [5].
Most research and applications of KCs are focused on
variation reduction (VR) and variation risk manage-
ment (VRM) [45] during production and measure-
ment and testing. The major case studies come
from aircraft and automotive industries, for which
the final product quality is assured and improved by
minimizing the part and process variations.
Researchers from MIT made many contributions to
KCs research in the late-1990s. Thornton [14] pro-
posed a mathematical framework for KC variation
propagation so as to predict the final product quality.
To help understand why companies still fail to sys-
tematically address variation, an ideal model of varia-
tion management was then proposed entitled VRM
[46]. The VRM is a systematic framework for product
development using KCs as drivers. It comprises three
processes including risk identification which is also
called KC identification, risk assessment to predict
and allocate variation, and risk mitigation. The risk
mitigation includes two broad mitigation strategies:
design changes and process improvement [45]. Using
the VRM framework, Thornton et al. [47] made
further efforts and presented a survey of variation
management practices in US aerospace/military
and commercial industry, and showed that the
aero/military organizations were significantly worse
than commercial companies such as automotive
and copier systems. Moreover, VR teams are typically
resource constrained, and they must carefully select
where to focus their efforts. To solve this problem,
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Thornton [48] provided a mathematical model capable
of optimally allocating VR resources for a complex
product. The VR model had three parts: a model of
variation propagation, a model of variation costs, and
a model of VR costs. These models were used to
directly calculate the optimal resource allocation plan
and schedule for a product with multiple product
quality requirements. An example from the aerospace
industry was used to demonstrate the theory.
Another well-recognized methodology for KCs var-
iation analysis and reduction is stream-of-variation
analysis (SOVA) which aims to improve automotive
assembly quality [44, 49]. The SOVA methodology is
a generic simulation engine for modelling, analysis,
and performance prediction of multi-stage manu-
facturing processes where product geometry and
dimensional variation are of critical importance. The
SOVA system is based on a mathematically based
unified representation (state space model) of multi-
stage manufacturing processes. Such a representa-
tion allows for integration of KPCs and KCCs repre-
sented in CAD/CAM models, with information about
process layout, sequence of operations, and produc-
tion system observability (allocation of measurement
gauges and position of measurement points for quality
check) [49]. More recently, based on the SOVA metho-
dology, Huang et al. [50] developed a single station
SOVA model for three-dimensional rigid part assem-
bly. Fixture/parts errors and different types of joints
are taken into account in the model. A concept of a
generalized virtual fixture was created to formulate
variation caused by part mating errors and fixture
errors in a unified framework. This work on a single
station SOVA model provided an infrastructure for
further expansion to a generic three-dimensional
SOVA model in multi-station systems [51], in which
an assembly process is modelled as a spatial indexed
state transition dynamic system. The model takes
into account product and process factors such as
part-to-fixture, part-to-part, and inter-station interac-
tions, which represent the influences coming from
both tooling errors and part errors. Case studies
including a floor-pan assembly of an automotive
underbody and a track cab assembly were implemen-
ted to validate the SOVA model for multi-stage assem-
bly systems. In order to identify variation sources for
manufacturing processes so as to improve product
dimensional quality, Loose et al. [52] presented a var-
iation source identification methodology in the pre-
sence of relational dimension measurements. In the
proposed methodology, the joint probability density
of the measurements is determined as a function of
the process parameters; then, a series of statistical
tests is performed to differentiate and identify the var-
iation source. A case study of automotive hood assem-
bly, where five product KCs are selected to be
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
measured, was presented to illustrate the effectiveness
of the methodology.
Chakhunashvili et al. [53] and Johansson et al. [54]
described a statistically based engineering method,
variation mode and effect analysis (VMEA), that facil-
itates an understanding of variation and highlights
the product/process areas in which improvement
efforts should be targeted. The VMEA method can
be used to systematically look for noise factors affect-
ing KPCs. The goal of VMEA is to identify and priori-
tize noise factors that significantly contribute to the
variability of KPCs and might yield unwanted conse-
quences with respect to safety, compliance with gov-
ernmental regulations, and functional requirements.
As a result of the analysis, a variation risk priority
number is calculated which directs the attention to
areas where reasonably anticipated variation might
be detrimental. An industrial application for a
heavy-duty diesel engine has been described to illus-
trate how the VMEA can be used for quality improve-
ment purposes.
5 KCs-BASED INFORMATION AND
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
As knowledge and information-driven next-generation
product development advances rapidly, more and
more efforts have been directed at managing and uti-
lizing KC information and knowledge so as to improve
product developments.
Huang et al. [55] argued that a KC method needs to
be developed in the DFX (Design for X) context, and
proposed some methods to implement KC (including
KPC and KCC) information management with pro-
duct data by means of bills of materials and with pro-
cess data by means of flow process charts. These
methods and their applicable scenarios are analysed
with respect to the fundamentals of KCs including
KC flowdown, multiple viewpoints, and relationships
between KCs.
Rezayat [56] proposed the use of the concept of
KCs for defining a communication dictionary for
human beings or their agents, and the use of the
extensible markup language (XML) as an enabling
tool for making this dictionary function within the
Web. KCs and XML together provide a practical
ontology (shared vocabulary) and communication
mechanism for all levels of the extended enterprise
and for the entire product development cycle.
