CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PROCESS MATURITY:
DEFINITION AND MATURATION OF CONFIGURATION
MANAGEMENT FOR AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE
INDUSTRIES
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences
2014
Usman Ali
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. 9
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 12
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................. 13
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT .......................................................................................... 14
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... 16
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 19
1.0 Research overview ........................................................................................... 19
1.1 Research problem ............................................................................................. 21
1.2 Research aims and objectives........................................................................... 22
1.3 Research questions ........................................................................................... 23
1.4 Research hypothesis ......................................................................................... 24
1.5 Research strategy ............................................................................................. 25
1.6 Structure of the thesis ....................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 29
2.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 29
2.1 Configuration Management (CM).................................................................... 29
2.1.1 History of CM .............................................................................................. 32
2.1.2 Elements of CM ........................................................................................... 35
2.1.3 CM in Quality perspective ........................................................................... 53
2.1.4 Management of design process with CM ..................................................... 54
2.1.5 CM impacts on customer’s support and satisfaction.................................... 55
Table of contents
3
2.1.6 CM and products reliability and maintainability ......................................... 57
2.1.7 CM activity model ....................................................................................... 58
2.2 Critical success factors and related CM literature............................................ 59
2.3 Barriers to CM implementation ....................................................................... 64
2.4 Maturity models ............................................................................................... 67
2.4.1 SEI maturity models ..................................................................................... 69
2.4.2 CM Capability Model for the medical device industry ................................ 85
2.4.3 Limitation of CM related maturity models .................................................. 87
2.4.4 Research on maturity models in other allied fields ...................................... 88
2.5 Literature search strategy ................................................................................. 98
2.5.1 Keywords ..................................................................................................... 98
2.5.2 Search engines .............................................................................................. 98
2.6 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................... 99
2.6.1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 99
2.6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 101
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................. 103
3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 103
3.1 Research aim and objectives .......................................................................... 104
3.2 Research process ............................................................................................ 104
3.3 Research design and methodology. ................................................................ 107
3.3.1 Research philosophy .................................................................................. 107
3.3.2 Research approaches .................................................................................. 110
3.3.3 Research strategies / methods .................................................................... 117
3.3.4 Research choices ........................................................................................ 119
3.3.5 Time horizon .............................................................................................. 120
3.3.6 Data collection methods / techniques ......................................................... 121
3.3.7 The credibility of research findings ........................................................... 131
3.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 133
CHAPTER 4: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF CM CSFs ........................... 135
4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 135
Table of contents
4
4.1 Research objectives ........................................................................................ 136
4.2 Research methodology ................................................................................... 137
4.3 Findings, analysis, and discussion ................................................................. 138
4.3.1 Descriptive statistics................................................................................... 138
4.3.2 Categorization of CSFs .............................................................................. 141
4.3.3 Inferential statistic ...................................................................................... 145
4.3.4 CM activity model ..................................................................................... 153
4.3.5 Interpretation of CM CSFs groups ............................................................. 155
4.4 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................. 161
4.4.1 Summary .................................................................................................... 161
4.4.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 162
CHAPTER 5: BARRIERS AND GOVERNANCE OF THE CM PROCESS .............. 164
5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 164
5.1 Research objectives ........................................................................................ 165
5.2 Research methodology ................................................................................... 166
5.3 Analysis and discussion ................................................................................. 167
5.3.1 Barriers to Configuration Management implementation ........................... 167
5.3.2 Governance of the Configuration Management process ............................ 189
5.4 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................. 195
5.4.1 Barriers in the implementation of CM process .......................................... 195
5.4.2 Governance of CM Process ........................................................................ 196
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS OF BARRIERS TO CM IMPLEMENTATION ................ 197
6.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 197
6.1 Objectives of the research .............................................................................. 198
6.2 Research methodology ................................................................................... 198
6.3 Findings, analysis, and discussion ................................................................. 199
6.3.1 Descriptive statistics................................................................................... 199
6.3.2 Factor analysis (categorization of the barriers to CM implementation) .... 203
6.3.3 Inferential statistic ...................................................................................... 209
6.3.4 Interpretation of CM barriers groups ......................................................... 216
Table of contents
5
6.4 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................. 223
6.4.1 Summary .................................................................................................... 223
6.4.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 224
CHAPTER 7: CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL ............ 227
7.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 227
7.1 Research Objective......................................................................................... 228
7.2 Research Methodology................................................................................... 229
7.3 Configuration Management Maturity Model ................................................. 230
7.3.1 Identification of key process capabilities ................................................... 231
7.3.2 Establishing goals ...................................................................................... 233
7.3.3 Composition of CMMM ............................................................................ 233
7.3.4 Key focus areas of CMMM........................................................................ 238
7.3.5 Measuring the level of maturity ................................................................. 239
7.4 Validation of CMMM .................................................................................... 249
7.5 CM process maturity ...................................................................................... 256
7.5.1 Level of maturity of Configuration Management practices ....................... 256
7.5.2 Hypothesis validation ................................................................................. 258
7.6 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................. 260
7.6.1 Summary .................................................................................................... 260
7.6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 261
CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 263
8.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 263
8.1 Summary of the research ................................................................................ 263
8.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 267
8.2.1 CSFs for the effective implementation of Configuration Management ..... 268
8.2.2 Barriers to Configuration Management implementation ........................... 269
8.2.3 Governance of the Configuration Management process ............................ 271
8.2.4 Configuration Management Maturity Model ............................................. 271
8.3 Limitations of the study ................................................................................. 273
8.4 Contribution of this research .......................................................................... 273
Table of contents
6
8.4.1 Academic perspective ................................................................................ 274
8.4.2 Industrial perspective ................................................................................. 276
8.5 Research application ...................................................................................... 277
8.6 Recommendations and further research ......................................................... 278
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 280
Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 296
Appendix B .................................................................................................................... 305
Appendix C .................................................................................................................... 308
Appendix D .................................................................................................................... 315
Appendix E .................................................................................................................... 318
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................... 324
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: The CM Process Ladder (Watt, 2010) .......................................................... 20
Figure 2-1: Configuration Management defined (Watt, 2008; Watt, 2010) .................... 30
Figure 2-2: Configuration Management process model (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997)............ 37
Figure 2-3: Configuration Management identification (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997) ............. 40
Figure 2-4: Detail of baselines (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997) .................................................. 44
Figure 2-5: Product generic phases and baselines (Robert, 2004) ................................... 44
Figure 2-6: Product development cycle (Samaras, 1988) ................................................ 45
Figure 2-7: Life cycle of MoD project (Lester, 2007) ..................................................... 46
Figure 2-8: Simple Change Process (Rowell et al., 2009) ............................................... 48
Figure 2-9: Principles of Change Management System (Ibbs et al., 2001) ..................... 49
Figure 2-10: Statistics of research on members of CCB (Huang and Mak, 1999) .......... 50
Figure 2-11 : Lack of control and its impact on cost (Boznak, 1990a) ............................ 57
Figure 2-12: History of CMMs (Team, 2006) ................................................................. 71
Figure 2-13 : Five levels of SW-CMM (Paulk, Curtis et al. 1993) .................................. 72
Figure 2-14: SE-CMM Model architecture (Bate et al., 1995) ........................................ 77
Figure 2-15 : Improvement path for process capability (Bate et al., 1995) ..................... 77
Figure 2-16: Capability level-1 engineering (Bate et al., 1995) ...................................... 79
Figure 2-17: Capability level-2 engineering (Bate et al., 1995) ...................................... 80
Figure 2-18: Capability level-3 engineering (Bate et al., 1995) ...................................... 80
Figure 2-19: Capability level-4 engineering (Bate et al., 1995) ...................................... 80
Figure 2-20: Capability level-5 engineering (Bate et al., 1995) ...................................... 81
Figure 2-21 : Maturity levels of CoPS-RM-CMM (Yeo and Ren, 2009) ........................ 91
Figure 2-22: The four levels of risk maturity (Hillson, 1997) ......................................... 92
Figure 2-23: (PM) 2 model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006) ......................................................... 94
Figure 2-24: Project Management Maturity Model (Crawford, 2006) ............................ 97
Figure 3-1: The research onion (Saunders et al., 2009) ................................................. 103
Figure 3-2: Research process flowchart ......................................................................... 106
Figure 3-3: Population, sample, and individual cases (Saunders et al., 2003) ............... 127
List of figures
8
Figure 3-4: Sampling techniques (Saunders et al., 2003). ............................................. 128
Figure 4-1: Details of CSFs groups ................................................................................ 143
Figure 4-2: Configuration Management Activity Model ............................................... 155
Figure 6-1: Screeplot, total variance associated with each barrier ................................. 204
Figure 6-2: Three groups of barriers to CM implementation ......................................... 206
Figure 7-1: Configuration Management process capabilities ........................................ 232
Figure 7-2: Configuration Management Maturity Model .............................................. 234
Figure 7-3: Experience of research participants under different categories .................. 251
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: CM success factors (areas of importance) ...................................................... 61
Table 2-2: PM CSFs identified across 63 publications (Fortune and White, 2006) ........ 62
Table 2-3: List of PM CSFs (Belassi and Tukel, 1996) ................................................... 63
Table 2-4: List of PM CSFs (Belassi and Tukel, 1996) ................................................... 64
Table 2-5: List of key process areas of SW-CMM (Paulk et al., 1993) ........................... 74
Table 2-6: Capability levels with their common features (Bate et al., 1995) .................. 78
Table 2-7: SE-CMM Process Categories and Process Areas (Bate et al., 1995) ............. 79
Table 2-8 : Details of process areas (TEAM, 2006) ........................................................ 84
Table 2-9 : Capability and maturity levels (TEAM, 2006) .............................................. 85
Table 2-10 : Comparison of CM activities in Medical Device Industry and CMMI
(McCaffery et al., 2008) ................................................................................................... 86
Table 2-11: Maturity stage dimension (Niazi et al., 2005) .............................................. 90
Table 2-12: Critical Success Factors dimension (Niazi et al., 2005) ............................... 90
Table 2-13: Capability Areas of CoPS-RM-CMM (Yeo and Ren, 2009) ....................... 91
Table 2-14: Key PM Processes of (PM) 2 model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006) ....................... 95
Table 2-15: Major organizational characteristics of (PM) 2
model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006)
.......................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 2-16: Key focus areas of (PM) 2 model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006) ............................ 96
Table 3-1: Alternative terms for positivist and phenomenological paradigms (Mangan et
al., 2004)......................................................................................................................... 108
Table 3-2: Key features of the positivist and phenomenological paradigms (Easterby-
Smith et al., 1991). ......................................................................................................... 109
Table 3-3: Classification of the main types of research (Hussey and Hussey, 1997) .... 111
Table 3-4: Differences between deductive and inductive approaches (Saunders et al.,
2003) .............................................................................................................................. 115
Table 3-5: Differences between qualitative and quantitative methods (Ghauri and
Gronhaug, 2005) ............................................................................................................ 116
Table 4-1: List of Critical Success Factors .................................................................... 140
List of tables
10
Table 4-2: Correlation matrix......................................................................................... 142
Table 4-3: Total variance ............................................................................................... 144
Table 4-4: Parallel analysis ............................................................................................ 144
Table 4-5: Comparison of actual eigenvalues with corresponding criterion values ...... 145
Table 4-6: Test of normality .......................................................................................... 148
Table 4-7: Significance of CSFs with academic qualification ....................................... 149
Table 4-8: Mean Rank for academic qualification ......................................................... 149
Table 4-9: Significance of CSFs with CM certification / training ................................. 150
Table 4-10: Mean ranks for CM training ....................................................................... 151
Table 4-11: Significance of CSFs with experience in CM ............................................ 151
Table 4-12: Mean ranks for CM experience .................................................................. 152
Table 4-13: Significance of CSFs with experience in Stakeholder Departments .......... 152
Table 4-14: Mean ranks for experience in stakeholder departments ............................. 153
Table 6-1: Barriers to CM implementation .................................................................... 202
Table 6-2: KMO and Bartlett's Test results ................................................................... 203
Table 6-3: Total Variance Explained ............................................................................. 205
Table 6-4: Correlation matrix for CM barriers .............................................................. 207
Table 6-5: Group of matrix after Varimax rotation ....................................................... 208
Table 6-6: Final statistics of principle component analysis ........................................... 208
Table 6-7: Test of normality .......................................................................................... 211
Table 6-8: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with academic qualification
........................................................................................................................................ 212
Table 6-9: Mean Rank for academic qualification ......................................................... 213
Table 6-10: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with gender differences .. 213
Table 6-11: Mean Rank for gender differences ............................................................. 214
Table 6-12: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with CM experience........ 214
Table 6-13: Mean Rank for CM experience .................................................................. 215
Table 6-14: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with organizational types 215
Table 6-15: Mean Rank for organizational types ........................................................... 216
Table 7-1: Five point scale in three groups .................................................................... 250
List of tables
11
Table 7-2: Expert opinion on different aspects of Configuration Management Maturity
Model ............................................................................................................................. 252
Table 7-3: Mean values of defence sectors .................................................................... 257
Table 7-4: Test of normality .......................................................................................... 258
Table 7-5: Group statistics ............................................................................................. 259
Table 7-6: Independent samples test .............................................................................. 259
Table 8-1: Research focus in different research parts .................................................... 264
12
ABSTRACT
Name of the University: The University of Manchester
Submitted by: Usman Ali
Degree Title: Doctor of Philosophy
Thesis Title: Configuration Management Process Maturity: Definition and Maturation
of Configuration Management for Aerospace and Defence Industries
Date: 28th
February 2014
This research focuses on the effective implementation and continuous improvement
methodologies for Configuration Management practices within aerospace and defence
industries. The research is conducted mainly to develop a Configuration Management
Maturity Model which is based on Critical Success Factors and Barriers to
Configuration Management implementation. The motives behind this research were the
lack of understanding and problems in the implementation of high-grade Configuration
Management systems as highlighted by other researchers.
The research is conducted in three phases through interviews and questionnaire surveys
with experienced Configuration Management professionals working in aerospace and
defence industries. The first part of this research identifies, prioritizes, and categorizes
the Critical Success Factors for Configuration Management and devises a Configuration
Management Activity Model to help practationers in the effective implementation and
continuous improvement of the process. The second part of the research sets out to
identify and prioritize the obstacles to effective implementation of Configuration
Management practices, categorized these obstacles into more manageable groups of
factors, and analysed the effects of multiple factors on identification and rating of these
barriers. Both studies were conducted through mixed method research with in-depth
interviews followed by questionnaire surveys. The governance aspect of the process is
also investigated to a great deal in the second part through interviews to conclude on
process governance in various setups.
The third part of this research is related to the development of a Configuration
Management Maturity Model. It is important to note that other maturity models on the
topic are generic in nature and emphasis on ‘what’ to implement instead of ‘how’ to
implement which has left a gap of uncertainty that forced us to devise a suitable
framework. The Configuration Management Maturity Model is an assessment tool
which not only provides benchmark information but also helps to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the process. This maturity framework is unique in its presentation
and unlike previous maturity models, is based on current Configuration Management
practices, Critical Success Factors, and Barriers to Configuration Management
implementation. This maturity model will help organizations to assess their current level
of maturity, identify rational targets for improvements, and will help in providing action
plans for enhancing their configuration management process capability. Like the
previous two studies, this part of the research is conducted through semi-structured
interviews followed by questionniare surveys.
13
DECLARATION
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other
institute of learning.
14
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/ or schedules to this thesis)
owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given
The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for
administrative purposes.
ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hand or electronic
copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in
accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time.
This page must form part of any such copies made.
iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright
works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be
described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third
parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made
available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant
Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.
iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP policy
(see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant
Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University
Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations)
and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses.
15
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
A) Refereed Journal Papers
1. Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2014). Barriers to effective configuration management
application in a project context; an empirical investigation. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 508-518.
2. Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Critical success factors for configuration management
implementation. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(2), 250-264.
3. Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Configuration Management Maturation, an Empirical
Investigation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture (accepted for publication)
B) Refereed Conference Papers
1. Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2012). Understanding the obstacles to configuration
management success. 26th
IPMA World Congress, Greece.
2. Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Configuration Management Process Capabilities.
Procedia CIRP, 11, 169-172.
16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to almighty Allah for giving me the strength and ability to successfully
complete this research work. Without Allah’s countless blessings and mercy, none of
this would have been possible.
I owe my deepest gratitude to so many people whose help, guidance, support,
contribution, and invaluable assistance provided me the opportunity for timely
completion of my PhD research.
I have no words to thank and pay my gratitude to my mother for her unending love,
prayers, undivided support, interest and encouragement. Without her inspiration,
prayers, love, and encouragement; none of my achievements would have been possible. I
would like to thank to my brothers and sisters for their support, help and prayers for my
success. I also wish to express my love and gratitude to my wife for her patience,
support, and understanding throughout my research.
I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to Mr Callum Kidd and Dr. Robert
Young for their motivation, abundant help, and incessant guidance. It is because of their
motivation, tremendous contribution, and continuous support which helped me in the
successful completion of this research.
My thanks also goes to my colleagues back home especially Tahira Kalsoom, Ashfaq
Ahmed, Gulistan Khan, Syed Muddasar Gillani, Naseer Ahmed and Shaikha AlSanad,
Dr. Khalid Mahmood, Dr. Ashfaq Khan, Abdulrahman Alghamdi at The University of
Manchester whose support and companionship made my stay comfortable and helped
me in the accomplishment of my research. I also extend my special thanks to all my
friends and well wishers whose support and guidance has been instrumental in
completion of my PhD but I failed to mention their names.
I would also like to convey my special thanks to Higher Education Commission (HEC)
of Pakistan for providing me the opportunity in pursuing my studies.
17
ABBREVIATIONS
ACM Association of Configuration Managers
ANA Army, Navy, and Air Force
CCB Configuration Control Board
CDR Critical Design Review
CIs Configuration Items
CM Configuration Management
CMM Capability Maturity Model
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration
CMPIC Configuration Management Process Improvement Centre
CoPS-RM-CMM Risk Management Capability Maturity Model for Complex
Product Systems
CPD Continuing Professional Development
CSA Configuration Status Accounting
CSFs Critical Success Factors
DoD Department of Defence
ECOs Engineering Change Orders
ECPs Engineering Change Proposals
EIA Electronic Industries Alliance
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
FCA Functional Configuration Audit
HW Hardware
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IPD-CMM Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model
IPPD Integrated Product and Process Development
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IT Information Technology
KM Knowledge Management
KPA Key Process Areas
MIL-STD Military Standard
MoD Ministry of Defence
Abbreviations
18
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PCA Physical Configuration Audit
PDM Product Data Management
PLM Product Lifecycle Management
PM Project Management
(PM)2 Project Management Process Maturity
PMBoK Project Management Body of Knowledge
PMI Project Management Institute
QM Quality Management
SDR System Design Review
SE-CMM Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model
SEI Software Engineering Institute
SPI Software Process Improvements
SSR Software Specification Review
SW Software
SW-CMM Capability Maturity Model for Software
TQM Total Quality Management
19
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Research overview
Achieving process excellence is not a short term goal but takes time through incremental
and progressive improvement methodologies. It is only through enormous efforts, great
dedication and planning which helps organizations to achieve their objectives. Leading
industries of the world dominate the market by launching state-of-the-art products and
enhance customer satisfaction through continuous improvement in quality of their
products. The production of such products by these industries is only possible through
organized processes run by dedicated, efficient and trained work force. It is pertinent to
note that industries which produce quality products have excellent processes in terms of
planning, product design & development, engineering, manufacturing, marketing and
administration (Toro and McCabe, 1997).
Extensive literature is available on process improvement methodologies in the form of
maturity models. The concept of process maturity was rationalized by Crosby (1997)
through the development of five layers quality management maturity grid to help
managers in maturing their quality processes. Deming (1986) and Juran (1988)
highlighted the significance of this concept through their works on continuous process
improvement practices for the development of quality management system. The concept
was further signified by Radice et al. (1985) through developing maturity model within
IBM and Humphrey (1989) through a five layers process maturity framework in
software organizations. The software engineering institute at Carnegie Mellon
University further developed the concept by introducing various maturity models.
This concept is not limited to any specific industry or field but its significance is evident
from extensive literature in diverse areas such as Project Management (e.g. Crawford,
Chapter 1: Introduction
20
2006; Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Kwak and Ibbs, 2002), Risk Management (e.g.
Hillson, 1997; Yeo and Ren, 2008), Requirements Engineering (e.g. Beecham et al.,
2005), safety (e.g. Filho et. al., 2010), Knowledge Management (e.g. Kulkarni and
Freeze, 2004; Paulzen and Perc, 2002), and IT (e.g. Gottschalk and Solli-Sæther, 2006)
etc. Moreover, around 150 business maturity models are available in the market (Spanyi,
2004)) whereas 30 alone are evident in the field of Project Management (Grant and
Pennypacker, 2006).
Figure 1-1: The CM Process Ladder (Watt, 2010)
Chapter 1: Introduction
21
It is important to highlight that Configuration Management (CM) has remained an
integral part of the Capability Maturity Model for Software (e.g. Paulk et. al., 1993),
Systems Engineering Capability Model (e.g. Bate et al., 1995), and Capability Maturing
Model Integration (e.g. Team, 2006). The study of McCaffery and Coleman (2007)
highlight the maturity of Configuration Management process in medical device
industries while Watt (2010) pointed towards the maturity ladder (figure 1-1) while
formulating the measuring methodologies for continuous improvements of the process.
The process improvement methodologies in the form of maturity models highlighted by
these studies are tenable but have specific limitations in its own. Such models, if
generated through valid requirements could be an effective tool for progressive
improvements of the process. These models are useful only if detailed practices at each
level are known and have adequate measuring methodologies.
1.1 Research problem
Configuration Management is never practiced to its full potential and is always
undermined at all levels of organizations and implemented in a haphazard way which are
the main problems to its effective implementation and continuous development faced by
industries (Burgess et al. 2005). It is important to note that since the literature in the field
of CM is extremely limited as compared to other allied fields, professionals in the field
have never benefited from advancement in process improvements methodologies made
over the years in other allied fields like Project Management, Knowledge Management,
and Quality Management. Literature suggest that processes can be largely facilitated by
identifying process related critical success factors and barriers to its implementation and
defining path of maturation based on these factors as highlighted by Niazi et al. (2005)
and Yeo and Ren (2008). To help professional in the field, this research is targeted on
multiple issues with core objective is to enhance the applications of CM in both
aerospace and defence industries.
Detailed search of the peer reviewed journals and practitioner’s literature highlight no
formal study on critical success factors and barriers in the field of Configuration
Chapter 1: Introduction
22
Management which are the basic requirements for developing maturity models as
highlighted by Niazi et al. (2005) and Yeo and Ren (2008). The importance of research
on Critical Success Factors and barriers is evident from extensive research in other allied
professional activities like Project Management (PM), Quality Management (QM) and
Knowledge Management (KM). There are more than seventy studies highlighted on
Critical Success Factors in PM by Fortune and White (2006); Belassi and Tukel (1996),
and Baccarini and Collins (2003) while seven within Knowledge Management by Wong
(2005) whereas the studies of Bhat and Rajashekhar (2009) and Sebastianelli and
Tamimi (2003) in Quality Management, Riege (2005) and Sun and Scott (2006) in
Knowledge Management, Atkinson et al. (2006) in Project Management , and Da-Silva
(2012) in Business Process Management shows the importance of research on barriers.
The studies on maturity models related to Configuration Management (e.g. Bate et al.,
1995; McCaffery and Coleman, 2007; Paulk et. al., 1993; and Team, 2006) proposes a
standardized approach for maturity but recent studies (e.g. Niazi et al., 2005; Yeo and
Ren, 2008) recommends that maturity models should be based on critical success factors
and barriers. This approach seems logical since the implementation requirements and
improvement priorities for Configuration Management could never be the same for other
disciplines (e.g. requirements management, risk management, and product integration)
and can only be fixed through CM specific critical success factors and barriers.
Moreover the maturity guidelines are generic in nature, ignored the governance aspects
of the process and put emphasis on ‘what’ to implement instead of ‘how’ to implement
which left a gap of uncertainty to effective maturity concepts of the process.
1.2 Research aims and objectives
The aim of this research is to highlight and evaluate practitioners’ perception on critical
success factors and critical barriers and develops a roadmap to achieve excellence in the
implementation and continuous development of Configuration Management process in
aerospace and defence industries.
Chapter 1: Introduction
23
The overall objectives of this research are as follows:
• To identify, prioritises, and categorises critical success factors for Configuration
Management and analyse the influence of multiple parameters such as academic
qualification, work experience, training, and experience in particular stakeholder
departments on the practitioner’s perception on the criticality of these critical success
factors.
• To identify barriers associated with managing Configuration Management
application, prioritize them on the basis of their criticality, categorize them into more
manageable groups of factors, and analyse the effects of multiple factors e.g.
academic education, gender differences, CM experience and types of organization on
the perception of CM practitioners in the process of application and rating the
highlighted barriers.
• To investigate the governance of the Configuration Management process in
aerospace and defence industries.
• To develop a Configuration Management Maturity Model for the effective
implementation and continuous development of Configuration Management as a
process.
1.3 Research questions
The research questions for this research are as follows,
• What are the critical success factors for the effective implementation of the
Configuration Management process in aerospace and defence industries?
• What obstacles are perceived as the real barriers in implementation and success of
Configuration Management practices in aerospace and defence industries?
Chapter 1: Introduction
24
• What is the perception of Configuration Management practitioners regarding the
organizational structure for Configuration Management in aerospace and defence
industries that could help in the effective implementation of Configuration
Management practices?
• What is the perception of Configuration Management practitioners regarding
continuous improvements of the Configuration Management process? According to
their views, how could a Configuration Management Maturity Model be that could
achieve standards of excellence in aerospace and defence industries?
1.4 Research hypothesis
The research hypotheses to be tested in this study are as follows:
Hypotheses 1
There is a difference in the identification of Critical Success Factors for the
implementation of best CM practice, based on a practitioner’s academic
qualification, work experience, qualification / training, and experience in key
stakeholder departments.
Hypotheses 2
The identification and ranking of barriers to Configuration Management
acceptance and application, from the perspective of a CM practitioner, will be
directly influenced by their academic education, gender difference, CM
experience, and typology of organization.
Hypotheses 3
There is a significant difference in the maturity levels between aerospace and
defence industries.
Chapter 1: Introduction
25
1.5 Research strategy
The research strategy adapted for this research is outlined in detail in Chapter 3;
however, its brief outlines are below.
• It was important to grasp the theoretical perspective on the important aspects of this
research (i.e. Configuration Management, critical success factors, barriers, and the
maturity concept) which was possible only through detailed literature review.
Although the academic literature on Critical Success Factors, barriers, and maturity
frameworks specific to Configuration Management is limited, the studies in other
allied fields like Quality Management, Project Management, and Knowledge
Management etc. provided great deal to focus in the right direction. The literature
review was followed by feedback from practitioners on the research topics to know
their point of views.
• The first part of this research is based on mixed method research where data was
collected through interviews and questionnaire survey. To come up with a set of
success factors, in-depth interview were arranged with CM subject matter experts.
Three CM practitioners with more than thirty years of experience were consulted
through emails. Data from the two sources was combined with available literature to
finalize an initial list of success factors. The refined list of success factors was
finalized and their importance was highlighted with the help of a short statement.
The list was forwarded to a group of thirteen CM subject experts in the form of a
questionnaire in a meeting of the ‘Association of Configuration Managers’ (ACM) at
The University of Manchester for review and comments. The final questionnaire was
sent to CM professionals working in aerospace and defence sectors for the required
objectives. The questionnaire survey helped to establish the validity of the findings
obtained through interviews and conclusion on the designed hypothesis.
• The second part of this research is based on mixed method research to increase the
reliability and validity of findings. The barriers to Configuration Management were
Chapter 1: Introduction
26
identified through an open question in a questionnaire survey where 64
questionnaires were received followed by seven semi-structured interviews with CM
experts of four different industries. The data from both forms of studies was grouped
and analysed carefully to avoid possibilities of ignoring or repeating factors where
nineteen factors were finalized for final questionnaire survey which was conducted
to validate initial findings and verify the designed hypothesis. The questionnaire was
divided in two sections. The first section focussed on gathering background
information whereas the second part was related to barriers where respondents’
opinions were asked on a series of statements. Respondents of the questionnaire
survey were asked to mark trueness of each statement on a five-point scale. The
target population was the personnel from aerospace and defence industries where a
total of 187 valid questionnaires were used to analyse the stated hypothesis.
• The third part of this research is related to the development of Configuration
Management Maturity Model which is developed with the help of semi-structured
interviews. These interviews were conducted with six Configuration Management
professionals after critical analysis of the literature on maturity models, critical
success factors, and barriers to Configuration Management implementation followed
by two questionnaire surveys. The first questionnaire survey is related to model
validation while the second questionnaire survey is related to measuring the maturity
levels of the Configuration Management practices in different organization to see the
working of developed maturity model.
1.6 Structure of the thesis
The Thesis is organised in the following eight chapters:
Chapter 1 – Introduction: This chapter briefly highlight an overview of the research,
research problems, aim and objectives of the research, research questions, and
hypotheses. It also briefly highlights the research methodology and the structure of the
thesis.
Chapter 1: Introduction
27
Chapter 2 – Literature review: This chapter presents the literature review on the topics
covered in this research i.e. critical success factors, barriers to Configuration
Management implementation, and maturity models. In order to understand the
Configuration Management concept, a detailed overview on the topic is provided at the
outset to understanding the base practices of Configuration Management. Since the
academic literature on Configuration Management and related topics is limited, the
literature in other allied fields like quality management, knowledge management, and
project management helped us to streamline this research.
Chapter 3 - Research design and methodology: This chapter presents the research
philosophies, approaches, strategies, techniques and procedures to address the research
questions and conclude on the research hypothesis. It is also important to note that the
rationale for the selection of right research methods is also presented.
Chapter 4 – Identification and analysis of CM CSFs: This chapter discuss in detail
the identification and analysis of the critical success factors for the implementation of
Configuration Management practices. The primary objective of this chapter is to
establish a set of CSFs and analyze practitioners’ perceptions on CSFs based on their
work experience, qualification/training, experience of stake holders departments, and
type of organization.
Chapter 5 – Barriers and governance of the CM process: This chapter highlight the
interviews discussion to investigate the barriers to Configuration Management and the
governance aspects of the process.
Chapter 6 – Analysis of barriers to CM implementation: This chapter highlight in-
depth analysis of the barriers to Configuration Management implementation. The
analysis supports that how the barriers to Configuration Management have been
finalized and analyzed to conclude on designed hypothesis.
Chapter 1: Introduction
28
Chapter 7 – Configuration Management Maturity Model
This chapter presents in detail the structure of Configuration Management Maturity
Model and the way it will be used to measure the maturity of Configuration
Management practices within organizations.
Chapter 8 – Summary, conclusions, and recommendations:
This chapter presents the summary of the research and conclusions made in all three
parts of this research. The limitations of this research and recommendations for future
research are also presented in this chapter.
29
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the literature review on four important topics i.e. Configuration
Management, Critical Success Factors, Barriers to CM implementation, and maturity
models.
2.1 Configuration Management (CM)
It is important to know how the term Configuration Management is defined in the
literature before explaining its multiple aspects.
According ISO (2003):
‘Configuration Management is a management activity that applies technical
and administrative direction over the life cycle of a product, its
configuration items, and related product configuration information’.
According to Watt (2008) and Watt (2010)
‘Configuration Management is a communication bridge between design
engineers and rest of the world’. This is shown through a graphical
representation in figure 2-1.
Chapter 2: Literature review
30
Figure 2-1: Configuration Management defined (Watt, 2008; Watt, 2010)
According to the National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management EIA-649
(2011):
‘A management process for establishing and maintaining consistency of a
product’s performance, functional, and physical attributes with its
requirements, design and operational information throughout its life’.
Configuration Management is a management discipline that controls definition of a
product or system from concept till disposal. CM is used to ensure that products and
systems fulfil their defined functional and physical requirements and that any changes to
these requirements are tightly controlled, carefully identified, and accurately recorded
(Samaras, 1988). With obvious returns in terms of reducing the total time for product
development, minimizing the overall cost, and enhancing product quality, CM has
become a vital part of the project delivery strategy. However, CM practices have been
undermined by industries and implemented in a chaotic way even in the presence
organized standards (Burgess et al., 2005). CM is based on sound business strategies to
establish product configurations, identify and manage changes to product configuration,
account for all approved changes and maintain the integrity of the configuration through
reviews and audits which helps in validating and verifying compliance with
requirements. Turner (1997) put this into a PM perspective as thus ‘CM is not a radical
Chapter 2: Literature review
31
discovery that revolutionises the way the facility is developed and maintained. It is a set
of good working practices for coping with uncertainty and change and gaining
commitment of the projects participants as the design evolves’.
Configuration Management, after inception from US department of defence in 1950’s,
has become a standard practice within many different organizations and is used for
supporting product development activities. The aim of CM is to identify, control,
account, and validate the functional and physical characteristics of a product.
Configuration Management plays an influential role in a project or product life cycle but
is not accountable for every aspect of a project or product. Configuration Management is
not a project management; rather an element of it (Burgess et al., 2003; Thompson,
1997). Configuration Management is not fully utilized to its potential but is treated like
that of quality management in Western organisations till its improved awareness in
1980’s (Burgess et al., 2005). In fact, there is similarity in the development between
quality and CM in which quality ascended from a culture of quality control, through
assurance and then on to management whereas CM is entrenched in a culture of control /
assurance.
CM was first introduced in the 1950/60’s by the US Department of Defence where its
need was instigated due to lack of data uniformity and change control issues in the race
for a successful missile launch in the 1950’s (Samaras, 1988). In the 1990’s, CM was
more evident in commercial sectors to help them with through life management of
product and system status. During this time, International Organization of
Standardization issued ISO-10007 in 1994 which was the first guideline on CM with a
major reflection being its inclusion in the requirements based aerospace standards such
as AS-9100. CM has remained one of the major process areas throughout the process
maturity models developed by the Software Engineering Institute. CM is not limited to
just the aerospace and defence sectors but is practiced in other sectors for example
conventional power generation, petrochemical, construction, nuclear, and shipbuilding
(Fowler, 1992; Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997) and has played a vital part in business
process improvements across the board (Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997).
Chapter 2: Literature review
32
To many, CM is integral element of the project management (PM) which in itself is a
barrier to effective application of CM. Many studies have identified that the CM process
extends beyond the project, across engineering, support and disposal. Application of a
common process is crucial in ensuring conformance. Consistent and repeatable
processes and methodologies are required for effective management of a project to deal
with the constraints of scope, time, cost and quality and to guarantee project success.
CM is essential for the PM professional to actively support the project direction and
infrastructure (PMI, 2007). CM is a through life activity, which invariably extends
beyond the traditional project lifecycle, and is encapsulated in a variety of engineering,
project management and manufacturing management methods (Burgess et al., 2003). It
is a continuous activity to establish and maintain integrity of an evolving product /
system throughout the lifecycle, whereas PM is mainly concerned with the definition
and execution of the lifecycle at a project level. CM is an integral part of the System
Engineering function (Team, 2006; Sage and Rouse, 2009) whereas PM, engineering
management, quality management, and logistics management are principal stakeholders
in the possession of the CM process (Kidd and Burgess, 2007).
The implementation of Configuration Management requires dedicated efforts to have
positive effect on the overall design process. Top management support plays a vital role
and is the driving force behind the effective implementation of the CM process. It is
important to establish comprehensive Configuration Management policies in the preview
of latest international standards to ease the implementation of CM practices. This can be
done by educating the CM personnel and functional stakeholders on the benefits of CM
practices through continuous training programmes. It is essential to note that there is no
final step in the Configuration Management process improvements and needs constant
and devoted efforts (Hancock, 1993).
2.1.1 History of CM
The concept of Configuration Management was first evidence by Henry Ford in the
early 1900's in order to organize the production of the first automobile (Bazelmans,
1985) but as a term was initially introduced by the US defence industries in 1950s
Chapter 2: Literature review
33
(Thompson, 1997). The design and manufacturing process of complex products which
was once understood and managed by single individuals became hard to control by them
and hence the need of an independent process was emerged to organize the design and
development of a product (Thompson, 1997). In 1950s the deficiency in the race of
missile launch was apparent where related industries were facing problems like:
• Prototype were either expended or destroyed
• Adequate records of part number identification was not available
• No change criteria existed
• Design documents did not reflect changes
• Produced articles not identified
Following is a brief history of Configuration Management transformation summarized
from the book of Samaras (1988).
The discipline was initially introduced through ANA (Army, Navy, and Air Force)
Bulletin No 390 issued in 1957. This document introduced and established “Engineering
Change Proposal” methodology that provided a unique and uniform system of change
incorporation within products. The next document was ANA Bulletin 391a where new
guidelines were added to the existing change control system. These two bulletins were
merged in a single document in 1963 with a new number i.e. ANA Bulletin 445. ANA
Bulletin 445 was superseded by MIL-STD-480 which was a comprehensive document
on the management of changes.
The US Air Force was involved in the generation of their own standard for
Configuration Management to manage their products. After extensive debate with
industry surveys, management consultation, and large expenditures AFSCM 375 was
introduced and changed with the consultation of industries and a final standard was
published in 1962 with a revised number i.e. AFSCM 375-1 which was further revised
in November 1963 to incorporate information regarding baselines. The document was
extensively revised in June 1964 which superseded about 61 government specifications,
Chapter 2: Literature review
34
bulletins, and standards. At the same time DOD directive 3200.9 was issued covering
the concept formulation and contract definition. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) issued their own standard on Configuration Management in
May, 1964 entitled Apollo Configuration Management Manual, NPC 511-1 that was
almost similar to AFSCM 375-1. In 1965 the Army Material Command issued
Configuration Management regulations, AMCR 11-26. From 1965 to 1967 Navy
generated three different documents (ASWSPO 5200.4, NAVMAT INSTR 5000.6, and
NAVMAT INSTR 4130.1) related to Configuration Management for the management of
their products. In 1967, several documents have superseded AFSCM 375-1 and many
other standards e.g. MIL-STD-480, DOD-STD-1679, and DOD-STD-2167. Meanwhile
NASA issued Handbook 8040.2 and GMI 8040.1A while private industry issued several
other publications.
In 1968 to reduce the proliferation of Configuration Management instructions, DOD
issued a directive to all agencies to stop issuance of any further standard on
Configuration Management. DOD formalized a team of experts to work on the
establishment and review of Configuration Management standard which will be equally
applicable to all agencies. In 1968, DOD issued his first directive on Configuration
Management 5010.19 which was applicable to all agencies alone with guidelines
5010.21 for the use of 5010.19. 5010.19 revised in 1979 to restrict the use of 2010.21
and again in 1987 with few changes. Later on the term DOD was replaced with term
MIL and all documents were reissued.
In 1991, MIL-STD-973, a comprehensive standard on Configuration Management
system for both hardware and software was issued by DOD which was their last
standard on the subject. The same has been cancelled in 2000 with a purpose to expand
the Configuration Management practices from defence to commercial industries. MIL-
HDBK-61 and EIA.649 were issued for general guidelines before the cancellation of
MIL-STD-973. Even though MIL-STD-973 has been cancelled long ago but is still in
use in many industries for guidance. ISO issued guidelines on Configuration
Management in 1994 with a title ISO 10007, the same was revised in 2003 and in 2008.
Chapter 2: Literature review
35
IEEE issued standard guidelines on software Configuration Management in 1988. After
the cancellation of MIL-STD-973, different books on Configuration Management have
been published and are available in the market.
Credit goes to the US Department of Defence for establishing and organizing
Configuration Management as a process. Even though their standards are no longer
applicable, but are still useful and provide help to the beginners of this field.
2.1.2 Elements of CM
General principles and practices of Configuration Management have not changed over
the years. Basic Configuration Management practices as outlined thirty years back in
different defence standards are in the main unchanged. These principles and practices
have been reemphasised and rearranged in current literature with new insights.
Principles of Configuration Management are the same but their implementation
procedures are different in different industries. Configuration Management have been
divided into different elements or processes. Since the field has not been changed over
the years, there are no significant changes in high level definitions. Following is the
stance of the literature (standards, books, and research papers) on CM elements.
According to MIL-STD-973 (1992), MIL-HDBK-61 (1997), and Samaras (1988) the
elements of Configuration Management are:
• Configuration identification
• Configuration control
• Configuration status accounting
• Configuration audits
According to EIA-649 (2011) the elements of Configuration Management are:
Chapter 2: Literature review
36
• CM planning and management
• Configuration identification
• Configuration change management
• Configuration status accounting
• Configuration verification & audit
According to ISO (2003) the elements of Configuration Management are:
• Configuration Management planning
• Configuration identification
• Change control
• Configuration status accounting
• Configuration audit
According to Guess (2006) the elements of Configuration Management are:
• Requirements Management
• Change Management
• Release Management
• Data Management
• Records Management
• Document and Library Control
• Enabling Software Tools
The activities of these elements are not independents in nature but have strong
dependencies on each other. Example of the same could be seen in figure 2-2 where
relationship and dependencies of the five elements of Configuration Management
process are shown. It is important to note that the output of these activities in the form of
approved data is transferred to data management for control and record keeping.
Chapter 2: Literature review
37
Figure 2-2: Configuration Management process model (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997)
2.1.2.1 Management and planning
Management and Planning is responsible for achieving an effective, predictable, and
repeatable Configuration Management process over the life cycle of a product (EIA-649,
2011). Management and planning tries to integrate distributed task across organization,
coordinate among them, and support the overall objectives of Configuration
Management process. It establishes and controls the mission, vision, and policies for
Configuration Management within an organization. On the basis of these established
policies, comprehensive Configuration Management procedures and instructions are
Chapter 2: Literature review
38
generated whereas management and planning helps in the implementation of these
established guidelines within all projects of an organization. It is responsible for
managing and organizing the necessary resource in terms of infrastructure requirements,
human resource requirement, software tools requirements, or knowledge improvement
through training. The governance of a process plays an important role in efficient
working of any process. According to Felix and Monroy (2009) it is important to set
responsibilities of each Configuration Management entity, draw boundaries in terms of
scope of work and methodologies for each individual, establishing internal structure and
organization, and effective running of Configuration Management process. Management
and Planning and its relation with four major elements of Configuration Management is
shown in figure 2-2.
The Configuration Management Plan is a vital document for the execution of
Configuration Management process within a project. Provisions of guidelines on the
generation and implementation of this document is the responsibility of management and
planning. The CM Plan issues policies on how different elements of Configuration
Management would be implemented in specific projects. Configuration Management
Plan defines the necessary procedures, responsibilities of all functional stakeholders, and
provides related templates or examples of what is expected within a project (James et al.,
1999). Configuration Management Plan can restrict certain activities within specific
projects which are not necessary and otherwise mentioned in the companywide
procedures.