In order to integrate product representations with
KCs and VRM, Balogun et al. [57] reported a project
funded by the European Union and supported by
the industrial collaborators Turbo Propulsores SA,
Volvo Aero Corporation AB, and Rolls-Royce plc.
This project developed a database which models
complex product specifications, down to component
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
999
feature details. Thus, KPCs flow down to the detailed
feature level, and their associated variability and cap-
ability knowledge are assessed. An example is pro-
vided for the use of the database, based on the
representation of a gas turbine engine from a major
aerospace manufacturing company.
Hassan et al. [58] proposed an FMEA-KC model by
integrating the KC model with an information model
for FMEA. The FMEA-KC model allows for manage-
ment of KCs, reusing the knowledge about causalities
and relations between KCs, and validation of design
robustness using FMEA knowledge. A case study of
a centring fixturing system was implemented to vali-
date the integrated FMEA-KC model.
Hellemann et al. [59] developed a web-based pro-
cess capability management system for KCs. The KC
management system is used for collecting and track-
ing process capability data for manufacturers of
parts. The recipient of the parts can input informa-
tion on the KCs of the parts that require process
capability data into the system. The manufacturer of
the parts can then access the system and enter pro-
cess capability data relative to a specific part and
KC. The system can then be used by both recipients
and manufacturers to generate reports on the process
capability status for all parts, processes, product
characteristics, and manufacturers.
Morris [60] proposed an idea of characteristics life-
cycle management (CLM). CLM is a method to
define, capture, and manage characteristics over the
life of a product and to capture design intent knowl-
edge at building block level to ensure product consis-
tency and process repeatability. To implement the
CLM idea, they developed Cohesia 8.0 as a USA
patent, as an all-inclusive software solution to sup-
port an organization’s management of characteristic
data throughout the product lifecycle. During the
design process they provide tools for concurrent
engineering, and the part-specific master specifica-
tions created can be used by manufacturing sources
for various critical processes, such as production
planning, request for quotation, and online comple-
tion of AS9102 and AS9103 forms by manufacturing
partners. Cohesia claim to be helping aerospace
manufacturers to eliminate the ambiguity in the
flowdown of detailed requirements and specifica-
tions across their supply chain [6].
Raytheon six sigma [18] developed design for six
sigma (DFSS), a process that identifies and focuses
on KCs in design to ensure delivery of a product
that is compatible with the company manufacturing
capabilities and processes. Raytheon Missile Systems
used DFSS to improve the design and manufacture
of the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AMRAAM air-to-air
missiles for its Navy and Air Force customers. They
have been implementing KCs management and cost
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1000 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
management throughout the product lifecycle to
track and assure achievements or requirements.
6 TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES
Many world-class companies, particularly in complex
product manufacture such as the aerospace, defence,
and automotive industries have implemented or are
implementing the KCs methodology to manage and
control KCs during product development. Five signif-
icant industrial cases on KCs management from the
aerospace and defence industry are summarized in
this section.
6.1 Lockheed Martin: F35
In order to meet the radically different production
requirements for a next generation affordable fighter
- Joint Striker Fighter (JSF) - the primary contractor,
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS)
advocates the vision of ‘closing the loop of the digital
design and manufacturing thread’ through KCs
among more than 60 suppliers from nine countries.
To meet the global standardization challenge, the
standardized measurement and inspection plans
for a variety of measurement instruments and equip-
ments including coordinate measurement machines,
arm, laser tracker, laser radar, scanner, and electro-
optical, are established based on standard KC defini-
tion and related data such as tolerance and datum
schemes.
Figure 4 illustrates the complete digital thread of
an airframe KC selection and management process
[61]. Such a thread starts from the critical assembly
issue, then candidate KCs and final KCs are identified
during manufacturing engineering according to the
variation management and assessment strategy.
Then the final KCs are designated in the design
Fig. 4 JSF Airframe KC selection and management process
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
model and measurement plans, and KCs’ data
collection requirements are presented during quality
engineering. Finally, during manufacturing and
assembly, KCs’ data and process capability are fed
back to the critical assembly issue and customer
respectively by means of the AIMS (advanced inte-
grated mathematic system). AIMS is a software solu-
tion developed jointly by the Boeing Company and
Metronor Group. The software enables seamless
sharing of CAD geometry, inspection plans, and mea-
surement results back and forth between dissimilar
hardware and software platforms [62].
6.2 Lockheed Martin: F-22
LMTAS has established a VR programme to meet a
contractual requirement of the F-22 programme
[63]. The VR team on the F-22 has identified 2561
PKCs. These are part-number driven and equate to
the 678 processes/part families that led to the devel-
opment of 126 VR instructions.
Lessons learned during this process include the
need to incorporate VR into normal engineering
requirements to help early identification of the KCs.
There are several defined objectives including: redu-
cing variation of KCs; estimating the impact of pro-
cess variations on KCs; verifying the compatibility of
KCs requirements with the manufacturing process;
identifying producibility studies for improving qual-
ity, increasing integrity and/or reducing production
cost; characterizing key manufacturing processes
using statistical data; reducing scrap, rework, and
repair; and reducing reliance on finished product
inspection.
6.3 Raytheon: AIX-9M
The Raytheon Missile Systems Company (RMSC) has
implemented a KCDS which focuses on PKCs and
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
attempts to control excessive variation in product fea-
tures [64]. KCDS is useful to assure product quality
by improving customer satisfaction, communication,
efficiency, product design, process design, manu-
facturing, assembly, and the final product during the
product design phase, and during the ongoing manu-
facturing and assembly operations. KCDS also utilizes
teamwork, and promotes customer involvement to
define and address critical items in a product’s design.
When used early in the design process, KCDS assures
robust designs and reduces process variation.
RMSC recently implemented KCDS on the AIM-9X
programme. Currently, there are 300 unique draw-
ings on AIM-9X, of which 75 per cent have been
reviewed. Of these, less than half have existing
KPCs, and those drawings that do have one to four
KPCs per drawing. The results of KCDS’s impact on
the AIM-9X programme are pending.
6.4 Airbus: A400M
Airbus UK is committed to a high level of dimen-
sional management to facilitate the right-first-time
principle in design and manufacturing. The old
design/manufacturing cycle has been transformed
into the new one by more communication among
design engineers, manufacturing engineers, tooling
design and manufacturing engineers, and fabrication
and assembly engineers. This is illustrated in Fig. 5, in
which the systematic management for KCs and
tolerance at every milestone from concept phase to
development phase is implemented. In the new
closed-loop cycle, effective tools including SPC,
FMEA, design for safe manufacture and 3DCS
(three-dimensional control system) are deployed
[65]. Specifically, five KCs for a generic fixed leading
Fig. 5 Deployment of KC and tolerance management in the Airbus UK design/manufacturing cycle
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
1001
edge are identified, and 3DCS is used on the leading
edge attachment of the A400M military transport
aircraft to measure and control the gap variation
between the leading edge and the low cover so as
to validate and refine the corresponding KC and
tolerance.
6.5 Boeing: 787
Boeing has implemented dimensional manage-
ment for the 787 programme during the product
definition phase [66]. Dimensional management is
recognized as a disciplined approach to understand-
ing probability/cost of, and appropriate responses
to, geometric variation of parts and assemblies. It
is a product definition phase effort. Dimensional
management focuses on the critical few product geo-
metric characteristics. The identified focus areas on
the 787 programme are integrations that are con-
sidered risky enough to warrant in-depth variation
analysis studies. Engineers are committed to ana-
lyse, compromise, and share values so that the
whole production system is optimized for sensitivity
to variation, and to reflect important dimensional
management information (features, indexes, datum,
tolerances, important measures) during the product
definition. A variety of tools were adopted to imple-
ment such dimensional management. Figure 6
illustrates the principle of build plan analysis in
dimensional management for the 787. It was imple-
mented by a 3DVA (three-dimensional variation ana-
lysis) software toolset. The inputs include end-item
requirements, part geometry, tool geometry, assem-
bly plan and index plan, and measurement plan.
The outputs through dimensional management by
means of 3DVA are predicted performance, KCs,
tolerance cost drivers, and dataset tolerance. The
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1002 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
End-Item
Requirements
CATIA part
Geometry
CATIA Tool
Geometry 3DVA
Assembly
Sequence and
Index plan
Process
Capability
Measurement
Plans
Fig. 6 Build plan analysis in dimensional management for Boing 787 dreamliner
generated documents of dimensional management
include index plan, datum plan, variation analysis
report, dimensional requirement agreement, etc.
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 Different concepts and scopes of KCs
One of the main problems with the use of KCs is that
they are still limited to a small group of individuals
from quality management and project management,
but fairly unknown and unmanaged at the enterprise
level and throughout the product lifecycle. In addi-
tion, there are other similar concepts that are being
used in product design, manufacturing, and manage-
ment. The following list presents some issues that
should be made clear among all the functions and
individuals at the enterprise level.
7.1.1 Different companies or industries using
different terms or definitions in their
implementations
In particular, the definitions of KC from aerospace/
Boeing and automotive/GM are somewhat different.
Nonetheless, all the concepts in different companies
and industries describe the same information, i.e.
the key and important requirements in the all phases
from design to manufacturing and support.
7.1.2 Different terms are usually used during
product design and development
Many similar terms to KCs, such as key feature, critical
characteristic, key properties or attributes, and key
parameters are not rigorously used in different func-
tion teams during product design and manufacturing.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Process Doc, Datums/GD&T
Index Plan, Key characteristics
Performance
Key
characteristics
Tolerance Cost
Drivers
Dataset
Tolerances
KCs/key features/critical characteristics are com-
monly recognized by the quality engineering team
and project or programme management, while key
properties, key parameters, and critical parameters
are usually adopted in engineering design.
In fact, a critical characteristic could be any feature
throughout the lifecycle of a product safety item.
Thus, critical characteristic is synonymous with criti-
cal safety characteristic [8]. Key feature is an almost
exchangeable term to key characteristic according to
the popular definitions from industry standards as
introduced in section 3.1. However, in a CAD/CAM
context, a feature is ‘a geometric portion with signifi-
cant engineering meaning of part’ [67]. The concept
and semantics of ‘feature’ are commonly recognized
in the CAD/CAM domain and ISO/STEP [68]. We
suggest therefore that ‘key feature’ should not be
used to express a KC which has broad engineering
and business meanings. Another close term ‘key prop-
erties’ is also sometimes used as the synonym of KCs,
but it is not exact either since property usually, in
engineering design analysis, refers to an object’s or
artefact’s geometry (such as area, volume), mass char-
acteristic (such as weight, centroids-centres of gravity,
and moments of inertia) or material characteristic
(strength, ductility, etc.). Finally, key parameters and
critical parameters are too general to express the con-
cept and meaning of KC. As a result, we suggest that
KCs be used from the point of view of PLM.