The effective implementation of a Configuration Management process depends mainly
on the way it is organized and represented at organizational level and the effectiveness
of the roles and responsibilities for individuals who are responsible for the execution of
this process. It is the organizational structure of a process which plays an important role
in its overall implementation and explains how specific tasks are divided, grouped and
coordinated. The organizational structure prevents chaos through a set of reporting
relationships and communication channels (Aquinas, 2009). It is important to note that
there is not a single best structure that could suite the implementation of that process in
Chapter 2: Literature review
39
all circumstances but is based on many other factors e.g. number and size of projects and
the overall composition of that organization and have their own advantages and
disadvantages.
A suitable organizational structure will play a major part in the implementation and
continuous improvement of any process. The limited literature in the field of
Configuration Management has hardly touched this subject and needs some discussion
to help organizations in better implementation of the Configuration Management
process. On the other hand extensive literature is available on organizational structure
which is largely boosted through the studies of Mintzberg (1979) and Miller et al. (1984)
by identifying common organisational structures. The concept of organizational
structure is recently summarized by Aquinas (2009) which gives a sound knowledge and
understanding of the topic in the context of previous research. This study of Aquinas
(2009) has categorized organizational structures into four major types i.e. functional,
divisional, hybrid, and matrix which also highlight that how Mintzberg’s and Miller’s
configurations fits under these four types of organizational structures.
2.1.2.2 Configuration identification
Configuration identification is the basic foundation of Configuration Management.
According to EIA-649 (2011), configuration identification is the basis from which
configuration of products are defined and verified; products and documents are labelled;
changes are managed; and accountability is maintained. Configuration identification is
the basic part of the process where in the event of any irregularities, it is impossible to
establish correct association between parts within a product, correlate changes within
parts and documents, identify and induce comparison between status reports, and
validate requirements through audits. Detailed activities of configuration identification
are shown in figure 2-3.
Chapter 2: Literature review
40
Figure 2-3: Configuration Management identification (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997)
2.1.2.2.1 Product structure
Product structure; also called product architecture or product family tree; highlights the
relationship between configuration items, assemblies, and their individual parts.
According to EIA-649 (2011), product structuring is a technique for organizing the
composition of a product. Product Structure is a tree-like representation of a complete
product which is usually drawn on paper from top-to-bottom, left-to-right or right-to-
left.
Chapter 2: Literature review
41
2.1.2.2.2 Configuration item (CI)
According to Samaras (1988) configuration item are defined as:
‘An aggregation of Hardware or software, or any of its discrete portions, which satisfies
an end use function and is designated by the Government for Configuration
Management. CIs may vary widely in complexity, size and type, from an aircraft,
electronic or ship system to a test meter or round of ammunition. During development
and initial production, CIs are only those specification items that are referenced directly
in a contract (or an equivalent in-house agreement). During the operation and
maintenance period, any reparable item designated for separate procurement is a
configuration item’.
Selection of Configuration Items is not an easy task. According to Lyon, (2008),
Configuration Item is one of the more confusing topics of CM. CI segregates major units
of a product into identifiable subsets to effectively manage the physical and functional
characteristic of those units (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997). Each configuration item is
associated with a set of configuration documentation. These documents vary widely in
variety from status reports like production reports, change status reports, and physical
and functional configuration audit reports to performance specification; detailed
manufacturing documents like bills of materials, part list, assembly drawing, detailed
component drawings, assembly instructions, and so on.
Decision on items to be a CI is entirely flexible as there are no binding on the
organizations and they can select as many CI’s on the basis of their internal policies. But
mainly in engineering and manufacturing development phase, deliverable and
independently installable units of the product are identified as CIs which requires
significant management attention but during deployment and operational support,
individual items which need logistic support and procurement are designated as
configuration items (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997). The decision on the selections of CIs which
will work as Line Replaceable Units are easy but for those which falls in another CI or
Chapter 2: Literature review
42
assembly is difficult and needs consideration of different factors. The factors which must
be considered before the selection of a CI are well elaborated by MIL-HDBK-61, (1997)
and Samaras (1988):
2.1.2.2.3 Product identification
According to EIA-649 (2011), all products should assign unique identifiers to
distinguish between products, segregate products configuration, determine source of a
product, and to retrieve correct product information. Product and related documentation
are assigned unique identification number and specific titles (EIA-649, 2011; Lyon,
2008; MIL-HDBK-61, 1997; Samaras, 1988; Watts, 2008) are assigned Serial / Lot / or
batch numbers in conjunction with part numbers for their traceability at customer
premises.
2.1.2.2.4 Product documentation
Product documentation highlights the physical, functional, and performance,
characteristics of that product. Necessary information about a product could be obtained
from configuration documentations. Each document carries a unique document number,
title, and issue or revision number which are under configuration control (EIA-649,
2011; MIL-HDBK-61, 1997; Samaras, 1988; Watts, 2008). Documents carry different
signature which highlights authenticity of the document.
2.1.2.2.5 Serial, lot, and batch numbers
Serial Numbers are allocated to individual units of a product whenever there is a need to
distinguish one unit of the product from another (EIA-649, 2011; Lyon, 2008; Watts,
2008). Lot and Batch numbers are allocated to a group of similar units when it is
unnecessary or impractical to identify individual units with serial numbers but rather
necessary to associate units to a process, date, event, or test (EIA-649, 2011). It is
important to note that specific activities during production processes are recorded and
Chapter 2: Literature review
43
maintained in the form of Build History Dossiers against each serial, lot, or batch
number(s).
2.1.2.2.6 Part marking
Independently movable units need necessary information which must be available on the
unit for identification and traceability. Usually this include, part number, serial number,
part title, and manufacturer logo. Part markings should be part of the technical data pack
of the product before printing on the actual part (Watt, 2008). These markings of the
product should always be done according to organization policy (Lyon 2004).
2.1.2.2.7 Phases and baselines
Phase is milestones which needs to be achieved during the product life cycle (Watts
2008) while baseline is a set of document(s) formally designated and fixed at a specific
time during a CI’s life cycle (Samaras 1988). Each phase or milestone is planted in the
project/product life cycle to achieve planned goals or objectives. Each milestone is
represented by a document or set of documents called baseline which represents the
activities performed in that specific phase. It should be noted that there are various
phases and baselines in each product life cycle.
Baselines are the outputs of activities performed during a phase which are internally
established by the organization or externally imposed by the customer. A Baseline is a
set of documents which are required to be checked by the customer. A summary of
baselines have been highlighted in figure 2-4 (MIL-HDBK-61). This shows three
external baselines i.e. Functional Baseline, Allocated Baseline, and Product Baseline is
are required to be checked by the external agency while one internal baseline i.e.
Development Baseline is checked by contractors which can sometimes be externally
imposed by the external agency.
Chapter 2: Literature review
44
Figure 2-4: Detail of baselines (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997)
Figure 2-5: Product generic phases and baselines (Robert, 2004)
Chapter 2: Literature review
45
Figure 2-4 is a single representation of a product life cycle. Another generic product
lifecycle presented by Robert (2004) is shown in figure 2-5. The cells in the row
describe the phases while each square in column at the bottom highlights individual
baseline. Ellipses show three reviews i.e. System Design Review (SDR), Software
Specification Review (SSR), and Critical Design Review (CDR) and two audits i.e.
Functional Configuration Audit (FCA), and Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).
Samaras (1988) described a comprehensive product development cycle. He explained
the Product Development Life Cycle in terms of four major phases and three main
baselines. Full scale development phase is further divided into four phases and three
internal baselines. This is a comprehensive model that covers all aspects of the product
development cycle and is shown in figure 2-6.
Figure 2-6: Product development cycle (Samaras, 1988)
The MoD project life cycle is shown in figure 2-7 which highlights three main features
i.e. project life cycle, product life cycle, and extended life cycle (Lester, 2007).
It should be noted that there is no one project / product life cycle which could be
responsible to manage the activities of a product from initiation till disposal of a project /
product. Project / product life cycle may change with the requirements of the product.
Chapter 2: Literature review
46
According to Field and Keller (1998) ‘there is no single life cycle that applies to all
projects’.
Figure 2-7: Life cycle of MoD project (Lester, 2007)
2.1.2.3 Configuration change management
Configuration change management is a process responsible for managing changes and
variances to the physical and functional characteristics of a product. It is a process to
manage preparation, justification, evaluation, coordination, disposition, and
implementation of proposed engineering changes and deviations to effected
configuration items (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997). Engineering changes are the changes and
modifications in forms, fits, materials, dimensions, functions, etc of a product or
component which can be as simple as documentary amendments or as complicated as
the entire redesign of a products and manufacturing processes (Huang and Mak, 1999).
Change Management is required to maintain the integrity of the product (Mannan et al.,
1998).
Engineering changes usually starts at the beginning of product life cycles when
documents are generated and need change as build of the products are updated according
to the customer requirements. Changes are huge in numbers during development phase
where requirements are changing quite rapidly and slow down as the product passes to
production phase. Consequences of changes are different within these phases. Design
changes after full scale development phase might be ten times as expensive to design
changes at the initial design phase (Huang and Mak, 1999).
Chapter 2: Literature review
47
Change management plays an important role in the product development and has been
considered the corner stone for an organization to compete in the market (Loch and
Terwiesch, 1999). Single change can affect different assemblies and items and
propagates unexpectedly which can easily destabilize an organization (Jarratt et al.,
2004). Rowell et al. (2009) highlighted the same that a single change can create multiple
threats and effects and also multiple causes can create a single effect. Effective control
of these effects and threats can be minimized through effective close loop change
management system.
The change process does not receive due importance in a production organization since
it is considered to be responsible for obstructing smooth product manufacturing (Wright,
1997), excessive development costs, and product lead time (Loch and Terwiesch, 1999).
It is important to note that without proper change control system, the changes are not
organized and the documents do not highlight the as-built configuration of the product
(Castor, 2007).
Extensive literature is available on change management having diverse views on the
configuration change management process. Organizations might have different change
management processes where some might have established formal processes with
dedicated staff while others might have quite ad hoc systems (Huang et al., 2003).
Change process starts with the initiation of a change and end with incorporation of
changes in products and related documents. Change process mainly depends upon the
product development phase, size of the product, size of the organization, communication
channel, inner departmental cooperation, and available information system (Tavcar and
Duhovnik, 2005).
According to Huang and Mak (1999), the engineering change process usually involves
four phases i.e. identification, evaluation, implementation, and auditing while Rowell et
al. (2009) emphasized on the five steps as highlighted in figure 2-8. Ibbs et al. (2001)
highlighted that five principles should be kept in mind while considering a change
management system i.e. promote a balanced change culture, recognize change, evaluate
Chapter 2: Literature review
48
change, implement change and continuously improve from lessons learned. The same
has been shown in figure 2-9.
Figure 2-8: Simple Change Process (Rowell et al., 2009)
Whatever a change process would be, the objective should be change identification and
successful implementation of the same within the product. Best organizations have
effective system for the identification, segregation, evaluation, and implementation of
the changes. They always strive to improve their system in the long run to remove
hindrances from change control and implantation system.
Chapter 2: Literature review
49
Figure 2-9: Principles of Change Management System (Ibbs et al., 2001)
The Change Control Board is an important element of the change control process.
Change Control Board is a group of people who are solely responsible for the planning
and disposition of changes. The composition and structure of the board may vary
according to the type of project and product life-cycle phase; however, it shall comprise
persons who are involved in the product from all functional stakeholders. The study of
Huang and Mak (1999) can be used as reference on the composition of change control
board which refer to the members of the board in multiple organizations compiled
through survey research methodology and is shown in figure 2-10. The vertical axis
shows the members who have attended the board meetings while horizontal line shows
the percent companies responded for the member to have in the board. Composition of
the board is mainly decided by the project manager or head of the organization and
documented in the concerned CM Plan.
Chapter 2: Literature review
50
Figure 2-10: Statistics of research on members of CCB (Huang and Mak, 1999)
2.1.2.4 Configuration status accounting (CSA)
Configuration status accounting is responsible to identify, create, and organize reports of
the Configuration Management activities. CSA is a gateway to complete, accurate, and
timely information of physical and functional characteristics of a CIs throughout the
product life cycle. It is an important activity to reach the right information in complex
projects in no time because according to Badiru (1988) and as highlighted by Burgess et
al. (2003) that about 30% of the time of a project member is usually spent to search the
right information. The same is also mentioned by Smith (1991) that about 80 % of the
average person’s time is spent on collecting and handling data while the rest is spent on
the actual work by using that data.
The worth of CSA is not recognized in majority aerospace industries and hence not
implemented in its full strength (Burgess et al., 2003). Burgess et al. (2003) observed
Chapter 2: Literature review
51
that CSA is considered a time consuming and costly activity and do not receive due
favour at the early development phase of the product where data can be easily
accumulated but considerable time is spent in the final stages of product where need of
product reporting arise.
Systematic and progressive approach is necessary to highlight the importance and to
implement CSA in these industries. A stepwise approach for the implementation of CSA
is an effective way to implement this area in more professional way in these industries.
The approach may start with basics and ends with full implementation of CSA process
to acquire their desired results.
2.1.2.5 CM audits and reviews
CM audits and reviews are responsible for the verification and validation of a product
before its release to the customer(s) for use. Configuration audit and reviews are
performed to verify that physical and functional requirements of a product have been
achieved and incorporated in the design and are documented in configuration
documentation. Audits and reviews are performed by the end of different phases to form
specified baselines. Baselines are released after successful completion of CM reviews
and audits.
There are of various types of reviews [e.g. according to Samaras (1988) they are system
requirements review, system design review, software specification review, preliminary
design review, critical design review, test readiness review, and formal qualification
review] which are conducted after specific phases within product development cycle to
evaluate the current design process and make recommendations if necessary. There are
two types of Configuration Audits (EIA-649, 2011; Hass, 2002; ISO, 2003; MIL-
HDBK-61, 1997; MIL-STD-973, 1992; Samaras, 1988), i.e. Physical Configuration
Audit (PCA) and Functional Configuration Audit (FCA). These audits are conducted as
a final check before the products are delivered to the customers. Audits are mostly done
by the owner of the product and have no representatives from the customer as they do
have in case of reviews.
Chapter 2: Literature review
52
Audits are conducted in four major steps. Planning is the first and most important of
these steps. Audits are planned in advance before their execution in the form of PCA
Plan & FCA Plan. Audits are then accomplished as per plan in one or several different
settings. Audits activities and results are summarised in the form of Post Audit Reports.
The fourth and final step is to see the progress of accomplishment of the action items
which have been highlighted during audits.
2.1.2.6 Data management
Data Management is the management of product configuration related data generated
from concept till disposal of a product. Data Management is mainly responsible for
archiving of master documents; issuance, and retrieval of these documents within and
outside organization. Besides product documentation, data management may maintain
and control organizational policies and working procedures. The data management is
very difficult to manage without suitable data management system.
Documents are controlled both in the form of hard paper and electronic media.
Electronic copies are maintained with dedicated software usually with Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM) or Product Data Management (PDM) software. There are multiple
software available in the market designed to manage Configuration Management data.
While controlling electronic documents, optimum care is taken for maintaining the
identification of files, its correct versions, and relationship with product and associated
documents. Correct identification and version control of documents are important for
maintaining status of documents. These activities are important to access and archive the
data and manage related changes. Locating the correct data at minimum time is only
possible through a strong status management system. Data Management ensures access
to the right data by the right individual in minimum time and is important for supporting
the product life cycle activities. It ensures the accessibility of data to those individuals
who are only entitled for its use.
Chapter 2: Literature review
53
Data Management plays a vital role in maintaining a proper relationship between data
and product configuration. Documents carrying the following information which are
used by data management for establishing a proper relationship:
• Project / Project Related Information
• Changes Designators
• Associated Products & Documents Information
• Item Serial / Lot / Batch Number
• Status of the data, i.e. working, released, submitted, approved, or achieved
2.1.3 CM in Quality perspective
Configuration Management is a process designed to harmonize the product development
process. Experience shows that what we plan to built does not correspond in totality with
the designers intentions to build. This deviation is some time highlighted with minor
inadequacy in the original design during production and is fixed but usually appears a
major departure from the original design objectives and create major issues.
Configuration Management as a process is designed to reduce and remove such
inadequacies and ensure that as design configuration is the same to the as built
configuration and is a major concern of the quality control and quality assurance to
validate and conform the same.
Fowler (1993) highlighted that TQM and CM enhance productivity and are responsible
to reduce the total cost of the product. Fowler (1993) admitted that since customer
satisfaction is the prime objective of both, appraisal and prevention costs tend to rise
modestly but failure cost tend to reduce much more which results in reduction of the
total costs. Fowler (1993) highlighted a strong correlation between TQM and CM where
TQM is supporting tool enforcing a culture to increase customer relations, develop a
system for monitoring changes to requirements, enforce on supplier’s identification and
traceability, and control of processes. These areas are effectively identified and
controlled through CM. Configuration Management is an effective tool for information
Chapter 2: Literature review
54
handling and documentation control and therefore helps organizations to have effective
control on the inputs and outputs of their processes. Configuration Management has
been declared as a powerful tool to boost up quality of a product and improve
productivity (Stevens and Wright, 1991).
There is a strong correlation between ISO 9000 Quality Management System and the
CM process. Some of the clauses of ISO 9000 Quality Management System [e.g.
Control of documents (4.2.3), Control of records (4.2.4), Design and development (7.3),
Identification and traceability (7.5.3), Control of non-conforming products (8.3)] have a
direct relation with Configuration Management process. There are some additional
clauses of ISO 9000 which do address Configuration Management process. This
relationship shows that effective implementation of Configuration Management within
an organization can have strong impacts on enhancing supporting processes and
ultimately improving the quality of products.
2.1.4 Management of design process with CM
Configuration Management has a major role in controlling and maintaining the design
process of a product (Fowler, 1993). Configuration Management is directly related with
the design process and has major impacts in streamlining the design activities.
According to Hancock (1993) and Hancock (1994) the CM concept is very important to
improve the design control techniques. Design process starts with concept exploration,
passes through different phases and finalizes initially at the production phase and finally
ends on the disposal of the product. CM controls the design process by establishing
unique baselines at the end of each phase which are checked and verified through
different reviews. These baselines highlight the design of a product at specific point in
time and can be changed by the designer through a controlled process.
CM Personnel supports designers during identification, control, reporting, verifying and
validating their design process. Good communication between the two creates positive
results on the overall productivity and quality of the organization. But this looks a hard
job as highlighted by Fowler (1993) as this is not always the case as convincing
Chapter 2: Literature review
55
designers and other agencies with CM advantages is an intricate process as most of them
consider this process merely an expensive and obstructive bureaucratic activity. The
functional stakeholders must be convinced that how CM can improve quality, reduce
waste, streamline schedules and enhance the productivity of their processes. CM rewards
can be achieved if supporting departments are motivated and have a full belief on CM
advantages.
It is important to maintain strict relationships between product and its related documents
during the design phase which is the main objective behind CM. Configuration
Management is a key to process improvement which tries to build close associations
between product and its data (Buckley, 1993). With a good CM process, we can control
our design process and provide a good foundation in the form of design documents to
build quality products according to customer’s requirements.
2.1.5 CM impacts on customer’s support and satisfaction
Configuration Management helps organizations to fulfil customer’s requirements from
concept till operations of a product. Requirements specification is considered as the most
important document for the generation of system specifications. System specifications,
design alternatives, and feasibility reports are prepared on the basis of requirement
specification. The functional requirements review is conducted at the end of concept
phase to ensure that customer requirements have been incorporated in the design
approach and will serve per requirements (Samaras, 1988). The purpose of this step on
requirements specification right from concept phase is to enhance customer satisfaction
in the long run.
It is important that customers should be part of the detail design review and
organizations should take their consent before going for the qualification prototypes
(Samaras, 1988). This is necessary because most of the design decisions are completed
during this phase and is important to have customer satisfaction in the design at this
point in time as it is very difficult to reverse the design once the designers opt for the
next phase. It is also important to note that in the majority cases the ‘integrated support
Chapter 2: Literature review
56
analysis’ starts during the detail design phase to finalize the support side of the products.
Design and development of the ground support and operational equipments are started
mostly in parallel with product development and are covered by the Configuration
Management process.
Products may change not only in the design and development but also in the operational
phase when retrofits are required to fix bugs or enhance the functionality against
customer requirements. These Changes are classified in two categories i.e. Class-1
changes and Class-2 changes (Jones, 1992). Class1 changes also called major changes,
effects the fit, form, and function of the products while all other changes that do not
affect the form, fit, and function of the product are Class-2 or minor changes (Jones,
1992). According to Configuration Management principles, Class-1 changes should
always be approved and incorporated in the design with the consent of customers.
Changes have a potential to cause immense damage to company finances and customer
satisfaction hence prior approval should be sort before its implementation (Jones, 1992).
CM process plays a major part in the maintenance and modification of a product during
the operational phase. It is important to note that kit preparation and installation is a
major activity in modification and retrofits of any product where selection of right kit on
the basis of proper documentation plays a vital role. Any minor mistake at this level can
jeopardize the life of the product and can extremely effect customer relation (Jones,
1992). Control of all records related to maintenance and modification is maintained
through set guidelines established through CM process in the form of ‘maintenance and
modification history dossiers’ for each CIs, assemblies, or components.
Implementation of Configuration Management process from customer perspective is a
challenging task. Support process needs visibility throughout product life cycle
especially in the operational phase which can be achieved through effective CM process.
It is of extreme importance to understand, accept, and integrate customer support
interests throughout the CM process which is a key factor to both customer satisfaction
and organizational survival (Jones, 1992).
Chapter 2: Literature review
57
2.1.6 CM and products reliability and maintainability
Successful organizations can dominate the market through low product prices, better
time to market, superior product quality, and reliability and maintainability of the
product. According to Boznak (1990a), effective control on product development
through Configuration Management ensures the predictability of achieving reliability
and maintainability goals. Product development process should have a clear visibility of
the parts and information flow which if unavailable or unclear can severely affect the
integrity of the product. Clear and authentic information establishes a foundation for
significant improvement to product reliability and maintainability (Boznak, 1990b).
Figure 2-11 : Lack of control and its impact on cost (Boznak, 1990a)
Organization having poor control on development process results in escalation of
changes on approach to product finalization. This rise in changes results in longer time
to market for new product, boost manufacturing cost, and creates the reliability and
maintainability concerns. By applying the concept of Configuration Management,
Chapter 2: Literature review
58
Japanese companies have dominated the market as compared to the US companies
through their effective control on changes in product development cycle. This
comparison and the rise of the cost through unmanaged activities is presented by Boznak
(1990a) and is shown in the graph in figure 2-11.
2.1.7 CM activity model
Activity models which are mostly conceptual in nature represent a set of activities
organized in a logical sequence with clear dependencies to handle information for the
desired outputs. This concept is explored mainly in the form of human activity model by
Checkland, (1981) who in turn drew on the ideas of Churchman (1971) and Jenkins
(1969) which is also explained by Fortune and White (2006) and White and Fortune
(2009) in the form of formal system model by emphasising on projects. It is important to
emphasis on the CM activity model which needs to be based on factors necessary for
establishing, maintaining, and continuously improving the CM process. It is important to
note that limited academic literature on Configuration Management has never
emphasized on this concept whereas the available models could create misunderstanding
through the use of specific terminologies because of their origin with systems thinking
and project management. It is important to work on CM activity model and make it
easier for the use of CM practitioners to provide them with tangible basis for comparison
with their existing practices to highlight ways of improvements.
The most important aspect to know is that ‘there are not valid models and invalid ones,
only defensible conceptual models and ones which are less defensible! But at least it is
possible to check that conceptual models are not fundamentally deficient, and this is
done by checking the model against a general model of any human activity system’
(Checkland, 1981). To ensure that such models are free from any fundamental
deficiencies and make it more effective while implementation, it is important to adopt
the principals of soft system model building methodologies highlighted by Checkland,
(1979). In the soft systems methodology, models are not part of the world and hence
cannot be tested by checking how well they represent it; they are only pertinent to debate
about the real world and are used in a repeated learning process (Checkland, 1995).
Chapter 2: Literature review
59
2.2 Critical success factors and related CM literature
The concept of critical success factors is mostly linked with the research of Daniel
(1961) on ‘Management Information Crisis’ but defined for the first time by Rockart
(1979) as ‘Critical Success Factors thus are, for any business, the limited number of
areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive
performance for the organization. They are the few key areas where "things must go
right" for the business to flourish. Critical success factors are areas of activity that
should receive constant and careful attention from management. Critical success
factors, however, are the areas in which good performance is necessary to ensure
attainment of those goals’. Critical Success Factors outline key areas of managerial
success and has been used by management to measure and improve processes in sectors
like finance, information system, and manufacturing industries (Li et al., 2005).
Based on the seminal research ‘Chief Executive Define their Own Data Needs’ by
Rockart (1979), research in numerous sectors has been done on areas critical to project /
process outcomes and those that need special attention from top management to achieve
and ensure the success of a project / process within organizations. Critical Success
Factors include imperative issues necessary for an organization’s activities to flourish
with time. Importance of research on CSFs could be seen from the extensive literature
available in diverse fields such as, construction projects, construction partnering,
information systems projects, new product development, agile software projects,
education, data management, quality engineering, and project management.
The importance of research in the field of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) has become
evident through extensive research in other allied fields like Quality Management (QM),
Project Management (PM) and Knowledge Management (KM). For example more than
seventy studies have been identified on CSF’s in PM by Belassi and Tukel (1996),
Baccarini and Collins (2003), and Fortune and White (2006); while seven studies within
knowledge management by Wong (2005). Research on CSFs and critical barriers (CBs)
establish a baseline to formulate a means for the maturity of process (Niazi et al., 2005).
Chapter 2: Literature review
60
According to Yeo and Ren (2008), process maturity is mainly dependent on key
capability areas obtained from CSFs and CBs. Identification of CSFs helps individuals
to work on areas responsible for the success of a process, provide an opportunity to
avoid barriers, establishes direction to achieve goals, and offer a means of measuring the
effectiveness of their processes.
A detailed search of the peer reviewed journals and practitioner literature highlights no
formal study on the subject in the field of Configuration Management. Some researchers
believe that in the presence of such an extensive literature on CSFs in areas such as PM
or QM, it is fruitless to further explore the subject within CM. But, in reality there is no
single study that could be used as a baseline to help CM practitioners in the maturity of
the CM process although some studies (table 2-1) highlight some areas of importance.
Being a technical management discipline it is logical that some of the areas will be
critical for both CM and PM e.g. resource requirements, management support etc., but
many other PM factors identified by studies presented in table 2-2, table 2-3, and table
2-4 have limited direct correlation on the overall performance of CM operation e.g.
market intelligence, technical uncertainty innovation, accurate initial cost estimates,
strong business case.
Chapter 2: Literature review
61
Key Important Factors References
management support (Guess, 2006; MIL-HDBK-61, 1997;
Samaras, 1988)
CM specialists, simplest CM process (Samaras, 1988)
Good standards (Guess, 2006; Hancock, 1993; MIL-HDBK-
61, 1997;)
CM planning (Guess, 2006; Sachs, 2009)
Efficient software tool (Fowler, 1993; Guess, 2006)
Effective communication
(Guess, 2006; Jarratt et al., 2011; Tavcar
and Duhovnik, 2005; Yeh and Tai-Hsi,
2005; Wasmer et al. 2011)
Proper resources allocation (MIL-HDBK-61, 1997; Gonzalez and
Zaalouk, 1997; Guess, 2006)
Training (Samaras, 1988; Hancock 1993; Gonzalez
and Zaalouk, 1997; Guess, 2006)
Cooperation
(Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997; Guess, 2006;
Jarratt et al., 2011; MIL-HDBK-61, 1997;
Samaras, 1988)
Good leader (Guess, 2006; Watts, 2008)
Team work (Sachs, 2007)
Creative and committed professional (Sachs, 2010)
Continuous improvement (Guess, 2006; Hancock, 1993)
Table 2-1: CM success factors (areas of importance)
Chapter 2: Literature review
62
Critical Factor Counts of Citations
Support from senior management 39
Clear realistic objectives 31
Strong/detailed plan kept to date 29
Good communication & feedback 27
User/client involvement 24
Skilled/suitably qualified/sufficient staff/team 20
Competent project manager 19
Strong business case/sound basis for project 19
Sufficient/well allocated resources 16
Good Leadership 16
Proven/familiar technology 15
Realistic schedule 14
Risk addressed/assessed/managed 14
Project sponsor/champion 13
Effective monitoring / control 12
Adequate budget 12
Organisational adaptation/culture/structure 11
Good performance by suppliers/contractors/consultants 10
Planned close down/review/acceptance of possible failure 10
Training provision 9
Political stability 7
Correct choice/past experience of project management
methodology/tools 6
Environmental Influences 6
Past experience (learning from) 5
Project size (large)/level of complexity (high)/number of
people involved (too many)/duration (over 3 years) 4
Different viewpoints (appreciating) 3
Table 2-2: PM CSFs identified across 63 publications (Fortune and White, 2006)
Chapter 2: Literature review
63
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4
Define goals Make project
commitments
known
Project summary Project manager's
competence
Select project
organizational
philosophy
Project authority
from the top
Operational concept Scheduling
General
management
support
Appoint competent
project manager
Top management
support
Control systems and
responsibilities
Organize and
delegate authority
Set up
communications
and procedures
Financial support Monitoring and
feedback
Select project team Set up control
mechanisms
(schedules, etc.)
Logistic
requirements
Continuing
involvement in the
project
Allocate sufficient
resources
Progress meetings Facility support
Provide for control
and information
mechanisms
Market intelligence
(who is the client)
Require planning
and review
Project schedule
Executive
development and
training
Manpower and
organization
Acquisition
Information and
communication
channels
Project review
Table 2-3: List of PM CSFs (Belassi and Tukel, 1996)
Chapter 2: Literature review
64
Study 5 Study 6 Study 7
Clear goals Top management support Project objectives
Goal commitment Client consultation Technical uncertainty
innovation
On-site project manager Personnel recruitment Politics
Adequate funding to
completion
Technical tasks Community involvement
Adequate project team
capability
Client acceptance Schedule duration urgency
Accurate initial cost
estimates
Monitoring and feedback Financial contract legal
problems
Minimum start-up
difficulties
Communication Implement problems
Planning and control
techniques
Trouble-shooting
Task (vs. social orientation) Characteristics of the
project team leader
Absence of bureaucracy Power and politics
Environment events
Urgency
Table 2-4: List of PM CSFs (Belassi and Tukel, 1996)
2.3 Barriers to CM implementation
CM Barriers refer to those potential actions, phenomenon, or influences which hamper
and prevent successful implementation of the process in achieving its objectives.
Detailed literature review highlights that research based studies on barriers to CM
implementation are limited in comparison with other allied fields like Quality
Chapter 2: Literature review
65
Management and Knowledge Management. To the best of my knowledge based on the
available literature, there is no formal study found with the aim to explore barriers to
CM implementation. However, studies in other allied fields like Project Management
(Atkinson et al., 2006), Quality Management (e.g. Bhat and Rajashekhar, 2009;
Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003), Knowledge Management (e.g. Riege, 2005; Sun and
Scott, 2006), and Business Process Management (Da-Silva., 2012) provided a great deal
of scope while developing this study.
Burgess, et al. (2003); Burgess et al. (2005) and Huang and Mak (1999) could be
considered the most significant studies which have supported this research in many
aspects but have specific limitations. These studies have targeted specific elements of
CM instead of targeting CM as a generic and holistic process. For example the study of
Burgess et al. (2003) deals mainly to Configuration Status Accounting while the study of
Huang and Mak (1999) is related Configuration Change Control and hence can’t be
considered a representative view of the CM process as a whole. Burgess et al. (2005)
covers the status of CM implementation within one multi-national aerospace programme
which highlighted some of the obstacles to CM implementation.
The study of Burgess et al. (2003) highlights the implementation status of Configuration
Status Accounting within the aerospace sector. According to this study, CM planning
which is the most influential aspect of the process is a major concern for organizations
since it is rarely given the due importance. There are some other factors which have
significant effects on the outcome of this activity e.g. perceived lack of CM value, lack
of dedicated CM staff and an engendered belief that CM is not a cost effective process.
This study is based on the assumption that standards for CM are well understood and
prevalent which could be considered a major limitation of the study. This as a whole is
believed to be one of the most crucial areas in CM implementation (Samaras, 1984)
which can affect the overall performance of the process and hence cannot be ignored.
Further to this, a recent study by Wu et al. (2012) states that CM standards are not well
understood or adopted, especially where there is no contractual obligations.
Chapter 2: Literature review
66
The study of Huang and Mak, (1999) is related to the influential factors of engineering
change management. According to the authors, the most influential factors to effective
change implementation are poor communication, high uncertainty in planning and
priorities, reluctance and indifference toward the process, complex and confusing
organizational structures, lack of cooperation, an overly bureaucratic process
infrastructure, lack of simplicity, isolated automation of the process, scarce resources
that are exacerbated by constant fire fighting, lack of involvement from stakeholders,
lack of engagement of CM practitioners in decision making and narrowing of human
skills.
The study of Burgess et al. (2005) is an overview of current status of CM applications in
the aerospace sector, from the perspective of one major collaborative programme, which
highlights some major obstacles to CM implementation. It claims that CM is not
considered a vigorous discipline, having poor recognition, and instead of a single
process it is viewed as the interaction of many processes all embedded within other
functions. According to this study, CM as a generic process across the full life cycle is
missing at present. It is believed that the lack of poor CM recognition is linked with lack
of management support, lack of training, and lack of CM career progression.
Fowler (1996) has also highlighted some major issues in the effective implementation of
CM within shipbuilding organizations. Fowler (1996) further highlighted that although
CM is considered a powerful tool focusing on waste-reduction, quality and the
preservation of design intent, the problems associated with CM implementation should
not be misjudged even in the presence of defined CM principles, practices, and
standards. Even though some aspects may vary according to the nature, structure,
function and objectives of a particular organization; there are some general soft skill
issues with CM implementation. These behavioural issues include lack of sufficient
human resource to introduce CM concepts, unfamiliarity with CM concepts, the
existence of a diverse range of perceptions, and hesitation in accepting the ownership
and commitment to the CM process.
Chapter 2: Literature review
67
There are some other studies on multiple issues within CM- although limited- have
highlighted barriers to CM success e.g. lack of resources, lack of standardization, lack of
management support, and lack of user’s acceptance and involvement (Gonzalez and
Zaalouk, 1997), cooperation and coordination, lack of communication (Jarratt et al.
2011), and lack of user friendly software tools (Guess, 2006).
The literature on barriers to CM implementation does not reflect one single study
dedicated to CM implementation barriers. Some of the studies mentioned above do
reflect some barriers but critical review suggests that several highlighted barriers are
based on a particular researcher’s own perception since they believe that the process is
not practiced to its full potential because of a variety of perceived reasons. Little cross
industry research based on collected data has been carried out in some of these studies.
This is a major failing of a phenomenological approach to research, and reflects a
particular bias, especially where the outcome is to promote a particular methodology. It
is also essential to note that many barriers presented in this research have not been
reflected before, for example extreme project pressures, poorly defined CM
requirements and process, lack of flexibility in CM process, lack of authority to
implement CM principles / policies, lack of CM awareness in Customer worlds, and
outdated CM process.
2.4 Maturity models
Maturity is the state or quality of being mature, full development, or perfected condition
whereas maturity of a process is the stage where it is perfectly implemented to achieve
its desired objectives. Maturity Models on the other hand represent theories on how to
evolve the capabilities of an activity in steps along an anticipated, desired, or logical
maturation path and are used to assess the as-is situations to guide improvement
initiatives and to control progress (Röglinger et. al., 2012). It is logical that in the real
world it is not possible to achieve a fully matured process or activity hence it make sense
to highlight stages for improvements and develop paths for achieving those stages to
help individuals in obtaining a certain level of maturity.
Chapter 2: Literature review
68
Apparently the concept of process improvement was initiated by Walter Shewhart
through his work on Statistical Quality Control back in 1930s (Team, 2006) which was
formalized through the developments of quality management concepts and practices
where efforts were made to enhance the quality of products / services. It was Crosby
(1997) who developed the five layer Quality Management maturity grid to help
managers to mature their processes. Deming (1986) and Juran (1988) further highlighted
the significance of this concept through their works on continuous process improvement
practices for the development of Quality Management system. The concept is further
signified by Radice et al. (1985) through developing maturity model within IBM and
Humphrey (1989) with a five layers process maturity framework in software
organizations. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) further developed the concept
by introducing multiple maturity models which were finally combined in the form of
capability maturing model integration (Team, 2006).
The significance of research on the topic could be seen from extensive literature in
multiple areas. According to Spanyi (2004), approximately 150 business maturity
models are available where as 30 alone are working in the field of Project Management
(Grant and Pennypacker, 2006). This shows that the maturity concept is not limited to
SEI initiatives to software sectors but has spread to almost all sectors of knowledge like
project management (e.g. Crawford, 2006; Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Kwak and Ibbs,
2002), risk management (e.g. Hillson, 1997; Yeo and Ren, 2008), requirements
engineering (e.g. Beecham et al., 2005b), safety (e.g. Filho et. al., 2010;), knowledge
management (e.g. Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004; Paulzen and Perc, 2002), and IT
(Gottschalk and Solli-Sæther, 2006) etc.
Recent research on maturity models has changed the traditional concept of developing
these models. Andersen and Jessen, (2003) developed a model for projects maturity in
organization based on attitude, knowledge, and actions parameters while describing
organizational maturity into three layers i.e. Project, Programe, and Portfolio
Management. Niazi et al. (2005) emphasis on the identification of critical success factors
and critical barriers while generating maturity models while Yeo and Ren (2008)
Chapter 2: Literature review
69
emphasis on process capabilities which are based on the critical success factors and
barrier to process implementation. Beecham and Rainer, (2005b) introduced the
requirements process improvements model based on previous literature and problems
highlighted by professionals through forty-five focused groups in the software
development process. These studies has given a new dimension to this research
CM has remained an integral part of the Capability Maturity Model for software (Paulk
et. al., 1993), Systems Engineering Capability Model (Bate et al., 1995), and Capability
Maturing Model Integration (Team, 2006). The other independent study on the subject is
the development of CM maturity model for medical device industries (McCaffery and
Coleman, 2007). The objectives of these studies are to use it as a reference point to
mature the CM process; however these studies are similar in nature and are not
comprehensive and lack important information. These studies suggest a standardized
approach to mature the process areas of an organization but recent research of Niazi et
al. (2005) and Yeo and Ren (2008) recommends that maturity frameworks should be
based on critical success factors and barriers to its implementation. Moreover these
studies are based on ‘what’ instead of ‘how’ (Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Niazi et al.,
2005) which forced us to come-up with a framework which emphasis that how to
implement the key aspects of this process to mature an organization’s CM process.
This seems logical since the implementation requirements and improvement priorities
for Configuration Management could never be the same to that of requirements
management, risk management, and product integration and could only be fixed on the
basis of CM specific Critical Success Factors and Barriers to its implementation.
Moreover the maturity guidelines are generic in nature, has ignored the governance
aspects of the process, and emphasis on ‘what’ to implement instead of ‘how’ to
implement which leave a gap of uncertainty to effective maturity of a process.
2.4.1 SEI maturity models
It was the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) who developed the concept of maturity
models and provided foundation for further research. The Software Engineering Institute
Chapter 2: Literature review
70
with mitre corporation started the development of a process maturity framework back in
1986 (Paulk et al., 1993). The Software Engineering Institute released a brief description
of the process maturity framework and a maturity questionnaire in 1987. In the next four
years SEI evolved the software process maturity framework into the Capability Maturity
Model for Software (CMM). The first released document of CMM (Version 1.0) was
used by the software community during 1991 and 1992 which was updated (Version 1.1)
and released in February, 1993 (Paulk et al., 1993).
The release of CMM were followed by the release of two important maturity models i.e.
Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) and the Integrated Product
Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM). The three Models i.e. the
Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM), the SE-CMM and IPD-CMM
were combined into Capability Maturing Model Integration SM
(CMMI SM
) (Team,
2006). CMMI model architecture has been improved and was developed for three main
areas, i.e. development, services, and acquisition. CMMI for Development consists of
two models i.e. CMMI for Development with Integrated Product and Process
Development (IPPD) and CMMI for Development without IPPD. Both models share
much of their materials, however, CMMI for Development with IPPD contains
additional goals and practices that cover IPPD (Team, 2006). The history of Capability
Maturity Model by SEI has been indicated in the figure 2-12.
It is important to have a look on those SEI maturity models where CM is the key process
element. This would help to clear our thoughts, understand its working mechanism, and
the pros and cons of these models. It is important to discuss the three maturity models
where CM is one of the key process areas. The three maturity models are the capability
maturity model for software, the systems engineering capability maturity model, and the
capability maturity model integration. The discussion on these maturity models are
presented below.
Chapter 2: Literature review
71
Figure 2-12: History of CMMs (Team, 2006)
2.4.1.1 Capability maturity model for software (SW-CMM)
The Capability Maturity Model is a software process capability improvements
framework designed for software organizations and has been evolved from process
maturity framework developed by SEI in 1987 on the requirements of federal
government (Paulk et al., 1993). SW-CMM is a staged model having five levels of
maturity i.e. (1) initial, (2) repeatable, (3) defined, (4) managed, and (5) optimizing.
Each of these levels is assessed according to its capabilities in several key process areas
(KPA). The five staged Capability Maturity Model is shown in figure 2-13.
Each of the five maturity levels has defined characteristics and is outlined below.
i. Initial
Organizations at initial level have more ad-hoc processes and mostly chaotic.
Only few processes are defined and the success of the process depends more on
individual efforts.
Chapter 2: Literature review
72
ii. Repeatable
Organizations at Repeatable Level have most essential processes are in place.
Duplication of efforts found in current projects which have been implemented
and are learnt from previous successful projects.
iii. Defined
Organizations at Defined Level are well documented, standardized, and
integrated, process activities.
iv. Managed
Organizations at this level could have abilities to quantitative measure their
software process and product quality
v. Optimizing
Optimized Organization continuous improves their processes.
Figure 2-13 : Five levels of SW-CMM (Paulk, Curtis et al. 1993)
Chapter 2: Literature review
73
Each maturity level is composed of several key process areas which are further
organized by common features. Each common feature consists of several key practices.
Implementation of these key practices accomplishes the goals of the key process areas.
2.4.1.1.1 Key Process Areas
There are eighteen key process areas designated to different maturity levels of SW-
CMM (Paulk et al., 1993). The key process areas are distributed in different levels where
it is necessary to accomplish six key process areas at maturity level two, seven at
maturity level three, two at maturity level four, and three at maturity level five. There is
no key process which is specified to level one of SW-CMM. Detail of these key process
areas are listed in the table 2-5.