7.1.3 Different products focus on different
categories of KCs
For mechanical products, most of the KCs refer to the
geometric characteristics, i.e. geometry, dimensions,
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
and tolerances as well as surface finish, especially tol-
erance. Therefore KCs management and control
mainly focus on tolerance and error variation models
for mechanical product design and manufacturing.
Hence, most research and practical efforts to date
on KCs belong to dimension and tolerance model-
ling, analysis, and variation reduction.
However, KCs by no means merely involve geome-
try, dimension, and tolerance management for
mechanical products. For example, Rolls-Royce
drawings cite conformance control features (CCFs).
These CCFs do not have to be dimensional, they
could be material properties, surface finish, or
weight. Where CCFs are cited, they can be interpreted
as being KCs [11]. Physical and chemical characteris-
tics are some necessary and crucial ones that need to
assured through non-machining manufacturing pro-
cesses. For example, the surface hardness of a com-
ponent is a kind of physical characteristic which
needs a heat treatment process to assure. Another
example is corrosion resistance of a surface, which
is a kind of characteristic which may need an electro-
plating or paint process to assure. Consequently,
although geometric characteristics, particularly toler-
ances, are the focus of KC management, other cate-
gories of characteristic should be equally taken into
account.
7.2 KCs are dynamic in nature and are
view dependent
Another problem with the widespread use of KCs is
that they are dynamic in nature and view dependent
[56]. As for the concept of ‘feature’ in CAD/CAM, a
KC is actually a generic concept. Thus, different
experts from different functions or disciplines may
have a different understanding of the meaning of
attributes for the same KCs. This will lead unneces-
sary KCs to be discovered or re-defined at any time
during the development cycle [46]. By definition
there should be relatively few KCs. Although there is
no magic number that is universally applicable,
each part may have 1–4 KCs, and most simple parts
(such as clips and brackets) should have none. How-
ever, KC status is not etched in stone. They are
changeable over time and may be deleted as the
design is changed. Initial KCs should be identified
when the conceptual design finishes while the com-
plete KCs ought to be identified at the end of detailed
design. New KCs can be added by the refined design
as well. Typically, early in a programme, the number
of KCs should be expected to rise as new KCs are
identified, later in development they should be
slightly reduced as some are designed away [13].
The number of KCs can be a potential pitfall. Each
KC costs money by requiring the development of
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
1003
control plans, and collecting, analysing, and acting
upon data. Too many KCs can be caused by:
(a) misunderstanding of the purpose and definition
of KCs;
(b) overly cautious design engineers who regard KCs
as an opportunity to tighten the reins on manu-
facturing;
(c) the desire for manufacturing data and knowl-
edge.
Therefore, training of all IPT members is the key for
preventing too many KCs from being chosen.
7.3 The core issues of KCs management
are dimensional management and
variation management
In product development and product lifecycle man-
agement, KCs management is undoubtedly very
important. It is a system engineering methodology
because it involves a number activities or tasks and
a variety of implementation methods and tools
throughout the product lifecycle. However, the core
issues of KCs management are dimensional manage-
ment (DM) and variation management (VM). From
the perspective of industrial practices, DM is imple-
mented during the product design or product defini-
tion phase, whereas VM is carried out during the
production or build/delivery phase [66].
DM is a subset of VRM and is specific to geometric
issues [45, 69]. Curtis provided a comprehensive
introduction to DM in his book [70]. Craig presented
a systematic procedure for DM, which involves six
basic steps in the context of CAD/CAM and product
data management (PDM) [71]. He regarded DM as
both an engineering methodology and a set of com-
puter software tools that can enable organizations
to continually reduce concept-to-market time,
improve product quality, and reduce overall cost.
DM has been effectively performed in the aerospace
and defence industry in the last decade [68, 72–75].
For example, Northrop Grumman’s Affordability
and Producibility Management has utilized various
DM tools within its IPD teams and the assembly
cost centres. In particular, geometric dimensioning
and tolerancing and KCs were used to transition
from the engineering and manufacturing develop-
ment model stage to the low rate initial production
stage for the F/A-18 E/F programme. These tools,
applied to the after side panel (fuselage) section of
the F/A-18 E/F, were used to address the production
readiness review issues concerning potential pro-
blems with datum coordination and the validation
of product definition initiatives [74].
Reduction management is also a subset of VRM
and it focuses on key manufacturing processes which
contain one or more KCCs. These KCCs actually are
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1004 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
process variables or parameters, which are identified
through KPCs flowdown from design to manufactur-
ing. SPC is the most important tool to perform reduc-
tion management. The implementation of reduction
management is able to realize continuous process
improvement, and also to feedback important pro-
duction data, particularly KCs’ process capability
and measurement data, to product design. In terms
of KC management, as detailed in section 4.3, a large
amount of effort has been made for reduction man-
agement in the aerospace, automotive, and ship-
building industries [44–54].
Although DM and VM are performed in different
phases of product development, they both aim
to reduce variation of KCs. Therefore, KCs are the
fundamental links or threads between the two
core issues because of the overlap of the critical few
values – the KCs [76].
8 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Based on the above survey, several related issues to
the directions of current and future research on KC
methodologies and practice are outlined below:
8.1 Collaborative product development using
KCs as an enabler
Effective communication among collaborators
involved in product development is critical to the
realization of a truly collaborative product design
and development process. Can individual developers
(including designers, customers, suppliers, manufac-
turers, etc.) selectively access only necessary infor-
mation? Can a designer’s intent be consistently
captured and shared with other designers? Appli-
cations of KCs as a backbone can improve com-
munication and coordination among disparate
organizations, and therefore might be a possible
answer to the aforementioned questions. First,
the process of having cross-functional (often cross-
company) representatives at the same table to deter-
mine critical interfaces, features, etc. can pay huge
dividends. Second, in some cases, the prime contrac-
tor may give specific KCs to a supplier, especially if
the supplier is producing to a design provided by
the prime contractor. Suppliers who have design
authority, however, should have the responsibility to
identify their KCs and critical processes. In other
cases, the prime contractor should have a systematic
plan for managing their suppliers’ production of
designs and products with KCs [13]. Third, corpora-
tions do not want to expose complete product data
to customers or suppliers because of information
confidentiality. Collaborative product development
should support lean information processing so that
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
key, necessary, and adequate information can be
transferred among the collaborators [77]. However,
current CAD/CAM files lack flexibility on selective
design information retrieving and reuse, and they
do not support partial data query. Therefore, KCs
can be used as an enabler to define a communication
dictionary and specification for human beings or
their software agents/tools so as to transfer and
exchange lean product information effectively and
to facilitate collaboration and coordination among
all participants.
8.2 Establishing KC and process capability
databases at extended enterprise level
Identification of KPCs and their design limits, along
with identification of key production processes and
their capabilities, are basic engineering tasks which
should be performed during product development
[13]. Established KC and process capability databases
can significantly support engineering design, manu-
facturing planning, VR, and continuous improve-
ment, and can facilitate cost-effective product
improvement activities [78]. Therefore, it is necessary
that historical information and knowledge about KCs
and their capabilities are collected and stored. Such
KC and process capability databases at extended
enterprise level are fundamental to the development
of KC applications in product lifecycle management.
8.3 Three-dimensional model-based KCs
annotation and designation
Annotation has been an important technology for
many years, spurred on in particular by the World
Wide Web and more recently by the Semantic
Web [79]. Representation-independent stable three-
dimensional annotation is recognized as one of the
challenges of a generalized three-dimensional docu-
ment [80]. Assuming we know what we mean when
we speak about three-dimensional data and that we
can store and retrieve the data reliably, the next
problem is how to tie additional information to
parts of a three-dimensional model. The traditional
approach to the designation and markup of KCs
on two-dimensional-drawings was established in
manual communications and documents. Such an
approach is not fully suitable for recent techniques
and systems of product modelling, and information
and knowledge management. A novel method based
on annotation is needed to identify, document, and
communicate KCs and their information and knowl-
edge. In addition, the method for KCs annotation
and designation needs to be directly implemented
on a three-dimensional product model and be added
in more semantic meanings.
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
8.4 KC-centric information and knowledge
management enabled PLM
KCs provide a unique thread linking requirement,
design, manufacturing, and support [13]. For exam-
ple, design usually refers to the previous product’s
KCs to prepare the specifications for different
product levels either during designing new subsys-
tems/parts or during selecting ones bought from sup-
pliers. Also, new design is required to balance the
product requirements (product characteristics) and
the process capability so as to improve the produci-
bility. A systematic method is required for capturing
KCs at the semantic level for each business sector
and for managing them and their knowledge using
enterprise strength PDM and enterprise resource
planning (ERP) systems. The main imaginable KCs
information and knowledge includes manufacturing
processes, critical operations and control plans, key
manufacturing resources, measurement data, pro-
cess capability, design and process failure modes, and
effects analysis and cost data, etc. All this information
and knowledge needs to be reasonably organized
and linked to KCs and, through markup and designa-
tion, KCs are further linked to the different level enti-
ties (e.g. body, feature, face, edge, point) of a digital
product model. Thus, all authorized KCs team mem-
bers can realize the vision of KCs-centric information
and knowledge management, which is an important
viewpoint of PDM or PLM.
8.5 Closed-loop KC management by integrating
measurement with product and process
design
As described in section 4.3, to date the most impor-
tant application of KCs has been focusing on VR
and VRM during the production phase. Such VR
efforts fall into four areas [13].
1. Data collection through measurement or testing
during production operations to monitor process
performance and initiate preventive actions.
2. The implementation of process improvements
during build activities.
3. Assessment of feedback received from field users
and support personnel, and field reliability data.
4. Implementation of design enhancements to
improve performance, producibility, and afford-
ability.