2.4.1.1.2 Common Features
These key process areas are organized by common features. Common features highlight
that whether the implementation and institutionalization of key process areas are
effective, repeatable, and lasting. The five common features have been listed below
(Paulk et al., 1993):
i. Commitment to perform
ii. Ability to perform
iii. Activities performed
iv. Measurement and analysis
v. Verifying implementation
2.4.1.1.3 Key practices
Each key process area has been explained in terms of key practices. The objective of
these key practices is to satisfy the overall objectives of each process areas. Key Practice
is usually a single sentence, sometimes followed by a detailed description, which
Chapter 2: Literature review
74
describes the fundamental policies, procedures, and activities of the key process area.
Detailed description is frequently referred to as sub-practices.
CAPABILITY
LEVEL
CAPABILITY
NAMES KEY PROCESS AREAS
1 Initial -------------
2
Repeatable a. Software Configuration Management
b. Software Quality Assurance
c. Software Subcontract Management
d. Software Project Tracking And Oversight
e. Software Project Planning
f. Requirements Management
3
Defined a. Peer reviews
b. Intergroup Coordination
c. Software Product Engineering
d. Integrated Software Management
e. Training Program
f. Organization Process Definition
g. Organization Process Focus
4 Managed a. Software Quality Management
b. Quantitative Process Management
5
Optimizing a. Process Change Management
b. Technology Change Management
c. Defect Prevention
Table 2-5: List of key process areas of SW-CMM (Paulk et al., 1993)
2.4.1.1.4 CMM implementation
SW-CMM has been effectively used in the past by organizations for software process
assessment and software capability evaluation. Software assessments and evaluations
Chapter 2: Literature review
75
were mainly done by a team of specialized persons against a maturity questionnaire
(Zubrow et al., 1994). After in-depth interviews which were followed from a response
analysis on questionnaire, findings were compiled based on the SW-CMM.
Improvements were suggested on the KPA profile which was generated on the findings
from both questionnaires and interviews.
2.4.1.1.5 CM as a key process area
The Capability Maturity Model for software was designed to enhance the maturity of an
organization where each process area was explained in terms of its requirements without
any independent maturity path for any specific process area. Configuration Management
is one of the key process areas where four goals are highlighted related to the
implementation of the major elements of the process. A critical review of the model
highlights the necessary requirements but lags sufficient information on providing path
for the maturity of the process. In other words there are materials on what to implement
but lags on how to implement the listed criteria to achieve the required objectives.
It is also important to note that this model only highlights a five stage maturity path for
an organization based on eighteen process areas where Configuration Management is
one of them. This is not a maturity model for maturing the Configuration Management
practices but only highlight some basic criteria necessary to fully implement the process.
The Configuration Management process area has been described in terms of unique
goals, commitments, abilities, activities, measurements, and verification statements
where some basic requirements are missing (e.g. the governance of the process).
Moreover, there are only eight questions available in the SW-CMM questionnaire to
measure the CM process (Zubrow et al., 1994) which not is sufficient for the
measurement of any significant process in the preview of latest available literature.
2.4.1.2 Systems engineering capability maturity model (SE-CMM)
The Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) was developed by SEI
to support and improve the systems engineering discipline in organizations. SE-CMM is
Chapter 2: Literature review
76
a multipurpose framework and was designed for obtaining different objectives in
different circumstances. First, SE-CMM was a useful guide for individual systems
engineering practitioners; secondly, it acted as a productivity improvement tool for their
parent organizations; and thirdly it was a good choice as a tool for supplier selection by
any organization (Bate et al., 1995). SE-CMM was divided in two main areas i.e. basic
systems engineering elements (the domain side) and process management focused
elements (the capability side). The domain and capability side of the SE-CMM has been
shown in the figure 2-14.
2.4.1.2.1 Capability portion
The Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) has grouped the
process capability into three tires i.e. capability levels, common features, and generic
practices. Capability levels are the increasing levels of process maturity having some
common features. Each common feature consists of several generic practices. Fulfilment
of these generic practices for each process area was responsible for increasing the level
of capability for each process area. There are five capability levels (figure 2-15) and
eleven common features (table 2-6) mentioned in the Systems Engineering Capability
Maturity Model (Bate et al., 1995).
2.4.1.2.2 Domain portion
The SE-CMM explains the systems engineering domain by using process areas. Each
process area further includes several base practices and explanatory notes. There are 18
process areas which are grouped into three process categories i.e. Engineering, Project,
and Organization (Bate et al., 1995). Each process area can be improved through a step
wise approach as shown in figure 2-15. Details of process categories and process areas
are given in the table 2-7 below.
Chapter 2: Literature review
77
Figure 2-14: SE-CMM Model architecture (Bate et al., 1995)
Figure 2-15 : Improvement path for process capability (Bate et al., 1995)
Chapter 2: Literature review
78
Capability
Level Capability Names Common Features
1 Performed
Informally a. Base practices performed
2 Planned and
Tracked
a. Planning Performance
b. Disciplined Performance
c. Verifying Performance
d. Tracking Performance
3 Well Defined a. Defining a Standard Process
b. Perform the Standard Process
4 Quantitatively
Controlled
a. Establishing Measurable Quality Goals
b. Objectively Managing Performance
5 Continuously
Improving
a. Improving Organizational Capability
b. Improving Process Effectiveness
Table 2-6: Capability levels with their common features (Bate et al., 1995)
2.4.1.2.3 Improving systems engineering maturity
One of the possible outlays for improving the system engineering maturity within an
organization is shown in the following five figures. An organization will be called at
“Capability Level-1 Engineering” if the engineering process is at level one. The
organization can proceed to “Capability Level-2 Engineering” if the project process of
an organization reaches level one. The organization can reach to “Capability Level-3
Engineering” if the project process obtains capability level two and organization process
obtains level one. Similarly, the organization can attain the “Capability Level-4
Engineering” if both the project process and organization process reach capability level
three. Finally the organization can obtain “Capability Level-5 Engineering” of both the
project process and organization process achieves capability level four.
Chapter 2: Literature review
79
Engineering Process
Areas
Project Process Areas Organizational Process
Areas
Analyze Candidate
Solutions Ensure Quality Coordinate with Suppliers
Derive and Allocate
Requirements Manage Configurations
Define Organization's
Systems Engineering
Process
Evolve System
Architecture Manage Risk
Improve Organization's
Systems Engineering
Processes
Integrate Disciplines Monitor and Control
Technical Effort
Manage Product Line
Evolution
Integrate System Plan Technical Effort
Manage Systems
Engineering Support
Environment
Understand Customer
Needs and Expectations
Provide Ongoing
Knowledge and Skills
Verify and Validate
System
Table 2-7: SE-CMM Process Categories and Process Areas (Bate et al., 1995)
Figure 2-16: Capability level-1 engineering (Bate et al., 1995)
Chapter 2: Literature review
80
Figure 2-17: Capability level-2 engineering (Bate et al., 1995)
Figure 2-18: Capability level-3 engineering (Bate et al., 1995)
Figure 2-19: Capability level-4 engineering (Bate et al., 1995)
Chapter 2: Literature review
81
Figure 2-20: Capability level-5 engineering (Bate et al., 1995)
2.4.1.2.4 CM process within SE-CMM
Configuration Management has been explained in Process-09 of the SE-CMM under the
heading of Manage Configurations. Five base practices have been identified to explain
the term of Configuration Management. By fulfilling these base practices in its totality,
we can achieve Level-1 of CM Process. To achieve the next levels for this process we
have to fulfil the requirements of related general practices.
There are some limitations in the CM process as explained in the SE-CMM. First of all,
it should be noted that the five base practices of CM as explained in SE-CMM do not
explain this process area in its totality. Secondly, the general practices are same for all
eighteen process areas to mature a specific process. The assumptions behind this
approach is that all process have similar requirements to mature and might be facing the
same problem during its implementation, hence needs a similar approach to overcome
those problems. This needs further research to come on conclusion that whether this
assumption is true or not.
2.4.1.3 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement maturity
model for the development of products and services. CMMI addresses development,
Chapter 2: Literature review
82
maintenance and acquisition activities that cover the product lifecycle from conception
through delivery and maintenance. There are three CMMI modules as listed below.
• CMMI for development
• CMMI for services
• CMMI for acquisition
The CMMI for development is the point of interest because Configuration Management
is one of the major process areas explained.
2.4.1.3.1 CMMI for development
CMMI for Development has been developed to help organizations in improving their
development and maintenance processes for both products and services. CMMI for
development V1.02 was initially released in 2000, updated to V1.1 in 2002, and V1.2 in
2006. The purpose CMMI for development is to cope with the problem of using multiple
Capability Maturity Models. The CMMI for Development was built by integrating the
three major capability maturity models i.e. Capability Maturity Model for Software,
Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model, and Integrated Product Development
Capability Maturity Model (Team, 2006). It is important to note that all the previous
three capability maturity models are no more valid to use.
CMMI uses two different representations for process improvement i.e. continuous and
staged (TEAM, 2006). The continuous representation facilitates an organization to select
a process or group of process areas for improvements. Continuous representation uses
capability levels to characterize improvements to an individual process area. The staged
representation is characterized by maturity levels and uses predefined sets of process
areas to define an improvement path for an organization.
There are twenty two process areas which have been grouped into four categories. Each
process area has been assigned to a specified capability level. There are seven processes
Chapter 2: Literature review
83
associated to maturity level two, eleven processes to maturity level three, and two
processes each to maturity level four and five. Details of these process areas along their
maturity level and groups are shown in table 2-8.
Each process area can be matured to Capability Level-5 (continuous representation) by
fulfilling the requirements of six capability levels (table 2-9). For process maturity, an
initial requirement is to fulfil specific goals and specific practices related to that process
area. After fulfilling these basic requirements, a process can be matured by fulfilling the
generic goals and generic practices. Group of processes can be matured to a Maturity
Level-5 (staged representation) by fulfilling the requirements of five Maturity Levels
(table 2-9). Organization can select any number of processes in the staged representation
as per their ability to enhance a group of processes.
To enhance the overall maturity level of an organization it should be noted that to
achieve maturity level 2, all process areas assigned to maturity level 2 must achieve
capability level 2 or higher while to achieve maturity level 3, all process areas assigned
to maturity levels 2 and 3 must achieve capability level 3 or higher. To achieve maturity
level 4, all process areas assigned to maturity levels 2, 3, and 4 must achieve capability
level 3 or higher while to achieve maturity level 5; all process areas must achieve
capability level 3 or higher (TEAM, 2006).
2.4.1.3.2 CM Process in CMMI for development
According to CMMI for Development, CM Process can be enhanced to capability Level-
5 through continuous representation. The approach of enhancement presented in CMMI
is similarly to that of SE-CMM. The basic differences are in the terms generic goals and
generic practices which are used for common features and generic practices respectively.
Also, the base practices, as explained in the SE-CMM do not explain the CM process in
its totality; but in CMMI, these have been fully explained under the headings of Specific
Goals and Specific Practices of CM.
Chapter 2: Literature review
84
PROCESS AREA PROCESS
CATEGORIES
MATURITY
LEVEL
Requirements Management Engineering 2
Project Planning Project Management 2
Project Monitoring and Control Project Management 2
Supplier Agreement Management Project Management 2
Measurement and Analysis Support 2
Process and Product Quality Assurance Support 2
Configuration Management Support 2
Requirements Development Engineering 3
Technical Solution Engineering 3
Product Integration Engineering 3
Verification Engineering 3
Validation Engineering 3
Organizational Process Focus Process Management 3
Organizational Process Definition +IPPD Process Management 3
Organizational Training Process Management 3
Integrated Project Management +IPPD Project Management 3
Risk Management Project Management 3
Decision Analysis and Resolution Support 3
Organizational Process Performance Process Management 4
Quantitative Project Management Project Management 4
Organizational Innovation and Deployment Process Management 5
Causal Analysis and Resolution Support 5
Table 2-8 : Details of process areas (TEAM, 2006)
Chapter 2: Literature review
85
LEVELS
CONTINUOUS
REPRESENTATION
(CAPABILITY LEVELS)
STAGED
REPRESENTATION
(MATURITY LEVELS)
Level 0 Incomplete N/A
Level 1 Performed Initial
Level 2 Managed Managed
Level 3 Defined Defined
Level 4 Quantitatively Managed Quantitatively Managed
Level 5 Optimizing Optimizing
Table 2-9 : Capability and maturity levels (TEAM, 2006)
It is important to note that the whole model is based on generic practices and base
practices concept. The model has similar limitations as highlighted in the previous two
models of the same family which are not based on critical success factors and barriers to
a specific process but has followed the general trend already in use. It is evident that
these are not research models which are generated by targeting specific areas or
processes but has followed a general trend by targeting an overall organization. The
model does highlighted some areas in general but has not specified them specific to a
process which could be summarized like ‘the model does say what to do but lacking in
conveying the message of how to do it’ e.g. the model is talking about measuring the
CM process at level four but does not highlight what to measure and that how it will
benefit in the improvement of the process.
2.4.2 CM Capability Model for the medical device industry
McCaffery and Coleman (2007) developed a Configuration Management Capability
Model which is specifically dedicated to CM improvement process in the medical device
industry. This model is based on the comparison of Configuration Management
Chapter 2: Literature review
86
activities in medical device industry to that of capability maturity model integration CM
process. The studies of McCaffery et al. (2008) and McCaffery and Coleman (2007)
highlighted that medical device industry only implement seventeen out of thirty eight
CMMI practices with two additional practices which are not mentioned in CMMI
guidelines. Details on the number of practices specific to three goals are show in table 2-
10.
CMMED
goal
CMMI
activities
CMMI
activities to
meet medical
device
requirements
Additional
activities to
meet medical
device
requirements
Goal 1 17 6 1
Goal 2 9 8 1
Goal 3 12 3 0
Total 38 17 2
Table 2-10 : Comparison of CM activities in Medical Device Industry and CMMI
(McCaffery et al., 2008)
Configuration Management Capability Model for medical device industry consists of six
capability levels (McCaffery and Coleman 2007). The Level-0 of the CMMI is replaced
with Level-Med in this capability model while the rest five levels are unchanged to that
of CMMI. According to McCaffery, nineteen specific practices and five general
practices are at Level-Med, twenty one specific practices are at level one, five general
practices are at level two, two general practices are at level 3, two general practices are
at level four, and two general practices are at level five.
The model of McCaffery and Coleman (2007) is nothing more than a comparison of the
CM practices as used in medical device industry with that of CM process area in CMMI
model to come-up with Capability Model for Medical Device Industry. There is no
Chapter 2: Literature review
87
significant difference between the two models except the explanation of the terms
specific to medical industry. The model does not cover any specific problem that
management do face during the CM implementation within medical device industries.
Also, there is no special emphasis on the success factors which are critical to be
implemented for the success of CM within these industries.
It is important to note that all CMMI CM specific processes are at capability level one
but nineteen specific practices of CM regarding medical device industry are at Level-
Med in this model without any specific reason. It is also to note that five of the general
practices are at capability Level-Med which is against CMMI concept where no generic
goal exists at this level as there is no reason to institutionalize a partially performed
process. It is logical to give reasons for deviation if you are following a specific
approach as a whole.
CM implementation strategies are different in different industries which are mostly
dependent on the size of the organization, type of products, and scope of work. Due to
these factors, the capability model; which is an improvement model, must have some
differences in the maturity process. Capability Models should be based on the factors
which boost the organization to mature the process. These factors are the critical success
factors which are responsible for a process to mature. Furthermore it is important to have
the knowledge of the factors which are creating problems in the improvement process of
Configuration Management so that organization could be able to look for any remedial
actions and guide their process to maturity.
2.4.3 Limitation of CM related maturity models
Existing Configuration Management related maturity models does cover the following
main aspects:
Chapter 2: Literature review
88
• There is a general view that previous maturity models are based on ‘what to
implement’ instead of ‘how to implement’ things (Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Niazi
et al., 2005) to mature a process which leads researchers to work on the issue.
• Critical Success Factors and Barriers to a process / system play a key role while
developing maturity models (Niazi et al., 2005); Yeo and Ren, 2008) but these
aspects are totally ignored while developing CM related maturity models which may
affect the maturity concept in the field.
• It is important to mention the improvement priorities for the maturity of any process
while attempting a process maturity. This is no where present in these process
maturity models.
• Most maturity guidelines are generic and are applicable to all process areas of an
organization. These guidelines should be specific to a process so that concerned
individuals could easily implement the same.
• Most importantly, previous maturity models (SE-CMM or CMMI) are system
engineering based models which are specifically designed for those 18 or 22 process
areas to mature an overall organization. These maturity models work well if we
consider an overall organization but do not provide a clear picture when come to
independent process maturity.
2.4.4 Research on maturity models in other allied fields
Despite the development of different maturity models on multiple aspects by the SEI,
significant research has taken place in the last two decades in multiple fields which show
the importance of the topic and the limitation of the SEI models. It is widely believed
that these studies are based on ‘what’ instead of ‘how’ (Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Niazi
et al., 2005) and forced researchers to come-up with different frameworks which
emphasise how to implement the key aspects to mature their processes.
Chapter 2: Literature review
89
There is a wide range of research on the issue where approximately 150 business
maturity models are available where as 30 alone are working in the field of Project
Management (Grant and Pennypacker, 2006) and is extended to other areas e.g.
requirements engineering (e.g. Beecham et al., 2005b), safety (e.g. Filho et. al., 2010),
knowledge management (e.g. Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004; Paulzen and Perc, 2002), and
IT (Gottschalk and Solli-Sæther, 2006) etc. It is important to review some of the
frequently highlighted studies in these diverse areas before initiating any further research
on the topic which could help in answering the limitation highlighted by previous
researchers in the previous studies. Some of the studies are given below which have
helped in the development of this research.
2.4.4.1 Maturity model for software process improvement
The study of Niazi et al. (2005) highlights a maturity model for software process
improvements which is mainly based on critical success factors and barriers to software
process improvements. The structure of the maturity model in built upon three
dimensions i.e. maturity stage dimension, critical success factors dimension, and
assessment dimension. The maturity stage dimension has four maturity levels and is
shown in table 2-11. The CSFs dimension has four maturity levels which are based on
critical success factors and barriers to software process improvements which are
categorized in into three categorize i.e. awareness, organizational, and support shown in
table 2-12. Each Critical Success Factor and Barriers are highlighted with the help of
five statements or practices which needs to be measured on a scale from 1 to 10. It is
important to note that to achieve any maturity level, all critical success factors and
barriers that belong to that maturity level should have an average score of 7 or above.
Chapter 2: Literature review
90
Table 2-11: Maturity stage dimension (Niazi et al., 2005)
Maturity Stage Front-end category Back-end category
4 -Optimising Support Awareness
Organizational
3 - Defined Organizational Awareness
2 - Aware Awareness
1 - Initial
Table 2-12: Critical Success Factors dimension (Niazi et al., 2005)
2.4.4.2 Risk management capability maturity models
The Study of Yeo and Ren (2009)
Yeo and Ren (2009) developed a risk management capability maturity model for
complex product systems (CoPS) Projects (CoPS-RM-CMM) to provide a framework to
help CoPS producers and project teams to standardize their current approach in risk
management against different risk management scenarios. The CoPS-RM-CMM has
been divided into two components i.e. maturity levels and capability levels. There are
five maturity levels and ten capabilities (based on success and risk factors) which are
Chapter 2: Literature review
91
further divided into three main areas. Details of Capability and Maturity of CoPS-RM-
CMM are shown in figure 2-21.
Figure 2-21 : Maturity levels of CoPS-RM-CMM (Yeo and Ren, 2009)
Category Key Capability Areas
Organization
Organization Culture
Stakeholder coalition
Leadership
Organization structure and support
Process
Risk planning and identification
Risk analysis
Risk mitigation
Process integration and improvement
Project management process
Technology Technology
Table 2-13: Capability Areas of CoPS-RM-CMM (Yeo and Ren, 2009)
CoPS-RM-CMM uses a questionnaire-based appraisal method to assess the risk
management capability maturity of a real-life CoPS projects (Yeo and Ren, 2009). Risk
Chapter 2: Literature review
92
management capabilities in table 2-13 are converted into series of questions or
statements suitable for questionnaire survey purposes. The response on each question is
based on Five Point Likert Scale from 1 to 5. The maturity of a key capability area is the
average score of its items and provides quantitative results. Using this method, we can
identify which capability areas are weak as well as the appropriate suggestions for
improvements based on model.
The Study of Hillson (1997)
Hillson (1997) generated a four levels risk maturity models as shown in the figure 2-22.
The attributes of the typical organization at each maturity level is defined under four
different attributes i.e. culture, process, experience, and application which help
organization to compare their risk management processes against a clear criteria. The
study has also defied comprehensive guidelines for progressing between different
maturity levels.
Figure 2-22: The four levels of risk maturity (Hillson, 1997)
2.4.4.1 Project Management maturity models
Extensive research is available on maturity models in the field of project management. It
is important to have an overview of some latest maturity model which are highly
referred in the literature. Review of literature suggests that there is no one way to define
Chapter 2: Literature review
93
the maturity process for a specific discipline. The studies described here have a different
approach for the maturity of project management activity within organization which
shows the diversity and extent of variation in the subject.
The study of Andersen and Jessen (2003)
The study of Andersen and Jessen (2003) is unique in its concept on the subject of
maturity when compared to other similar studies. The maturity of projects are discussed
in three different dimensions i.e. attitude, knowledge, and actions. Each of the three
dimensions is measured on four different dimensions adopted from multiple research
studies. The ladder of maturity defined by Andersen and Jessen (2003) is in three steps
which start at the basic level from Project Management (the management of individual
projects), proceed to the next level i.e. Program Management (program is a collection of
projects related to some extent to a common objective), and finalizes at the third level
i.e. portfolio Management (the management of a number of projects or programs that do
not necessarily share a common objective).
A questionnaire survey was conducted containing a list of 36 questions based on the
theoretical framework from three dimensions i.e. attitude, knowledge, and actions. The
questionnaire was tested on 59 middle managers and project managers attending the
master of management program in project management. The levels of maturity were
calculated based on the statistical analysis and recommendations were made.
The Study of Kwak and Ibbs (2002)
The Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model developed by Kwak and Ibbs
(2002) aims to integrate previous PM practices process and maturity models to improve
the project management effectiveness. This is a more detailed model which was initially
developed be Ibbs and Kwak (1997).The model is based on the discussions with PM
professionals and review of the literature to capture the different aspects of maturity
concept. This maturity model has nine PM knowledge areas (project scope management,
Chapter 2: Literature review
94
project time management, project cost management, project quality management, project
human resource management, project communications management, project risk
management, and project procurement management) and five PM processes (initiating
process, planning process, executing process, controlling process, and closing process).
There are five maturity levels (figure 2-23) where each level contains key PM process
(table 2-14), organization’s characteristics (table 2-15, and focus areas (table 2-16). Each
level of the model has different characteristics of the nine knowledge areas and five
processes.
Figure 2-23: (PM) 2 model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006)
Chapter 2: Literature review
95
Table 2-14: Key PM Processes of (PM) 2 model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006)
Table 2-15: Major organizational characteristics of (PM) 2
model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006)
Chapter 2: Literature review
96
Table 2-16: Key focus areas of (PM) 2 model (Kwak and Ibbs, 2006)
The Study of Crawford (2006)
The model developed by Crawford (2006) utilizes the PMBOK Guide’s nine knowledge
areas and patterned similar to that of SEI’s CMMs. The model is shown in figure 2-24
having specific characteristics for each of the level. This study have emphasized on three
special components i.e. project office, management oversight, and professional
development beside other parameters. The assessment of maturity is defined in four
ingredients i.e. interviews, artefact collection and evaluation, survey input, and
benchmark comparison to established standards.
Chapter 2: Literature review
97
Figure 2-24: Project Management Maturity Model (Crawford, 2006)
The list of such maturity models is not short. Some of the models highlighted above are
included to give an idea of the different concepts. There are other studies which has
supported this research in the development of CM maturity model. The studies which
are important to mention are the maturity grid to enhance the maturity of requirements
engineering by Beecham et al. (2005b), maturity model on requirements engineering
introduced by Sawyer et al. (1997), software testing maturity model developed by
Burnstein et al. (1996), model to assess testing process maturity introduced by Burnstein
et al. (1998), maturity model for offshore organizational management by Strutt et al.
(2006), safety culture maturity model by Filho et al. (2010), Maintainer’s education and
training model by Kajko-Mattsson et al. (2001), maturity model for IT outsourcing
Chapter 2: Literature review
98
relationships Gottschalk and Solli-Saether (2006), maturity model for Knowledge
Management by Paulzen and Perc (2002), maturity model for performance measurement
systems developed by Wettstein and Kueng (2002), and documentation maturity model
introduced by Huang and Tilley (2003).
2.5 Literature search strategy
The literature highlighted above is obtained by using multiple keywords in different
search engines. Details of the keywords and search engines are given below.
2.5.1 Keywords
Following keywords were used throughout this research to obtain the literature
highlighted above.
Configuration management, Software Configuration Management, Configuration
Management in Aerospace and Defence Industries, Configuration Management Critical
Success Factors, Barriers to Configuration Management implementation, Critical
Success Factors, Process Barriers, Process Capabilities, Project Management Critical
Success Factors, Maturity Model, Process Maturity, Process Improvement, Project
Management, Quality Management, Inferential Statistic, Parametric Tests, Non
Parametric Tests, Governance, Types of Organizational Structures.
2.5.2 Search engines
Following are the major search engines which were used to search the required literature
on multiple topics within this research.
• http://scholar.google.co.uk/
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/
• apps.webofknowledge.com (http://wokinfo.com)
Chapter 2: Literature review
99
• www.engineeringvillage.com
• http://www.scopus.com/home.url
• http://www.scienceresearch.com/scienceresearch/
• http://search.proquest.com/abiglobal/index
• http://www.sciencedirect.com
• http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=9da71bd8-6aa8-43f4-be6f-
94a48b33e6f7%40sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=108
• http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/
2.6 Summary and conclusions
2.6.1 Summary
This chapter summarize the theoretical and practitioners’ perspectives on the topics
covered in this research. It has been observed that the academic literature on
Configuration Management is extremely limited whereas defence related standards have
dominated the field. There are some studies available but have specific limitations in
terms of their focus and their scope of the discipline. The majority of the studies purely
focus specific areas like change management and status accounting and not
Configuration Management in general. To establish a solid foundation in terms of the
literature, other allied fields (e.g. knowledge management, quality management, and
project management etc.) are studied to have a good theoretical background.
The literature on maturity models (e.g. Bate et al., 1995; TEAM, 2006) suggests the
importance of base practices. The base practices explain the necessary elements of a
process which are compulsory to implement for the effective implementation of the
process. The base practices of Configuration Management are comprehensively covered
in the literature (EIA-649, 2011; Guess, 2006; MIL-HDBK-61, 1997; MIL-STD-973,
1992; PMI, 2007; Samaras, 1988; Watt, 2008) with little changes over the years. The
first section of this chapter is dedicated to Configuration Management which highlight
the strength of the literature on the base practices of the process. It is important to note
Chapter 2: Literature review
100
that the literature is an overview of the process base practices where as detailed base
practices could be obtained by picking any latest source document conforming to the
standards of CM.
The research on Critical Success Factors for the implementation of Configuration
Management is a major part of this research and its literature is covered in the second
section of this chapter. The review of the literature highlights no formal study on critical
success factors in the field of Configuration Management, however, limited literature in
the form of case studies and research theories are available on the success and failures or
problems in the implementation of Configuration Management. On the other hand
extensive literature is available on the subject in other allied field like project
management and knowledge management etc. which provided the required help in
establishing a strong foundation and guide to achieve the objectives.
It was important to discuss the studies on Barriers to Configuration Management
implementation as highlighted in the third section of this chapter. Detailed search of the
peer reviewed journals and practitioner literature highlights that research based study on
the topic is unexpectedly and extremely scare in comparison with other allied processes
like quality management and knowledge management whereas no formal study is found
with the aim to explore barriers to CM implementation. Some studies have supported the
need for this research in many aspects but have specific limitations on their own e.g.
instead of targeting CM as a holistic and generic process, these studies have targeted
specific elements of CM execution. Because of the limited studies on the topic, other
allied studies in the areas of Quality Management, Knowledge Management, project
Management, and Business Process Management provided a great deal of scope in this
area of study.
The last section of discussion in this chapter is related to the literature on maturity
models. It was important to know why the notion of maturity was introduced and
developed over time? And how the maturity of Configuration Management process is
defined and analysed? It has learnt that even the concept was introduced by Crosby
Chapter 2: Literature review
101
(1997); the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) further developed the concept by
introducing multiple maturity models where some were finally combined in the form of
capability maturing model integration. CM has remained an integral part of the
capability maturity model for software, systems engineering capability model, and
capability maturing model integration. These studies suggest a similar pattern to mature
the process areas of an organization whereas other latest studies recommends that
maturity frameworks should be based on critical success factors and barriers to its
implementation which looks logical since the implementation requirements and
improvement priorities could never be the same for different processes. Moreover these
maturity models are generic in nature, have ignored the governance aspects, and are
based on what to implement instead of how to implement which is a gap of uncertainty
to effective process improvement methodologies which needs to be addressed.
2.6.2 Conclusions
The literature suggest that industries are facing difficulties in the implementation of CM
practices (Burgess et al. 2005) despite efforts to enhance CM practices through Maturity
Models (e.g. McCaffery and Coleman, 2007; Paulk et al. 1993; Team, 2006). The
objectives of these studies were to effectively implement and continuously develop the
CM process; however these studies are similar in nature, lack some important
information, suggest one standardized approach of maturity for different process areas,
and are based on ‘what’ instead of ‘how’ to implement the maturity concepts (Jugdev
and Thomas, 2002; Niazi et al., 2005). Moreover, recent research of Niazi et al. (2005)
and Yeo and Ren (2008) recommends that maturity frameworks should be based on
critical success factors and barriers to its implementation which seems logical since the
implementation requirements and improvement priorities for CM could never be the
same to that of other process areas and could only be fixed on the basis of CM specific
critical success factors and barriers to its implementation. Because of the major
deficiencies highlighted above by Jugdev and Thomas, (2002) and Niazi et al., (2005)
and some new incites presented by Niazi et al. (2005) and Yeo and Ren (2008) forced us
to present a new model which emphasis on how to implement the key aspects of this
Chapter 2: Literature review
102
process to mature an organization’s CM process. Since there were no formal studies on
CM related CSFs and Barriers, it was important to explore these areas and provide the
necessary foundation for the development of Configuration Management Maturity
Model.
103
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter describes the research philosophy, approach, and strategies applied to
address the research problems as outlined in Chapter 1. All materials have been
presented to illustrate the way in which the data is collected to answer the research
questions as presented in Chapter 1. The research process is generally conceived in
terms of research philosophy, research approaches, strategies chosen and different tools
and techniques used to achieve the research objectives. The research process which has
been presented here is captured from the research onion developed by Saunders et al.
(2009) and is shown in figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1: The research onion (Saunders et al., 2009)
The research process has been explained in six layers. The first layer of this “Research
Onion” highlights research philosophies while the second describes the research
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
104
approaches followed by research strategies. The fourth layer is the choices in which a
researcher has a choice to define specific research methods while the fifth is the time
horizons and the sixth and last layer is the techniques and procedures applied to conduct
a research.
3.1 Research aim and objectives
It is important to reflect back upon the research aims and objectives presented in Chapter
1 before explaining the selected research methodology and methods. The aim of this
research is to highlight and evaluate practitioners’ perception on critical success factors
and critical barriers and develops a roadmap to achieve excellence in the implementation
and continuous development of Configuration Management process in aerospace and
defence industries. The core objective of this research was to develop maturity model for
the effective implementation and continuous development of Configuration
Management process. To achieve this objective it was important to give special
consideration to critical success factors, barriers to Configuration Management
implementation, and governance aspects of the process. It was therefore necessary to
identify, prioritize, and categorize both critical success factors and barriers to
Configuration Management and investigate the governance aspects of the process both
in aerospace and defence industries.
The proceeding sections present in detail the research methodologies which are
discussed in the context of the research aim and objectives by examining the most
appropriate techniques for this research.
3.2 Research process
This section highlights the sequence of studies conducted in this research and are
summarized in the form of a flowchart in figure 3-2. Since Critical Success Factors and
Barriers to a process provide baseline guidelines for the maturity of any existing process
(Niazi et al., 2005; Yeo and Ren, 2008), this research is divided into three parts i.e.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
105
identification of CM CSFs, barriers to CM implementation, and developing the CM
maturity model. The first part of this research was designed to achieve the first objective
and hypothesis highlighted in sections 1.2 and 1.4 respectively. In-depth interview were
arranged with five CM subject matter experts followed by an emails consultation with
three CM practitioners with more than thirty years of CM experience. The success
factors from the two activities were combined with the available literature in the form of
a questionnaire and forwarded to a group of thirteen CM subject experts in a meeting of
the ‘Association of Configuration Managers’ (ACM) at The University of Manchester,
UK for their critical review. The final questionnaire (Appendix A) was then sent to CM
professionals from aerospace and defence companies where 94 received questionnaires
were used for further analysis. The results, analysis, and discussion, of the first phase are
fully described in Chapter 4.
The second part of this research was designed to achieve the second and third objectives
presented in section 1.2 and second hypothesis highlighted in section 1.4. To identity
and analyse the barriers to CM implementation and discuss the governance aspects of
the process, in the second phase of the research, seven semi-structured interviews with
CM experts of four different industries were conducted. A comprehensive questionnaire
was generated from the critical analysis of the data obtained from seven semi-structured
interviews and an open ended question on barriers to CM implementation through 64
questionnaires from the first part of my research. The questionnaire (Appendix C) was
submitted to CM professionals from aerospace and defence companies where feedback
of a total of 187 questionnaires were included in the final analysis to decided on the
second hypothesis presented in section 1.4. It is important to note that identification of
barriers to CM implementation were accomplished through 64 questionnaires and seven
interviews while governance aspects of the process was covered in the seven interviews
and are covered in Chapter 5. The results, analysis and discussions related to the second
hypothesis are described in Chapter 6.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
106
Figure 3-2: Research process flowchart
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
107
To achieve the fourth objective presented in section 1.2 and third hypothesis described
in section 1.4, in the third part of this research, semi-structured interviews were arranged
followed by two questionnaire surveys after critical analysis of the selected studies for
an initial model. The semi-structured interviews conducted with six CM experts of four
aerospace and defence organization were followed by two questionnaire surveys which
were conducted to achieve the establish objectives. The first questionnaire survey was
related to model validation (Appendix E) while the second survey was related to
measuring the process maturity (Appendix F). A total of 50 responses on model
validation questionnaire while 52 responses on process maturity questionnaire were
received which were used for later analysis to achieve the desired objectives. The
results, analysis, and discussion related to the third part of this research are presented in
Chapter 7.
3.3 Research design and methodology.
The six areas of research described by Saunders et al. (2009) presented in figure 3-1 are
research philosophy, research approach, research strategies, research method choices,
time horizons, and techniques and procedures. These areas have been summarized in the
following sections in which each section presents a brief explanation of the research
paradigm along with its rationale for this research.
3.3.1 Research philosophy
The term research philosophy relates to the development of knowledge and the nature of
that knowledge (Saunders el al., 2009). According to Saunders el al. (2009); there are
three major ways of thinking (ontology, epistemology, and axiology) to look at four
research philosophies (positivism, realism, Interpretivism, and pragmatism) used in
management research. It is difficult to decide which research philosophies would best fit
a research but rather reflects that one will be touching most of the philosophies at the
same time. Selecting a particular research philosophy mainly depends on research’s way
of thinking about the development of knowledge and has a great effect on the outcomes
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
108
of a specific research. Selection of a particular research philosophy can be accomplished
by emphasizing on the type research questions, by studying research philosophies
previously selected in the same area of knowledge, and by studying the literature on
research methodologies in a specific subject. On the basis of these guidelines, following
two epistemological research philosophies have been selected for this research. It is hard
to say that all other research philosophies have been ignored and were not under
consideration but are touched in bits and pieces as the research proceeded.
• Positivism
• Phenomenology / Interpretivism
These two terms have been used through different names by different researchers which
have been summarized and are listed below in table 3-1. Brief explanations of these two
terms are given in the following sections to strengthen our stance of why they have been
selected.
Positivist Paradigm Phenomenological Paradigm
Quantitative Qualitative
Objectivist Subjectivist
Scientific Humanistic
Experimentalist Interpretivist / Hermeneutic
Traditionalist
Hypothetico deductive Inductive
Social Constructionism
Table 3-1: Alternative terms for positivist and phenomenological paradigms (Mangan et
al., 2004)
In a positivist paradigm the researcher play a role of an observer or objective analyst by
making independent interpretations about the data which is obtained without his
involvement and interactions with the object (Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Saunders et al.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
109
2003). Since there is no direct interaction of the researcher with the object, a refined
structured research methodology is required to get quantifiable data for the statistical
analysis to deduce theories. ‘Positivism is an epistemological position that advocates the
application of the methods of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and
beyond’ (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Positivistic Paradigm uses the research concept of
natural sciences in the field of social sciences (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). It uses
experimental and quantitative methods to test hypothetical-deductive generalizations.
Positivism is a research method that focuses on generating supposedly objective data,
usually in the form of statistics to generalize a research (McNEILL, 1990).
Positivist paradigm Phenomenological paradigm
Basic beliefs: The world is external and
objective
Observer is independent
Science is value-free
The world is socially
constructed and subjective
Observer is part of what
observed
Science is driven by human
interests
Researcher
should:
Focus on facts
Look for causality and
fundamental laws
reduce phenomena to
simplest elements
formulate hypotheses and
then test them
Focus on meanings
Try to understand what is
happening
Look at the totality of each
situation
Develop ideas through
induction from data
Preferred
methods
include:
Operationalising concepts
so that they can be
measured
Taking large samples
Using multiple methods to
establish different views of
phenomena
Small samples investigated in
depth or over time
Table 3-2: Key features of the positivist and phenomenological paradigms (Easterby-
Smith et al., 1991).
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
110
Phenomenological paradigms deal with the action and behaviour which are produced
from within human mind and where the interrelationship of the researcher and the object
was impossible to separate (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). It deals with understanding of
behaviour from the participant’s subjective frames of reference where research methods
are selected to explain and interpret events from the perspectives of the object.
Phenomenological research is mainly related to highlight the actual feelings of
participants and see the world from their standpoint (McNEILL, 1990). According to
McNEILL, (1990) phenomenological research has given rise to ethnographic studies,
particularly the technique of participant observation. Data collected within this type of
research is in qualitative form rather than quantitative and mainly concentrates on
wording rather than on numbers or statistics. The key features of the two paradigms have
been summarised in the table 3-2.
According to Saunders et al, (2003), in a practical world, management research rarely
falls into only one philosophical paradigm and is often a mixture of positivist and
phenomenological. This is not because of the difficulty to decide between the merits and
demerits of the two approaches but instead that sometimes it is the requirement of
specific research to include elements of both research paradigms. By comparing the
table 3-1 and looking on research problems as outlined in Chapter 1, phenomenological
philosophy seems to be the best option for this research. However, it was necessary to
prove some of the areas through statistical analysis which necessitates the need to adapt
a positivist, quantitative approach. To conclude, it was necessary to use both these two
philosophies to answer the research questions presented in chapter 1. This would be
further established when the justification for the research approaches is presented and
explained in the next sections.
3.3.2 Research approaches
Different kinds of research approaches are reflected in the literature which are divided
into four major areas as outlined in the table 3-3. One of the different views about these
research approaches is by dividing any specific research into empirical / non-empirical
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
111
approach (Veal, 2006). It should be noted that any particular research can be based on
empirical approach, non-empirical approach, or a combination of the two.
Type of Research Basis of Classification
Exploratory, Descriptive, Analytical or
Predictive Research
Purpose of the Research
Quantitative or Qualitative Research Process of the Research
Deductive or Inductive Research Logic of the Research
Applied or Basic Research Outcome of the Research
Table 3-3: Classification of the main types of research (Hussey and Hussey, 1997)
3.3.2.1 Non-empirical research
Non-empirical research is not based on new evidence from the real world but is based on
data previously accumulated for quite different purpose (Clarke, 2003) while according
to Veal, (2006), non-empirical research is purely a theoretical research. The pre-existing
body of knowledge plays a vital role in the research of a particular area. This previous
knowledge can be used as a basis for further research and gives important information
about the history of particular field. Some of the research may be entirely non-empirical
in nature and are based on searching and reviewing the previous literature. There are
different views on the types of non-empirical research e.g. according to Clarke (2003),
non-empirical research includes the following main areas.
• Review of existing literature
• ‘Scholarship’, varying interpretation
• Conceptual research
• Futurism, especially Delphi rounds
• Scenario-building
• Game-playing or role-playing
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
112
• Analytical and simulation modelling
According to Guo and Sheffield (2008), non-empirical research includes:
• Literature review
• Theory building
• Computer simulation
It is important to note that that research is incomplete and unauthentic without a review
of existing literature because it establishes a foundation for addressing the research
problems. All the three major studies in this research i.e. identification of critical success
factors, barriers to CM implementation, and establishing a CM maturity model is based
on comprehensive literature review hence could be part of the non-empirical approach.
3.3.2.2 Empirical research
Empirical research ‘involves the collection and/or analysis of data – quantitative or
qualitative, primary or secondary’ (Veal, 2006). It is defined as ‘data based on
observation or experience’ (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Empirical evidence is very
important to present regardless of the purpose of that research (Hussey and Hussey,
1997). Empirical Research is very important for gathering and analysis of data through
observation or experience (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). It should be noted that empirical
research is based on the data collected from the real world.
There are two primary dimensions for empirical research which can be evaluated for use
in management studies. These do not necessarily represent a simple either choice, but
should rather be seen as the extent to which elements of the approach apply. Since most
of the authors have explained the research approach by considering these two basic
classification areas, hence we have described the research process by taking the
following two areas into consideration for the clarity of this research.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
113
• Deductive / Inductive approach (Saunders et al., 2003)
• Qualitative / Quantitative approach (Creswell and Clark, 2007; Easterby-Smith et al,
1991; Patton, 1987)
It is most important to summarize that this research was designed to take into account
both the non-empirical and empirical research approaches. The non-empirical approach
was used as bases for structuring and execution of the empirical research activities.
3.3.2.2.1 Deductive / Inductive
Deductive research approach is a more scientific research methodology in which theory
is developed, hypothesis is deduced and tested, specific outcomes are examined, and if
required theory is modified in the light of findings (Saunders et al., 2003). Deductive
approach is also called top-down approach and works from general to more specific
where a theory is established, hypothesis is deduced, observations are established, and
finally hypothesis is tested with some data to validate and confirm the original theory
(Trochim, 2008). Inductive approach, on the other hand, works opposite to that of
deductive approach where data is collected and theory is developed as a result of the
data analysis (Saunders et al., 2003). Inductive approach, also called bottom-up
approach, start with some sort of observations which leads us to specific pattern and
enables us to establish some tentative hypothesis which finally facilitate us to have some
general conclusions or theory (Trochim, 2008). The major differences between the two
approaches are summarised in the table 3-4.