Closing the gap between the product definition
and the actual manufacturing production activities
within the enterprise is one of the key priorities in
digital manufacturing [81]. As a result, a KC variation
transfer model or error propagation model from
design to production should be implemented by a
closed-loop and bidirectional mode rather than by
current open-loop and unidirectional mode. This is
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
1005
because KCs’ production data have not been well
collected and fed back to up-stream phases. There-
fore, measurement and metrology information and
knowledge (e.g. dimension and error data, process
capability data, process FMEA knowledge) need to
be integrated with product and process design, parti-
cularly in assembly design [43, 82].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support of
China National 11th 5-year Advanced Research
Program (grant 51318010302) and Beijing Key
Laboratory of Digital Design and Manufacturing
(grant JD100060516) as well as the EPSRC Innovative
Design & Manufacturing Research Centre at the
University of Bath, UK.
DISCLAIMER
The names of vendors’ products are used here for
descriptive purposes only. This does not imply any
endorsement or recommendation of any vendors’
products by the authors.
REFERENCES
1 Mejı́a, R., López, A., and Molia, A. Experiences in
developing collaborative engineering environments:
an action research approach. Comput. Ind., 2007, 58,
329–346.
2 Li, W. D. and Qiu, Z. M. State-of-the-art technologies
and methodologies for collaborative product develop-
ment systems. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2006, 44(13), 2525–2559.
3 CIMdata Inc. Product lifecycle management – empowering
the future of business, CIM Data Report, 2002.
4 Rangan, R. M., Rohde, S. M., Peak, R., Chadha, B., and
Bliznakov, P. Streamlining product lifecycle processes:
a survey of product lifecycle management implementa-
tions, directions, and challenges. J. Comput. Inform. Sci.
Engng, 2005, 5(3), 227–237.
5 Motley, B. Introduction to variability and variation
reduction. Defense AT&L, 2005, May–June, 53–55.
6 Cohesia Cooperation. Solution/overview. 2007, avail-
able from http://www.cohesia.com/solutionOverview.
asp, Last accessed May 2007.
7 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. AQS D1-9000:
advanced quality system tools, The Boeing Company.
1998.
8 Aerospace Standard AS9103. Variation management of
key characteristics, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 2001.
9 Specialty Engine Components (SEC) L.L.C. Quality
assurance procedure: key characteristic designation sys-
tem, 2002.
10 Lee, D. J. and Thornton, A. C. The identification and
use of key characteristics in the product development
process. In Proceedings of the ASME design engineering
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1006 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
technical conferences and computers in engineering con-
ference, 18–22 August 1996, Irvine, CA, pp. 1–12.
11 Rolls-Royce Company. Selection of key characteristics
and use of SPC control charts, manual of specifications
of RR9000, 2002.
12 Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems Sector. Sup-
plier process variability reduction program guideline,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, 2001.
13 Karr, D. Manufacturing developing guide, reference
ASC Public Affairs Approval #ASC-06-0208, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, 2006.
14 Thornton, A. C. A mathematical framework for the
key characteristic process. Res. Engng Des., 1999, 11,
145–157.
15 Spur, G. and Krause, F. L. Management der CAD-
technik. 1997 (Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich).
16 Zheng, L. Y. and Chin, K. S. QFD based optimal process
quality planning. Int. J. Adv. Mfg Technol., 2005, 26(7–8),
831–841.
17 Zheng, L. Y., McMahon, C. A., Maropoulos, P. G.,
Wei, L., Ding, L., and Jamshidi, J. Key characteristics-
driven rough-cut process planning. In Proceeding of
the Fourth International Conference on Digital enter-
prise techniques (DET2007), 2007, Bath, UK, 19–21,
September, pp. 269–279.
18 Raytheon Company. Design for Six Sigma cuts costs,
boosts customer satisfaction. http://www.raytheon.
com/about/r6s/r6s_success/design/page2/(accessed Jan
2007).
19 Strickland, T. Using design for six sigma to achieve
lean software development at Raytheon Missile Sys-
tems, 2007, available from http://webapp.poly.asu.
edu/, accessed Jan 2007.
20 Somerton, D. G. and Mlinar, S. E. What’s key? Tool
approaches for determining key characteristics. Ann.
Qual. Cong. Trans., 1996, 364–369.
21 Mantripragada, R. and Whitney, D. E. Datum flow
chain: a systematic approach to assembly design and
modeling. Res. Engng Des. – Theory, Appl. Concurrent
Engng, 1998, 10(3), 150–165.
22 Whitney, D. E. The role of key characteristics in the
design of mechanical assemblies. Assembly Automat.,
2006, 26(4), 315–322.
23 Mathieu, L. and Marguet, B. Integrated design method
to improve producibility based on product key charac-
teristics and assembly sequences. Ann. CIRP, 2001, 50,
85–88.
24 Marguet, B. Method & tools for geometric varia-
tion management, 2000, available from http://adcats.
et.byu.edu/conference/2001/Presentations/BenoitMar
guet/, accessed March 2008.
25 Downey, K., Parkinson, A., and Chase, K. An introduc-
tion to smart assemblies for robust design. Res. Eng.
Des., 2003, 14, 236–246.
26 Kern, D., Du, X. P., and Sudjianto, A. Forecasting man-
ufacturing quality and optimizing product robustness
using process capability data. In Proceedings of the
2003 ASME International mechanical engineering con-
gress & exposition, Washington, DC, 16–21 November
2003, pp. 157–165.
27 Pilling, S. Key characteristics: the key to a robust pro-
duct design. Engng Technol., 2004, 7/8, 19–20.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
28 Nataraj, M., Arunachalam, V. P., and Ranganathan, G.
Using risk analysis and Taguchi’s method to find opti-
mal conditions of design parameters: a case study. Int.