To get benefit out of the two research approaches it is important to use both research
methodologies in combination as highlighted by Saunders et al. (2003) that ‘Not only is
it perfectly possible to combine approaches within the same piece of research, but in our
experience it often advantageous too’. Different methods can be used for different
research studies; some follow interviews (inductive) to get the feel of the key issues of
the research followed by questionnaire (deductive) to test specific hypotheses while
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
114
others follow both the interviews and questionnaires to get an in-depth view and motives
and testing of hypotheses.
3.3.2.2.2 Quantitative / Qualitative approach
Qualitative research deals with the analysis of data such as words, pictures, or objects. In
this type of research, researcher is closely involved with the subject and compiles data
through his direct involvement in the research environment. Qualitative research reflects
less tangible aspects of a research subject, e.g. values, attitudes, and perception.
Qualitative research has been formulated to help researchers to understand people and
the social and cultural contexts in which they live (Myers and Avison, 2002). Qualitative
research is a complicated process and has no hard and fast rules about how to do it
(Oates, 2006). According to Patton (1987) ‘Qualitative methods consist of three kinds of
data collection: (1) in-depth, open-ended interviews; (2) direct observation; and (3)
written documents, including such sources as open-ended written items on
questionnaires, personal diaries, and program records’. According to Ghauri &
Gronhaug (2005), the three components of qualitative research are data obtained for
interviews and observation, the techniques to conceptualize and analyse the data to
arrive at findings or theories, and reports (written or verbal). Qualitative research is used
to reveal the human experience, behaviour and functions and is suitable for research on
organizations, groups, and individuals (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005).
Quantitative research on the other hand uses numerical data to obtain information about
a specific research topic. It is more objective in nature and emphasis on collection and
analysis of numerical data. According to Patton, quantitative methods ‘use standardized
measures that fit diverse opinions and experiences into predetermined response
categories’ (Patton, 1987). This is a very structured research method where results are
easily formulated and statistically presented but is hard to design initially.
Implementation of quantitative methods can be find in social sciences include survey,
laboratory experiments, formal methods (e.g. econometrics) and numerical methods
such as mathematical modelling where the structured data is subjected to scientific
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
115
techniques for appropriate analysis to test the validity of hypothesis (Yin, 1994; Myers
and Avison, 2002).
Deduction Emphasises Induction Emphasis
• Scientific Principles
• Moving from theory to data
• The need to explain casual relationship
between variables
• The collection of quantitative data
• The application of controls to ensure
validity of data
• The operationalisation of concepts to
ensure clarity of definition
• A highly structured approach
• Researcher independence of what is
being researched
• The necessity to select samples of
sufficient size in order to generalise
conclusions
• Gaining an understanding of the meaning
human attach to events
• A close understanding of the research
context
• The collection of qualitative data
• A more flexible structure to permit
changes of research emphasis as the
research progresses
• A realization that the researcher is part of
the research
• Less concern with the need to generalise
Table 3-4: Differences between deductive and inductive approaches (Saunders et al.,
2003)
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches have been used by both positivist and
phenomenological researchers in different research strategies (Oates, 2006). A
combination of both research strategies has greater advantage instead of using each
research strategy independently as highlighted by Creswell and Clark (2007) that ‘The
use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better
understanding of research problems than either approach alone’. This type of research
approach is called a Mixed Method Research and is available in the literature with
different names i.e. ‘Multitrait / Multimethod Research’, ‘Integrated or Combined’,
‘Quantitative and qualitative Methods’, ‘Hybrids’, ‘Methodological Triangulation’, or
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
116
‘Mixed Methodology’ (Creswell and Clark, 2007). In summary, quantitative research is
objective, deductive, generalizable and deals with numbers while qualitative research is
subjective, inductive, not generalizable, and mainly consists of words. Summary of the
main features of qualitative and quantitative research is shown in the table 3-5.
In light of the above discussion and keeping in view the strengths and weaknesses of
qualitative and quantitative approach, a Mixed Method Research, which refers to the use
of more than one method for gathering data (Creswell and Clark, 2007; Denzin, 1970)
was deemed suitable for this research. Qualitative approach is used to explore the views
of the practitioners and to get the motives behind the reasoning while quantitative
approach has been used to focus on certain areas and investigate the relationships and /
or difference using statistical techniques. Another main motive behind mixed method
research is to validate my results through triangulation which is one way of determining
whether the findings from different studies converge to common grounds.
Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods
• Emphasis on Understanding
• Focus on Understanding from
Respondent’s/informant’s point of
view
• Interpretation and rational approach
• Observations and measurements in
natural settings
• Subjective ‘insider view’ and
closeness to data
• Explorative orientation
• Process oriented
• Holistic perspective
• Generalization by comparison of
properties and contests of individual
organism
• Emphasis on testing and verification
• Focus on facts and/or reasons for
social events
• Logical and critical approach
• Controlled measurement
• Objective ‘outsider view’ distant
from data
• Hypothetical-deductive; focus on
hypothesis testing
• Result oriented
• Particularistic and analytical
• Generalization by population
membership
Table 3-5: Differences between qualitative and quantitative methods (Ghauri and
Gronhaug, 2005)
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
117
The next section discusses the various research strategies / methods along with the
details of the research strategy adopted for this research.
3.3.3 Research strategies / methods
There are various research strategies which are in use in management research. Some of
these research strategies are clearly related to deductive (quantitative) approach while
the others belong to inductive (qualitative) approach. These strategies can be used alone
or in combination with each others to fulfil the requirements of any specific research.
The list these research strategies are given below.
• Experiment
• Survey
• Case Study
• Grounded Theory
• Ethnography
• Action Research
• Cross-sectional and Longitudinal studies
• Exploratory, descriptive and explanatory studies
The research strategies which have been adopted for this research are discussed in great
details in the next sections.
3.3.3.1 Survey
The survey is an important research strategy in business and management research,
usually associated with a deductive approach (Saunders et al. 2003). The survey is not a
method but a research strategy where researchers can use a whole range of methods
(questionnaires, interviews, documents, and observation) within the strategy to
accomplish the research (Denscombe, 1998). ‘Surveys refer to a method of data
collection that utilizes questionnaires or interview techniques for recording the verbal
behaviour of respondents. The survey is an effective tool to get opinions, attitudes and
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
118
descriptions as well as for getting cause-and-effect relationships’ (Ghauri and
Gronhaug, 2005). Survey highlights the human response where basic data is
accumulated by talking to people, either face to face, by means of telephone, over
internet or by written questionnaire (Jankowicz, 2004). The purpose of survey is to get
information from a small set of peoples / population specific to an area or expended to a
large region (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). Selection of this defined population, called
sample, is the most important and critical stage of the survey. Another important action
during survey is the selection of suitable method for conducting the survey where
interviews and questionnaires are the two important means to get information from the
participants by asking similar questions from all individuals in the sample.
According to Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005), whether a questionnaire method is selected
to get data by postal mail from the respondent or interviews are arranged by asking
questions during face-to-face meeting, each method has their pros and cons. Different
issues like research problems and objectives, samples size location, availability of funds
and complexity of information may restrict the selection of any specific method. Postal
surveys are less expensive but time consuming as compared to face-to-face interviews.
Moreover there may be a high rate of non-response in postal surveys while there is a risk
of interviewer bias.
In the first part i.e. the identification and analysis of CM CSFs, a mixed method research
approach is used to gather information for this research. Multiple techniques were
followed to make this study more robust and useful where data was collected through
unstructured interviews either face to face or through telephone, emails, and by written
questionnaire as a means of performing effective survey research. Unstructured
interviews were suitable since the main objective was to take control of the situation and
know respondent’s opinions and motives about specific topics which generates with the
discussion process. Followed by interviews, questionnaire was designed based on the
findings of interviews, email discussions and literature review with aim to test the
designed hypothesis and rank the level of impact of highlighted variables.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
119
In the second study on the identification of barriers to CM implementation, again a
mixed method research approach is used to validate my results through triangulation.
The research process is divided into three phases where in the first phase, research
participants were asked through an open question to identify factors which they believe
are the most obvious barriers in the implementation of Configuration Management. The
replies received through 64 questionnaires were grouped into multiple factors for further
analysis. In the second phase of the research seven semi-structured interviews with CM
experts of four different industries were conducted. The third phase of this research was
based on a questionnaire survey to validate my findings and verify the designed
hypothesis. A total of 187 responses were received which were used to finalize the list of
barriers and establish the designed hypothesis.
The third part of this research related to developing Configuration Management Maturity
Model; semi-structured interviews were conducted followed by two questionnaire
surveys. A total of six semi-structured interviews were conducted with CM experts of
four different aerospace and defence organization which were recorded for later analysis.
Interviews were followed by two questionnaire surveys which were conducted to
achieve the establish objectives. The first questionnaire survey was related to model
validation while the second survey was related to measuring the process maturity. A
total of 50 responses on model validation questionnaire while 52 responses on process
maturity questionnaire were received which were used for later analysis to achieve the
desired objectives.
The details about the concept of interviews and questionnaire are presented in sections
3.3.6.1 & 3.3.6.2 respectively which highlights the data collecting methods / techniques.
The next section for discussion covers brief introduction on research choices, time
horizons, and data collection techniques.
3.3.4 Research choices
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
120
As mentioned before, this research has been conducted by a mixed method approach to
answer the research questions as highlighted in Chapter 1. The survey is the only
research strategy which has been considered suitable to answer the research questions as
described in chapter 1.
3.3.5 Time horizon
The time horizon is the duration to perform specific research which depends on the types
of research questions. Some research needs less time to get ideas of a particular event
called cross-sectional studies while other needs to study groups of events over a long
period of times called longitudinal studies.
3.3.5.1 Cross-sectional studies
Cross-sectional studies are conducted when there is a limitation of time and resources
and where data is collected just once within a short span of time to get a snapshot of the
ongoing process before it is analysed and reported (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). These
studies often use questionnaires and survey techniques (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991;
Thomas, 2004). Instead of having some limitations with such studies, it gives important
information in no time. On the positive node, cross-sectional studies are inexpensive and
are conducted simultaneously but on the negative node, firstly, it does not give
information on the sampling size to represent the total population for reliable results,
secondly it provide no guidelines on how to isolate the subject study with the areas
which are in close correlation, and finally it does not mention that why such correlation
exist (Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
3.3.5.2 Longitudinal studies
Longitudinal research is a research methodology where researcher investigates a case
over time, anything from a month to several years, analysing continuous and change
processes and relationships (Oates, 2006). Longitudinal studies are conducted to find the
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
121
dynamics of the problem by investigating similar set of peoples or situations
continuously within specified time frame or several times on different occasions (Hussey
and Hussey, 1997). In such studies repeated observations are taken to find the relative
stability of the phenomenon and to observe changes if exists. Longitudinal study is a
series of studies on similar subjects over a long period of time where each study has
been linked to previous and discussing the deviations of parameters over time. This
research methodology establish a chain of studies on a single subject and as the chain
extends to some level, grounded theory is generated at the end (Hussey and Hussey,
1997)
Looking at the brief introduction of the above two types of studies, this research falls in
the category of cross-sectional study. One reason is the time constraints and secondly
this study is not concentrating to investigate a similar topic over the period time to
observe changes but rather to get a snapshot of observations and understanding on the
research topic.
3.3.6 Data collection methods / techniques
The selection of precise data collection methods is the most critical phase during any
research process. Getting the right data in the right format from the right individuals put
positive effects on the final results of any research. Generally researchers concentrate on
the data collection techniques without giving enough consideration to the different
research methodologies as highlighted by the upper cores of the research onion as
highlighted in figure 3-1 which most of the time indirect researcher from the real outputs
and incur considerable delays in their research process. It is important to mention the
data collection methods / techniques as highlighted by Hussey and Hussey, (1997)
presented below before explaining any particular methods used in this research.
• ‘Critical Incident technique – ‘It is a procedure for gathering certain important
facts concerning behaviour in defined situations’.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
122
• Diaries – ‘is a daily record of events or thoughts and is typically used to capture and
record what people do, think and feel’.
• Focus Groups – ‘are used to gather data relating to the feelings and opinions of a
group of people who are involved in a common situation’.
• Interviews – ‘are a method of collecting data in which selected participants are
asked questions in order to find out what they do, think or feel. Interviews make it
easy to compare answers and may be face-to-face, voice-to-voice or screen-to-
screen; conducted with individuals or a group or individuals’.
• Observations – ‘can take place in a laboratory setting or natural setting. There are
two ways in which observation can be conducted: non-participant and participant
observation’.
• Protocol Analysis – ‘is a data collection method used to identify the mental process
in problem solving. The aim is to ascertain the way that people behave and think in a
particular situation. The researcher gives some form of written problem to a
practitioner who is experienced in that field. The participant then solves the
problem, but verbally explains the way he or she is tackling it. This is allows the
researcher to record the process. Sometimes the participant generates further
questions and these can for the basis for subsequent analysis and research’.
• Questionnaires – ‘A questionnaire is a list of carefully structured questions, chosen
after considerable testing, with a view to eliciting reliable responses from a chosen
sample. The aim is to find out what a selected group of participants do, think or
feel’.
This research adapts a mixed method research methodology as discussed in section
3.3.2.2. The data collections techniques in this research are interviews and questionnaire
surveys which are discussed in the following sections.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
123
3.3.6.1 Interview
An interview is a particular type of conversation between persons, with some
assumptions (normally unspoken) that do not apply to normal conversation, where one
person undertakes an interview for the required information from selected participant(s)
(Oates, 2006). Interview is a method of collecting data in which selected set of peoples
are asked questions in order to find expert opinions on the topic of interest; and can be
either positivistic or phenomenological depending on the method of conducting
interviews (Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
There are three types of interview as listed below (Denscombe, 1998; Hussey and
Hussey, 1997; Oates, 2006).
• Structured Interviews
• Semi-Structured Interviews
• Unstructured Interviews
Structured interviews are conducted on pre-determined and standardized questions
where questions are asked from the respondent and his response is recorded on a
standardised format while in semi-structured interviews the researcher have a list of
questions that may vary from interview to interview and new question can be added
according to situations as interview proceeds and finally the unstructured interviews,
where there is no specific set of questions designed for the interview but have a broad
area in mind for discussion to get the desired outputs from a set of selected peoples
(Saunders et al., 2003).
To identify a set of success factors in the first phase, unstructured interviews were
arranged with five CM subject matter experts. The highlighted success factors were
recorded on the diary after discussing the different aspects of each factor. Three CM
practitioners with more than thirty years of experience were consulted through emails.
Data from the two sources were combined with available literature to finalize an initial
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
124
list of twenty-one success factors. In the second phase of the research seven semi-
structured interviews with CM experts of four different industries were conducted. Each
interview was recorded for later analysis. Interviews were analysed several times and
highlighted barriers were downloaded where cross comparison was done with identified
barriers through questionnaire study. The data was grouped and analysed carefully to
avoid possibilities of ignoring or repeating factors where nineteen factors were finalized
for the final survey. In the third and final part of this research six semi-structured
interviews were conducted with CM experts of four different organizations where each
interview was recorded for latter analysis.
3.3.6.2 Questionnaire
‘A questionnaire is a pre-defined set of questions (sometimes called items), assembled in
a pre-determined order’ (Oates, 2006). Questionnaires are usually connected with
survey research strategy and are associated both with positivistic and phenomenological
methodologies. Questionnaire consists of clearly and carefully structured questions to
find out the feeling of a selected group of peoples about the topic under research which
are usually based on previous studies (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Being a cheaper way
to get the required information in less time, questionnaires are the most popular method
of data collection but the low response rate on the other hand is the main drawback and
therefore needs a lot of hard work in the design process to make it more effective for the
data collection (Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Saunders et al., 2003). Best questionnaires
can be designed by focusing four major areas i.e. questionnaire focus, question
phraseology, the form of response, and the question sequencing and overall presentation
(Gill and Johnson, 2002).
There are two main type of questionnaires design i.e. open and close (Easterby-Smith et
al., 1991; Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005; Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Oates, 2006; Saunders
et al., 2003). In open-ended questions respondents have full rights to write in the empty
space available by the end of each question while in closed questions, respondents are
bound to select an answer from the given choices provided by the researcher at the end
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
125
of each question. Mostly the researchers adopt closed questions while using positivistic
research methodology and open ended questions in case of phenomenological research
methodology (Saunders et al., 2009).
Questionnaires are either self-administered or researcher administered (Oates, 2006;
Saunders et al., 2009). Self-administered questionnaires are filled by the respondents in
the absence of researcher while researcher administered questionnaires are filled by the
researchers during their meeting with research participants while asking the questions
directly and recording at the same time. Self-administered questionnaires are usually
sent and received back from respondents either through internet or in the hard copy.
In the first part of this research i.e. identification and finalization of critical success
factors for CM implementation, a questionnaire survey (Appendix A) was conducted to
validate the findings (finalized through five in-depth interviews, email conversations
with three CM experts, and literature review) and verify the designed hypothesis. The
questionnaire was produced to collect responses on the basis of a Likert-Type scale,
running from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on each success factor. The
target population was CM professionals from aerospace and defence companies where
as the Association of Configuration Managers (ACM) was used as a platform to obtain
the data. A total of 94 received questionnaires were used to finalize the factors on the
basis of their mean values and establish the designed hypothesis.
In the 2nd
part of this research i.e. identification and finalization of barriers to CM
implementation, a questionnaire survey (Appendix C) was conducted to validate the
findings (obtained from the initial questionnaire and seven semi-structured interviews)
and verify the established hypothesis. The questionnaire was divided into two sections.
The first section focussed on gathering background information while the second part
was related to barriers where respondents’ opinions were asked on a series of statements.
Respondents of the questionnaire survey were asked to mark trueness of each statement
based on their organization by using a five-point scale (1 = not at all true, 2 = slightly
true, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = mostly true, 5 = completely true). To facilitate respondents
and improve the response rate, a web based questionnaire was designed and the link was
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
126
sent by email to all respondents. A total of 187 received questionnaires were used to
finalize the barriers on the basis of their mean rank values and establish the designed
hypothesis.
In the 3nd part, two questionnaire surveys were conducted at the same time after six
interviews; first to validate the developed maturity model while the other was to measure
the maturity levels of the CM practices of different organization to see the working of
designed maturity model. The validation questionnaire (Appendix E) was divided into
three sections. The first section focused on general information while the second section
was related to detail discussion on the Configuration Management Maturity Model to
give insight of the model to research participants. In the third and final section,
seventeen statements were provided with a five point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). The process maturity questionnaire (Appendix F) was divided into
two sections where the first section was related to the general information while the
second section consisted of thirty-five processes against a four point scale (static,
reactive, proactive, and dynamic). To facilitate respondents and improve the response
rate, a web based questionnaires were designed and the link were sent by email to all
respondents. A total of 50 received questionnaires for the first questionnaire survey
(validation of the Configuration Management Maturity Model) and 52 received
questionnaires for the second questionnaire survey (Configuration Management process
maturity) were used for further analysis to achieve the desired objectives.
3.3.6.3 Sampling
After identifying a research problem and selecting appropriate research philosophy,
research approach, research strategies, and data collection methods, the next important
step is the selection of peoples/case/elements from where the information/data will be
collected. It is best to approach each individual and collect the required data but most of
the time it is quite difficult not only because of the time it needs but also the resources it
requires. To handle such difficulties during the collection and analysis of data, sampling
concept has been introduced in the research process.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
127
‘Sampling can be defined as the deliberate choice of a number of unites (companies,
departments, people)’ (Jankowicz, 2004). Sampling saves time and money by
investigating sample instead of population (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005). The full set of
cases from where the sample is selected is called the population which may consist of
people, firms, products, and so on. The relationship between population, sample, and
cases or elements has been presented in the figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: Population, sample, and individual cases (Saunders et al., 2003)
Sampling is divided into the following two main categories i.e. probability sampling and
non-probability sampling (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005; Jankowicz, 2004; Oates, 2006;
Saunders et. al., 2003) which can be used together in any single research (Ghauri and
Grønhaug, 2005; Saunders et. al., 2003). The two broad categories of sampling are
divided into many different types and are presented in the figure 3-4.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
128
Figure 3-4: Sampling techniques (Saunders et al., 2003).
3.3.6.3.1 Population
Population is the group of interest of the researcher on the basis of which the researcher
would like to generalize the results of his study (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). The
population could either be an actual population (also called target population) or
accessible population. The target population is a population to which a researcher would
be unable to generalise while accessible population is a population where he is able to
generalise his research (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). It is also important to note that
target population is the researcher’s ideal choice while the accessible population is his
realistic choice. The accessible population for this research is the CM professionals
working in aerospace and defence sectors.
In the first part, questionnaire was administered to CM professional from aerospace and
defence companies whereas the Association of Configuration Managers (ACM) was
used as a platform to obtain the data. In the second part, questionnaire was administered
to CM professional from aerospace and defence companies where the Association of
Configuration Managers (ACM) and Configuration Management Process Improvement
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
129
Centre (CMPIC) resources were used to obtain the required responses. In the third part
of this research the two questionnaire surveys were conducted with the members ACM,
CMPIC and CM professionals from researcher own organization. It is impossible to
identify neither the exact number of CM professionals in aerospace and defence
industries nor even the members of ACM and CMPIC because of the confidentiality of
data.
Different sampling techniques (highlighted above) have been used for the sample
selection which are described below
3.3.6.3.2 Sampling techniques
The sampling techniques which have been adapted in this research are given below.
• Convenience sampling
Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique in which cases are
selected because of their convenient accessibility and readily availability to the
researcher.
• Judgemental or purposive sampling
Judgmental sampling also called purposive sampling, is a non-probability sampling
technique where the participants are selected based on their knowledge and purpose of
the study. This type of sampling is often selected when the cases are more informative
(Saunders et al., 2003)
3.3.6.3.3 Sample size
Suitable sample size has greater effects on the final outcome of any research since
generalizations are made on the data which have been obtained from the selected
samples. Larger sample size means less probability of any error in the output of a
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
130
research as compared to smaller sample size. Large sample size increases the validity of
any research but needs enough time and money for the collection and analysis of data.
This shows a real problem in the decision on adequate and sufficient sample size for any
research where unfortunately there is still no clear cut answer for this problem (Fraenkel
and Wallen, 2006).
Sample selection is a complex subject but researcher can select any sample size by
keeping in mind the following considerations (Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
• The type of statistical analysis you want to make
• The variation in results with a variation in sample size (greater variation means
greater sample size)
• The tradition of sample size selection in a particular research area
The research methods which involves interview, sample size is enough when the
collected data reaches to the point of ‘saturation’; the point at which no new information
or themes are experienced in the data (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). Another point of
consideration is that usually data obtained from less number of respondents with huge
experience is given more preference then the data which is obtained from greater
number of respondents with less experience in that specific field. This highlights that the
quality of the final research is more dependent on the overall quality of the sample then
the quantity as highlighted by McCracken (1988) that “less is more” which means that it
is best to work more and with greater care with fewer and experienced people than less
with more people.
The sample selection was done in consultation with supervisor by keeping in view the
requirements highlighted above and emphasising on not to comprise on the quality of
resulted data. In the first phase of this research in-depth interviews were arranged with
five CM subject matter experts whereas three CM practitioners with more than thirty
years of experience were consulted through emails. A list of success factors was
finalized and their importance was highlighted with the help of a short statement. The
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
131
list was forwarded to a group of thirteen CM subject experts in a meeting of the
‘Association of Configuration Managers’ (ACM) at The University of Manchester, UK
for critical review and marking. The questionnaire was than distributed to around 380
research participants either personally in hard copies or by their work emails (obtained
from ACM data base). To maintain legitimacy of the received data only those
questionnaires were included for analyses which are obtained for identified research
participants.
In the second part of this research seven semi-structured interviews with CM experts of
four different industries were conducted to identify a list of barriers to CM
implementation. The questionnaire was than finalized and administered to 550 CM
professional from aerospace and defence companies. In the third and final part of this
research six semi-structured interviews were conducted followed by questionnaire
survey which was sent to approximately 200 members of ACM and CMPIC and CM
professionals from researcher’s own organization.
3.3.7 The credibility of research findings
The most crucial part during research is ensuring its reliability and validity. According
to Saunders et al. (2003) it is important to concentrate on two important parameters i.e.
research design reliability and validity to avoid any single opportunity of getting the
wrong answer. These parameters are discussed below.
‘Reliability refers to the consistency of the scores obtained - how consistent they are for
each individual from one administration of an instrument to another and from one set of
items to another’ (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). Reliability of a research means the
repeatability of the same in another research in similar situations (Hussey and Hussey,
2003; Saunders et al., 2003). A research would be reliable if anyone uses the findings of
your research under the same constraints get similar results each time. Positivist
viewpoint of the reliability is that same results should be obtained on different occasions
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
132
on measure while phenomenological view point is that similar observations be made on
different occasion by different researchers (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991).
There are three types through which we can check the reliability of any research
(Malhotra, 2004).
• Test-Retest Reliability
Here the same type of research instrument is sent to the respondent after some time
and the variation in both is checked and analysed
• Alternative-Forms Reliability
Here two different types of measuring scale are developed for same research
instrument and both are processed with a time difference to same respondent and the
variations are analysed.
• Internal Consistency Reliability
Here every item is correlated with every other item across the entire sample and the
average inter-item correlation is taken as the index of reliability (Hussey and Hussey,
1997).
‘Validity has been defined as referring to the appropriateness, correctness,
meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences researches made based on the
data they collect’ (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). Validity is concerned with the extent to
which the research results accurately represent what is happening in the situation i.e.
whether the results are really what the researcher think or claim it will (Hussey and
Hussey, 1997). In other words validity highlights that whether the data gives the true
reflection of research performed. If the data is reliable the inferences made may or may
not be valid but on the other hand an unreliable data could not provide valid inferences
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
133
(Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). To enhance the validity of their research, researchers can
collect the three types of validity i.e. content validity, criterion validity, and construct
validity (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006).
To ensure the quality of this research, mixed method research also called triangulation
was used which according to Hussey and Hussey (1997) increases the reliability and
validity of any research. To establish the validity of the research, first of all questions
were discussed with the supervisors and pilot studies were done through CM experts to
ensure that questions make sense and are relevant and focused on the research topic.
Where possible, interviews were recorded for later analysis which allowed us to
concentrate more on the discussion rather than taking notes. The questionnaire surveys
were piloted from CM professionals and experts to ensure the content validity whereas
the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated to check the reliability of
questionnaires by using the internal consistency method. The Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient needs to be 0.7 and above to validate the test of internal consistency (Pallant,
2010). In the first part of this research, the Cronbach’s Alpha obtained after 94 responses
is 0.877 whereas for the second part of this research questionnaire it is 0.904 after 187
responses which are well above the recommended value of 0.7 shows a high internal
consistency between items within these research questionnaires. In the third part of our
research the Cronbach’s Alpha after 52 responses for process maturity is .969 while that
for model validation is .908 after 50 responses shows a high internal consistency
between items within these two questionnaires.
3.4 Summary
This chapter outline the research methodologies which have been implemented in this
research. The flow of this chapter is presented by explaining the five major areas of
‘research process onion’ outlined by Saunders et al. (2003). Different research
philosophies have been explained while its relation with this research is outlined in great
detail. Detail and the relationship of research approaches i.e. deductive/inductive or
quantitative/qualitative with this research have been explained in great deals. The mixed
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
134
method research comprising of interviews followed by questionnaire surveys to test the
outlined hypotheses of the research is discussed.
Different sampling techniques along with a valid justification with reference to each
study have been discussed. However, the emphasis of sample selection was basically on
two important aspects i.e. the experience and the exposure of the respondents in the light
of the research problems.
Realising the importance of research reliability and validity, every efforts have been
done to ensure the clarity and relevancy of the questionnaires and interviews guides to
the research questions and to reflect the detail parameters which were required for the
analysis of this research.
135
CHAPTER 4
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF CM CSFs
4.0 Introduction
This chapter outlines research in the identification and analysis of Critical Success
Factors for the implementation of Configuration Management process in aerospace and
defence industries conducted from January 2011 to July 2001. The importance of
research in the field of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) has become evident through
extensive research in other allied fields like Project Management (PM), Knowledge
Management and Quality Management (QM). This is evident from the fact that more
than seventy studies have been highlighted on CSF’s in PM by Belassi and Tukel
(1996), Baccarini and Collins (2003), and Fortune and White (2006); while seven
studies within Knowledge Management by Wong (2005). Research on CSFs and Critical
Barriers (CBs) establish a baseline to formulate means for the maturity of process (Niazi
et al., 2005). Process maturity is mainly dependent on key capability areas extracted
from CSFs and CBs (Yeo and Ren, 2008). Identification of these CSFs helps
practitioners to work on areas responsible for the success of a process, provide an
opportunity to avoid barriers, establishes direction to achieve the required goals and
offer means to measure the effectiveness of their processes.
The studies of Niazi et al. (2005), Fortune and White (2006) and Yeo and Ren (2008)
provide fundamental guidelines for maturity of any existing process. Niazi et al. (2005)
stress on the identification of CSFs and CBs and propose to measure each factor through
outline guidelines for improvements. The research of Yeo and Ren (2008) not only
highlights the importance of CSFs and CBs but also stresses the extraction of key
capability areas. The study of Fortune and White (2006) is related to the identification of
CSFs, extraction of key capability areas, and emphasize on formal system models to
evolve and mature a particular system or process.
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
136
Extensive literature review suggests no formal study on Critical Success Factors in the
field of CM. However, limited literature in the form of case studies and research theories
are available on the success and failures in the implementation of CM. Many of these
informal studies suffered from funding bias and were carried out in order to promote
specific tools or training packages. These studies have very much focussed on what
constituted success or failure rather than the factors themselves. What these studies did
demonstrate however was that there were some key themes that arose again and again. A
detailed review of these themes helped us in identifying the potential Critical Success
Factors. These success and failure factors along with expert opinions from CM
professionals obtained through different research methodologies are the foundation for
the execution of this research work.
With the help of mixed method research with in-depth interviews followed by a
questionnaire survey, twenty-one CSFs were identified with the help of CM
professionals working in the leading aerospace and defence industries. Descriptive
statistics were used to find the significance of these factors where high Mean Values (4≤
Mean Values ≤ 5) highlight its importance in the implementation of CM process.
Inferential statistics were used to find the significance of a CM practitioner’s education,
experience, training, and experience in stakeholders departments in the ranking of these
CSFs.
Note: It is important to mention that material presented in this chapter is also
published in our journal publication i.e. “Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Critical
Success Factors for Configuration Management implementation. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 113(2), 250-264”
4.1 Research objectives
To ensure capability and maturity of the CM process within aerospace and defence
industries, this research identifies and prioritizes the CM CSFs, categorizes these factors
into key process management areas, and presents a CM activity model to help CM
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
137
professionals in the implementation and continuous improvement of the process. It is
also important to see the influence of multiple parameters such as academic
qualification, work experience, training, and experience in stakeholder departments on
the practitioner’s perception on the criticality of CM CSFs. To analyse the influence of
these factors, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis: There is a difference in the identification of Critical Success
Factors for the implementation of best CM practice, based on a practitioner’s
academic qualification, work experience, qualification / training, and
experience in key stakeholder departments.
4.2 Research methodology
Mixed method research is used to collect information for this research. Various research
techniques were followed to make this study more practical and robust. The survey
research method is used as highlighted by Jankowicz (2004) where data was collected
through interviews, emails, and by questionnaire. Mixed method research also called
triangulation was used to validate the outputs of the research which is commonly used to
increase the validity and reliability of the research (Hussy and Hussy, 1997).
To finalize a set of success factors, in-depth interview were arranged with five CM
professionals with vast experience in the implementation of the process. Followed by
interviews, the issue was discussed with three CM professionals with more than thirty
years experience through emails. The data collected from the available literature and the
two sources mentioned above were combined to finalize an initial list of success factors.
A refined list of success factors was finalized and their importance was highlighted with
the help of a short statement. The list was presented to a group of thirteen CM
professionals for critical review in a meeting of the Association of Configuration
Managers (ACM) at The University of Manchester. A questionnaire (Appendix A) was
then produced to collect responses on the basis of a Likert-Type scale, running from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on each success factor. A pilot study was
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
138
conducted where the same questionnaire was delivered to a list of sixteen CM
professionals to ensure that the questionnaire is phrased correctly and also observe the
difficulty and problems during the response process. With some minor changes in the
received ten responses were made while all success factors were retained in the final
questionnaire for survey.
The sample size was selected for this research through judgemental and convenience
sampling strategies to avoid any compromise on the quality of data. The target
population was CM professionals from aerospace and defence companies where as the
Association of Configuration Managers (ACM) helped us in getting the required data.
The questionnaire was distributed personally in hard copies through head of the CM
facilities in some organizations while to others by their work emails (obtained from
ACM data base). The received 94 questionnaires were used for further analysis to verify
the designed hypothesis.
4.3 Findings, analysis, and discussion
4.3.1 Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics is used to describe and summarize a set of data instead of finding
the internal behaviour and making inferences to generalize the conclusions. It helps
researchers by arranging huge data through simple summaries in a rational way by
presenting relationships across different parameters. Descriptive statistics emphasis on
the combination of graphical and numerical summaries to present the actual behaviour
of data and measure specified parameters.
Descriptive statistics uses statistical measures like mean, median, mode, variance, and
standard deviation etc to describe details of the data. Graphical representation e.g.
histogram etc. can also be combined with numerical calculation to display the data’s
overall pattern and help researcher to easily understand the general behaviour of data.
Descriptive statistics gives specific information related to:
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
139
• Mean, Skewness, and Kurtosis of CSFs
• Biographical details
• Qualification details
• Job Experience details
The required information highlighted above will be discussed as we proceed further
while discussing multiple issues in coming sections. Related to biographical details of
the research participants, out of five research participants in the interviews four were
males while one were female. The email conversations were done with three CM subject
experts who were males while out of ninety four research participants in the
questionnaire study, 70 (74.5 %) were males while 24 (25.5 %) were females.
4.3.1.1 Finalization and ranking of CSFs
The initial list of twenty-one success factors identified through mixed method research
as highlighted in section 4.2 were sent to CM practitioners in the form of a questionnaire
for further analyses. Data received from the questionnaire survey were subject to
descriptive statistics using SPSS to decide on the significance of factors in the
implementation of Configuration Management with the help of its mean values. All
twenty-one factors were retained as Critical Success Factors on the basis of their high
mean values (4≤ Mean Values ≤ 5) which established the importance of these factors in
the implementation of the Configuration Management practices. Mean values are shown
against each factor for all twenty-one CSFs in table 4-1 below.
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
140
Symbol Success Factors
Mean Value
(statistic)
Skewness
(statistic)
Kurtosis
(statistic)
CSF1 Management support 4.78 -3.989 22.871
CSF2 CM organization 4.46 -1.459 2.098
CSF3 Effective leadership 4.55 -1.652 2.913
CSF4 Clear vision, mission, and policies for CM
process 4.67 -1.208 .420
CSF5 CM planning 4.64 -1.298 .749
CSF6 Competent CM practitioners 4.61 -.874 -.375
CSF7 Professional development 4.34 -1.616 4.602
CSF8 Effective support from the stakeholders 4.62 -.736 -.894
CSF9 Adequate resources allocation 4.23 -1.172 1.384
CSF10 Organizational culture 4.52 -.847 -.246
CSF11 User friendly software (tool) for CM 4.16 -.748 -.123
CSF12 Effective control of CM process at vendor
premises 4.26 -.552 .421
CSF13 Effective communication of CM with
stakeholders 4.48 -.470 -.796
CSF14 Previous CM experience 4.35 -.785 .347
CSF15 Continuous improvement in CM practices 4.47 -.101 -1.477
CSF16 Committed and focused CM practitioners 4.28 -.820 .416
CSF17 Team work 4.39 -.274 -.764
CSF18 Equal career progression opportunities for
CM staff 4.10 -1.186 1.855
CSF19 Flexibility in CM practices 4.20 -1.005 1.811
CSF20 Recognition of CM employees efforts 4.18 -1.064 2.107
CSF21 Politics free projects environment 4.03 -.459 -.690
Table 4-1: List of Critical Success Factors
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
141
Table 4-1 also highlight some important information like skewness, and kurtosis which
are obtained from descriptive statistics on the data received from ninety four respondents
on twenty one success factors as continuous variables. Skewness and Kurtosis provides
important information in the decision process of which statistical technique could be
used i.e. either parametric or nonparametric technique. Skewness tells us about the
symmetry of distribution while kurtosis gives information of how peaked or flat a
distribution is. Looking into the data suggest that our distribution does not look normal
as most of the values are out of range from +1 and -1 where for a perfect normal
distribution both skewness and kurtosis should be zero (0) (Pallant, 2010).
4.3.2 Categorization of CSFs
The Critical Success Factors have been organized into seven categories as shown in
figure 4-1 by critically analysing the studies of human activity model (Checkland, 1981),
the formal system model (Fortune and White, 2006), and the requirements of the CM
activity model. Factor Analysis was not selected to group these factors since the data
failed to meet essential assumptions required before conducting any factor analysis. To
adopt factor analysis approach, it is important to have a strong correlation among the
factors that can be checked through correlation coefficients (shown in table 4-2) which
should be above 0.3. Factor analysis is not appropriate if a weaker correlation above this
exist (Pallant, 2010). Factor analysis was not considered appropriate since less than 35
percent of the values are above 0.3 in the correlation matrix obtained from factor
analysis (table 4-2). Furthermore, parallel analysis done by using Monte Carlo
simulation also suggests the same. This process suggest comparison of the first
eigenvalue obtained from factor analysis (table 4-3) with the corresponding first value
obtained by parallel analysis (table 4-4) and maintains the component where the actual
eigenvalue is larger than the criterion value from parallel analysis; if it is less, then it is
rejected (Pallant, 2010). Results in table 4-5 recommend maintaining one group of
factors of all twenty-one factors and do not allow further grouping based on their
inherent relationships.
Chapter 4: Identification and analysis of CM CSFs
142
CSF1 CSF2 CSF3 CSF4 CSF5 CSF6 CSF7 CSF8 CSF9 CSF10 CSF11 CSF12 CSF13 CSF14 CSF15 CSF16 CSF17 CSF18 CSF19 CSF20 CSF21
CSF1 1.000 .436 .161 .192 .152 .136 .188 .266 .266 .161 .100 .219 .279 .039 .143 .259 .179 .192 .069 .208 .104
CSF2 .436 1.000 .472 .538 .270 .215 .515 .269 .397 .255 .396 .199 .396 .252 .273 .492 .305 .265 .077 .273 .226
CSF3 .161 .472 1.000 .280 .302 .369 .347 .399 .412 .313 .404 .138 .339 .456 .291 .483 .401 .141 .132 .505 .295
CSF4 .192 .538 .280 1.000 .287 .344 .353 .291 .269 .353 .294 .315 .364 .118 .299 .326 .299 .231 .174 .271 .286
CSF5 .152 .270 .302 .287 1.000 .343 .348 .335 .282 .277 .167 .223 .415 .054 .252 .294 .312 .247 -.021 .141 .176
CSF6 .136 .215 .369 .344 .343 1.000 .234 .230 .131 .346 .403 .353 .420 .147 .282 .252 .231 .204 .043 .348 .235
CSF7 .188 .515 .347 .353 .348 .234 1.000 .320 .357 .322 .255 .284 .430 .144 .306 .278 .264 .131 .114 .137 .199
CSF8 .266 .269 .399 .291 .335 .230 .320 1.000 .276 .378 .367 .328 .496 .266 .155 .341 .190 .208 .067 .261 -.045
CSF9 .266 .397 .412 .269 .282 .131 .357 .276 1.000 .360 .327 .289 .295 .348 .134 .499 .352 .185 .047 .364 .159
CSF10 .161 .255 .313 .353 .277 .346 .322 .378 .360 1.000 .258 .287 .400 .126 .277 .181 .304 .238 .230 .283 .255
CSF11 .100 .396 .404 .294 .167 .403 .255 .367 .327 .258 1.000 .197 .357 .348 .316 .444 .291 .273 .005 .460 .066
CSF12 .219 .199 .138 .315 .223 .353 .284 .328 .289 .287 .197 1.000 .307 .038 .275 .119 .246 .336 .139 .286 .061
CSF13 .279 .396 .339 .364 .415 .420 .430 .496 .295 .400 .357 .307 1.000 .369 .290 .376 .410 .249 .166 .333 .253
CSF14 .039 .252 .456 .118 .054 .147 .144 .266 .348 .126 .348 .038 .369 1.000 .378 .402 .358 .025 .120 .520 .341
CSF15 .143 .273 .291 .299 .252 .282 .306 .155 .134 .277 .316 .275 .290 .378 1.000 .246 .420 .101 .340 .312 .297
CSF16 .259 .492 .483 .326 .294 .252 .278 .341 .499 .181 .444 .119 .376 .402 .246 1.000 .528 .291 .116 .509 .236
CSF17 .179 .305 .401 .299 .312 .231 .264 .190 .352 .304 .291 .246 .410 .358 .420 .528 1.000 .191 .150 .322 .297
CSF18 .192 .265 .141 .231 .247 .204 .131 .208 .185 .238 .273 .336 .249 .025 .101 .291 .191 1.000 .065 -.056 .399
CSF19 .069 .077 .132 .174 -.021 .043 .114 .067 .047 .230 .005 .139 .166 .120 .340 .116 .150 -.056 1.000 .103 .163
CSF20 .208 .273 .505 .271 .141 .348 .137 .261 .364 .283 .460 .286 .333 .520 .312 .509 .322 .399 .103 1.000 .288
CSF21 .104 .226 .295 .286 .176 .235 .199 -.045 .159 .255 .066 .061 .253 .341 .297 .236 .297 .065 .163 .288 1.000
Table 4-2: Correlation matrix
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
143
Factor analysis is also sometimes not selected to group factors because at times when
applied to a similar set of factors by three different individuals it may yield different
groups of factors which would discredit its use (Darlington, 2012). Since there is no one
complete and fixed way to group such factors and is mainly dependent on the
researcher’s interpretation (Darlington, 2012), consensus was made on the seven groups
of factors on above guidelines and are shown in figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Details of CSFs groups
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
144
Component Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 6.559 31.234 31.234 6.559 31.234 31.234
2 1.653 7.870 39.104 1.653 7.870 39.104
3 1.443 6.871 45.975 1.443 6.871 45.975
4 1.236 5.884 51.859 1.236 5.884 51.859
Note: Data goes up to component 21 but not required to highlight here
Table 4-3: Total variance
Table 4-4: Parallel analysis
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
145
Component Actual eigenvalue from
factor analysis
Criterion value from
parallel analysis Decision
1 6.559 1.9351 accept
2 1.653 1.7736 reject
3 1.443 1.6376 reject
Table 4-5: Comparison of actual eigenvalues with corresponding criterion values
4.3.3 Inferential statistic
Inferential statistics, also called statistical induction, is used to draw conclusion about
the whole population by studying the internal behaviour of sample(s). Unlike descriptive
statistics which is used to describe and summarize the actual data, inferential statistics is
used to make inferences from the same data to a more generalized condition. Inferential
statistics are mostly used to test some hypothesis. These hypothesises are usually
established to find similarities or differences between groups or factors on the basis of
internal behaviour of the data.