J. Adv. Mfg Technol., 2006, 27(5–6), 445–454.
29 Lyu, N., Lee, B., and Saitou, K. Optimal subassembly
partitioning of space frame structures for in-process
dimensional adjustability and stiffness. J. Mech. Des.,
2006, 128, 527–535.
30 Lee, B. and Saitou, K. Assembly synthesis with subas-
sembly partitioning for optimal in-process dimensional
adjustability. Artif. Intell. Engng Des., Anal. Mfg, 2007,
21, 31–43.
31 Zhao, Z., Bezdecny, M., Lee, B., Wu, Y., Robinson, D.,
Slagle, M., Coleman, D., Barnes, J., and Walls, S. Pre-
diction of assembly variation during early design. In
Proceedings of the 2007 ASME International design
engineering technical conferences & computers and
information in engineering conference, IDETC/CIE
2007, Las Vegas, NV, 4–7 September 2007, pp. 1–10.
32 Phoomboplab, T. and Ceglarek, D. Design synthesis
framework for dimensional management in multistage
assembly system. Ann. CIRP, 2007, 56(1), pp. 153–158.
33 Ong, S. K. and Guo, D. O. Online design reuse tool for
the support of the generation, embodiment and
detailed design of products. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2004,
42(16), 3301–3331.
34 Ong, S. K. and Guo, D. O. An online web-based environ-
ment for detailed design reuse. Int. J. Adv. Mf Technol.,
2006, 27, 462–467.
35 Best Manufacturing Practices Program (BMP). Produ-
cibility system guidelines – the five steps to success;
NAVSO P-3687, 1999.
36 Whitney, D. E. Mechanical assemblies: their design,
manufacture, and role in product development, 2004,
(OUP, Oxford).
37 Wang, H. and Ceglarek, D. Quality-driven sequence
planning and line configuration selection for compliant
structure assemblies. Ann. CIRP, 2005, 54(1), 31–35.
38 Chin, K. S., Zheng, L. Y., and Wei, L. A hybrid rough-cut
process planning for quality. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech-
nol., 2003, 22(9–10), 733–743.
39 Chen, T. J. Quantitative selection of inspection plans for
variation risk management, MSc Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1999.
40 Chen, T. J. and Thornton, A. C. Quantitative selection
of inspection plans. In Proceedings of the ASME Design
theory and methodology conference, Las Vegas, NV,
November, 1999, DETC99/DTM-8759.
41 Suri, R., Frey, D. D., and Otto, K. N. Key inspection
characteristics. J. Mech. Des., 2001, 123(4), 479–485.
42 Maropoulos, P. G., Zhang, D., and Rolt, S. Integration
of measurement planning with aggregate product
modelling for spacecraft design and assembly. Proc.
Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture,
2006, 220(10), 1687–1695.
43 Maropoulos, P. G., Zhang, D., Chapman, P., Bramall,
D. G., and Rogers, B. C. Key digital enterprise technol-
ogy methods for large volume metrology and assembly
integration. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2007, 45(7), 1539–1559.
44 Ceglarek, D. and Shi, J. Dimensional variation reduction
for automotive body assembly. Mfg Rev., 1995, 8(2),
139–154.
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
 Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management
45 Thornton, A. C. Variation risk management: focusing
quality improvements in product development and pro-
duction, 2004 (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).
46 Thornton, A. C. Variation risk management using mod-
eling and simulation. J. Mech. Des., 1999, 121(2), 297–
304.
47 Thornton, A. C., Donnelly, S., and Ertan, B. More than
just robust design: why product development organiza-
tion still content with variation and it impacts on qual-
ity. Res. Engng Des., 2000, 12, 127–143.
48 Thornton, A. C. Quantitative selection of variation
reduction plans. J. Mech. Des., 2000, 122(6), 185–193.
49 Ceglarek, D., Huang, W., Zhou, S., Ding, Y., Kumar, R.,
and Zhou, Y. Time-based competition in multistage
manufacturing: stream-of-variation analysis (SOVA)
methodology—review. Int. J. Flex. Mfg Syst., 2004, 16,
11–44.
50 Huang, W., Lin, J., Bezdecny, M., Kong, Z., and
Ceglarek, D. Stream-of-variation modeling-part I: a
generic 3D variation model for rigid body assembly in
single station assembly processes. J. Mfg Sci. Engng,
2007, 129, 821–831.
51 Huang, W., Lin, J., Kong, Z., and Ceglarek, D. Stream-
of-variation modeling-part II: a generic 3D variation
model for rigid body assembly in multiStation assembly
processes. J. Mfg Sci. Engng, 2007, 129, 832–842.
52 Loose, J. P., Zhou, S., and Ceglarek, D. Variation source
identification in manufacturing processes based on
relational measurements of key product characteristics.
J. Mfg Sci. Engng, 2008, 130, 1–11.
53 Chakhunashvili, A., Johansson, P. M., and Bergman,
L. S. Variation mode and effect analysis. In Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Product quality and
integrity, 2004, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 364–369.
54 Johansson, P. M., Chakhunashvili, A., Barone, S., and
Bergman, B. Variation mode and effect analysis: a prac-
tical tool for quality improvement. Qual. Reliab. Engng
Int., 2006, 22(8), 865–876.