Choosing the right statistical technique is the most difficult part of any research (Pallant,
2010) which is mainly because there is no universal decision tree to help researcher to
choose the right statistical test (Kinner and Gray, 2000). It is the variations in the types
of research which makes the selection of right statistical test a tedious job. Selecting the
right statistical tests mainly depends on the type of research questions, the included scale
in questionnaire, the variables to be analysed, the assumptions met by the data for
specific statistical techniques, and the nature of data itself (Pallant, 2010).
This part of research was designed to finalize the Critical Success Factors and find the
effects of CM professionals work experience, qualification/training, experience in
stakeholders departments, and experience in the stakeholders departments on the level of
importance of Critical Success Factors. To validate the hypothesis as outlined in section
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
146
4.1, the objective was to analyze the data received on the basis of four categorical and
twenty-one continuous variables. To compare and analyze the inherent relationship
between continuous variables (CSFs) with categorical variable of two or more groups,
Kruskal Wallis test (a nonparametric test) was decided to be applied.
By keeping in mind the type of outputs and the extent of relationships between
dependent and independent variables, the Kruskal-Wallis Test was selected by keeping
in mind the different parameters like design of the questionnaire, number of
questionnaire received, and the trend that we got after initial analysis of the data.
Parametric tests are the more powerful statistical tests and are preferred by most of the
researchers but have been ignored because these tests make more assumptions regarding
the data which needs to be satisfied before conducting these tests. Nonparametric tests,
On the other hand, do not make enough assumptions regarding the data, but do not
provide the full details of the inherent characteristics of the data.
Parametric Tests are based on two important assumptions; firstly the data should be
normally distributed and secondly the data should have homogeneity of variance or
homoscedasticity or population with similar variance (Erceg-Hurn and Mirosevich,
2008). Violation of these assumptions has substantial effects on the results of parametric
test (Erceg-Hurn and Mirosevich, 2008). Non-parametric tests, on the other hand do not
make assumptions about the population distribution whether normal or not (Motulsky,
1995).
Choosing between parametric and nonparametric tests is a difficult task but sometimes
few parameters make it very easy. Parametric test should be used if one is sure that the
data are sampled from population that follows a Normal / Gaussian distribution
otherwise select a nonparametric test if the outcome is based on rank or a score and the
population is clearly not Gaussian / Normal and some values are "off the scale," that is,
too high or too low (Motulsky, 1995).
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
147
To summarize the discussion, nonparametric tests were selected for the analysis of data
within this research because the data did not meet the stringent requirements of
parametric tests. Following are the reason for this decision:
i. The data in this research does not fulfil the assumption of normality which is usually
measured by any of the following two methods.
a. Normality is mainly assessed by checking the values of skewness and kurtosis. If
absolute value of skewness or kurtosis is less than three times of the standard
error of the skewness or kurtosis then the data is termed as not skewed or
kurtosis and distribution will be called normal which has been violated by the
data as show in table 4-1. Another condition is that if the value of skewness and
kurtosis is between -1 and +1 then data is neither skewed nor kurtosis and the
distribution is normal which is again violated by the data as shown in table 4-1.
Hence we can easily conclude that the data is not normally distributed.
b. Normality can also be checked by the tests for normality where two types of test
can be used i.e. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (when the sample size is greater than
50) and Shapiro-Wilk Test (if the sample size is smaller then 50). The principle
for the data to be normally distributed is if the significance value is greater than
0.05; which has been violated by the data as shown in table 4-6, hence the
nonparametric test has been chosen for the analysis of data.
ii. Non parametric techniques have been chosen as the data obtained was ordinal i.e.
ranked data (Motulsky, 1995).
4.3.3.1 Participants perceptions regarding CM CSFs
Kruskal Wallis test is used to come up with conclusions on the hypothesis outlined in
section 4.1. Non-parametric tests are suitable in cases where the data fail the test of
normality (Pallant, 2010) and the data is ranked or discreet (Motulsky, 1995). It is
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
148
important to select the right statistical test on the basis of normality of the data as the
violation of this assumption can substantially affect the results of parametric test (Erceg-
Hurn and Mirosevich, 2008). One way to check the normal distribution of data is to
calculate sig. values through Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Shapiro-Wilk Tests which if
greater than 0.05 show that the data is normally distributed (Pallant, 2010). Since the sig.
values for all seven groups and its group average are below 0.05 as shown in table 4-6
and the obtained data is discreet, Kruskal Wallis test is selected for further analysis.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
G-1 .146 94 .000 .917 94 .000
G-2 .225 94 .000 .880 94 .000
G-3 .255 94 .000 .816 94 .000
G-4 .154 94 .000 .902 94 .000
G-5 .106 94 .011 .966 94 .016
G-6 .333 94 .000 .707 94 .000
G-7 .190 94 .000 .836 94 .000
Group Average .099 94 .024 .964 94 .010
Table 4-6: Test of normality
4.3.3.1.1 Significance of CSFs with academic qualification
Kruskal Wallis test has been used to determine any significant difference in the
perception of participants based on their academic qualification. Results of the test
obtained through SPSS software are presented in table 4-7. The results confirm that
Asymp. Sig. for each of the seven groups and its group- average is more than .05 which
highlight that there is no significant differences in perception of CM practitioners on the
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
149
basis of their academic qualification hence we reject the hypothesis as outlined in
section 4.1 for academic qualification.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 G-5 G-6 G-7 Groups
-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.638 0.466 0.652 0.526 0.738 0.880 0.925 0.639
Table 4-7: Significance of CSFs with academic qualification
The outputs in table 4-7 could be explained with the help of mean rank values generated
by the same test. In the case of significance, the difference between the mean rank
values is greater between the groups and the parameter having greater mean rank value
shows its importance over others. Since there is no significant difference in the
perception of CM professionals on the basis of their academic qualification, the mean
rank values of individuals having master degrees, bachelor degrees, HND/HNC, and
other degrees as shown in table 4-8 are quite close to each other hence justify my
previous result highlighted above.
Academic Qualification N Mean Rank
Groups-Avg
Bachelor Degree 33 38.11
Master Degree 20 46.15
HND / HNC 19 38.45
Other 8 41.13
Table 4-8: Mean Rank for academic qualification
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
150
4.3.3.1.2 Significance of CSFs with CM certification / training
There will be a significant difference in the perception of CM professional on the basis
of their CM certification / training if the significance value obtained from Kruskal-
Wallis test is less than 0.05. The significance values for all seven groups and their
groups-average is shown in table 4-9 which are less than 0.05, meaning that there is a
significant difference in the perception CM professionals based on CM certification /
training in identifying and rating the CM CSFs. On the basis of these results we accept
the hypothesis as outlined in section 4.1 which concludes that CM certification / training
plays a vital role in the implementation of CM practices.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 G-5 G-6 G-7 Groups
-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.011 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.033 0.003 0.01 0.001
Table 4-9: Significance of CSFs with CM certification / training
The outputs in table 4-9 can be explained with the help of mean rank values generated
by the same test. The mean ranks are given in table 4-10 shows that employees having
CM certification or training (training obtained from professional CM training institutes)
give more importance to these factors than those having either non-assessed training
(organization or on-job training) or no training at all (mean rank value of employees
having assessed training is 60.91 which is greater than the mean rank value of
employees having either non-assessed or no training which is around 39). This shows
the importance and positive outcome of dedicated CM training and education.
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
151
CM Training N Mean Rank
Groups-Avg
Assessed CM Certification / Training 37 60.91
Non-Assessed CM Certification / Training 16 39.16
No CM Certification / Training 41 38.66
Table 4-10: Mean ranks for CM training
4.3.3.1.3 Significance of CSF with experience in Configuration Management
Kruskal-Wallis test results shown in table 4-11 highlight that the significance value for
Critical Success Factors groups are less than 0.05 hence we can say that there is a
statistical significant difference in the perception of CM professions to identify and rank
these CSFs based on their previous experience in CM. On the basis of these results we
accept the hypothesis outlined in section 4.1 for experience in CM.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 G-5 G-6 G-7 Groups
-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.031 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.019 0.000
Table 4-11: Significance of CSFs with experience in CM
Mean ranks of above seven CSFs has been highlighted in table 4-12 below explain that
respondents with higher Configuration Management experience have high mean ranks
than those with less experience. This shows that experience has positive effects on the
implementation of Configuration Management process as they know the significance of
the areas which are important for CM implementation process. Individual with high CM
experience give more credence to these factors then with less expertise.
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
152
CM Experience N Mean Rank
Groups-
Avg
Less Than 5 Years 33 32.32
Between 5 to 10 Years 23 46.87
Between 10 to 15 Years 11 64.95
15 Years or Above 27 59.48
Table 4-12: Mean ranks for CM experience
4.3.3.1.4 Significance of CSFs with experience in stakeholder departments
The significance of CSFs with experience in stakeholder departments can be checked
through the significance values as highlighted in table 4-13 obtained by applying
Kruskal-Wallis Test. Since no value is less than 0.05 hence it can be concluded that
there is no significant difference in the perception of practitioner’s views about the CSFs
score with experience in stakeholder departments. On the basis of these results, we reject
the hypothesis as outlined in section 4.1 for experience in other discipline i.e. quality,
design, and project management.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 G-5 G-6 G-7 Groups
-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.503 0.856 0.201 0.993 0.730 0.784 0.82 0.85
Table 4-13: Significance of CSFs with experience in Stakeholder Departments
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
153
Experience in stakeholder
departments N Mean Rank
Groups-
Avg
Less Than 5 Years 18 32.42
Between 5 to 10 Years 24 37.17
Between 10 to 15 Years 6 31.33
15 Years and Above 20 34.13
Table 4-14: Mean ranks for experience in stakeholder departments
Table 4-14 shows the mean ranks for experience in stakeholder departments. The mean
rank values of employees having different experiences in different departments (quality,
design, project management, support, and manufacturing) are in the range of 32 and 37
which are again too close to each other and hence assumes no significant differences in
the perceptions of employees for these categories.
The results in sections 4.3.3.1.1, 4.3.3.1.2, 4.3.3.1.3, and 4.3.3.1.4 are not surprising
since it is believed that experience and professional training in CM plays an essential
role in the implementation of Configuration Management (Samaras, 1988; Burgess et
al., 2005; Guess, 2006). It is understandably true that since CM has been comparatively
ignored in the past by academia (Burgess et al., 2005) hence academic qualification
should not influence these factors. Furthermore, no significant difference is evident from
either these results or literature in the ranking of Critical Success Factors for CM
applications based on professional’s work experience in different types of stakeholder
departments.
4.3.4 CM activity model
The Configuration Management Activity Model is a logical representation of the key
factors necessary for establishing, maintaining, and continuously improving the CM
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
154
process. It is designed to inform the CM professionals with most essential factors
necessary for establishing and maintaining best CM process and to facilitate them to
identify the actual or potential weaknesses in their Configuration Management practices.
The Configuration Management Activity Model combines the core concepts of the
Formal System Model (Fortune and White, 2006) also called the Human Activity Model
(Checkland, 1981) and is designed on the principals of soft system model building
methodologies by Checkland, (1979). Any such model is ideal and represents a robust
system that is capable of a purposeful activity without failure.
The problem with any existing model is the use of specific terminologies because of
their origin with systems thinking and PM which creates confusion during
implementation. The aim behind the Configuration Management Activity Model is to
make it easier for the use of CM practitioners and provide them a solid basis for
comparison with their existing practices to identify areas of improvements. This model
is quite simple but is different from the existing Formal System Models and uses CM
specific terminologies and is built on the basis of existing research and expert opinions.
To show the utility and usefulness of this model, it is important to address weaknesses in
the existing CM process and compare them with key process areas of the Configuration
Management Activity Model as shown in figure 4-2 with details in section 4.3.5 will
provide guidance on the missing links.
It is important to note that ‘There are not valid models and invalid ones, only defensible
conceptual models and ones which are less defensible! But at least it is possible to check
that conceptual models are not fundamentally deficient, and this is done by checking the
model against a general model of any human activity system’ (Checkland, 1981). In the
soft systems methodology, models are not part of the world and hence cannot be tested
by checking how well they represent it; they are only relevant to discuss the real world
and are used in a cyclic learning process (Checkland, 1995).
The Configuration Management Activity Model has a core decision making system with
decision taker(s) who are responsible for managing the process and implementation of
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
155
the CM strategies with the help of effective communication channels both from top to
bottom and bottom to top and a designated boundary. Decision takers are not only
responsible for monitoring the process but to ensure that sufficient resources are
available for the execution of Configuration Management strategies. Communication
plays an important role in the execution and monitoring of the process and is mostly
effected by the environment. The environment encapsulated the other six activities, have
a critical role in the execution of the CM process. Organizations need to pay special
attention to all seven areas which would help them with superior CM processes to fulfil
customer requirements and produce quality products.
Figure 4-2: Configuration Management Activity Model
4.3.5 Interpretation of CM CSFs groups
Further discussion on the significance of CM CSFs groups in the implementation of CM
process is given below.
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
156
4.3.5.1 Decision taker(s)
Decision taker(s) emerges from four CSFs i.e. management support, competent CM
practitioners, effective leadership, and previous CM experience. Top management
ensure the provisioning of required resources and defining the organizational role of the
process, whereas process leadership certify the effective usage of resources to carry out
the process and achieve the required objectives. Employee’s competencies and previous
experience help leadership to ensure that process is implemented according to
established guidelines which are mapped towards the vision and mission of the process.
Management support plays a vital role in establishing CM as a core business process of
the organization (Guess, 2006) whereas, leadership on the other hand, plays an essential
part for any core business process where CM needs to be established as one of those
core business processes for continuous improvement in an organization (Guess, 2006).
Both management support and effective leadership has an important role to the success
of any system or process (Carlos, 2011). It is also to note that to achieve success;
leadership is always backed by capable and experienced employees to accomplish the
desired tasks. Competency is the ability of an individual to execute his/her duties
properly where-as experience makes one capable to avoid paths to failure and guide the
process to accomplish the desired objectives which results in saving both money and
time.
4.3.5.2 Execution strategies
Execution strategies have three CSFs i.e. vision, mission and policies for CM process,
flexibility in CM practices and effective control of CM process at vendor premises.
Effective implementation of any process needs to have a clear vision (to answer the
question of where a process is going?), mission (to answer the question of why the
process exists?), and policies (to answers the questions of what and how to implement?).
It helps owners of the process and all functional stakeholders to adjust themselves
according to the rules and to achieve the desired goals and objectives.
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
157
It is important to observe the performance of CM process of subordinate activities such
as subcontractors, suppliers (EIA-649, 2011) where in most cases, a vendor’s CM
process is often overlooked. It is only through an effective control of CM process at a
vendor’s premises which make us capable to manage the use of unacceptable parts and
avoid compromise on the overall quality of products. It is the responsibility of
management to ensure the potential of vendors in terms of quality, production, and CM
process before contracting for any design and development activities.
The rigidity in CM practices creates inconvenience to users and hence the CM
implementation strategies need to be flexible to easily adopt according to different
requirements. On the other hand, products complexity plays a major role in the
implementation strategies of change management (Jarratt et al., 2011) where it is
believed that requirements of complex projects (e.g. space shuttle) cannot be matched
with small products (e.g. ball point pens), hence the CM process should never be too
rigid and users may provide flexibility to decide on CM requirements according to the
nature of the products.
4.3.5.3 Performance monitoring
Performance monitoring consists of two CSFs i.e. CM Planning and continuous process
improvement. The importance of continuous improvement methodologies is evident
from the fact as highlighted by Guess (2006) that when organizations operate in a
corrective action mode, places its survival in risk since they spend their resources and
time in overcoming intermittent failures. Since tremendous efforts have been made to
automate the process by introducing new tools and techniques, it is essential to
emphasise continuous improvement of the CM practices to maintain alignment with
changing demands of the environment. It is significant to note that there is no final step
in the CM process implementation and continuous improvement and hence development
programs should be in place through the provision of suitable resources (Hancock,
1993).
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
158
According to Sachs (2009) CM planning plays an important part in the success of any
project and has a major contribution in organization's effectiveness and productivity.
CM planning not only ensures the implementation of CM practices but makes sure the
required consistency between the product’s configuration, product definition, and that
the CM records is maintained throughout the product-life-cycle (EIA-649, 2011). It is an
utmost requirement for organizations to have effective CM planning methodologies for
measuring the performance and effectiveness of their CM process.
4.3.5.4 Resources allocation
There are three CSFs under resources allocation i.e. adequate resources allocation, user
friendly software (tool) for CM and professional development. Adequate resources
(human and financial etc.) play a key part in implementation and continuous
improvement of the CM process (Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997; Guess, 2006). The recent
research on barriers to CM implementation presented in Chapter 5 and 6 suggest that
lack of resources (human resource and necessary budgets) are the main concerns of the
owners of this process which exists because the CM process has never given the
necessary importance by top management.
On the other hand, professional development plays a significant role in the success of a
process which improves the capability, capacity, and performance of individuals
involved in the process implementation. This issue is also highlighted in literature which
suggests CM training as a burning issue in organizations. Since Configuration
Management is largely ignored by academia (Burgess et al., 2005), recruiting competent
individuals is always an issue. Because of these reasons, special emphasis is required on
professional training programmes to maintain the required competencies across
organization.
CM software in the form of PLM and PDM toolsets has done a great job in the
automation of Configuration Management practices but still have some major concerns
highlighted in the literature since most of these software tools are not user friendly
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
159
(Guess, 2006) and as being off-the-shelf and not designed according to one’s own
requirements which create problems during implementation. It is essential to note that
user friendly software, if in-line with organizational CM process, could play a major part
in the effective implementation and development of the CM process.
4.3.5.5 Effective environment
Effective environment has six CSFs i.e. organizational culture, effective support from
the stakeholder, recognition of CM employee’s efforts, team work, equal career
progression opportunities for CM staff, and politics free projects environment.
Organization culture is the combination of values, core beliefs, behaviour model, and
represents the value system of the company that becomes the employees' behavioural
norm (Ying-Yung, 2006). Extensive literature on organizational culture reflects its
significance on the outputs of any process within organizations.
Teamwork plays an essential role because when everyone is working together, the
results are always better to any individual’s accomplishment (Sachs, 2007). On the other
hand according to Jarratt et al. (2011) people’s lack of interest and poor cooperation
within stakeholder is believed to be a main obstacle in configuration change
management. Supportive attitude and politics free environment helps in the effective and
on-time communication between functional stakeholders and CM. CM is seen as a
communication bridge between design engineering and the rest of the world (Watts,
2010); where lack of interest and concerns from any side could affect the desired outputs
of the process.
Organizations face problems to hold back experienced and competent employees due to
lack of recognition and career progression. Lack of recognition and career progression is
a major concern in aerospace industries and has largely affected the overall
implementation of the CM process (Burgess et al., 2005). This issue will never help
organizations to retain their employees and as such practitioners will switch to
alternative fields having better career developments and opportunities.
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
160
4.3.5.6 Communication
The only Critical Success Factor in this group is effective communication which plays a
positive role in the implementation and continuous development of the CM practices and
helps to reduce product development cycle time through better decisions. According to
Tavcar and Duhovnik (2005) and Wasmer et al. (2011), up-to 40 % of time reduction
has been reported in the implementation of engineering changes through timely
communication. It is observed that two third of changes could be prevented with the help
of improved communication where failure in this could result in a large number of
changes through decisions on obsolete data (Jarratt et al., 2011). It is believed that
changes in product characteristics on customer requirements result an exponential
growth in the volume of information which needs to be properly communicated through
an effective product configuration system to handle such information (Yeh and Tai-Hsi,
2005).
4.3.5.7 Process boundary
Process boundary is composed of two CSFs i.e. committed and creative employees and
proper CM organization. Committed and creative employees are among the most
valuable business assets that provide organizations an edge over its competitors. Best
CM practices are the result of creative and committed professionals who always evaluate
and communicate what works and what doesn’t work (Sachs, 2010). CM organizational
structure on the other hand plays an important role in the CM process implementation. It
is important to note that decision on the type of CM organization depends on many
factors such as the number, size and complexity of projects and availability of the
required resources.
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
161
4.4 Summary and conclusions
4.4.1 Summary
The main objective of this research was to identify, prioritize, and categorize the critical
Success Factors for Configuration Management and devise a Configuration Management
activity model to help practitioners in the effective implementation and continuous
improvement of the process with reference to aerospace and defence industries. The
motivation behind this study was twofold; first as no formal research has been identified
in general on this imperative topic to act as a baseline for process improvement of CM
and secondly to provide guidelines to CM practitioners for the effective implementation
of process as CM has not been fully established and recognized within aerospace and
defence industries after 60 years from inception even with apparent recognition by
different international standards.
Mixed method research was chosen with supervisor consent to finalize the list of Critical
Success Factors where inputs of as many participants were difficult to obtain through
any other research methodology with available resources. The identification of critical
success factors for CM implementation was a challenging task and was successfully
done through comprehensive literature review and discussion with Configuration
Management experts through interviews, emails and phones. After presenting the
identified list of twenty-one factors to a group of CM subject specialists with CM
experience ranging from 5 to 30 years in a meeting of Association of Configuration
Managers in The University of Manchester, all twenty-one factors were retained for the
final questionnaire and were forwarded to CM professionals in aerospace and defence
industries.
On the basis of descriptive statistics, all twenty-one factors included in the questionnaire
survey were finalized critical for the successful implementation of Configuration
Management in aerospace and defence industries based on their mean values (4≤ Mean
Values ≤ 5) as highlighted in table 4.1. Inferential statistics were applied to determine
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
162
the effects of different parameters on Critical Success Factors in the implementation
process of CM. Two important results have been obtained from these inferential
statistics. One is the experience in Configuration Management while the other is
Configuration Management certification / training where variations are observed due to
these factors in the perception of CM practitioner.
The main focus of this research was to finalize and prioritize factors which are critical
for the implementation of the Configuration Management process within aerospace and
defence industries. Descriptive statistics was used to finalize and prioritize the CM
Critical Success Factors while inferential statistics was applied to assess the variations in
the perception of CM practitioners based on their academic qualification, work
experience, qualification / training, and experience in key stakeholder departments.
4.4.2 Conclusions
This study identifies and prioritizes Critical Success Factors for the effective
implementation and continuous development Configuration Management practices in
aerospace and defence companies based on the views of CM professionals. Importance
is given to find any significant differences in the perception of practitioner’s academic
qualification, work experience, qualification / training, and experience in stakeholders
departments. The groups of factors were then populated in the form of an activity model
to highlight the importance of these factors in the implementation of Configuration
Management process. The research is conducted with experienced CM professionals to
ensure the usefulness and effectiveness of the study.
A number of studies have been identified in CSFs in other allied fields but no single
study is known to describe the Critical Success Factors for Configuration Management.
This research contributes to the knowledge by presenting the Critical Success Factors for
the effective implementation of Configuration Management within aerospace and
defence industries. The main objective of this study was to provide a benchmark in the
shape of Critical Success Factors. These Critical Success Factors will help Configuration
Chapter 4: Identification and Analysis of CM CSFs
163
Management practitioners to know the most important reference points, guide them to
work in the right direction for their goals and help them to measure the effectiveness of
their Configuration Management practices.
A total of twenty-one factors are finalized as Critical Success Factors and ranked on the
basis of importance for the implementation of Configuration Management. The
importance of these factors could be judged from their high mean values shown in table
4-1 while literature supports the significance by emphasising the importance of these
factors in the implementation Configuration Management practices. Significant
difference is found in Configuration Management professionals perception’s on the basis
of their experience in Configuration Management and Configuration Management
certification and training on the ranking of Critical Success Factors which presents the
importance of these two areas in the implementation process.
164
CHAPTER 5
BARRIERS AND GOVERNANCE OF THE CM PROCESS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter investigate the data obtained through a questionnaire survey administered
from April to July 2011 and interviews conducted in December 2011 and January 2012.
These interviews are continuation of research on barriers to Configuration Management
implementation initiated through a questionnaire survey. These interviews helped us by
providing a channel to extensively discuss the issues with CM professional and get their
expert opinion to ensure that identified barriers are the true representation of the
Configuration Management practices in aerospace and defence industries. The purpose
behind these interviews were twofold, first to explore the barriers in the effective
implementation of CM process and second to define mechanisms for the governance of
this process.
Judgemental and convenience sampling strategies were adopted to select a sample size
for the interviews. Judgemental or purposive sampling was used to avoid any
compromise on the quality of data where interviewees were selected on the basis of their
experience in the field of Configuration Management. Convenience sampling was used
by keeping in mind the easily and readily availability of the sample. Interviewees were
shortlisted and finalized with the help of supervisor by taking multiple parameters into
account i.e. experience in CM, role of the individual in the implementation process of
CM, and the type of industries they belong.
Analysis of data received from sixty-four questionnaires and seven semi-structured
interviews conducted with CM experts in four aerospace and defence organizations a list
of nineteen barriers were finalized. The second part of interviews which included
discussion on the Configuration Management concludes that CM organizational
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
165
structure within organization could varies with many factors e.g. composition of the
actual organization, the number and size of individual projects etc. It is also concluded
that the most suitable organizational structure for Configuration Management process
would be either functional or matrix to ensure consistency of CM principals from project
to project.
Note: It is important to mention that some of the material presented in this chapter
is also published in the following publications.
• Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Barriers to effective Configuration Management
application in a project context; an empirical investigation. International
Journal of Project Management (DOI reference:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.005)
• Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2012). Understanding the obstacles to Configuration
Management success. 26th IPMA World Congress, Greece.
5.1 Research objectives
The objectives were to answer the following research questions as outlined in chapter
one.
• What obstacles are perceived as the real barriers in implementation and success of
Configuration Management practices in aerospace and defence industries?
• What is the perception of Configuration Management practitioners about
organizational structure for Configuration Management in aerospace and defence
industries that could help in the implementation of Configuration Management
practices?
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
166
5.2 Research methodology
This research was conducted through a questionnaire survey followed by semi-
structured interviews. Through an open-ended question in a questionnaire survey, CM
practitioners were asked to address problems which they believe are the real obstacles in
the implementation of CM process. Questionnaire was divided into four sections. The
first three sections were part to my research on critical success factors while the last
section was related to this part of the research. A number of barriers were identified as
barriers to CM implementation on the basis of sixty-four questionnaires.
The questionnaire survey was followed by semi-structured interviews. To effectively
conduct these interviews and get the desired results, interview guide (Appendix B) was
designed by keeping in mind the research questions as outlined in chapter one and were
refined several times before interviews. The interview guide was updated by
incorporating questions according to situations as interviews proceeded. The interview
guide was divided into five different sections where the first three sections were to
support the fourth and fifth sections which were related to barriers in the implementation
of CM process and CM governance respectively. Interviews were analysed several times
and the results were compared with the data obtained from the questionnaire survey
where nineteen barriers were finalized.
This research is based on judgemental and convenience sampling techniques.
Judgemental and convenience sampling techniques were applied as it provide us the
flexibility to choose appropriate sample which can be accessed easily and conveniently
and also fulfils the required objectives (Saunders et al. 2009). By keeping in view the
objectives of this research, sample was selected from different organizations to ensure
that output of the research is unbiased and cover the views of different environments.
Interviewees were selected from four different aerospace and defence industries having
experience ranging from 5 to 35 years in the field of Configuration Management. In the
first phase, two interviews were conducted at The University of Manchester with CM
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
167
professionals. The interview guide was updated on the basis of responses to questions to
ensure quality of outputs in coming interviews. In the second phase four interviews were
conducted in one organization to get their expert opinion on the issues addressed in the
interview guide while seventh interview was conducted on telephone. Findings of the
interviews are presented in the coming sections i.e. barriers in implementation of CM
process and CM governance.
5.3 Analysis and discussion
This section describes the analysis of data received through a questionnaire survey and
semi-structured interviews. Details of the quotes are provided to explain and support
further discussion. This section is further divided into the following two main sections:
• Barriers to Configuration Management implementation
• Governance of the Configuration Management process
5.3.1 Barriers to Configuration Management implementation
One of the research questions as highlighted above is to identify barriers in the
implementation of Configuration Management process. It is important to know the root
causes which affect the efficiency of a process implementation in most efficient and
effective way. The aim of this research was to get CM practitioner’s views based on
their work experience in different projects environment on the issues which has affected
the implementation of the CM process.
The data was collected through a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews on
barriers to Configuration Management implementation within aerospace and defence
industries. The purpose of questionnaire survey was to get responses from as many
research participants which was not feasible through any other research method because
of the time and resource constraints. On the basis of open ended question to highlight the
barriers in the effective implantation of Configuration Management process, a number of
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
168
responses were received from sixty-four CM professionals working in major aerospace
and defence industries. Interviews were conducted to further investigate the subject and
highlight obstacles which the practitioners are facing in the implementation of the CM
process.
After detail analysis of the data, several factors were extracted and were discussed with
supervisor in several meetings. A list of nineteen factors were finalized on the basis of
data received from two source of data i.e. questionnaire survey and semi-structured
interview. Details of the extracted obstacles to CM implementation are given below.
• Lack of top management support
• Lack of centralized body for the governance of CM
• Lack of CM training across organization
• Lack of authority to implement CM principles / policies
• Implementation cost outweigh CM benefits
• Lack of recognition and underestimating the importance of CM at every level of the
organization
• Lack of career progression for CM professionals
• Poorly defined CM requirements and process
• Lack of maintaining consistency in CM activities across projects
• Lack of flexibility in CM process
• Outdated CM process
• Lack of current CM Plans
• Lack of CM process across life-cycle
• Lack of CM awareness in customer world
• Lack of effective communication
• Lack of effective CM tools
• Lack of resources
• Lack of support from stakeholders
• Extreme projects pressures
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
169
The most important issue as highlighted during interviews was that most of the barriers
have strong connections with each others; where ignoring one specific factor results with
many other obstacles in the implementation process. Analysis of data showed that
identification of these factors was influenced by many factors like respondents
experience and type of organizations and the nature of complexity of the products
research participants were involved. These issues will be further analyzed in the next
phase of this research. Details of the factors highlighted above on the basis of data
received from the two research methods are given below.
5.3.1.1 Lack of top management support
Lack of management support is frequently highlighted in the received data both through
questionnaires and interviews. On the other side literature also back this issue where
lack of management support is considered one of the main issues in the CM
implementation (Burgess et al., 2005). It is important to present the received data in their
original quotes to support this discussion. The data received through questionnaires
presents a strong position on the lack of support from the top management where several
quotes are presented below obtained through a question asked to present barriers to CM
implementation.
• ‘It is very easy for senior management to blame Configuration Management or
quality assurance teams for the lack of proper control of products or data assets,
when in fact there has been a blatant disregard for following process. This is why it
is essential that CM has the necessary status / authority within an organisation to
ensure that CM processes are followed’.
• ‘Management not ensuring CM Plans, policies, work instructions are understood
and / or followed by the stakeholders’.
• ‘Lack of senior management vision and understanding of the importance of CM in
supporting project management’
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
170
• ‘Managers and higher project Managers do not understand what they want reported
and how it should help them?’
• ‘When top management doesn't consider the practice of CM to be as critical as other
teams in the organization’.
• ‘Lack of support for CM methodologies from every level (top management –
stakeholders)’.
• ‘The failure by management to understand the consequence of poor CM practice’.
• ‘Lack of CM awareness / importance at top management level’.
• ‘Management not giving enough credence to CM’.
This data obtained through questionnaire is equally supported by participants in
interviews by highlighting it as one of the main barrier in the implementation CM
process. According the research participants, CM has never received the due importance
at every level of the organization which is highlighted below:
‘Lack of leadership support often ties in with poor requirements and poor process
because unless you have leadership saying you will do CM, its critical for our business.
A project has no incentive to actually deliver it themselves because typically the project
stops its product delivery and almost all of the CM benefits or product lifecycle
management, fixing faults, managing risks when its coming to life support, and the
project does not really care about that, there job is to deliver product. So your company
top-down needs to be saying we are doing this for overall benefits and it’s not used an
individual, if we get these benefits, its downs stream so that top management
understanding of what they want? Why they want it? And, how would it benefit them?
And then promoting that to the company is really important’ [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
171
‘I don’t think they really know who we are and what we doing. I guess, I think it all
comes back to this that we are the one who delay things, who block things, what we can
do to improve things?. They are not interested in we are in a change board process, they
are not so interested in that as a department.’ [Sic]
5.3.1.2 Lack of centralized body for the governance of CM
It is believed that if Configuration Management is projectized there is every possibility
that this process will not deliver the desired results and inconsistencies in practices will
arise from project to protect. The issue has been highlighted by various participants
through questionnaire which is reflected below.
• ‘No centralized corporate body for governance of CM / PLM standard processes
across corporation / divisions result in islands of technology and wasted IT dollars
replicating / reinventing CM / PLM systems and processes’
• ‘There should be a core CM team within every organisation ensuring that correct
CM practices and discipline is being recorded and completed throughout the
organisation’
• ‘Decentralisation and matrixing of CM staff tends to lead to lack of cross
fertilisation of skills’
• ‘Configuration Management lost in integration with Project Management’
This issue was highlighted in great depth by almost all participants during interviews
and emphasised more on a core and centralized body for CM within organization which
has been reflected below.
‘I think one of the problem we have is that we are projectized, so we have different
projects, different teams, and our department look after different projects, and we have
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
172
got three different teams and one team split into twos, and so that means we do things in
four different ways’ [Sic]
‘I think lack of centralization is a problem, if I do a little bit of change coordination on
the project I work on, the project (abc), because we don’t have a change controller, but I
couldn’t go and pickup and help in projects (xyz) because everybody does it different’
[Sic]
‘You can have decentralized staff working in projects but they need to be a centralized
body for process and standards and monitoring their staff can show they are working for
those standards. If your organization is fully decentralized, you would have no
consistency. I think there is a risk if the organization is fully centralized its seen as a
black box, the projects don’t know what’s going on, they don’t engaged very much and
then they often do their own things because they don’t see how CM benefits them’ [Sic]
5.3.1.3 Lack of CM training across organization
Lack of CM knowledge across organization is another important barrier highlighted
frequently by individuals in this research and has also been identified as a barrier
previously by Burgess et al. (2005) on his research in the implementation of CM within
aerospace industries. It is highlighted by the respondents through the questionnaire
survey as:
• ‘CM cannot be understood by many people. Lack of education and training by many
disciplines by the users and their leaders’
• ‘Lack of knowledge within the engineering lifecycle new areas of the business e.g.
support and disposal, bid winning and requirements capture’
• ‘Senior managers should understand the principles of CM and should mandate there
us by all employees’
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
173
• ‘Non-education of project managers and senior management as the pit-falls of
ignoring Configuration Management’
• ‘CM personnel need to have CPD which is recognised by the business and is
industrially recognised’
• ‘CM Training of other stakeholder [engineering (HW & SW), procurement, PM,
Business & Finance etc.]’
• ‘Training of stakeholders and lack of funding resources’
• ‘Lack of fully trained and CM knowledgeable people’
• ‘Top management knowledge on CM’
• ‘CM training seen as not value added’
It is equally supported by the respondents in interviews where they highlighted the need
for effective CM training and can be seen from their statements below.
‘One of our biggest problem is that peoples don’t understand what Configuration
Management is? And why we do it? And why it is important?, and the image that we just
do the paper work, and we block everything that they want to do with the projects and
we delay things and we just cause troubles for peoples rather than providing the
answers that they want’ [Sic]
‘CM training across the board is an absolute barrier. CM teams are often quite well
trained but CM should be part of the core training everyone gets in have to do their day
jobs’ [Sic]
‘One of the barriers is the lack of CM knowledge within engineering functions. We got a
big amount of knowledge of engineering techniques, but realization of the concepts into
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
174
product is outside of the knowledge of most of the engineering sort of stuff, so we have a
lot number of engineering leaders grownup as dedicated engineers, have worked in
development areas and design areas and gone to chief engineer type levels and they
fully understand the responsibilities they have got, we offer as part of our design
organization approval, we offer an X position to the authorities which fully explains the
responsibilities of these peoples and how they have to control a product but the detail
knowledge of how does that control happen is kind of missing’ [Sic]
‘It is always a need to do more training. When you are doing a day job, may be you
don’t have enough time to training but having said that certainly in my experience we
put a lot of priority on ensuring that as much training is available the team organization
had access to and try to encourage the team members to support this training activity,
but in the real world you can never do enough’ [Sic]
‘Lack of training is a very big barrier because how could you expect from somebody
make you a cup of tea if they don’t know how to do it, simple analogy, if you are not
trained to do something then it is very difficult to do it properly and get it right’ [Sic]
5.3.1.4 Lack of authority to implement CM principles / policies
Configuration Management is no more new to organizations after its inclusions in
multiple standards as compliance requirements but process executers still have problems
with its implementation and seek the required authority to implement the same. The way
it is highlighted by one of the respondents through a questionnaire ‘Project managers
undermine CM principles and believe that they can do all without CM’ shows the
limited authority of CM professionals towards CM applications within projects. This
issue is also highlighted by interviewees as a concern in the implementation process of
Configuration Management in their organization as:
‘We have lack of authority to implement CM principles. When we try and stand our
ground and say this is the crack way to manage the change that you are asking for, they
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
175
say no we want to do this way because it is cheaper, quicker, whatever, and the real
thing which frustrate you when you got two standards in series and becomes four, eight,
and sixteen standards after some time’ [Sic]
‘In theory we own the process, but I don’t think the business sees it owning the process’
[Sic]
‘There are companies I know where deliverables are owned and managed by other
functions such as project management or by quality so the company have the authority
to ensure that these Configuration Management activities are undertaken and the
deliverables are produced but they don’t always allocate that to Configuration
Management team and that is why you often see poor quality deliverables and poor
quality process’ [Sic]
5.3.1.5 Implementation cost outweigh CM benefits
It is evident from participant’s remarks that implementation cost of CM within projects
is another main concern for management especially in small projects where exhaustive
requirements is put forward to control the projects. It was pointed that this issue can be
addressed if CM policies could have the required flexibilities in requirements
downloading phase of the projects. Implementation cost was highlighted as one the
concern by professionals in the questionnaire study as.
• ‘Lack of funding. CM can be overlooked at estimate stage and in some cases cuts
completely in order to lower an estimate. This is a false economy as these projects
are normally the ones that end up with huge rework costs or an inability to actually
reproduce a build’
• ‘CM process does equate their effort as cost benefit centre. CM is mostly viewed as
an overhead and block of progress’
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
176
• ‘CM not seen as saving cost’
The issue was highlighted within interviews which are highlighted in the following
paragraphs.
‘I think that’s one of the big problems as what I am saying that CM is predominantly
based on reducing risks, so how much does it costs us? Because that is a function not
only of Configuration Management but also of quality also of safety, even if you could
measure that risk and say this will cost my business, however which portion belongs to
which function and at that point it’s really hard to understand the full benefits’ [Sic]
‘With defence you have these key deliverables you must deliver to your customer- you
must deliver the design baseline, you must deliver the functional baseline, you must
deliver a product baseline, you must deliver CM Plan - these are pretty much
contractual for every defence project. You actually have a lot more visibility of CM
because the project is got on their schedule, I must got these things out which CM will
produce for me so I see less arguments about the cost of CM in defence because the
project managers got list of deliverables he has the CM personnel do for or she for that
matter and there is more visibility because those deliverables are upfront where
somewhat like aerospace, I will deliver a baseline but I will deliver it to internal
customer which then goes to e.g. technical publication, which then goes to our external
customer, we don’t have that direct customer relationship, so it’s not as obvious what
the benefit of your deliverables is.‘ [Sic]
5.3.1.6 Lack of recognition and underestimating the importance of CM at every
level of the organization
Whatever may be the reasons for underestimating the importance of CM within
organizations, it has been reflected a major concern in the CM community. Even after
seven decades of its conception, CM has not yet got the due status within organizations
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
177
which is visible from the research participant’s comments through the questionnaire
survey below.
• ‘Configuration is not important until something goes wrong (It is seen as a
necessary evil)’
• ‘Poor perception of personnel involved in the CM environment as to its importance’
• ‘Project Managers undermine CM principles and believe that they can do all
without CM’
• ‘Mid-level and senior management do not understand the "real" role of CM’
• ‘CM is just to be tolerated - not embraced’
• ‘It is expected to be done cheaply’
• ‘Role of CM not understood’
• ‘Ignorance of others’
The issue is also highlighted by interviewees as follow.
‘You have a lack of respect for CM leadership by the wider projects, so the peoples who
are the directors and responsible for the profit, make or conceive decisions based on
product out-of-the-door and don’t consider the impact of those decisions because they
haven’t got a deep understanding, a wider understanding of the issues’ [Sic]
‘There is a lack of recognition and underestimating the importance of CM at every level
of organization’ [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
178
5.3.1.7 Lack of career progression for CM professionals
Lack of career progression for CM is one of the three barriers identified by (Burgess et
al., 2005) in his research on Configuration Management practices in aerospace sectors. It
is highlighted by the research participants as:
‘CM does not connect with other disciplines in engineering for instance, so you wouldn’t
expect to become a configuration engineer normally and that be lead into designer or
become a stress engineer so I think people feel to grow up in configuration discipline, if
you want to move on to a different career path you have got to stop and take a different
career path it’s not a progression’ [Sic]
‘Lack of career progression, until very recently’ [Sic]
5.3.1.8 Poorly defined CM requirements and process
Poorly defined CM requirements and process is the second major concern within CM
community after lack of management support which is frequently highlighted by the
respondents through both in questionnaire survey and interviews. It is evident from the
replies highlighted below through questionnaire survey as follow.
• ‘No customer / agency mandate of approved regulatory or defence 'standards' to
mandate corporations to have a Configuration Management division / dept / group’
• ‘Documents are not correctly identified, structured and/or linked to the physical
items. The result of this is the time wasted in either finding the correct docs or
reviewing unnecessary documents’
• ‘Organisations believe that CM stands for Change Management therefore ignoring
all other Configuration Management requirements’
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
179
• ‘MOD Def Standards are too complex and rigid and explanation is not clear or
defined’
• ‘Un-implementable process and process not fully known and documented’
• ‘Approval process is too long and cumbersome’
• ‘Inadequate workflow design’
It is believed that CM requirements are process is poorly presented within organization.
Even though international standards are available but only highlight a generalize view of
the process which does not guarantee the implementation of an effective CM process.
There is still a need for a centralized team to take the task for downloading the CM
guidelines which could be understandable and implementable. The issue was highlighted
by interview participants as follow.
‘Poorly defined requirements for CM, so if an organization does not understand what
CM they want? Why they want it? And, how would it benefit them? Than your CM
process is always guaranteed not to work by the time you get it. From that your next
sequential one tends to be, poorly defined process; so I worked in several organizations
that planned to be CM at my level three, what actually you got lot of heroes and very
erratic process or process erratically acquired, so you didn’t have consistent process,
you didn’t have well defined process, normally it was huge global process, and at the
point you got into the detail, everybody did their own things on their own project, and it
is very hard to have a transferable skills. So you often find there is existing process but
there is no consistency which for CM is quite a challenge than’ [Sic]
‘Lack of simplified and updated CM standards, lack simplified CM procedures, lack of
adequate and updated CM plans, and lack of CM process across product life and
outdated CM process have been a problem’ [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
180
5.3.1.9 Lack of maintaining consistency in CM activities across projects
Lack of consistency within CM practices was also highlighted as one of the barriers by
many research participants. A respondent through a questionnaire highlighted the issue
as ‘within the same company people can still work differently because there can still be
a lack of communication’. The reason behind inconsistencies in CM process across
projects as highlighted by respondents in interviews is the lack of maintaining
centralized CM process within organizations. This can be seen from the comments as
highlighted below.
‘Maintaining consistency of CM process is an issue; we suffered it right down from
various authorities. There is no legislative requirements for Configuration Management,
so the relative authorities don’t ask for Configuration Management process, our
organization does have anywhere in the process, I think, that this is the Configuration
Management process, so the way it is explained is in terms of delivering product,
delivering engineering information, delivering data, controlling requirements. So we
struggle with consistency because each product interpret those requirements slightly
differently and out of that, spills of slightly different Configuration Management, not
necessarily process but certainly practices’ [Sic]
‘For each of the project the organizational structure was somewhat different and we
also find that they deviated dependent on their project to the generic process and that
couldn’t be managed as a top level, that was done via subset of documents for each of
the project, so instead of having one generic Configuration Management process that
was enforced on the project they tend to have a diluted view of the all’ [Sic]
‘Lack of maintaining consistency is a big problem, again, as every project does it
differently’ [Sic]
‘If you look that one project and one team that are doing the specific role, not all of
those fully understand in exactly the same manner as the rest of the team what they
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
181
supposed to be doing. It’s maintaining consistency among the staff you are working
with, and this is only because you don’t have a centralized body or centralized person’
[Sic]
‘Every time when new project comes along; they say we do it slightly differently, so they
have been allowed to do so and the problem now is that we have multiple processes. It
comes back to this that we don’t have the power, we don’t have the control, I mean, the
product change board is how we change everything we live the project change board,
we own it, but we don’t chair it’ [Sic]
5.3.1.10 Lack of flexibility in CM process
It is a feeling that CM process is quite rigid as highlighted by respondents with
questionnaire survey through remarks like “Non-flexible corporate governance” and
“Rigidity / inflexibility of CM process” The issue is highlighted by interviewees as.
‘We are quite good, we can bend the rules should we need to, sometimes we do and
catch things up latter’ [Sic]
‘Sometimes, I think the problem is often the CM processes are too flexible and when they
are tightening-up they are too inflexible. I would say it is a risk around CM effectiveness
overall’ [Sic]
‘We do like flexibility mainly because I think we don’t practice high enough capability
Configuration Management, so the processes we have got, we say are a little bit
desperate and we have got variations in practices but we are relying on them completely
so whatever type of change we do to product we have to use the same process as it is
written’ [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
182
5.3.1.11 Outdated CM process
‘Outdated configuration procedures, need to keep up with new ideas’, as a barrier,
highlighted by one of the respondent in the implementation of Configuration
Management process through a questionnaire. The same is highlighted within interviews
as.
‘Again, defence particularly (xyz document) is a terrible document that makes reference
to specific templates that you will never do it right now’ [Sic]
‘The CM standards, either they are not explicit or detailed enough or there is a need to
be updated but haven’t been updated’ [Sic]
5.3.1.12 Lack of current CM Plans
This research indicates that CM plans are not given enough importance within
organizations which is vital to govern the CM process of individual project. CM plans
are either not existed or not updated according which could create multiple problems in
the implementation of CM process. This has been highlighted during interviews as.
‘It’s often the case that some CM Plans lacked behind the actual point in which the
projects moving in the project life cycle’ [Sic]
‘The problem is that you will find lot of companies will develop quite a good CM plans
and they will issue it and people will work to it but then five years latter you look at that
CM plan and it is probably still in issue one but the organization has evolved so it has
not kept up-to-date. So in general they start-up in good way but don’t maintain that and
then becomes an issue then’ [Sic]
‘We don’t have as many plans, the only plans I tend to see are plans relating to projects
going through the project change process and they are rubbish because they make plans
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
183
and then say, right we are going to do this development work by this date and they never
stick to it’ [Sic]
5.3.1.13 Lack of CM process across the life-cycle
It is believed that a major concern to effective Configuration Management
implementation is not giving the due considerations in early phases of the projects i.e.
concept and development and after sale i.e. maintenance and modifications. It is
highlighted by respondents in the questionnaire study as:
• ‘Delay in involving Configuration Management process on any given project’
• ‘Involving CM too late in the lifecycle of the project / product’
• ‘Absence of CM during development’
According to research participants in interviews, it is highlighted that CM process can
play a more important role in the post delivery process but has not been actively
involved as highlighted from the following comments.
‘Once we delivered our product to the customer, our CM process is didn’t covered in
too much detail the continuous CM activity once the product have been delivered to the
customer, but I have no good reasons for that. But in most recent time the contractor has
a great more involvement with the product post delivery then we have to become more
involved in Configuration Management in the post delivery phase’ [Sic]
‘Lack of Configuration Management involvement across life-cycle is a barrier because
you are not identifying what you want to control upfront, you always plan catch-up
things later which is not easy’ [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
184
5.3.1.14 Lack of CM awareness in customer world
Configuration Management can be used by external customer as a tool to ensure the
quality of products which they are going to develop or purchase. Even after extensive
development in knowledge proliferation there are still a lack of CM awareness in the
customer world which is highlighted by one the participant in questionnaire survey as
‘There is a lack of knowledge about product Configuration Management requirements
from a customer’s perspective when that product requires full support from the supplier;
Lack of CM awareness and cost within the customer world’.
Lack of CM awareness in customer world is highlighted in interviews as follow.
‘I have certainly found that in MOD environment, there is a lack of understanding of
CM and how should it be applied within their environment, it just cause problem, so I do
find that a big barrier’ [Sic]
‘There is hardly any specialists, if we haven’t any specialists, I am sure most of the
companies haven’t got specialists’ [Sic]
5.3.1.15 Lack of Communication
Communication was highlighted as an issue in the implementation of CM process by
some of the respondents and was thus included here. It was highlighted through
questionnaire study that ‘within the same company people can still work differently
because there can still be a lack of communication’ and ‘the need to keep information
real-time is not considered important by groups that create the initial items / sites that
require tracking’. In the interview two of the respondents replied as follow.
‘Communication is a barrier for CM but not more so for other areas like project
management, quality, and other part of the infrastructure’ [Sic]
‘It’s a bit of a mix I would say, as people don’t understand what we do’ [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
185
5.3.1.16 Lack of effective CM tools
One of the highly marked barriers within this research is the lack of effective CM tools
(software). There might be several reasons for this as identified by the respondents
through questionnaire as follow.
• ‘Most CM tools are designed by those who do not perform day-to-day CM activities
and hence create problems during implementation’
• ‘CM can only be effective if given the right tools, proper recognition and a top down
approach from the board’
• ‘Databases designed by people who do not have to use them on a daily basis’
• ‘continual changes of buzz words each time a new database is introduced’
• ‘Toolsets contain more workarounds than detailling the CM Process’
• ‘Tool functionality specified by CM and not prescribed by IT’
• ‘Poor investment in the implementation and use of CM tools’
• ‘Up to date CM tools not being utilized with the Command’
• ‘CM tools implemented with the out of the box solution’
• ‘Too many different tools without interface/integration’
• ‘ERP support tool’
In the interviews it was highlighted as:
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
186
‘Poor tools implementation - old or non-functional tools- CM tools and other tools
where you got data and multiple systems no tie-up between your systems, you then have
vary many manual processes which either you have data inaccuracies or no bodies
understand where defined anything, and that’s a bit that most often generate the
perceptions of CM is not working - and that’s the biggest one you will see you always
that usually the reasons for that really is poor requirements and no buy in processes and
wrong data is coming in, people are not managing it correctly. People think it’s not
important so by the time it hit the tool, the data in the tool is very poor. If your tool is not
user friendly or your tool have poorly implemented process, that will then generate tools
problems - about 80 percent of what subscribed to be a tool problems is a process
problems and the training problem and not a tool issues’ [Sic]
‘CM tools e.g. PDM and now PLM; some tools ask the golden things, that they will do
everything, we know that, but four five six years in, we are still developing the system, so
none of them have ever truly being fit for purpose’
5.3.1.17 Lack of resources
The most obvious barrier in terms of resources is issues with human resources to do the
job that often ties in with lack of funds within projects. It is highlighted by respondents
through questionnaire as.
• ‘Lack of support in resources to implement CM effectively in personnel and
equipment’
• ‘Budget for CM for projects underestimated’
• ‘Continuous improvement of CM process is often difficult when also progressing CM
tasks for a product with a challenging programme e.g. with funding, timescale or
resource limitations’
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
187
It is equally considered as a barrier in the implementation process within interviews by
respondents as.
‘We struggle a bit to get the required resource. Actually we are quite a large
configuration organization but relative to design outputs and relative to development
activities going on, I think Configuration Management is possibly under resource. We
have got the core Configuration Management team that really look after particularly
accounting and change process and all of the other sort of areas of Configuration
Management of development vehicle and Configuration Management of requirements.
It’s done by the people around the business and it’s done by mostly one or two peoples
in the area’ [Sic]
‘Lack of resources comes into everything, doesn’t it? There is never enough people to do
the job’ [Sic]
5.3.1.18 Lack of support from stakeholders
Lack of support from stakeholders is rightly identified by respondents because if one is
not accepting the importance of a process it is not possible to have their positive support.
It is believed that there is still a lack of knowledge of CM practices which is one of the
reasons of ignoring the importance of these practices. Lack of support from stakeholders
is identified by the respondents through questionnaire survey as follow.
• ‘Lack of adherence to processes by stakeholders’
• ‘Lack of dedicated staff for CM in program management’
• ‘Constant 'fire-fighting' by programme’
Lack of support from stakeholders is equally supported and identified as a barrier within
interviews. It is highlighted by the respondents as follows.
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
188
‘CM is an obstacle to achieve in the maximum output; they don’t realize that good CM
will actually give them maximum output with maximum integrity’ [Sic]
‘There is a lack of support because of the lack of understanding I think. Because if they
understood what we are trying to do, they will support us’ [Sic]
‘Lack of support from stakeholders is a barrier. That’s your leadership point of lack of
commitment from stakeholders’ [Sic]
5.3.1.19 Extreme projects pressures
It is identified in the interviews by the research participants that programme
management never wait to fulfil the requirements of Configuration Management
activities and adopts short cuts or bypass them. It is highlighted by the respondents as
follow.
‘Programme pressure, communication, resources in all its various aspects where it is
funding, people, tools, facilities are barriers but programme pressures are probably
significant’ [Sic]
‘Project pressures is a big problem, they never wait especially when it is urgent jobs’
[Sic]
‘Projects pressure is a barrier but it does not need to be a barrier if your process is well
defined and flexible. Again, it’s an excuse not a barrier - I think that project deadlines
and projects pressure are barriers because the importance of CM is not understood, so
it’s not a barriers in its own right but is frequently causes failure to the CM process’
[Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
189
5.3.2 Governance of the Configuration Management process
The literature suggests that the governance aspect of Configuration Management is
missing in its limited academic literature. On the other hand extensive literature on the
subject shows its critical importance in the success of organizations. It is important to
note that Configuration Management has never given the due credence within
organization and hence faces considerable resistance while implementation. To avoid
such resistance and ensure its effective implementation it is necessary to have a strong
organizational basis of the process. It is important to highlight that Configuration
Management is always believed as a rigid discipline which have never provided the
room of flexibility for projects based on their different requirements and hence
considerable difference is found in the Configuration Management practices from
project to project within same organization. The objectives of this discussion is to come-
up with conclusions on the effective governance methodologies for Configuration
Management which could help standardization and effective implementation of the
process across the projects.
Governance issues were discussed in great deals to come up with conclusions on
different aspects on how to run a CM organization within aerospace and defence
industries. Interviewee were asked multiple question as outlined in the interview guide
in appendix B and many other were added as the interviews proceeded to reach on
conclusions. Output of these interviews has been analysed in different headings below.
5.3.2.1 CM organization
Respondents were asked to explain the CM structure within their organization and the
appropriateness of that structure in their views. They were further asked to highlight that
how the CM discipline should be governed within organizations on the basis of their
experience and how to ensure the accountability and responsibility issues of the process.
The research participants views were distributed towards three organizational structure
i.e. functional (centralized), divisional (projectized), and matrix. In their views it is
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
190
difficult to advise which structure would be best to govern their CM process and should
be decided by keeping in view different requirements e.g. the number of projects, size of
projects, and the organizational setup. Their comments have been downloaded below for
better understanding of the governance process within organizations.
‘We did have a dedicated CM organization; it was always linked into the technical
organization headed by the Chief Engineers. We have head of projects and chief
engineer, chief engineer was the engineering manager, and Configuration Management
organization was one of his responsibilities. We had a chief engineer for each project,
so we had a project based Configuration Management system. Across all products we
had a functional department that looked the activities across all the project areas, and
one of the aspects of this functional area was to ensure that there are aligned activates
across all the projects’ [Sic]
‘We did have an engineering director and then we have a CM process owner and then
we have all the projects underneath him. The configuration manager of each projects
were about the same level as the CM process owner but only his say was that you will
use the generic CM process and you will use these golden roles and you will do this and
you will do that’ [Sic]
‘If you have a good centralized structure in place then you got somebody at the very top
level who is responsible for all your CM activities and can make sure that each of the
projects underneath that umbrella is operating correctly. If you got another like the
hybrid type of environment which is similar to we have, all we could do is say this is the
procedure you should be following, these are the golden rules you must follow, they still
developed how they operated themselves, they still utilized a very generic CM process,
but it was very different in the way they applied it’ [Sic]
‘Personally, and it is a personal view, there should be a CM directorate, so for my point
of view you need a CM director with a central CM functioning team underneath him to
make sure that all the activities, all the processes, and all the practices are going on and
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
191
that aren’t diluted so much that you don’t recognized any more. There should be
somebody in place, a director is in place that will make sure that funding is available for
CM, that the correct training is in place, there is a career structure for people if they
want a career in CM and that all the projects are operating under the same umbrella
under the banner in the correct manner’ [Sic]
‘Depends on the company and the products they are producing so if you got a company
which producing a lot of small products then you may have a multi project
Configuration Management organization, if you have big project then you need a
dedicated CM team for that’ [Sic]
‘We have a very regulated industry, so very active business lots of pressure, we spend
our own money our own private R&D money, so there is a lot of pressure, much of a
time to deviate and find quick routs quick answers cheap answers, so I think
Configuration Management has to be a really hard policing activity, controlling activity,
so what we find from our experiences if we go completely projectized, if we put the
configuration team under the project chief engineer or chief design engineer they tend to
adopt practices that are suitable for that project to deliver its product which is not
necessarily the right thing in the long term. The most beneficial thing to do so certainly
we prefer a centralized Configuration Management team that is not directed by the
projects’ [Sic]
“A centralized CM function which defines processes, standards, answers the key
questions and decentralized CM staff delivering that process within projects, so co-
located with projects” [Sic]
On the basis of comments, there is no one best way to govern a CM process and presents
more variations in the structuring of the process across organizations. Most of the
peoples favoured a functional (centralized) organization to have consistency in their CM
practices. It can be concluded that for defence organizations which are involved in the
development and production of huge projects, they should be a matrix type of CM
organization to maintain consistency in the CM process within different projects and
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
192
organization which are involved in the development and production of various small
projects, function organization will suite them best by keeping in mind the cost and
consistency issues of the process. It is further highlighted that in both cases it is the CM
head that will be both accountable and responsible for the implementation and
consistency of the CM process within organizations.
5.3.2.2 CM roles / appointments within organization
In all the seven interviews no two organizations have similar roles / appointments for the
execution of Configuration Management process within their setup. This shows that
organizations are still in the transition phase to establish their CM process and define the
roles / appointments to fit their process. Different appointments came across under
discussion like configuration specialist, configuration manager, and change manager etc
at different level. It is highlighted by interviewee as follow.
“It depends on how you opt to set your organization basically, but I mean, I would
expect that on a centralized function you will have a Configuration Management
director; underneath him you will have a core team and that might be perhaps four or
five configuration specialists or offices or whatever you want to call them, and
underneath that you got all the configuration managers of each of the project and they
will then set their own team underneath them to manage their activities, to make sure
they go correctly” [Sic]
“We call them configuration engineers; it’s our generic terminology, they live within a
competency structure which our company treat for its product definition type peoples
and certainly we need for configuration specialist which is a high level of professional
capability but not necessarily leadership management type capabilities” [Sic]
“We had a configuration manager and then under the configuration manager we
typically had a change manager, we had status accounting & verification manager, so
the job titles related to the activities and responsibilities they were given” [Sic]
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
193
It is difficult to comment and devise roles for CM personnel that would fit different
types of defence industries. But on the basis of expert opinion of research participants
and assuming a defence industry which is involved in the development and production
activities of multi-type projects having a matrix type of CM structure; it would be
advisable to have a CM director, Configuration Management specialists, Configuration
Management officer, and Configuration Management staff / coordinators to execute
different activities.
5.3.2.3 Qualification for CM roles / appointments
It has been highlighted throughout this research that Configuration Management is never
given the due importance and ignored in term of resources especially qualified human
resource. Multiple participants in this research highlighted this issue and insisted on the
employment of technical staff to execute the Configuration Management activities as
highlighted by one of the participant as ‘engineers could perform the duties of CM, and
this is true depending on the complexity and the time-constraints of any project. It's been
my observation that the consistency and accuracy of CM would be performed to the
extent of an Engineer's integrity, directly proportionate to the Engineer's belief /
commitment to CM principals and practices’ [Sic]
It is until very recently that organizations mostly valued CM training and experience,
and not any academic qualification where peoples were recruited based on their
elementary levels of academic educations. But the things have changed in organization
and are taking graduates in engineering for Configuration Management roles and
appointments. These issues have been highlighted in the following paragraphs.
‘There is lots of different things you can consider is qualifications and some bit of a
training etc. At the moment I don’t believe there is a specific qualification for
Configuration Management but things are changing now but in general what the
company should be doing is looking for the right kind of training and development and
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
194
even certification to give people a level of knowledge that will enable them to
successfully do their job and a feel that they have gained a level of knowledge’ [Sic]
‘Traditionally configuration engineer is HNC qualified. We expect mechanical and
production engineering at analytical level and we are trying to recruit engineers as a
configuration managers, configuration engineers of any engineering discipline’ [Sic]
5.3.2.4 CM rules and regulations
In response to question of who should define the CM rules and regulations and from
where these should be reviewed and approved? Almost everyone replied that it should
be the direct head of Configuration Management function within that organization. One
of the replies to the question is ‘The one who owns the process at the top, the dedicated
head of function’ [Sic]
The replies are the true representation of the actual practices, since, in project based CM
organization, where CM manager own the process and have no centralized setup to
govern the CM rules and regulation, respondents highlighted inconsistencies in the CM
process from project to project. On the basis of this discussion, this problem could be
eliminated by having centralized governing body to take charge of the rules and
regulations of the CM process and ensure its implementation in projects within
organizations.
5.3.2.5 CM control at vendors premises
In view of the CM professionals, it is the concerned configuration manager who should
deal with vendors on the issues related to configuration control of that project but in
actual it is quite varied in various organizations. In some organizations it is done by the
quality staff and in some the concerned project manager. On the basis of responses, it
can be summed that since it is only configuration managers who have the full
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
195
background of the issues; should deal with Configuration Management issues with
vendors.
5.4 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of these interviews were two fold, first to finalize the list of barriers
to Configuration Management implementation and second to discuss the governance
issues of Configuration Management and come up with a suitable organizational
structure which could best suite the implementation of consistent Configuration
Management process. To achieve the objectives, questionnaire was sent to CM
professional in different aerospace and defence industries from where a total of sixty-
four questionnaires were received followed by seven semi-structured interviews, which
were conducted with Configuration Management professionals from four different
aerospace and defence industries. The conclusions on results of these interviews are
summarized in the following two headings.
5.4.1 Barriers in the implementation of CM process
On the basis of analysis of data received from sixty-four questionnaire and seven semi-
structured interviews, the following list of nineteen factors termed as barriers to
Configuration Management implementation were extracted.
• Lack of top management support
• Lack of centralized body for the governance of CM
• Lack of CM training across organization
• Lack of authority to implement CM principles / policies
• Implementation cost outweigh CM benefits
• Lack of recognition and underestimating the importance of CM at every level of the
organization
• Lack of career progression for CM professionals
• Poorly defined CM requirements and process
Chapter 5: Barriers and governance of the CM process
196
• Lack of maintaining consistency in CM activities across projects
• Lack of flexibility in CM process
• Outdated CM process
• Lack of current CM Plans
• Lack of CM process across life-cycle
• Lack of CM awareness in customer world
• Lack of effective communication
• Lack of effective CM tools
• Lack of resources
• Lack of support from stakeholders
• Extreme projects pressures
5.4.2 Governance of CM Process
Governance of the CM process was only discussed in interviews where different areas
related to the governance of CM process i.e. CM organization, CM roles and
appointments within organization, CM rules and regulations, CM control at vendors
premises within defence setup were discussed in great details. It was observed that these
issues may vary from organization to organization and are varies with many other
factors such as the size and number of projects and the geographical locations of
different departments of organization.
In view of Configuration Management professionals from the four organizations, they
are in favour of either a functional or matrix CM setup where they have dedicated staff
to execute the CM principals and maintain consistency in CM process from project to
project. They further highlighted that CM personnel should be more technical and
should have engineering background at least for Configuration Management officers or
engineers level and above. They further summarized that control of the CM process at
vendors should only be handled by concerned CM officer of that project as he is the only
right person to discuss and resolve the issues with vendors.
197
CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF BARRIERS TO CM IMPLEMENTATION
6.0 Introduction
This chapter further investigates the obstacles to Configuration Management (CM)
implementation in aerospace and defence industries. This part of the research is
conducted through a questionnaire survey from April 2012 to September 2012. It is
believed that CM is not practiced to its full potential and is treated the way Quality
Management was neglected in the West prior to its belated recognition (Burgess et al.,
2005). Burgess et al. (2005) believes that achieving highly quality CM system is not
simple and needs further research to investigate the obstacles involved in implementing
high-grade CM systems. To investigate the issue, this research is designed with the aim
to statistically investigate barriers in the effective implementation of the CM process in
aerospace and defence industries. This study has confirmed some barriers associated
with managing CM application, prioritized them with the help of differential statistics,
categorized them into more manageable groups of factors through factor analysis and
have analysed the effects of multiple factors e.g. academic education, gender
differences, CM experience and types of organization on the perception of CM
professionals in the process of identification and rating these factors through inferential
statistics.
Through a questionnaire survey, nineteen (19) barriers are finalized and prioritized on
the basis of their mean values which are grouped in three groups (i.e. ‘managerial and
organizational barriers’, ‘planning and process barriers’, and ‘implementation barriers’).
Significance is found in the CM practitioner’s perceptions based on the typology of
organizations in which they work.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
198
Note: It is important to mention that material presented in this chapter is also
published in my following publications.
• Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Barriers to effective Configuration Management
application in a project context; an empirical investigation. International
Journal of Project Management (DOI reference:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.005)
• Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2012). Understanding the obstacles to Configuration
Management success. 26th
IPMA World Congress, Greece.
6.1 Objectives of the research
The objectives were to prioritize the barriers to CM applications with the help of
differential statistics, categorize them into more manageable groups of factors through
factor analysis, and analyse the effects of multiple factors e.g. academic education,
gender differences, CM experience and types of organization on the perception of CM
professionals in the process of identification and rating these factors through inferential
statistics. To analyse the effects of these multiple factors, following hypothesis was
developed which is then evaluated by using inferential statistics.
Hypothesis: The identification and ranking of barriers to Configuration
Management acceptance and application, from the perspective of a CM
practitioner, will be directly influenced by their academic education, gender
difference, CM experience, and typology of organization.
6.2 Research methodology
A questionnaire survey is used to validate the initial findings finalized on the basis of the
first questionnaire survey followed by semi-structured interviews as presented in
Chapter 5 and verify the designed hypothesis outlined in section 6.1 above. The
questionnaire (appendix C) was divided in two sections. The first section focussed on
gathering background information whereas the second part was related to barriers where
respondents’ opinions were accumulated on a series of statements. Research participants
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
199
were asked to mark trueness of each statement based on their organization by using a
five-point scale (1 = not at all true, 2 = slightly true, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = mostly true,
5 = completely true). Before the sending the questionnaire for the required responses, in
the first phase five CM professionals were asked to comment on the readability,
comprehensiveness, and accuracy of the questionnaire. After some changes, in the
second phase, questionnaire was sent to fifty-two CM professionals where a total of
thirty-five questionnaires were received without any changes. The Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient was calculated to check the reliability of questionnaire by using internal
consistency method which is 0.91 after thirty-five responses. The questionnaire survey
was continued since the Cronbach Alpha of 0.7 and above conform the test of internal
consistency (Pallant, 2010) which means that the scale is free from any random error and
is reliable for research. The overall Cronbach Alpha coefficient is 0.904, is well above
the recommended value of 0.7 shows a high internal consistency between nineteen items
in the research questionnaire.
To facilitate respondents and improve the response rate, a web based questionnaire was
designed and the link was sent by email to all respondents. For high degree of legitimacy
of received data, judgemental sampling is used where only identified CM professionals
were contacted to provide their views on the issue. The received 187 questionnaires
were used for further analysis to establish the designed hypothesis. It is important to note
that the research participants targeted in this research were CM professionals from
aerospace and defence industries.
6.3 Findings, analysis, and discussion
6.3.1 Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics is used to summarize a set of data by presenting the relationships
across multiple parameters. Unlike inferential statistics, descriptive statistics is used to
describe and summarize a set of data instead of studying the internal behaviour and
make inferences to generalize conclusions. Descriptive statistics uses combination of
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
200
numerical summaries and graphical techniques to present the behaviour of data for
measuring the required parameters.
In descriptive statistics the outputs are summarized in the form of statistical measures
e.g. mean, median, mode, variance, and standard deviation. The outputs can be viewed
both in the forms of tables or graphics (e.g. histogram etc.) which help researchers to
easily understand the general behaviour of the data. Descriptive statistics is used to
summarize information for the following outputs:
• Mean of the data
• Biographical details
• Qualification details
• Job Experience details
Descriptive statistics is used in combination with inferential statistics to highlight the
importance of specific parameters. The required information highlighted above are
presented in coming sections of this chapter and are not included here to avoid
repetition. Details of descriptive statistics are available in different sections i.e. mean of
the data is shown in section 6.3.1.1, biographical details in section 6.3.3.1.2,
qualification details in section 6.3.3.1.1, and job experience details in section 6.3.3.1.3.
6.3.1.1 Identification and prioritization of barriers to CM implementation
On the basis of literature review, an initial questionnaire (appendix A) where an open
ended question was asked about the barriers to CM application and semi structured
interviews, nineteen barriers are finalized which were further validated through the
second questionnaire survey (appendix C). Since configuration managers perceive the
existence of barriers to CM, in general, the responses highlight that these barriers are not
widespread and are more visible in aerospace sectors. It is understandably true and
validates my initial interview’s findings since it is believed that in industries like defence
where CM is being fully followed while its performance is monitored from the top
which is also obvious from the fact that majority of the CM standards have been issued
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
201
from defence and hence suit their environment. It is observed that aerospace sectors
have rated the CM barriers more than any other business which means that there may be
more importance for CM issues.
The identified nineteen barriers is a combination of both previously highlighted and
newly identified barriers which are shown in table 6-1. The barriers presented in the
existing research studies (e.g. lack of management support, lack of training, lack of
communication, lack of resources, and lack of stakeholder’s support) are prevalent in
nature which are not only reflected in the literature of CM but also in other allied fields
like Knowledge Management and Quality Management. Some of the barriers (e.g. lack
of flexibility, extreme project pressures, lack of authority to implement CM principles,
poorly defined CM requirements and process, lack of CM awareness in Customer
worlds, and outdated CM process) are presented for the first time and will need special
consideration to address. Analysis of these barriers shows that most of the barriers are
closely related while some are considered the root cause for many other barriers e.g. lack
of training, lack of CM planning, lack of management support etc. and hence need extra
care to address.
Descriptive statistics is used to rank all nineteen barriers on the basis of their mean
values as shown in table 6-1 in descended order based on their mean values. The barriers
having the same mean values are ranked first based on their high marking as either
mostly or completely true received through the questionnaire survey. Even through some
of the barriers are at top while others at the bottom, but the most important aspect to note
is the mean values presented in table 6-1 which are very close to each other and suggest
that there are no major differences in the perception of professionals for these factors as
barriers to CM implementation.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
202
Table 6-1: Barriers to CM implementation
Symbol Barriers to CM implementation Mean Value
B3 Lack of CM training across organizations 3.41
B17 Lack of resources 3.39
B6 Lack of recognition and underestimating the importance of
CM at every level of organization 3.34
B16 Lack of effective CM tools 3.33
B7 Lack of career progression for CM professionals 3.33
B5 Implementation costs outweigh CM benefits 3.25
B19 Extreme projects pressures 3.25
B9 Lack of maintaining consistency in CM activities across
projects 3.20
B4 Lack of authority to implement CM principles / policies 3.19
B1 Lack of top management support 3.06
B18 Lack of support from stakeholders 3.02
B14 Lack of CM awareness in customer world 3.01
B15 Lack of effective communication 2.97
B13 Lack of CM process across the lifecycle 2.96
B2 Lack of centralized body for the governance of CM 2.94
B8 Poorly defined CM requirements and process 2.94
B12 Lack of current CM Plans 2.51
B10 Lack of flexibility in CM process 2.42
B11 Outdated CM process 2.36
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
203
6.3.2 Factor analysis (categorization of the barriers to CM implementation)
Factor analysis is a data reduction technique which identifies and explores the inherent
relations among a large set of variables and summarize them into smaller sets of factors
based on their inherent relationship. Factor analysis is an ideal technique for reducing
various items into manageable frameworks (Norusis, 2008). Factor analysis can be used
in hypothesis testing or finding relationship within a group of variables (Bartholomew et
al., 2011).
One of the important methods of factors analysis i.e. principal component analysis; is
used to group the nineteen barriers into small sets of factors based on their inherent
relationship. Principal component analysis is mainly used in factor analysis where
original variables are transformed into smaller sets of linear combinations, with all of the
difference in variables being used as compared to other factor analysis approaches where
factors are estimated through mathematical model by only analysing the shared variance
(Pallant, 2010).
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .893
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 1456.152
df 171
Sig. .000
Table 6-2: KMO and Bartlett's Test results
It is essential to do some compulsory checks before choosing factor analysis. The first
and most important check is to have a large sample size. There is little agreement among
researchers on suitable sample size (Pallant, 2010) but according Tabachnick and Fidell
(2001) reliable results could be obtained in most cases if the sample size is 5 to 1 ratio:
i.e. 5 cases for each item to be factor analysed. Following a suitable sample size, it is
essential to confirm the suitability of data for factor analysis by using three mandatory
checks (Pallant, 2010). Firstly, inspection of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient Matrix is important which revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
204
and above as shown in table 6-4. Secondly, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity which is
used to identify if variables are uncorrelated is significant [significance value needs to
less than 0.05 which is 0.000 (table 6-2) in this study]. Thirdly, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) value is 0.893 (table 6-2) which exceeds the recommended value of 0.6 meaning
that factor analysis is recommended for the sample data.
Principal component analysis (table 6-3) shows the presence of three components with
eigenvalues exceeding 1, presenting 36.919 %, 10.305 %, and 6.406 % of the variance
respectively. It is important to note the screeplot shown in figure 6-1 which highlights an
apparent break after the third component which suggests retaining three components for
further investigation i.e. managerial and organizational barriers, planning and process
barriers, and implementation barriers and are shown in figure 6-2. Since the Kaiser’s
criterion which recommends retaining of factors having eigenvalues of 1.0 or above and
Catell’s scree test which recommends retaining all factors above breaking in the plot as
shown in figure 6-1 (Pallant, 2010) confirm that the three-factor-model should be
adequate for my research analysis.
Figure 6-1: Screeplot, total variance associated with each barrier
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
205
Co
mp
on
en
t
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of
Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 7.015 36.919 36.919 7.015 36.919 36.919 3.953 20.808 20.808
2 1.958 10.305 47.224 1.958 10.305 47.224 3.154 16.600 37.407
3 1.217 6.406 53.631 1.217 6.406 53.631 3.082 16.223 53.631
4 .972 5.113 58.744
5 .918 4.832 63.576
6 .872 4.589 68.165
7 .730 3.845 72.009
8 .698 3.673 75.683
9 .642 3.378 79.061
10 .599 3.152 82.213
11 .530 2.791 85.004
12 .489 2.572 87.576
13 .409 2.154 89.729
14 .407 2.141 91.870
15 .370 1.949 93.819
16 .342 1.801 95.621
17 .309 1.628 97.249
18 .289 1.524 98.772
19 .233 1.228 100.000
Table 6-3: Total Variance Explained
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
206
Figure 6-2: Three groups of barriers to CM implementation
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
207
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19
B1 1.000
B2 .461 1.000
B3 .622 .517 1.000
B4 .537 .505 .562 1.000
B5 .395 .440 .434 .529 1.000
B6 .571 .517 .585 .581 .621 1.000
B7 .272 .354 .369 .330 .358 .381 1.000
B8 .137 .315 .256 .363 .356 .340 .363 1.000
B9 .284 .380 .332 .315 .378 .372 .390 .631 1.000
B10 .175 .200 .239 .254 .217 .225 .200 .420 .386 1.000
B11 .182 .284 .336 .309 .275 .369 .284 .465 .326 .395 1.000
B12 .135 .293 .237 .283 .301 .261 .162 .467 .415 .398 .459 1.000
B13 .231 .336 .285 .155 .290 .299 .221 .376 .401 .408 .285 .438 1.000
B14 .189 .300 .215 .302 .366 .335 .213 .283 .253 .233 .297 .434 .328 1.000
B15 .166 .248 .205 .304 .200 .328 .255 .356 .397 .233 .302 .354 .218 .451 1.000
B16 .117 .171 .180 .137 .118 .160 .212 .247 .288 .376 .266 .236 .263 .312 .384 1.000
B17 .278 .290 .358 .259 .347 .320 .274 .348 .376 .278 .297 .303 .287 .323 .280 .464 1.000
B18 .233 .325 .354 .282 .376 .380 .396 .327 .350 .300 .287 .373 .355 .437 .418 .391 .556 1.000
B19 .230 .328 .302 .366 .324 .376 .257 .338 .393 .272 .258 .388 .371 .344 .362 .297 .453 .613 1.000
Table 6-4: Correlation matrix for CM barriers
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
208
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
B1 .789
B6 .781
B3 .773
B4 .751
B2 .666
B5 .658
B7 .439
B8 .770
B12 .675
B10 .663
B9 .634
B11 .633
B13 .547
B18 .778
B17 .680
B16 .672
B19 .643
B14 .560
B15 .560
Table 6-5: Group of matrix after Varimax rotation
Groups Eigenvalues Percentage of
Variance
Cumulative
Percentage of
Variance
1. Managerial and Organizational Barriers 7.015 36.919 36.919
2. Planning and Process Barriers 1.958 10.305 47.224
3. Implementation Barriers 1.217 6.406 53.631
Table 6-6: Final statistics of principle component analysis
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
209
At the end, varimax rotation was applied on the data to present the loadings pattern of all
nineteen factors in three groups for easy interpretation. The data in table 6-5 shows that
extracted data after Varimax rotation is consistent where each of the barriers weighs
heavily on only one of the three groups and hence verified the decision of maintaining
only three groups of factors. The final statistics of Principle Component Analysis after
Varimax rotation in table 6-6 show that the three factors extracted comprise 53.631 % of
the variance.
6.3.3 Inferential statistic
Inferential statistics, also called statistical induction are used to draw conclusion about
the whole population by studying the internal behaviour of a sample. Unlike descriptive
statistics which describe and summarize the actual data, inferential statistics is used to
make inferences from the same data to a more generalized condition. Inferential
statistics are mostly used to test some hypothesis. These hypothesises are usually
established to find similarities or differences between groups or factors on the basis of
internal behaviour of the data.
Choosing the right statistical technique for the analysis of data is the most difficult part
for any research (Pallant, 2010). This is mainly because of the unavailability of any
universal decision tree to help researcher to choose the right statistical test (Kinnear,
2000) and the variations in the types of research studies. Selecting the right statistical
tests mainly depends on the type of research questions, the included scale in
questionnaire, the variables to be analysed, the assumptions met by the data for specific
statistical techniques, and the nature of data itself (Pallant, 2010).
There are two types of statistical techniques (i.e. parametric and non-parametric) which
can be used to investigate the hypothesis as outlined in section 6.1. The selection of the
right statistical technique between the two is based on some important assumptions.
Violation of these assumptions has substantial effects on the final outputs (Erceg-Hurn
and Mirosevich 2008). Parametric tests are used if the data is normally distributed and
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
210
present homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity i.e. population with similar
variance (Erceg-Hurn and Mirosevich, 2008) while non-parametric tests do not make
assumptions about the population distribution whether they are normal or not (Motulsky,
1995). Parametric test should be used if one is sure that the data are sampled from
population that follows a normal / gaussian distribution otherwise use a non-parametric
test if the data is ranked or discreet (usually the case with Likert scale) and the
population is not normally distributed and some values are "off the scale," that is, too
high or too low to measure (Motulsky 1995). Parametric tests are more powerful
statistical tests and are preferred by most of the researchers because of the detailed
outputs but are ignored because of its stringent assumptions regarding the data while
nonparametric tests, on the other hand, do not make such assumptions but do not provide
the full details of the inherent characteristics of the data.
Non-parametric tests i.e. Mann-Whitney-U and Kruskal Wallis tests are carried out to
analyze participant perceptions based on their academic education, gender differences,
CM experience, and types of organization on three groups of CM barriers because the
data has not fulfilled the stringent requirements of parametric tests.. Mann-Whitney-U
and Kruskal Wallis Tests gives reliable results if the data is not normally distributed
(Pallant, 2010) or the data received is ranked or discreet (usually the case with Likert
scale) (Motulsky, 1995). Following is the detailed discussion on why Mann-Whitney-U
and Kruskal Wallis tests are used for the analysis of data?
i. The data has not fulfilled the assumption of normality which is usually checked
by the tests for normality where two types of test can be used i.e. Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test (when the sample size is greater than 50) and Shapiro-Wilk Test (if
the sample size is smaller then 50). The principle for the data to be normally
distributed is if the significance value is greater than 0.05; which has been
violated by the data as shown in table 6-7, hence the nonparametric test has been
chosen for the analysis of data.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
211
ii. Non-parametric techniques have been chosen as the data obtained was ordinal
i.e. ranked or discreet (Motulsky, 1995).
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
G-1 .121 187 .000 .967 187 .000
G-2 .081 187 .005 .984 187 .032
G-3 .096 187 .000 .979 187 .007
Group Average .075 187 .012 .989 187 .170
Table 6-7: Test of normality
Since the data is ranked or discreet and is not normally distributed hence non-parametric
tests i.e. Mann-Whitney-U and Kruskal Wallis tests are used for data analysis. Mann-
Whitney-U and Kruskal Wallis tests are used to investigate the effects of categorical
variables (academic education, gender difference, CM experience, and typology of
organization) on perception of CM practitioners while identifying continuous variables
(nineteen barriers as highlighted in table 6-1).
6.3.3.1 Participants perceptions regarding barriers to CM implementation
Mann-Whitney-U and Kruskal Wallis tests are used out to analyze participant
perceptions based on their gender differences, CM experience, academic education, and
types of organization on three groups of CM barriers. These tests (Mann-Whitney-U and
Kruskal Wallis) are non-parametric which gives reliable results if the data is not
normally distributed (Pallant, 2010) or the received data is discreet or ranked (Motulsky,
1995). Since the data is discreet or ranked and also not normally distributed [since the
sig. value is zero for all three groups (table 6-7)] hence Mann-Whitney-U and Kruskal
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
212
Wallis tests are used for inferential statistics. Detailed analysis on the subject is given in
the following four sections.
6.3.3.1.1 Effects of academic qualification on participants perceptions while
identifying barriers to CM implementation
Kruskal Wallis test is used to determine any significant difference in the perception of
participants based on their academic qualification. The results obtained by using SPSS
are presented in table 6-8 shows that Asymp. Sig. for each of the three groups and its
group-average is more than 0.05, meaning that there is no significant differences in
perception of CM practitioners based of their academic qualification hence we reject the
hypothesis as outlined in section 6.1 for academic qualification.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 Groups-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.106 0.704 0.683 0.558
Table 6-8: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with academic qualification
The outputs in table 6-8 could be further explained with the help of their mean rank
values (table 6-9) generated by the same test. In the case of significance, the difference
between the mean rank values is greater and the parameter having greater mean rank
value shows its importance over other parameters. Since there is no significant
difference in the perception of CM professionals on the basis of their academic
qualification, the mean rank values of the four groups (having PhD degrees, master
degrees, bachelor degrees, and HND/HNC) as shown in table 6-9 are quite close to each
other hence justify the previous result highlighted above.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
213
Academic Qualification N Mean Rank
Groups-Avg
HND / HNC 25 71.26
Bachelor degree 79 76.23
Master degree 50 85.53
Doctorate degree 2 82.75
Table 6-9: Mean Rank for academic qualification
6.3.3.1.2 Effects of gender differences on participants perceptions while
identifying barriers to CM implementation
We know that significant difference in the perception of CM professional on the basis of
their gender differences will present if the significance value obtained from Mann-
Whitney-U test is less than 0.05. The significance values for all the three groups and
their group-average is shown in table 6-10 which are greater than 0.05, meaning that
there is no significant difference in the perception of CM professionals based on their
gender differences in identifying and rating the barriers to CM implementation. Based
on these results we reject the hypothesis as outlined in section 6.1.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 Groups-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.508 0.971 0.757 0.990
Table 6-10: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with gender differences
The outputs in table 6-10 can be further explained with the help of mean rank values
generated by the same test and are shown in table 6-11. The mean rank values for both
male (93.97) and female (94.08) are quite close to each other which justify the results as
presented in table 6-10 and hence we reject the hypothesis as outlined in section 6.1 for
gender differences.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
214
Gender N Mean Rank
Groups-Avg
Male 134 93.97
Female 53 94.08
Table 6-11: Mean Rank for gender differences
6.3.3.1.3 Effects of CM experience on participants perceptions while identify
barriers to CM implementation
Kruskal-Wallis Test is applied to find the significance of CM experience on the
participant’s perception while identifying barriers to CM implementation. The output of
Kruskal-Wallis test is presented in table 6-12 which shows that the significance value for
all the three groups and groups-average are greater than 0.05 hence we can say that there
is a no statistical significant difference in the perception of CM professions to identify
and rank barriers to CM implementation on their previous experience in CM. On the
basis of these results we reject the hypothesis outlined in section 6.1 for experience in
CM.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 Groups-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.105 0.794 0.118 0.911
Table 6-12: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with CM experience
For more explanation, the mean ranks for the groups-average is presented in table 6-13.