55 Huang, G. Q., Lee, S. W., and Mak, K. L. Web-based
product and process data modelling in concurrent
“Design for X”. Robot. Comput. Integr. Mfg, 1999, 15,
53–63.
56 Rezayat, M. Knowledge-based product development
using XML and KCs. Comput. Aided Des., 2000, 32(5–6),
299–309.
57 Balogun, O., Hawisa, H., and Tannock, J. Knowledge
management for manufacturing: the product and
process database. J. Mfg Technol. Mgmt, 2004, 15(7),
575–584.
58 Hassan, A., Dantan, J. Y., and Siadat, A. Information
modelling for variation risk management during pro-
duct and process design. Int. J. Product. Qual. Mgmt,
2007, 2(2), 221–240.
59 Hellemann, L. M., Pettit, M. P., and Jackson, C. C. Web
based process capability data collection and reporting
system. US Patent US6961732B2, 2005.
60 Morris, R. Lean production transition-characteristic
lifecycle management and engineering manufacturing
readiness levels. Presentation to Lean Aerospace Plen-
ary Session, 25, March 2003.
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008
1007
61 Pritchett, J. Closing the loop of the digital thread, 2005,
available from http://web.mit.edu/lmp/Presentations/
Pritchett-Lockheed.pdf, accessed Jan 2007.
62 Metronor Cooperation. AIMS (Advanced Integrated
Mathematical System) for your manufacturing program,
2007, available from http://www.aims-metrology.com/
index.html, accessed Jan 2007.
63 Robert, E. B. Best practice: F-22 variability reduction,
2007, available from http://www.bmpcoe.org/bestprac
tices/internal/lmtas/lmtas_18.html, accessed Jan 2007.
64 Sablehaus, C. Information: key characteristic designa-
tion system, 2007, available from http://www.bmpcoe.
org/bestpractices/internal/rmsc/rmsc_75.html, accessed
Jan 2007.
65 Astles, S. Dimension management, 2005, available from
http://www.3dcs.com/downloads/airbus.pdf, accessed
Jan 2007.
66 Day, J. 787 Dimensional management. Boeing Coopera-
tion, 2005, available from http://www.lvmc.org.uk//
2005, accessed May 2007.
67 Van Houten, F. J. A. M. Manufacturing interfaces. Ann.
CIRP, 1992, 41(2), 699–715.
68 ISO 10303-224. Product data representation and
exchange: application protocol: mechanical product
definition for process planning using machining fea-
tures, ISO TC 184/SC 4, 2000.
69 Liggett, J. V. Dimensional variation management hand-
book: a guide for quality, designer, and manufacturing
engineers, 1993 (Prentice Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ).
70 Curtis, M. A. Dimensional management: a comprehen-
sive introduction, 2002 (Industrial Press, New York).
71 Craig, M. Dimensional management: a necessary pro-
cess to meet corporate goals for global competition.
IEE Colloq. (Digest), 1997, 346, 2/1–2/8.
72 Muske, S. Application of dimensional management on
747 fuselage. AIAA-1997-5605, 1997, available from
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/975605, accessed
March 2008.
73 Jeffreys, D. and Leaney, P. G. Dimensional control as
an integral part of next-generation aircraft develop-
ment. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs, Part B: J. Engineering
Manufacture, 2000, 214(B9), 831–835.
74 Northroup Grumman. Information: producibility,
2007, available from http://www.bmpcoe.org/bestprac-
tices/internal/north/north_19.html, accessed May
2007.
75 Spicknall, M. H., Kumar, R., and Huang, T. D. Dimen-
sional management in shipbuilding: a case study from
the Northrup Grumman Ship Systems Lightweight
Structures Project. J. Ship Prod., 2005, 21(4), 209–218.
76 Murman, E. M. Lean aerospace engineering, 2007,
available from http://www.mit.edu, accessed March
2008.
77 Wang, Y. and Nnaji, B. B. UL-PML: constraint-enabled
distributed product data model. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2004,
42(17), 3743–3763.
78 Denniston, B. Capability indices and conformance to
specification: the motivation for using Cpm. Qual.
Engng, 2006, 18(1), 79–88.
79 Davies, D. and McMahon, C. A. Multiple viewpoint
design modeling through semantic markup. ASME
International Design Engineering Technical Conference
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
1008 L Y Zheng, C A McMahon, L Li, L Ding, and J Jamshidi
and Computers and Information in Engineering Confer-
ence, Philadephia, PA, 10–13 September 2006.
80 Havemann, S. and Fellner, D. W. Seven research chal-
lenges of generalized 3D documents. IEEE Comput.
Graph. Appl., 2007, May/June, 27(3), 70–76.
81 Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., Papakostas, N.,
Mourtzis, D., Michalos, G., and Georgoulias, K. Digital
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
View publication stats
manufacturing: history, perspectives and outlook. In
Proceeding of the Fourth International Conference on
Digital enterprise techniques (DET2007), Bath, UK,
19–21 September 2007, pp. 1–12.
82 Kunzmann, H., Pfeifer, T., Schmitt, R., Schwenke, H.,
and Weckenmann, A. Productive metrology – adding
value to manufacture. Ann. CIRP, 2005, 54(2), 691–704.
JEM1045 Ó IMechE 2008