As we know that when the significance values are more than 0.05, the difference
between the mean ranks within sub-groups will not be significantly different and is
proved by the results as shown in table 6-13.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
215
CM Experience N Mean
Rank
Groups-Avg
Less Than 5 Years 31 99.95
Between 5 to 10 Years 49 92.79
Between 10 to 15 Years 36 94.96
15 Years or Above 71 91.75
Table 6-13: Mean Rank for CM experience
6.3.3.1.4 Effects of typology of organization on participants perceptions while
identifying barriers to CM implementation
The significance of organizations types on participant’s perception is found with the
help of significance values by using Kruskal-Wallis test. The results of Kruskal-Wallis
test is shown in table 6-14 where the significance values for all three groups and its
groups-average is less than 0.05 which represent a statistical significant difference in the
perception of practitioner’s views on barriers to CM implementation. On the basis of
these results i accept the hypothesis outlined in section 6.1 for the types of organizations
which means that CM professionals in different organizations view these barriers
differently from each other.
Group G-1 G-2 G-3 Groups-Avg
Asymp. Sig. 0.002 0.043 0.004 0.003
Table 6-14: Significance of barriers to CM implementation with organizational types
This is further explained with the help of mean rank values generated by the same test
which are shown in table 6-15. Since the significance values in table 6-14 are less than
0.05 hence a significant difference can be seen in the mean rank values between defence
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
216
and aerospace sectors for all the three groups and its group average. The mean rank
values for aerospace industries are more than those of defence industries which means
that aerospace sectors are facing more problems in the implementation of CM
applications than those of defence industries. This looks true since CM is religiously
practiced in defence industries whereas CM is not only initiated from defence sectors but
also most of the standards in the fields are also initiated from defence sectors.
Organizational types N Mean Rank
G-1
Aerospace 106 106.32
Defence 78 76.79
G-2
Aerospace 106 100.70
Defence 78 84.64
G-3
Aerospace 106 105.91
Defence 78 77.36
Groups-Avg Aerospace 106 105.92
Defence 78 77.34
Table 6-15: Mean Rank for organizational types
6.3.4 Interpretation of CM barriers groups
It is important to discuss the effects of highlighted nineteen barriers in the preview of
literature and semi-structured interviews conducted with CM professionals. The
discussion is presented in the following three sections.
6.3.4.1 Group 1: Managerial and organizational barriers
Managerial and organizational barriers includes seven barriers i.e. lack of top
management support, lack of centralized body for the governance of CM, lack of CM
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
217
training across organizations, lack of authority to implement CM principles / policies,
implementation costs outweigh CM benefits, lack of recognition and underestimating the
importance of CM at every level of the organization, and lack of career progression for
CM professionals.
B1: It is believed that management doesn’t understand the role, significance and
criticality of the CM process and hence do not fully support it. This looks true after its
repeated evidence as barrier in this research and is also considered a root cause for many
other barriers. On one side, it is believed that management support could play an
essential role in establishing CM as a core business process (Guess, 2006) but on the
other hand lack of management support is considered a major concern towards CM
application (Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997; Burgess et al., 2005). Lack of management
support is one of the major issues for any business process management (Da-Silva,
2012).
B2: It is believed that decentralization has badly affected the implementation of CM
across different industries. There are few organisations having a senior manager with
CM specific responsibility but in majority CM is often considered a secondary role
(Burgess et al., 2003). It is also observed that project teams often have different
approaches towards CM application which is the main reason for inconsistent process
across the organisation. Since projects are often multi-disciplinary activities which cross
many boundaries, specific projects develop their own project related CM strategies and
procedures (PMI, 2007). This approach has split the CM practices across the
organization and instead of one common practice we can often observe a diluted view of
the process. The notion of Project Based CM has become increasingly popular in the
past where, in fact, PMI have been quite open in their definition of project versus
domain specific CM (PMI, 2007). This has created difficulty for those project managers
who are trying to maintain a high level of control over the ‘Configuration Items’ within
his / her project. In such situations, it is tough to combine all related policies and ensure
harmonization of the CM process across the project. It is believed that in organizations
like aerospace and defence, centralized CM setup is more suitable which ensure the
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
218
implementation of single guidelines and minimizes the dilution of the CM practices
across projects.
B3: Lack of training is one of the core issues to any business process management
(Da-Silva, 2012) and is considered a serious concern for the effective implementation
CM process (Burgess et al., 2005; Fowler, 1996). It has been highlighted in the first part
of this research presented in Chapter 4 that professional having CM certification and
training understand the limitations of the CM process and play a vital part in its overall
implementation. It is believed that CM should be part of the organizational training
programme to ensure that individuals have a high level of understanding of the use and
advantages of the CM process. It is always remained an issue in most of the allied fields
which could play an important role for organizational development and success.
B4: It is believed that project managers can undermine CM principles by not
following the process and believe that they can control their projects without CM
assistance (PMI, 2007). It has been observed that often PM manages change through a
project change board but not a domain specific CM change control board which is one of
the reasons which allow project managers a room to implement their own concepts of
the process. In theory CM managers are the sole owners the CM process but in reality
they are just custodians and have no authority in the decision making process. It is a
major issue since lack of authority to implement CM specific tasks creates risk to poor
quality processes which are responsible for poor quality deliverables.
B5: One of the weak areas in the limited CM literature is the lack of research on cost
versus benefit analysis which can answer the highly cited problem identified as
‘implementation cost outweighs CM benefits’. It is a major concern since CM is often
not realistically followed and ignored in companies because of the overall cost related to
the specialized CM process (Burgess et al., 2003) just like Quality Management was
ignored in the past (Bhat and Rajashekhar, 2009). There might be many reasons behind
this problem but the most obvious is the lack of CM training and education where CM is
not only neglected by academia but also by organizations which have limited the
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
219
knowledge on CM benefits across organization and its role in reducing product
development time, reducing cost and increasing the overall quality of products.
B6: Ownership of the CM process and commitment to its implementation are major
concerns in organizations (Fowler, 1996). It is understandably true to observe lack of
recognition and underestimating the importance of CM within organizations in the
presence of lack of centralized body for the governance of CM, lack of management
support and lack of authority to implement CM. It is highlighted by interview
participants that CM is just tolerated but not embraced since top management doesn’t
understand its role while some managers believe that they can control their products
without CM applications. CM is only seen a necessary evil and has no importance within
facilities until something really goes wrong.
B7: Lack of career progression is considered a major failing for developing CM as a
process (Burgess et al., 2005) is directly linked with poor recognition of the CM process
and instigated by lack of education and training across organizations. It is believed that
retaining talented human resource which is an essential requirement for the effective
implementation of any process is really difficult in fields with no career progression.
6.3.4.2 Group 2: Planning and process barriers
The planning and process barriers group consist of six barriers i.e. poorly defined CM
requirements and process, lack of maintaining consistency in CM practices across
projects, lack of flexibility in CM process, outdated CM process, lack of current CM
plans, and lack of CM process across the lifecycle.
B8: It is highlighted that CM guidelines are not fully understood by functional
stakeholders and hence not implemented at different levels of organization. It is
observed that the available standards lack some important explanation and are quite
complex and hence needs special attention to improve such standards and make it more
user friendly. It is difficult to implement a successful CM process if the boundaries are
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
220
unclear, having a vague role, and its benefits are not accepted across organization. In
these conditions it is right to observe multiple issues e.g. considerable mistakes in data
interpretation, inadequate workflow design and cumbersome and voluminous change
implementation methodologies.
B9: It is believed that lack of communication, lack of proper CM planning, lack of
centralized body for the governance of CM, and lack of authority to implement the CM
process are the main causes behind maintaining consistency in CM application across
projects. It has been pointed by interview participants that organizations have little or no
legislative requirements for CM and instead of having one common CM process,
projects tends to adopt project specific CM practices which often resulting in a diluted
view of the process. It is harmonization of the CM process which highlights maintaining
consistency in CM practices across organization (PMI, 2007) and is a major concern
across aerospace and defence industries.
B10: It is believed that since CM policies are quite rigid and inflexible and irritates
users hence not effectively followed in industries. According to research participants of
this research, lack of flexibility is a major risk for overall CM effectiveness. It is
believed that CM policies needs to have balance of this concept because when the
process is too flexible and then made tighter, it becomes very difficult to implement due
to different project requirements. It is already highlighted in the first part of this research
presented in Chapter 4 that requirements of complex projects (e.g. space shuttle) cannot
be matched with small and simple products (e.g. ball point pens), hence CM process
should not be rigid and users may offer a room of flexibility to adopt CM requirements
according to the nature of the products.
B11: It is highlighted that CM standards have remained unchanged for many years and
possibly never aligned with other processes which are updated with time to deal with
technological advancements. Since many of these standards are either not clear or lack
explanation and hence needs amendments to inline them with new ideas and concepts. It
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
221
is also quoted by research participants that some of the standards give references to
specific templates which are never used.
B12: CM planning builds on the foundation established by an enterprise for similar
products (EIA-649, 2011) and is termed as the backbone of the CM process (Lyon,
2008). It has major contribution in productivity and effectiveness of projects and plays
an important role in the overall success of projects (Sachs, 2009). It is believed that CM
plans are often unavailable / not effectively generated / not updated across different
phases of the projects and hence create difficulty in the implementation of CM activities.
The implementation of CM planning is quite weak in industries and the level of
motivation of companies towards CM planning can be found from the fact that out of 72
% of the companies having CM plans; only 41 % of the companies refer to those plans
(Burgess et al., 2003).
B13: The late involvement of CM in the project or product lifecycle is also considered
a major cause for not fully implementing the CM process across projects. It is pointed
out by the research participants that CM practices are missing most of the time in
concept, allocation, and maintenance or modification phases of the projects which might
be the result of multiple uncertainties in the project life cycle. Since most of the
standards have no detailed CM guidelines related to maintenance / modification phase
which might be a reason for its ignorance.
6.3.4.3 Group 3: Implementation barriers
The third group of CM barriers is formed with the combination of six factors i.e. lack of
CM awareness in customer world, lack of effective communication, lack of effective
CM tools, lack of resources, lack of support from stakeholders, and extreme project
pressures.
B14: CM facilitates customers by ensuring their requirements throughout product-life-
cycle and assures quality of their products. Even with increase of knowledge and
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
222
peoples understanding of managing their product requirements, there is still a lack of
CM awareness in the customers. It is pointed out by many research participants that
many customers are unaware of the importance of CM which could ensure the
development and production of quality products against their requirements.
B15: It is very difficult to deny the significance of communication in every filed
across the projects or industries. Lack of communication is a major concern in dealing
with engineering changes (Huang and Mak, 1999) because it is believed that 40 % of
time in the implementation of configuration changes could be reduced through effective
communication (Tavcar and Duhovnik, 2005; Wasmer et al., 2011) whereas two thirds
of the changes could be avoided through improved communication strategies because
failure in this area could result number of changes through decisions on obsolete data
(Jarratt et al., 2011).
B16: Availability of suitable software tools which has got much attention over the last
few years is one of the important subjects for industries. These tools have improved
individual capabilities in work and helped organizations with enhanced data and
information (Cantamessa et al., 2012) but the most of them are not user friendly (Guess,
2006). It is believed that lack of CM knowledge involved in the design and development
of these tools and lack of standardization of the CM practices are the main reasons for
the uncertain behaviours of these tools in different environments. It is essential to have a
standardized body of knowledge to establish an agreed CM boundary and come-up with
uniform practices at lowest levels of the process.
B17: Lack of sufficient resource is a major issue in the implementation of CM
(Gonzalez and Zaalouk, 1997) and is also reflected a major concern in other allied fields
(e.g. Anthony and Desai, 2009; Bhat and Rajashekhar, 2009; Sebastianelli and Tamimi,
2003; Riege, 2005). The most apparent obstacle in terms of resources for CM
implementation is the lack of human resources which is often connected with lack of
funds. It is pointed out by research participants that CM is always under resourced in
comparison with other design and development activities.
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
223
B18: Support from stakeholders plays a vital part in the implementation of CM which
is obvious from its established role pointed out by Watts (2008) and Watts (2010) as
‘CM is the communication bridge between design engineering and the rest of world’.
Lack of commitment badly influence the communication process among stakeholders
and has a huge effect on the implementation of CM process. It is also referred as a major
barrier by Huang and Mak (1999) that change management- an important part of the CM
process - has not received the due importance and support from stakeholders.
B19: It is highlighted by research participants that many project managers don’t stick
to centralized CM guidelines and either bypasses them or follow project specific variants
of them to achieve their shot-term goals. It is believed that ‘extreme project pressures’
which is termed as a barrier is not supposed to be a barrier in the presence of a well
defined and flexible CM process. It is a barrier only because the significance of this
process is not understood which often causes failure to the process.
6.4 Summary and conclusions
6.4.1 Summary
The main objective of this research is to identify the barriers associated with managing
CM application, prioritize them with the help of differential statistics, categorize them
into more manageable groups of factors through factor analysis, and analyse the effects
of multiple factors e.g. academic education, gender differences, CM experience and
types of organization on the perception of CM professionals in the process of
identification and rating these factors through inferential statistics.
This part of the research is based on survey research strategy. A questionnaire survey
was conducted to validate the findings and verify the established hypothesis. The
questionnaire was divided in two parts. The first part was related to general information
whereas the second part was related to barriers to CM implementation where
respondent’s opinions were asked on a series of statements. Respondents of the
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
224
questionnaire survey were asked to mark trueness of each statement based on their
organization by using a five-point scale (1 = not at all true, 2 = slightly true, 3 =
somewhat true, 4 = mostly true, 5 = completely true). A web based questionnaire was
designed and the link was sent by email to all respondents. To maintain high degree of
legitimacy of received data, judgemental sampling is used where only identified CM
professionals were contacted to provide their views on the issue.
On the basis of descriptive statistics all nineteen barriers were retained as barriers to CM
implementation on the basis of their mean rank values (table 6-1). Factor analysis is used
to group the nineteen barriers into small sets of factors based on their inherent
relationship followed by varimax rotation. Three groups (managerial and organizational
barriers, implementation barriers, and planning and process barriers) are extracted with
the help of factor analysis. Inferential statistics is applied to determine the effects of
different parameters (academic education, gender difference, CM experience, and
typology of organization) on barriers to CM implementation. Nonparametric tests
(Mann-Whitney-U and Kruskal Wallis Tests) are used to find the significance of these
four parameters on barriers to CM implementation. The results shows (since the
significance values are less than 0.05) that professional’s from different organizations
perceive the barriers differently in their setups hence we accept the hypothesis for types
of organization. Since the significance value for other parameters i.e. academic
education, gender differences, and CM experience is greater than 0.05, meaning that no
differences exist in the perceptions of CM professionals on CM barriers based on these
parameters hence we reject the hypothesis for all these parameters as highlighted in
section 6.1.
6.4.2 Conclusions
This study was conducted to finalize and prioritize barriers to effective implementation
of Configuration Management process in both aerospace and defence industries. All
nineteen barriers identified through the first part questionnaire and second part
interviews are retained and further extracted through factor analysis into three groups
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
225
(managerial and organizational barriers, planning and process barriers, and
implementation barriers) based on their inherent relationship to facilitate professionals in
targeting specific areas for improvements. Emphasis is made to reveal any significant
differences in the perceptions of CM practitioners on the basis of their gender, academic
qualification, CM experience, or types of organization. Since configuration managers
believe the existence of these barriers in both aerospace and defence industries, in
general, the responses highlight that these barriers are more obvious in the aerospace
industry as compared to defence. This is further validated through the use of inferential
statistics where significant difference is found in the perception of CM professionals on
the basis of their organizations.
The research results are quite significant since it highlights barriers related to areas such
as governance, management support, principles and policies, training, authority to
implement, planning, communication, stakeholders support and resource requirements
which are not only considered the most significant factors for the successful
implementation of Configuration Management highlighted in the first part of the
research presented in Chapter 4 but also for other allied fields such as Project
Management (e.g. Fortune and White, 2006; Belassi and Tukel, 1996), and Knowledge
Management (e.g. Wong, 2005).
It is believed that these barriers have affected the organizational image of the process
and effected the overall implementation of the process over the years. These barriers
require special attention since it is evident that some of the barriers which are believed to
be the root cause for many other obstacles may considerably affect the implementation
of the CM. It is believed that effective training programmes across the organization will
not only facilitate to achieve the required support from top management but may also
help to reduce the lack of recognition and perceived importance of the CM process
across the organization. It is also obvious that effective CM planning may take control
on other aspects like lack of maintaining consistency in CM practices across the projects
and lack of flexibility in CM practices which needs special emphasis. Most importantly,
organizations should to give special consideration to these obstacles and target their
Chapter 6: Analysis of barriers to CM implementation
226
areas of weakness and set-up their action based strategy to provide focussed and value
added solutions.
There is a growing body of knowledge evolving in CM in the form of new or revised
standards. This programme will surely be slowed down if organisations fail to identify
barriers to their process prior to their attempt to meet the requirements of such
documents. It is important to take note of the factors identified in Chapter 4 which
provides baseline guidelines on the CM process improvements methodologies in the
form of activity model specific to CM which if properly understood and followed could
help in the elimination of such barriers.
227
CHAPTER 7
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL
7.0 Introduction
This chapter highlights fundamental aspects of a Configuration Management Maturity
Model (CMMM) which is developed through continuous interaction with Configuration
Management professionals from December 2012 to November 2013. The importance of
maturity as a concept could be seen through extensive literature in multiple fields such
as Software Engineering (e.g. Bate et al, 1995; Paulk et al., 1993; Team, 2006), Project
Management (e.g. Crawford, 2006; Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Kwak and Ibbs, 2002),
Risk Management (e.g. Hillson, 1997; Yeo and Ren, 2008), Requirements Engineering
(e.g. Beecham et al., 2005b), safety (e.g. Filho et. al., 2010), Knowledge Management
(e.g. Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004; Paulzen and Perc, 2002) IT (Gottschalk and Solli-
Sæther, 2006) and Configuration Management for medical device industries (McCaffery
and Coleman, 2007) etc. Configuration Management is a major process area in the
Capability Maturity Model for Software (Paulk et. al., 1993), Systems Engineering
Capability Model (Bate et al, 1995), and Capability Maturing Model Integration (Team,
2006). The other such model is that of McCaffery and Coleman, (2007) which is specific
to medical device industries and is adopted from the concept of maturity model
integration (i.e. Team, 2006). It is important to note that these studies are similar in
nature, lack important information, and are based on what to implement instead of how
to implement (Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Niazi et al., 2005).
Recent studies on maturity models have changed the traditional concept of developing
such models. Andersen and Jessen, (2003) developed a model for projects maturity in
organization based on attitude, knowledge, and actions parameters while describing
organizational maturity into three layers i.e. Project, Programe, and Portfolio
Management. Niazi et al. (2005) emphasised on the identification of critical success
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
228
factors and critical barriers while generating maturity model for software process
improvements and Yeo and Ren (2008) emphasised on process capabilities which are
based on the critical success factors and barrier to process implementation. The study of
Beecham and Rainer, (2005b) introduced Requirements Process Improvements Model
based on previous literature and problems highlited by professionals through forty-five
focused groups in the software development process. These studies have given a new
dimension to further research in the field.
The objective of this research is to integrate CM Critical Success Factors and Barriers to
develop a maturity model for the improvement of CM practices in aerospace and
defence organizations. It is important to note that an incremental approach has been
followed to mature the CM process through this maturity model. Each level represents a
set of capabilities which would help in proceeding to the next higher level of maturity.
Through a survey based research strategy, views of CM professionals were obtained
through semi-structured interviews and organized questionnaire to capture the different
aspects of maturity concept.
Note: It is important to mention that some materials presented in this Chapter are also
published in my following publication.
• Ali, U., Kidd, C. (2013). Configuration Management Process Capabilities. Procedia
CIRP, 11, 169-172.
7.1 Research Objective
The objective was to develop Configuration Management Maturity Model to ensure
effective implementation and continuous development of Configuration Management
process within aerospace and defence industries. The CMMM is based on critical
success factors, barriers to Configuration Management implementation, and expert
opinion of Configuration Management professionals obtained through unstructured
interviews. It was essential to see the implementation of Configuration Management
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
229
process both in aerospace and defence industries and investigate the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the maturity levels between
aerospace and defence industries.
7.2 Research Methodology
The pre-existing body of knowledge plays a vital role in research by providing important
information and forms the foundation for further research. Some research studies are
non-empirical in nature and are based on reviewing and analysing existing literature
(Guo and Sheffield, 2008; Veal, 2006) while others are empirical which involves the
collection and analysis of new data - quantitative or qualitative (Veal, 2006) and is
mostly based on observation or experience (Hussey, 1997). This research is based on
semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys which are part of the qualitative
and quantitative research methodology respectively (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005) and
critical analysis of the available literature especially the studies on critical success
factors and barriers in the field.
Thorough review of the literature in other allied fields on Critical Success Factors,
barriers, and maturity models in general while the critical success factors highlighted in
Chapter 4, barriers to CM implementation presented in Chapters 5 and 6, and studies of
Niazi et al. (2005) and Yeo and Ren (2008) in particular helped to identify Configuration
Management process capabilities and framing the Configuration Management Maturity
Model. Through semi-structured interviews with six Configuration Management
professionals working in four different aerospace and defence industries helped us to
finalize ten Configuration Management process capabilities explained with the help of
thirty-five processes, structuring of the Configuration Management Maturity Model, and
finalization of the measuring mechanism for the maturity of Configuration Management
practices by using the newly developed Configuration Management Maturity Model. It
is essential to note that each interview was recorded for later analysis.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
230
Because of the limited number of interviews and the problems with arranging further
interviews, it was decided to validate the developed Configuration Management
Maturity Model through a questionnaire survey and get the views of CM professionals
on the validity of the developed model. A questionnaire (Appendix E) was developed in
three sections to validate the multiple aspects of the developed model. The first section
having six questions was related to background information whereas the second section
constitutes explanation of the maturity model under four different heading. The third and
last section includes seventeen statements which are required to be measured through a
Likert-type scale running from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to validate the
Configuration Management Maturity Model. It is important to note that the target
population was Configuration Management professionals working in different aerospace
and defence industries. A total of 50 responses were received which are used for the
final analysis.
It was necessary to test the maturity concept and the application of thirty-five practices
(constructs) which build the maturity questionnaire since the maturity of Configuration
Management process will be measured through these thirty-five practices on the same
four point scale. With the addition of six questions at the start to collect general
information for the analysis of data to discuss the designed hypothesis, the second
questionnaire on Configuration Management process maturity (Appendix F) was
circulated to Configuration Management professionals primarily to test the maturity
questionnaire and the concept of maturation. A total of 52 responses were received
which are used for the final analysis.
7.3 Configuration Management Maturity Model
The Configuration Management Maturity Model is based on key process capabilities
necessary for the effective implementation and continuous development of
Configuration Management activities. The finalized ten process capabilities are grouped
in four groups which forms the four levels of Configuration Management Maturity
Model. The level of maturity from one level to the next higher level correlates to
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
231
specific goals at the higher levels. The accomplishment of each goal depends on the
effective adaptation of key process capabilities which can be measured through thirty-
five key practices (constructs) on a four point scale. These steps are fully elaborated in
the following sections which provide the necessary foundation for understanding the
Configuration Management Maturity Model.
7.3.1 Identification of key process capabilities
It is important to highlight the study of Yeo and Ren (2008) which emphasizes the
identification of key process capabilities extracted from critical success factors and
barriers while developing a maturity model specific to risk management. The process
capabilities ensure to avoid the possible risks and helps in achieving the desired
objectives. The key capabilities for Configuration Management are finalized by critically
analysing the data obtained from the study on critical success factors highlighted in
Chapter 4 and barriers to CM implementation presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and semi
structured interviews with Configuration Management professionals from aerospace and
defence industries. The comprehensive coverage of Configuration Management
requirements in the form of key process capabilities is highlighted by almost all research
participants.
The completeness of the factors could be seen from the statement as ‘Most of the key
elements, I think, that you have got links to all the effective requirements; behind all
those, I would like to see in the execution policies, I assume that there would be
standards like government standards, EIA standards’ [sic] It is important to note that
some of the process capabilities are the composition of many other factors (critical
success factors or barriers) which are grouped based on their inherent relationships. The
list of ten key capabilities for the implementation and continuous development of
Configuration Management practices are show in figure 7-1.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
232
Figure 7-1: Configuration Management process capabilities
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
233
7.3.2 Establishing goals
There are two dimensions of this issue; the general goals related to the development of
Configuration Management Maturity Model and specific goals associated with each
maturity level. The general goals are:
• To provide a systematic path of sophistication for assessing the current practices of
Configuration Management within aerospace and defence sectors.
• To provide a roadmap on how to evolve the Configuration Management capabilities
to achieve the overall objectives.
• To provide common grounds of communication for Configuration Management
practitioners with functional stakeholders.
• To provide a platform to adopt the critical success factors and avoid barriers to
Configuration Management applications.
It is essential to get answers on ‘how’ to achieve these general goals. This needs specific
gaols related to each maturity level and have limited scope based on particular
capabilities. Specific goals help in achieving the general goals and hence results in
achieving the overall objectives. The specific goals are:
• The CM practices are formalized which fulfil project specific requirements
• The CM practices are standardized having favourable implementation environment
• The CM practices are fully implemented, reviewed, and continuously improved
7.3.3 Composition of CMMM
The CMMM has four levels (figure 7-2) with lowest maturity at level 1 corresponds to
‘static’ while highest maturity at level 4 corresponds to ‘dynamic’. These levels play an
important role in assessing maturity since it is based on key capabilities and expert
opinions from CM professionals. The model has all key characteristics necessary for the
implementation and continuous improvement of a process highlighted by recent research
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
234
studies on the issue (e.g. Team, 2006; Niazi et al., 2005; Strutt et al., 2006; and Yeo and
Ren, 2008). This is an action based model having the concept of both single and double
loop learning (Argirys and Schön, 1978) whereas in single loop learning errors are
detected and corrected while double loop learning is the name of continuous
improvements methodologies where errors are detected and corrected with modifications
in organization's policies to eradicate the root cause.
Figure 7-2: Configuration Management Maturity Model
The first level of CMMM is based on execution policies which are not actively
practiced. Since there is a lack of management support and knowledge of the process
across organizations, the process does not receive the due importance and is not actively
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
235
supported by stakeholders. The process is more formalized and is backed by experienced
professionals and staff with required resources at level 2 but is more confined and has
limited interaction with functional stakeholders across organization. The process is
reactive due to lack of communication and acceptance by the stakeholders. The process
is more proactive but still open loop at level 3 where stakeholders are involved in the
implementation process through continuous education programmes. The process is more
dynamic at level 4 through double loop learning where continuous improvements
strategies are in place to upgrade the process according to the changing demands of the
environment. Detailed description of each maturity level is given in the following
sections.
Level 1: Static. This level is characterized by little or no maturity where CM is not
properly understand and practiced. There is no organized and systematic approach to
implement the process due to absence of any organized body for the governance of CM
and limited support from senior management. The lack of recognition and importance of
the process is evident across organization mainly due to limited understanding of the
process which is mainly caused by inadequate training programmes throughout the
organization. The process exists not because of proven practices but because of the
competence and heroics of individuals.
Level 2: Reactive. This stage emphasises on team building and improving its
organizational strength. The process is organized through defined CM standards and is
formally implemented by dedicated group of CM professionals. Since training and
education is limited to CM professionals, there is a lack of recognition and importance
of the process across the organization. This lack of awareness effect organizational
support and intensify unfavourable environment which limit the outcomes in terms of
implementation. The Configuration Management plans are available and are forced to
implement but is largely opposed or ignored by functional stakeholders because they
still don’t own the process. The process is well implemented in some projects but its
holistic implementation across the projects or organization is limited.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
236
Level 3: Proactive. The proactive maturity level exercise both resources and supportive
environment to plan and execute the CM process for maximum outputs. The
standardized CM process fulfils the requirements of all projects and is part of the
documented organizational policies. The CM process does receive recognition and
support from functional stakeholders through management backing and effective
training programmes across the organization. Through effective communication and
focused teamwork, everyone contributes to the process irrespective of political and
cultural barriers. The process is managed at vendor’s premises and ensures involvement
of customers in the development process to validate their requirements before producing
final product. Even in the presence of all these positives, the process is still running on
open-loop learning mechanism where emphasis is made on problem solving instead to
investigate and eliminate the root cause of the problems and hence have issues like
consistency, flexibility, and cost effectiveness of the CM methodologies.
Level 4: Dynamic. This level is dedicated to continuous improvement of CM practices
with the help of supportive environment. Process improvement methodologies are
established, monitored, and revised to satisfy the technological advancement and remove
inadequacies arising with time. The CM process conforms to the latest standards on CM
and is holistically implemented across organization. Through strong coordination with
functional stakeholders and inducing the required consistencies and flexibilities in
policies, project pressures are absorbed and the process is sustained and implemented
through all phases of the project life cycle. Performance of the process is monitored
though CM system audits conducted round the year on multiple projects and suggested
improvements are implemented. With the help of the double-loop learning mechanism,
problems are not only resolved but are fully investigated to eradicate the root cause,
resulting in change of the respective polices where required.
These four maturity levels have sufficient depth to mature the CM process resulting
from its robust structure supported by key process capabilities. On the other side, the
bulk of literature on the subject have five maturity levels initially introduced by Crosby
(1997) and followed by SEI (e.g. Bate et al., 1995; Paulk et. al., 1993; Team, 2006) with
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
237
many other research studies afterward (e.g. Crawford, 2006; Filho et. al., 2010; Kwak
and Ibbs, 2002; Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004; Paulzen and Perc, 2002; Yeo and Ren,
2008). There are still many maturity models which have introduced varied stages in their
maturity models e.g. Andersen and Jessen, (2003) introduced a three staged (project
management, programme managment, and portpolio management) projects maturity
model, Gottschalk and Solli-Sæther (2006) developed a three stage (cost stage, resource
stage, and partnership stage) IT outsourcing relationships maturity model, Niazi et al.
(2005) launched a four stage (initial, aware, defined, and optimizing) software process
improvement model, Hillson (1997) introduced a four levels (naive, novice, normalized,
natural) risk maturity model, and Sommerville et al. (1997) proposed a three staged
(initial, repeatable, and defined) RE process maturity model.
It is essential to highlight the responses of interview participants on the maturity model
which are given below.
‘Looking at the CM process capabilities, I think that the four level capability is set of the
correct number of levels. I don’t think that three would be enough simply because no
organization can work on three capability levels; it would be four as a minimum.
Secondly I like the way it is actually set out at each of the four different levels and the
criteria that meet those. I certainly think that five levels would be a level too far, and
how a distinction between four levels and five levels which would be supported by what
we trying to do would be very difficult. So I certainly think that four levels would be
acceptable.’ [sic]
‘What are the qualities of an organization you would expect to see? So if you went into a
company that would be static, what would it be like? you wouldn’t expect to see CM
training plans for people, you wouldn’t see necessity to introduce a CM manager, you
would expect people to know what you are talking Configuration Management is
perhaps or may be the odd one or two peoples, perhaps that could be up the scale------
for a reactive organization you would be looking for a CM system that is much more like
a fire fighting so when problem arise they hold hassle around, than they make that fire
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
238
out, so there is no consistency of process no standardization of process and is very much
adhoc they doing it-----all proactive companies start thinking about the next life cycle
phase, they may even have policies to describe across the enterprise about the whole life
of describe CM at various levels, they have people into start having training, they may
have few people accredited with various bodies, they may send people on training
courses----dynamic company, what would you like them to see to do, than you probably
saying, yes they have all the things of top level policies but they actually have CM
empowered down through the organization.’ [sic]
7.3.4 Key focus areas of CMMM
The CMMM presented above is self explanatory and easy to implement in any aerospace
and defence sectors. The set of thirty five practices (constructs) has provided sufficient
depth and explanation which makes its implementation even simpler. The CMMM can
help organizations to effectively implement and develop their existing process if they
understand the key focus areas of the model and target them at the right time. There are
some important areas to emphasize at each level of model. The first and most important
area to target is the Configuration Management practices outlined through companywide
policies. These policies needs to be simple, easy to understand, fully elaborated, and
fulfils the requirements of any latest international standard.
The next important area to work on is to have an independent and centralized body for
the governance of Configuration Management within organization. In the presence of
any centralized body for the organization of this process ensures that process
requirements (e.g. budgetary, human resources, and training) are met to execute their
responsibilities and have the authority to implement the process according to
organizational policies. To start with, they need to target specific projects, fully
implement their CM process in those project(s), learn from their mistakes, and make
those projects as a role model for the implementation of Configuration Management
practices across all projects irrespective of their size and complexity. Implementation of
the process across all projects is a hard job and needs that functional stakeholders
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
239
understand the importance and criticality of the process within their projects. This can be
ensured through continuous training programmes across the organization and realizing
the importance of the process to senior management to ensure their support. The
application of CM should not be limited within organization but its functioning needs to
be ensured at vendor’s premises responsible for the provision of parts to the
organization.
The most significant area to target is the cost effective implementation of the process
both in complex and simple or small and large projects. This is again correlated with
issues like consistency and flexibility of the process. It is known that Project Managers
needs flexibility in various practices which on the other hand influence the consistency
of the process across the organization. It is important to note that there is a need to
balance the two issues which needs tight control of the CM plans throughout project
lifecycle, communication of information with functional stakeholders at right time and
expertise of the CM applications. Such issues could be balanced through CM system
audits in different projects throughout the year which are not only necessary for
continuous improvements of the process but also to note the deviations of individual
process in projects from companywide CM policies adopted for the sake of required
flexibilities.
7.3.5 Measuring the level of maturity
There are two dimensions to measure the level of maturity, first to establish key
practices or sub-processes from process capabilities and second is to develop a scale to
measure the defined practices. The two concepts are explained in the following sections.
7.3.5.1 Key Practices on Constructs
A list of thirty-five practices (constructs) were finalized after semi-structured interviews
with six Configuration Management professionals where they were asked to highlight
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
240
the important aspects while measuring the strength of each parameter in a facility. The
responses from interview participants on various parameters are presented below.
‘Execution policies, I would be looking for a standard they were active, either a military
standard or EIA standard or whatever else, I will also be looking for any local
standards.’ [sic]
‘For the CM governance I will be expecting that there will be governance policies in
place, a CM organization that shows governance lays on it, so who is in-charge, who
report to whom and who is at which levels. I will also be looking at the governance
documentation which would be the actual CM Plan and any follow-up documents that
support the CM plan such as if you are in a contract with a contractor than I would like
to see the contractor CM plan so that you actually show to our customers that we have a
plan and we are also controlling the way our suppliers by providing the same kind of
information.’ [sic]
‘I would be expecting to see an organizational chart for the actual people working in the
area of execution, I would be expecting to see a process flow of how that work is
executed and I would be expecting to see audit documentation that shows the process
has been audited and it has been applied on work as it has been written.’ [sic]
‘Effective CM tool, that’s difficult because who is to say what’s an effective CM tool, I
would like to see things like why that tool set was chosen, what were the requirements of
that tool set, how that tool set fixing with the organization and how it fix across the
organization because it needs to fix not just the requirements and planning elements but
needs to look at the design and development and it looks at the manufacturing
environment and it needs to look at the assembly and whatever else environment so
that’s quite a bit complicated issue really.’ [sic]
‘Professional development, all we have to look to see professional development plans for
each leg of the organization, people don’t want to be static in their environment to be up
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
241
to develop people one to do the job properly but two to developing that job so they can
either move up the ladder or train up their people which is essential to a good
organization.’ [sic]
‘Management support again all develops and comes from the actual organizational
chart making sure that you know who you need to go to support you and you know who
you need to go when you got problems.’ [sic]
‘If the CM process has the infrastructure and resources allocated in the budget for it,
it’s all often a good indicator that management will understand the importance of CM
and invest in doing it.------ if they invested in enhancing the capability, they recognized
the process and invest in people; you getting a level of commitment.’ [sic]
‘Career opportunities, is exactly what we talked about professional development, we
need to be able to know that what we got position in certain slot what people’s
awareness opt to be and what people’s career development prospects should be to be
able to look at their development plans and see how they actually reach that level of
maturity.’ [sic]
‘Internal politics should be sorted out within the high end of the organization and all we
should be worrying about when it comes to the actual process flows and data flows and
information sets is or we passing over the right information at the right time, so all the
organizational politics should be sorted out by the higher end of the organization and
should be not reflected in the main day-to-day running of what we doing’ [sic]
‘Communication is got to be very effective----------be at the right level and the right
point in time----- from top to bottom and bottom to top to make sure that everybody is
liaising at the right way’ [sic]
,We need to work very clearly with our external customer as at the end of the day its
them, they are taking the end product and so therefore, one they need to be satisfied and
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
242
be able to be satisfied that the way we developed and created that product and tested it,
meets their requirements. So we need to be liaise with them and make sure that they are
aware that main of their milestone in the developmental and manufactured of that
product that we have achieved everything they need to achieve and that need to be
integrated within the team to support till that, and two, that we are discussing with them
any issues that we may find in relation to the requirements and so on and so for that as
you know as it goes through the whole process that when we start and we finish, one, we
finish on time, we hit our milestone and that we are actually achieving the customer
satisfaction. So it’s really important that we discuss with the customer, we liaise with the
customer and get the customer involved on what we do on the daily basis.’ [sic]
‘Process control at vendor’s sites is very very important because we got to be able to
assure ourselves under customers that what we are putting in our product is one,
acceptable to the requirements of the product so it’s got to meet the standard and two
that in twelve months time if I order the same product again, I am going to get the same
product.’ [sic]
‘Consistency of a process, whatever the process is, highly important; you need a
manageable and repeatable process all the way through’ [sic]
‘Flexibility and consistency are not hand to hand partners so it’s got to be controlled in
the right manner and that’s the key to do in that.’ [sic]
‘Its understanding what variables you have got? Understanding what measuring criteria
you have got? and are they a proper measuring criteria? Not I work at least a hundred
and fifty drawings by the end of the next month irrespective of what those drawings are;
that’s absolutely rubbish. You need to have clear and precise measurement milestone
and be able to understand what they mean to you.’ [sic]
‘Its (continuous improvement) common sense, look at what you doing? Is it the right way
to do it within the restriction you have got? And can we make it better? And its
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
243
continuous improvement always looking it trying to improve and making the process
more flexibly within the rigidity that you got to have.’ [sic]
‘If we have targets and deadlines, than again it comes to the effective communication, if
we communicate which form measurement criteria and we hitting all the milestone
properly than effective handling of the project pressure is easy somewhat.’ [sic]
It is hard to present the full discussion on the topic but is summarized in the form of
thirty five practices (constructs) presented below which will be used to find the strength
of Configuration Management process capabilities and helps in measuring the capability
of Configuration Management process within aerospace and defence industries. It is
important to highlight the complexity in defining the execution policies explained
through eleven practices or constructs (P1 to P11) and measuring them will need
extensive knowledge, experience of Configuration Management, and help from any
latest standard on Configuration Management at the same time to further explore those
practices. The highlighted practices do cover the core areas of Configuration
Management but do not highlight details of each practice which could be obtained from
any international standard and should be part of the organizational procedures which is
further covered in practice twelve (P12). Details of all thirty five practices (constructs)
under ten process capabilities are presented below. It is important to note that the
practices P1 to P35 could be represented with C1 to C35.
7.3.5.1.1 Execution strategies
P1: The CM process is available in the form of documented procedures
describing the organizational policies, activities, and conventions related to CM
planning, configuration identification, configuration control, configuration status
accounting, and configuration auditing.
P2: CM practices are implemented in all projects irrespective of the value or
complexity of that project.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
244
P3: Product configurations (hardware system and software) and their related
configuration documentation have a strong correlation and unique identification.
P4: Configuration documentation is released through a formal release process
which includes the review and approval of all functional stakeholders.
P5: The CM process specifies the rules and procedures to identify and control
Configuration Items across all projects.
P6: The CM process specifies requirements of managing baselines from concept
to disposal of the product or system, which are implemented across projects
through the application of company-wide procedures.
P7: The configuration change management process is implemented through a
closed loop cycle where configuration changes are identified, documented,
evaluated, and implemented with appropriate approval.
P8: Engineering changes are classified in two high-level categories i.e.
permanent changes (dealt through ECOs or ECPs) and temporary changes (dealt
through waivers and deviations) which are properly identified and recorded
across all projects.
P9: The Change Control Board (CCB) is the sole authority to accept or reject
both permanent and temporary changes.
P10: Configuration status accounting is in place to capture and maintain product
configuration information throughout the product life cycle.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
245
P11: The physical and functional configuration audits are conducted to provide
assurance of the physical and functional configuration verifications before
release of the products to customers.
P12: The documented CM process fulfils detailed requirements of any latest
international standard(s) on CM [e.g. EIA-649 (Rev B)] which covers the sub-
elements of all areas highlighted from P3 to P11.
7.3.5.1.2 Governance
P13: The Configuration Management process is governed through a defined
organization with dedicated staff having documented responsibility and
authority.
P14: Configuration Management planning is the fundamental activity during
project specific CM activities which are managed through updated CM plans
throughout the product life cycle.
7.3.5.1.3 Process Executers
P15: The CM process is managed and governed by a dedicated individual having
in-depth knowledge of CM and leadership qualities.
P16: The CM process is backed by CM expert(s) having previous experience with
a team of competent, committed, and focused practitioners (according to
requirements) to carry out CM activities according to defined CM principles and
practices.
7.3.5.1.4 Resources Allocation
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
246
P17: The CM process has the required infrastructure (buildings, equipment etc.)
and resources (human and financial) to effectively execute the process within
projects.
P18: The CM process is supported by a software tool which is easy to use and
fulfils the organizational requirements to effectively implement and support CM
principles and practices.
P19: Professional development is part of the organizational training programme
to create awareness, importance, and help in the implementation of CM
methodologies and related fields in the organization where required.
7.3.5.1.5 Organizational support
P20: Management understands the importance of CM practices and are
committed to establish CM as a core business area.
P21: CM is recognized as a key process area where both management and
stakeholders understand the importance and criticality of the process.
P22: The growing awareness and importance of CM practices has resulted in
career progression opportunities for CM professionals similar to those in the
fields of project management, quality engineering, and design etc.
P23: CM managers have the authority through strong backing of senior
management to implement the process against established guidelines.
P24: Stakeholders understand the importance of CM, provide the required
resources, ensure effective coordination, and show commitment to effectively
implement the process.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
247
7.3.5.1.6 Effective communication
P25: The communication with both internal and external customers is open,
timely, and free flowing both from top to bottom and bottom to top.
7.3.5.1.7 Customer’s awareness
P26: It is our company policy to maintain close liaison with external customers to
make them aware of the completion of their major milestone and ensures their
active participation in product design reviews to validate their requirements
before finalization of product specifications.
7.3.5.1.8 Effective environment
P27: Organizational culture does support the effective implementation and
continuous development of the CM process.
P28: The working environment is politics free where decisions are made on merit
to ensure holistic implementation of the process for quality products.
P29: CM professionals work as a team while establishing, implementing, and
continuously improving CM practices.
7.3.5.1.9 Process control at vendor premises
P30: CM is planned against international standards at a vendor’s premises which
fulfils your organizational CM requirements and is assured through periodic
audits to ensure production of acceptable and consistent products.
7.3.5.1.10 Process transformation
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
248
P31: CM practices are consistent throughout the organization irrespective of the
size and complexity of projects and across the projects or products life cycle
phases whether it is concept, development, production, and maintenance or
modification.
P32: CM practices are flexible and may vary to accommodate project specific
requirements based on the complexity, criticality, and project / product life cycle
phases while ensuring compliance with company-wide CM principles and
practices.
P33: CM system audits are planned and conducted periodically to identify areas
of weakness, plan remedial actions, and address needs to enhance performance of
the process in terms of identified and measurable criteria.
P34: The CM process is continuously improved through small incremental
changes to accommodate technological advances, reduce limitations of the
process, and induce more flexibility within the rigidity you have.
P35: CM activities are planned, effectively communicated, and properly executed
by keeping in mind the criticality of tasks with respect to project scheduling to
effectively handle project pressures.
7.3.5.2 Measuring Scale
Each of the practice (P1 to P35) will be measured with the help of four-point-scale i.e.
Static, Reactive, Proactive, and Dynamic. The four point scale is fully explained below.
1. Static: The practice is not properly practiced / implemented / supported.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
249
2. Reactive: The practice is limited to specific projects and has lack of holistic
implementation across projects and product life cycle. There is a visible lack of
support from all functional stakeholders.
3. Proactive: The practice has good implementation or provides the necessary
support required across projects. The CM process is uniformly implemented
across projects irrespective of their size and complexity because of the lack of
flexibilities in CM policies which most of the time diminish its importance in
small projects because of cost versus benefit analysis. The environment is not
supportive to accommodate new changes which lacks in performance monitoring
and continuous development of the process.
4. Dynamic: The practice has best implementation or provides the desired support
in the effective implementation of the process to accommodate project specific
requirements. Through established improvements methodologies and supportive
environment, inadequacies arising with time are removed and policies are revised
where applicable to assure effective implementation and continuous development
of the process.
7.4 Validation of CMMM
The term validation means to ensure that newly developed model fulfils the
requirements for which it has been designed (Carson, 1986). The important aspect of this
validation process was to check that the model is generic in nature, rightly designed and
fulfil the generic requirements for establishing and continuously developing the
Configuration Management process. The validation process does not directly assess the
usability, quality, and utility of the model but verify that the components have a
satisfactory accuracy which is consistent with the intended application of the model
(Beecham et al., 2005a).
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
250
The limited number of interviews and problems in arranging further interviews forced us
to validate the model through a questionnaire survey. The model was validated with the
help of Configuration Management professionals by asking them to mark different
statements covering multiple aspects of the model. A total of seventeen statements (S1 to
S17) provided in the questionnaire to validate the Configuration Management Maturity
Model are shown in table 7-2. Efforts have been made to generalize the concept and
cover different aspects of the model while designing each of the statement. The limited
number of responses is always an issue but there are studies (e.g. Beecham et al., 2005a)
where models are validated with limited number of research participants. It is essential
to note that this study follow some previous studies (e.g. Beecham et al., 2005a; Dyba,
2000; El Emam and Birk, 2000) where questionnaires were generated to validate their
model with the help of professionals on the subject. The important aspect of this
validation process is that most of the research participants are not only experts in their
field but have extensive previous experience in CM applications as shown in figure 7-3.
The five point Likert scale used for measuring each statement is presented in three
groups (table 7-1) to explain the behaviour of data as presented in table 7-2. Analysis of
the data presented in table 7-2 shows high supportive responses which highlight
completeness and comprehensiveness of the Configuration Management Maturity Model
presented above.
Critical response Neutral response Supportive response
Extremely disagree Disagree Neutral Extremely agree agree
Table 7-1: Five point scale in three groups
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
251
Figure 7-3: Experience of research participants under different categories
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
252
Statements Neutral
Responses
Critical responses Supportive responses
No of responses % No of responses %
S1: Effective implementation and continuous
development of Configuration Management practices
can be largely facilitated through workable
Configuration Management Maturity Model.
1
1 +
1 =
2
Disagree= 2
Strongly disagree= 2
Total= 4
28 +
19 =
47
Agree=56
Strongly agree=38
Total=94
S2: The Configuration Management Maturity Model
based on key process capabilities extracted from critical
success factors and barriers to Configuration
Management implementation is the most effective way
to establish such models.
7
1 +
0 =
1
Disagree= 2
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 2
21 +
21 =
42
Agree=42
Strongly agree=42
Total=84
S3: The four levels of maturity of the Configuration
Management Maturity Model provide the necessary
depth for the implementation and continuous
development of Configuration Management process.
7
1 +
0 =
2
Disagree= 2
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 2
31 +
11 =
42
Agree=62
Strongly agree=22
Total=84
S4: The key process capabilities dedicated to each
maturity level shows its correct representation. 7
1 +
0 =
1
Disagree= 1
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 1
30 +
12 =
42
Agree=60
Strongly agree=24
Total=84
Table 7-2: Expert opinion on different aspects of Configuration Management Maturity Model
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
253
Table 7-2: Expert opinion on different aspects of Configuration Management Maturity Model (Contd)
S5: The Configuration Management Maturity Model has
covered the core elements of Configuration Management
process which are the requirements of any international
configuration management standards.
1
1 +
0 =
1
Disagree= 0
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 0
21 +
27 =
48
Agree=42
Strongly agree=54
Total=96
S6: The Configuration Management Maturity Model
covers all support areas necessary for the implementation
and continuous development of Configuration
Management practices.
4
2 +
1 =
3
Disagree= 4
Strongly disagree= 2
Total= 6
23 +
20 =
43
Agree=46
Strongly agree=40
Total=86
S7: All thirty-five practices explaining the Configuration
Management process capabilities are easy to understand
and are rightly explained to achieve the desired goals.
2
2 +
0 =
2
Disagree= 4
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 4
35 +
13 =
48
Agree=70
Strongly agree=26
Total=96
S8: All thirty-five practices are general in nature and will
equally apply to most industries. 3
1 +
0 =
1
Disagree= 2
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 2
29 +
17 =
46
Agree=58
Strongly agree=34
Total=92
S9: All thirty-five practices cover the required parameters
necessary for the implementation and continuous
development of Configuration Management practices.
2
2 +
0 =
1
Disagree= 4
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 4
36 +
10 =
46
Agree=72
Strongly agree=20
Total=92
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
254
S10: The four point scale is well defined and will provide
the desired results while measuring the strength of each
practice and maturity of an overall Configuration
Management process.
6
0 +
1 =
1
Disagree=0
Strongly disagree= 2
Total= 2
30 +
13 =
43
Agree=60
Strongly agree=26
Total=86
S11: Implementation of process capabilities in small
groups at different levels of maturity will help
practitioners to better implement the Configuration
Management process.
7
2 +
0 =
2
Disagree= 4
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 4
26 +
15 =
41
Agree=52
Strongly agree=30
Total=82
S12: Implementation of Configuration Management
Maturity Model does not need much experience of the
maturity process but demands understanding of the
Configuration Management process.
3
4 +
0 =
4
Disagree= 8
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 8
26 +
17 =
43
Agree=52
Strongly agree=34
Total=86
S13: It is more realistic for industries to implement and
progressively improve their Configuration Management
process by adopting this model.
6
1 +
0 =
1
Disagree= 2
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 2
34 +
9 =
43
Agree=68
Strongly agree=18
Total=86
Table 7-2: Expert opinion on different aspects of Configuration Management Maturity Model (Contd)
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
255
S14: It is easier to implement and improve Configuration
Management practices by adopting this maturity concept
instead of any other haphazard methodology.
4
0 +
0 =
0
Disagree= 0
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 0
35 +
11 =
46
Agree=70
Strongly agree=22
Total=92
S15: The Configuration Management Maturity Model
will help organizations to identify areas of weakness and
prioritise actions to streamline their Configuration
Management practices.
1
0 +
0 =
0
Disagree= 0
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 0
23 +
26 =
49
Agree=46
Strongly agree=52
Total=98
S16: Questions asked in this questionnaire have provided
the necessary depth to assess strengths and weaknesses
of the Configuration Management Maturity Model.
7
4 +
1 =
5
Disagree= 8
Strongly disagree= 2
Total= 10
26 +
12 =
38
Agree=52
Strongly agree=24
Total=76
S17: Any further research on the topic would be useful
and help industries in finding useful ways to transform
their Configuration Management process.
4
0 +
0 =
0
Disagree= 0
Strongly disagree= 0
Total= 0
22 +
24 =
46
Agree=44
Strongly agree=48
Total=92
Table 7-2: Expert opinion on different aspects of Configuration Management Maturity Model (Contd)
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
256
7.5 CM process maturity
This section investigates the data obtained through process maturity questionnaire to
investigate the maturity level of Configuration Management practices both in aerospace
and defence industries. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used to analyse and draw
conclusion on data. The results are explained in the following sections.
7.5.1 Level of maturity of Configuration Management practices
The maturity of Configuration Management process was calculated by using descriptive
statistics on the data obtained by measuring thirty-five practices with the help of a four
point scale explained in section 7.3.4.2. The level of maturity in the form of mean values
is presented in table 7-3 for aerospace, defence and both these two sectors together. The
level of maturity is presented for each of the twelve process capability, four capability
levels and overall Configuration Management process. The mean values populated in the
table are between 2 and 3 for all process capabilities, maturity levels and overall
Configuration Management process, meaning that these sectors have achieved reactive
level and on the verge of attaining proactive capability. This shows that both aerospace
and defence industries have capabilities to manage their Configuration Management
process on independent projects but needs their attention to the overall implementation
of the process across organization.
According to the findings presented in Chapter 6 that Configuration Management
practices are well understood and implemented in defence sectors as compared to
aerospace could be seen here as well since the mean values are slightly high in defence
sectors in comparison to aerospace both in level 1 and 4 which mainly deals with
Configuration Management practices. The recognition of the support processes covered
in level 2 and 3 are almost similar in both sectors. The overall maturity levels calculated
for both aerospace and defence sectors is 2.7484, meaning that these organizations
approaching to achieve proactive level and have largely established their process on
organizational level but still needs enough hard-work to take their practices to dynamic
capability.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
257
Capability Level
(CL) Process capabilities (PC)
Defence Sectors Aerospace Sectors Both Aerospace and Defence
Mean Values Mean Values Mean Values
PC CL overall PC CL overall PC CL overall
Level 1 Execution policies 3.0534 3.0534
2.7516
2.9808 2.9808
2.7385
3.0353 3.0353
2.7484
Level 2
Governance 3.1538
2.8242
2.8846
2.8462
3.0865
2.8297 Process executers 2.7436 3.1538 2.8462
Resources allocations 2.6581 2.6154 2.6474
Level 3
Organizational support 2.2821
2.4522
2.3846
2.4965
2.3077
2.4633
Communication 2.5385 2.4615 2.5192
Customer awareness 2.8718 2.9231 2.8846
Effective environment 2.5128 2.4872 2.5064
Process control at vendor’s
premises 2.6154 2.6923 2.6346
Level 4 Process transformation 2.5846 2.5846 2.5385 2.5385 2.5731 2.5731
Table 7-3: Mean values of defence sectors
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
258
7.5.2 Hypothesis validation
An independent-sample t-test, a type of parametric tests, is used to analyse the
hypothesis presented in section 7.1. An independent-sample t-test is used when
comparing the mean scores of two different groups of people or conditions and give
reliable results if the data is normally distributed (Pallant, 2010). The normality of the
data can be determined on the basis of Sig. value calculated by using Kolmogorov-
Smirnov or Shapiro-Wilk Tests. The data is called normally distributed if the Sig. value
is greater than 0.05 (Pallant, 2010). Since the Sig. value is greater than .05 presented in
table 7-4 hence the data is normally distributed and an independent-sample t-test is used
for inferential statistics.
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
CM practices .093 52 .200 .973 52 .289
Table 7-4: Test of normality
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to observe any significant difference in
the mean values for both aerospace and defence industries. The results of the test are
presented in table 7-5 and table 7-6. There is no significant difference in the scores of
aerospace sectors (M=2.7385, SD=.82642) and defence sectors (M=2.7516,
SD=.48417). Since the Levene’s test for equality of variances is less than 0.05, meaning
that the variances for the two groups (aerospace and defence sectors) are not the same
and hence we are using the data in the last row of table 7-6 i.e. ‘equal variances not
assumed’. Since the Sig. (2-tailed) value is .957 which is greater than .05, meaning that
there is no significant difference in the maturity of Configuration Management process
both in aerospace and defence sectors and we reject the hypothesis as highlighted in
section 7.1.
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
259
It is important to note that non-parametric tests are recommended by some researchers if the data obtained is ordinal i.e. ranked
(Motulsky, 1995), but since similar results are obtained from both tests and also most of the researchers have only mentioned the
assumption of normality for selecting any of the two tests hence we have presented the data obtained by using parametric test.
Types of organization N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Aerospace 13 2.7385 .82642 .22921
Defence 39 2.7516 .48417 .07753
Table 7-5: Group statistics
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
assumed .006 -.070 50 .944 -.01319 .18731 -.38941 .36303
Equal variances
not assumed -.054 14.842 .957 -.01319 .24197 -.52940 .50303
Table 7-6: Independent samples test
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
260
7.6 Summary and conclusions
7.6.1 Summary
The objective of this research was to develop Configuration Management Maturity
Model for the effective implementation and continuous development of Configuration
Management practices. By keeping in view the recent studies in other allied field, the
Configuration Management Maturity Model is based on process capabilities extracted
from CM critical success factors and barriers to CM implementation. It was essential to
see the level of implementation of Configuration Management practices in both
aerospace and defence sectors and analyse any significant difference, if exist, between
the maturity of both aerospace and defence industries.
This research is based on critical analysis of the existing literature on critical success
factors, barriers to CM implementation and maturity models in other allied fields
followed by semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys which are part of the
qualitative and quantitative research methodologies respectively. Review of the existing
literature followed by interviews helped us to finalize the Configuration Management
process capabilities, structure of Configuration Management Maturity Model, and
measuring mechanism for the maturity of Configuration Management practices. By
keeping in view the limited number of interviews conducted for this research and
problems with arranging further interviews; it was decided to validate the developed
Configuration Management Maturity Model through a questionnaire survey. It was also
necessary to test the maturity concept and the application of thirty-five practices through
another questionnaire survey.
The CMMM is based on ten process capabilities which are the outcome of twenty-one
critical success factors (chapter 4) and nineteen barriers to Configuration Management
implementation (chapters 5 and 6). These process capabilities cover every aspect of the
process which is necessary for the effective implementation and continuous
development of the configuration management practices. The process capabilities are
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
261
further elaborated with the help of controlling parameters in the shape of thirty five
process detailed practice definition where a list of thirty five practices are presented
which could help CM professionals to better understand and target the required areas for
improvement. It is always hard to define the key parameters which are used to judge the
effectiveness of process capability and is accomplished through detailed discussion with
CM professionals. The highlighted practices do cover the core areas but do not highlight
the insight of detailed practices which could be obtained from any international standard
and should be part of the organizational procedures.
A four level (Static, Reactive, Proactive, and Dynamic) Configuration Management
Maturity Model was developed which was then validated through a questionnaire
surveys as explained in section 7.4. The maturity of Configuration Management
practices in both aerospace and defence sectors was calculated and presented in section
7.5.1 which shows that both these sectors are on the verge to achieve the requirements of
proactive level and will need more efforts to fulfil the needs of dynamic capabilities. It is
also validated through inferential statistic that there is no significant difference in the
maturity of both aerospace and defence industries as presented in section 7.5.2.
7.6.2 Conclusions
This study investigates the maturity concepts, provides the necessary foundation, and
establishes a Configuration Management Maturity Model to evolve the capabilities of
the CM process along with an anticipated and logical maturation path to achieve the
desired objectives. The CMMM is based on detailed discussion with CM professionals
and the outcomes of two independent studies which have contributed greatly to the
understanding of CM as a value added process in an organization. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the only study on the subject which is based on CM specific process
capabilities to help organizations in establishing and improving their CM practices since
it is not only based on the success and failure factor specific to CM implementation but
on detailed practices summarizing expert opinions of CM professionals necessary for the
effective implantation and continuously development of the process. It is essential to
Chapter 7: Configuration Management Maturity Model
262
note that detailed aspects of the CMMM were highly recommended by CM experts both
in aerospace and defence organizations through an independent validation process.
This research also investigates the maturity of the CM process in aerospace and defence
organizations which have provided some interesting results. As previously highlighted
(in Chapter 6) that CM applications are largely undermined in aerospace as compared to
defence sectors; it was believed that there will be a significant difference between the
maturity levels of both aerospace and defence industries. This assumption is not justified
by our results here which suggest that mean values for both these sectors are close to
each other and there is no significant difference in the maturity level of CM practices in
aerospace and defence industries. This needs further investigation with a large sample
size having same representation from both aerospace and defence sectors.
263
CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0 Introduction
This chapter is comprised of research summary and conclusion based on the data
obtained through interviews and questionnaire survey conducted in all three parts to
identify, finalize, and rank CM CSFs and barriers to CM implementation and develop a
Configuration Management Maturity Model for the effective implementation and
continuous development of Configuration Management practices within aerospace and
defence organizations. The interviews in the second part of this research consist of
discussion on the governance aspects of the Configuration Management process which
provides important information on strengthening the implementation aspects of the
process. It is important to note that first two parts (i.e. identification of critical success
factors and barriers to Configuration Management implementation) are conducted to
provide necessary data essential for the third and final part of this research (i.e.
development of Configuration Management Maturity Model).
8.1 Summary of the research
The prime objective of this research was to establish a mechanism for the effective
implementation and continuous development of the Configuration Management process
within aerospace and defence organizations. The literature suggests that one of the most
disciplined instruments for the maturity of a process is defining maturity model which
define path of maturation for the development and continuous improvement of a process.
The current literature on the subject suggests that these models could be more effective
if based on critical success factors and barriers. To develop a Configuration
Management Maturity Model, this research was divided into three parts i.e.
identification of critical success factors for the effective implementation of
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
264
Configuration Management, identification of barriers to Configuration Management
implementation and analysing the governance aspects of the process, and developing
Configuration Management Maturity Model. It was imperative to have a thorough
review of the existing literature (covered in chapter 2) which provides necessary
foundation for further research. The topics covered in all three parts with adopted
research methods is summarized in table 8-1.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 In
tervie
ws
Qu
estion
naire
Interv
iew
s
Qu
estion
naire
Interv
iew
s
Qu
estion
naires
CSFs for CM implementation √√√√ √√√√ √√√√
Barriers to CM implementation √√√√ √√√√ √√√√
governance of CM process √√√√ √√√√
CM maturity model √√√√ √√√√
Table 8-1: Research focus in different research parts
The summary in Table 8-1 highlight that research in all three parts is triangulated to
ensure validity throughout this research. The first two parts of this research are not
dependent on each other but provides the necessary information to the third and final
part which means that the third part is dependent on the data obtained from the first two
parts. The summary of each study is discussed below.
In the first part twenty-one CSFs for the effective implementation of Configuration
Management were identified with the help of CM professionals working in the leading
aerospace and defence industries through mixed method research with in-depth
interviews followed by a questionnaire survey. It is important to note that the success
factors identified with the help of in-depth interviews with CM subject matter experts,
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
265
email conversation with Configuration Management expert, and the available literature
were retained in the shape of critical success factors after the questionnaire survey
resulted high mean values for all factors (4≤ Mean Values ≤ 5) obtained through
descriptive statistics which highlight the importance of these factors in the
implementation of the CM process. The twenty-one CSFs have been organized into
seven categories by establishing a relationship between the human activity model
(Checkland, 1981), the formal system model (Fortune and White, 2006), and the
requirements of the CM activity model. Factor Analysis on the other hand is not
considered since the data failed to meet basic assumptions essential where it is necessary
to have a strong correlation among the factors that can be checked with correlation
coefficients which should be above 0.3. Since, less than 35 percent of the values are
above 0.3 in the correlation matrix attained from factor analysis, factor analysis was not
considered appropriate. The parallel analysis suggested the same result which proposes
comparison of the first eigenvalue obtained from SPSS with the corresponding first
value generated by parallel analysis and maintains the component where the actual
eigenvalue is larger than the criterion value from parallel analysis; if it is less, then it is
rejected (Pallant, 2010).
In the second part nineteen barriers to Configuration Management implementation were
identified with the help of CM professionals working in leading aerospace and defence
industries through in-depth interviews followed by a questionnaire survey. The
questionnaire survey in the first part of this research is also used where an open question
was posted by asking research participants to address their concerns which they think are
the more obvious problems in the implementation of Configuration Management. The
replies received through this survey were grouped into multiple factors for further
analysis and combined with the data received from the seven semi-structured interviews
with CM experts of four different industries. A group of nineteen barriers were finalized
after careful analysis of the data received from the two forms of studies where efforts
were made to avoid possibilities of ignoring or repeating factor. In the final phase, all the
barriers were accepted as barriers to Configuration Management implementation (2≤
Mean Values ≤ 4) through a questionnaire survey by asking questions through a series of
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
266
statements explaining the existence of each barriers with the help a five-point scale.
Through factor analysis, the set of nineteen barriers were grouped into three groups
namely ‘managerial and organizational barriers’, ‘planning and process barriers’, and
‘implementation barriers’. In the first place factor analysis was deemed the right option
because inspection of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient Matrix
revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. Secondly, the Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity which is used to detect whether variables are uncorrelated is
significant (significance value should be less than 0.05 which is 0.000 in this study).
Thirdly, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value is 0.893 which exceeds the
recommended value of 0.6 meaning that factor analysis is highly recommended for the
sample data. It is important to note that results of inferential statistics which highlight
professional’s from aerospace and defence organizations perceive the barriers differently
in their setups.
The second part also included discussion on Configuration Management where multiple
issues (e.g. the organization of Configuration Management, the roles / appointments of
the working staff, the rules and regulations of the process, and the control of
Configuration Management practices at vendor’s premises) were discussed. It is
important to highlight that variations were observed on the issues highlighted above
within research participants. It is highlighted that the issues discussed above varies from
one organization to other which are mainly dependent on the size and number of projects
handled at any particular location. The research participants were mainly in favour of
functional and hybrid types of organizations to have dedicated staff for the execution of
Configuration Management principals and maintaining consistency within projects. The
second outcome of the discussion was that Configuration Management staff should be
more technical whereas the Configuration Management officers / engineers should have
engineering background to understand and implement the process according to its merit.
It is also highlighted that Configuration Management practices at vendor’s premises
should be handled by Configuration Management officers of specific projects as they are
the right persons to discuss and resolve the issues with vendors.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
267
The third and final part is related to the development of a Configuration Management
Maturity Model. This part is based on semi-structured interviews, questionnaire surveys,
and critical analysis of the available literature on maturity frameworks and the studies on
critical success factors and barriers to Configuration Management implementation. The
critical analysis of available literature on maturity models and the two studies on critical
success factors and barriers to Configuration Management implementation helped us to
establish Configuration Management Maturity Model which is further refined on the
inputs of semi-structured interviews with six Configuration Management professionals
from four aerospace and defence organizations. On the basis of ten process capabilities
extracted from critical success factors and barriers to Configuration Management
implementation, a four level (static, reactive, proactive, and dynamic) Configuration
Management Maturity Model has been developed. To measure the level of maturity of
Configuration Management implementation, thirty-five practices extracted from the ten
process capabilities were defined which would be measured on a four point scale
(1=static, 2=reactive, 3=proactive, and 4=dynamic). The limited number of interviews
and the problems with arranging any further interviews forced us to validate the
developed Configuration Management Maturity Model through a questionnaire survey.
The questionnaire survey was developed to validate the model with the help of
seventeen statements measured on Likert-type scale running from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree) after explaining the model at the beginning of questionnaire. To test
the overall maturity concept and the developed measuring criteria, it was felt necessary
to run a second questionnaire which is based on established thirty-five practices on a
four point scale. The same questionnaire having thirty-five practices with the same scale
will be used by organizations to measure their Configuration Management practices.
8.2 Conclusions
Based on the analysis of data acquired from this research and the literature review on the
subject and other allied fields, the research is concluded under the following four
headings.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
268
8.2.1 CSFs for the effective implementation of Configuration Management
Following conclusions have been drawn on the basis of literature and the final analysis
of this research.
• There is no single study found on critical success factors in the field of
Configuration Management in the literature, however, limited literature in the form
of case studies and research theories are available on the success and failures of
Configuration Management implementation. On the other hand, some researchers
believe that in the presence of extensive literature in other allied fields like PM and
QM, it is useless to do further research on the subject in the field of Configuration
Management. It is logical that being a technical management discipline some of the
areas will be critical for CM, and PM e.g. management support, resource
requirements etc., but many factors identified through PM research have limited
direct correlation on the overall performance of CM implementation e.g. market
intelligence, technical uncertainty innovation, accurate initial cost estimates, strong
business case.
• A list of twenty-one critical success factors were identified and prioritized for the
effective implementation of Configuration Management in aerospace and defence
industries through literature review followed by interviews, email conversation,
discussions, and questionnaire survey to collect the required data from Configuration
Management professionals.
• All twenty-one CSFs have been organized into seven categories (i.e. execution
strategies, decision taker (s), performance monitoring, sufficient resources, effective
environment, communication, and defined boundary) by establishing a relationship
between the human activity model (Checkland, 1981), the formal system model
(Fortune and White, 2006), and the requirements of the CM activity model. The
groups of factors are populated in the form of an activity model to emphasize the
importance of these factors in the implementation of a process.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
269
• There is a significant difference in the CM practitioner’s perception on the basis of
their experience in Configuration Management and Configuration Management
certification / training on the ranking of CSFs which presents the importance of these
areas in the implementation of the CM process.
• There is no significant difference in the CM practitioner’s perception on the basis of
their academic qualification and experience in stakeholders departments on the
ranking of CSFs.
8.2.2 Barriers to Configuration Management implementation
Following conclusions have been drawn on the basis of literature and the final analysis
of this research.
• The research on barriers to Configuration Management implementation contributes
to existing knowledge by identifying barriers to CM application since the literature
suggest that research based study on the topic is extremely limited in comparison
with other allied fields such as Knowledge Management and Quality Management.
There are some studies which could be considered most influential in the field but
have specific limitations on their own because they have targeted specific elements
of Configuration Management and do not present holistic view of the process.
• Through mixed method research, nineteen barriers to Configuration Management
implementation are identified with the help of Configuration Management
professionals working in aerospace and defence industries. The list of nineteen
barriers is further extracted into three groups (managerial and organizational barriers,
planning and process barriers, and implementation barriers) with the help of factor
analysis based on their inherent relationship to facilitate professionals in targeting
specific areas for improvements.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
270
• The outcome of this research is quite significant since it highlights obstacles related
to areas such as management support, governance, principles and policies, training,
authority to implement, planning, communication, stakeholders support, and
resource requirements which are not only considered the most influential factors for
the successful implementation of Configuration Management but also for other allied
fields such as Knowledge Management and Project Management.
• The responses suggest that while configuration managers perceive the existence of
these barriers in both aerospace and defence sectors, in general, these barriers are
more evident in the commercial aerospace sector. This is validated by the results of
inferential statistics where significant difference is observed in the perception of
Configuration Management professionals on the basis of the organization in which
they work. These results are quite significant since Configuration Management is
well understood in the defence industries and is contractually mandated through
meeting of the required defence standards evoked by the customers.
• The results of inferential statistic indicate that identification and ranking of barriers
to Configuration Management acceptance and application, from the perspective of a
CM practitioner, will not be influenced by their academic education, gender
difference, and CM experience.
• It is believed that some of the factors which are the root cause for many other
barriers may substantially affect the effective implementation of the CM function.
For example effective training programmes will not only help to get the required
support from top management but may also help to alleviate the lack of recognition
and perceived importance of the CM process across the organization while
Configuration Management planning, on the other hand, may take control on other
aspects like lack of maintaining consistency and lack of flexibility in CM practices.
• There is a growing body of knowledge evolving in the form of Configuration
Management which undoubtedly will be slowed down if organisations fail to identify
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
271
critical barriers and meet the requirements of such documents. It is equally important
to have an idea of such barriers along with understanding and documenting
requirements based CM methodologies defined in the latest international standard(s).
8.2.3 Governance of the Configuration Management process
The following conclusion can be made on the basis of research conducted in the second
part of this research.
• Issues of governance vary from one organization to another which is mainly
dependent on the size and number of projects handled at any particular location.
• The functional and matrix organizational structure which demands dedicated staff
for the execution of a process are the most favourable mechanism(s) for the
execution of Configuration Management process.
• It is important to understand technical aspects of the process by recruiting technical
staff whereas emphasis should be made on Configuration Management officers to
have engineering background to understand and implement the process according to
its merit.
• The Configuration Management practices at vendor’s premises needs to be
controlled with the help of Configuration Management professionals since they are
the only right individuals to deal this issue.
8.2.4 Configuration Management Maturity Model
Following conclusions are drawn on the basis of literature and final analysis of 3rd
part
of this research.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
272
• This research is designed to build maturity framework for the effective
implementation and continuous development of Configuration Management
practices based on critical success factors and barriers to Configuration Management
implementation finalized with the help of Configuration Management professionals
from aerospace and defence sectors. The literature suggest that other studies in the
field are similar in nature, lack important information, and are based on what to
implement instead of how to implement that prompted us to build Configuration
Management Maturity Model with new concept supported by latest studies on the
concept in other allied field.
• Ten process capabilities were extracted from critical success factors (presented in
Chapter 4) and barriers to Configuration Management implementation (presented in
Chapters 5 and 6) which would ensure to avoid the possible risks and help in
achieving the desired objectives. On the basis of these ten Configuration
Management process capabilities, a four levels (static, reactive, proactive, and
dynamic) Configuration Management Maturity Model was developed. The model
has all key characteristics essential for the effective implementation and continuous
development of the Configuration Management process highlighted by recent
research studies on the issue. This is an action based model having both the concept
of single and double loop learning.
• To measure the level of maturity of Configuration Management practices in any
facility, the process capabilities were explained with the help of thirty-five practices
which should be measured on a four point scale (1=static, 2=reactive, 3=proactive,
4=dynamic) to calculate the overall maturity of Configuration Management
practices.
• On the basis of inferential statistics it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the maturity of Configuration Management process in aerospace and
defence sectors and hence we reject the third hypothesis presented in Chapter 1.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
273
8.3 Limitations of the study
There are some limitations with this study which should be acknowledged for further
research. As previously highlighted that Critical Success Factors, Barriers to CM
implementation, and Process Capabilities were identified through limited number of
interviews followed by questionnaire surveys. On the other hand, literature on similar
topics in other allied fields suggest the importance of focus groups for similar research
which could better explore multiple aspects as the discussion evolves and hence provide
comprehensive aspects of the issue which is sometimes difficult to explore through
limited interviews.
The limited number of interviews in all three phases could be considered a possible
limitation to the study but since the sample was highly relevant, experienced and every
effort was made to present related information in its actual and truest form, there are less
chances to ignore areas of importance. Further, the data obtained from interviews were
also triangulated through questionnaire surveys to ensure reliability and validity of the
data. Since the high number of questionnaires in all three studies validate the data
obtained through interviews, the outcomes could be easily generalized across aerospace
and defence industries across the world.
It is always essential to explore hypothesis with large simple size having same
representation of the simple size from different categories. The third hypothesis have
been explored with a relatively small sample size (n=52) with an uneven representation
from both defence (n=39) and aerospace (n=13) sectors. Further research is therefore
recommended to investigate this vary issue with the help of a large sample size have
same representation from both aerospace and defence sectors.
8.4 Contribution of this research
This research has some significant academic and practical implications in the area of
process maturity in general and Configuration Management as a process in particular. It
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
274
is important to note that the objective behind this research is to highlight and evaluate
practitioners’ perception on critical success factors and barriers to Configuration
Management implementation to develop a roadmap for achieving excellence in the
implementation and continuous development of Configuration Management process in
aerospace and defence industries.
8.4.1 Academic perspective
The importance of Configuration Management could be seen after its reflection in many
standard as a compliance requirements and the extensive literature issued by different
sectors, mostly from defence; however, being ignored by academia in the past (Burgess
et al., 2005; Huang and Mak, 1998), the academic literature is extremely limited as
compared to other allied fields e.g. Quality Management, Project Management, and
Knowledge Management etc. This research has targeted three areas of Configuration
Management which provide the necessary foundation for the fourth and final study. This
research attempted to link the theoretical and industrial perspective to investigate the
maturity concept of the Configuration Management process since the limited literature
on the subject lack important aspects in comparison with latest literature on the topic in
other allied fields. The contribution of this research to current literature is as follow:
The study on Critical Success Factors is the first formal study on the subject where a list
of factors are identified which helped in the formation of Configuration Management
activity model to better implement the CM activities. Some researchers believe that in
the presence of extensive literature on the subject in the field of Project Management,
Quality Management, and Knowledge Management, it is unproductive to further explore
the subject within CM but in reality no single study could be used as a baseline for the
development of Configuration Management Maturity Model. It is also pertinent to
mention that being a technical management discipline it is logical that some of the areas
will be critical for both CM and PM but other PM factors identified through literature
have limited or no direct correlation with the overall performance of CM operation e.g.
market intelligence, technical uncertainty innovation, etc. This highlight the importance
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
275
of this study which provided the necessary foundation for the implementation and
continuous development of Configuration Management practices.
The literature on Configuration Management does not reflect one singular study
dedicated to CM implementation barriers. By keeping in view the importance of the
study in the continuous development of a process, this study was conducted which
highlight many barriers that are not reflected before in the literature on CM, for example
lack of flexibility in CM process, extreme project pressures, lack of authority to
implement CM principles / policies, poorly defined CM requirements and process, lack
of CM awareness in customer worlds, and outdated CM process which highlights a
major gap in the literature. This highlights the importance of this study which could be
used as a baseline for the development of Configuration Management Maturity Model.
The importance of this research is evident from the fact that Configuration Management
Maturity Model is developed for the first time with the help of Configuration
Management professionals on the basis of critical success factors and barriers to CM
implementation. The process could be measured for the first time with the help of thirty-
five practices derived from Configuration Management process capabilities and can be
improved with little experience in less time and will help to target the weak areas to
improve the overall process performance.
The other important aspect to mention is that Configuration Management is still not well
understood and practiced against the requirements of international standards which are
pointed by previous researchers. On the other hand it is believed that Configuration
Management is ignored by academia which has greatly affected the growth of this field.
The growing requirements of Configuration Management and adaptation of standardized
methodologies, it is important for academic institutes to provide graduates to industries
having the necessary knowledge of Configuration Management before joining their role.
There is a great deal of research available which could help organization to better
implement Configuration Management practices which is highlighted in section 8.5.
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
276
8.4.2 Industrial perspective
This research highlights important aspects for the successful implementation and
continuous development of Configuration Management and has therefore significant
implications for industry.
The research study highlight the CM activity model which is a logical representation of
the identified twenty-one critical success factors organized in seven groups necessary for
establishing, maintaining, and continuously improving the Configuration Management
process. This activity model combines the core concepts of formal system model
development and the human activity model to help Configuration Management
professionals in the identification of actual or potential weaknesses in their
Configuration Management process. It is important for industries to give special
attention to the seven groups where decision taker(s) manage Configuration
Management strategies through effective communication channels and dedicated
boundary. Decision taker(s) ensure(s) that sufficient resources are available for the
execution of strategies and controlling of Configuration Management practices. The
important aspect in the execution and monitoring of a process is effective
communication which is effected by environment. The environment has a total control
on all activities of the process and has major role in the execution of the CM process.
Organizations need to pay special attention to the seven areas which would enable them
with effective Configuration Management process to fulfil customer requirements and
produce quality products.
The study also emphasize on the identification of nineteen barriers categorized in three
groups which would facilitate professionals in targeting specific areas for improvements.
The research outcome is significant since it highlights barriers related to specific areas
which are not only considered influential for the successful implementation of
Configuration Management but also for other allied fields such as Project Management
and Knowledge Management. It is believed that some of the obstacles need special
attention which are considered the root cause for many other barriers and have
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
277
substantially affected the implementation of the Configuration Management process. It
is advised that effective training and educational programmes should be in place which
could help in getting the required support from top management and alleviate the lack of
recognition and perceived importance of the Configuration Management process across
the organization. Organizations need to have special emphasis on these obstacles since it
is believed that several of these barriers have not only affected the organizational image
of the process but have also influenced the implementation of the process over the years.
This research presents Configuration Management Maturity Model which defines a path
of maturation to achieve excellence in Configuration Management practices. This study
provides baseline guidelines on Configuration Management process maturity to help
organizations in continuous improvement of their Configuration Management practices.
The organizations needs to emphasize on specific process capabilities extracted from
critical success factors and barriers which define the four levels of Configuration
Management Maturity Model. The Configuration Management professional can measure
the maturity of their Configuration Management practices through thirty-five practices
outlined for process capability on a four point scale. The study could help Configuration
Management professional to identify the potential areas of weakness in the process and
propose any remedial action(s).
8.5 Research application
This research is designed to help practitioners in the effective implementation and
continuous development of their CM practices working in both aerospace and defence
industries. Literature in other allied fields suggest that organization should target process
specific critical success factors which helps practitioners to work on areas responsible
for the success of the process, provide opportunities to avoid barriers, helps in
establishing directions to achieve their goals, and offer means of measuring the
effectiveness of their processes. Similarly the identification of barriers helps
organizations in establishing plans to avoid the possible factors which could be the real
reasons of failure or poor performance of their process. Targeting the highlighted critical
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
278
success factors, barriers, and governance aspects of the process and following the
maturity concept highlighted in the form of CMMM, organization can measure the level
of maturity of their process and target areas of improvements. This research is mainly
based on aerospace and defence industries, other commercial industries can also use the
outputs of this research to enhance their CM practices because of its generalisability.
It is important to mention that since the objective of this research is to enhance the
applications of CM, the first three studies (critical success factor, barriers, and CM
governance) can be used independently and areas of weakness can be targeted to
improve the CM practices. Since the critical success factors and barriers to CM
implementation are extracted in the form of process capabilities which are further
explained with the help of thirty five constructs (practices), organizations needs to
emphasis on these constructs. To start with, it is essential to measure the CM
applications with the help CM professionals working on multiple projects with the help
of maturity questionnaire (Appendix F). This will provide data in the form of mean
values through which not only maturity of the overall process is calculated but will also
provide data regarding different maturity levels. On the basis of this data, areas of
weakness can be easily highlighted and remedial action could be planned accordingly.
Further details of this issue is well elaborated in Chapter 7.
8.6 Recommendations and further research
It was not possible to explore all the emerging dimensions of this research because of the
time limitation. There are some areas which are not addressed in this research while
other requires further research to generalize the concept. Following are the areas which
needs further investigations:
This research is mainly focused on aerospace and defence industries to identify and
frame the critical success factors and barriers to Configuration Management
implementation and develop the CM maturity model. The focus on these industries
raises an associated question of what is the current situation of this practice in
Chapter 8: Summary, conclusions and recommendations
279
commercial sectors. It is believed that commercial sectors have either limited
understanding of CM, or fragment it through several business processes. Research could
be done in these sectors to investigate the implementation status of Configuration
Management practices, cost versus benefit analysis, barriers to the process that have
limited its implementation, and areas that can contribute in the effective implementation
of the CM process in these sectors.
It is important to target some issues on priority e.g., the issue of cost versus benefit
analysis – one of the weak areas in the limited CM literature- which may answer many
concerns highlighted as barriers to Configuration Management implementation. This has
been observed a major concern since CM is often not realistically followed because of
its overall cost overhead related to the specialized CM process just like Quality
Management was ignored in the past. It is important to work on multiple issues e.g. how
standard bodies are linked through companies and take care of the specific companies
requirements in the standardization process, the extent of flexibilities which could be
allowed between two extremely different projects (e.g. small vs. large or complex vs.
simple), and how to deal with the environment in extreme project pressures?
The model has been tested with the help of Configuration Management professionals
working in aerospace and defence industries but it would be more effective to test in
three facilities at-least to come-up with the pros and cons of this model during
application. It was initially part of this research but because of the time limitation and
some other constraints it was not possible to further investigate the issue. It is important
to investigate the different aspects of this model and improve the concept to ensure the
applicability of this model during implementation.
280
REFERENCES
Andersen, E. S., Jessen, S. A. (2003). Project maturity in organisations. International
journal of project management, 21(6), 457-461.
Andrade, J. C. S., Marinho, M. M. D. O. (2010). A safety culture maturity model for
petrochemical companies in Brazil. Safety Science, 48(5), 615-624.
Antony, J., Desai, D. A. (2009). Assessing the status of six sigma implementation in the
Indian industry: Results from an exploratory empirical study. Management Research
News, Vol. 32 Iss: 5 pp. 413 – 423.
Aquinas, P. G. (2009). Organization Structure & Design: Applications and Challenges.
Excel Books India.
Argirys, C., Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and
the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24,
Iss. 8, pp. 687-698.
Badiru, A. B. (1988). Project management in manufacturing and high technology
operations. Wiley-Interscience.
Baccarini, D. and Collins, A. (2003). Critical success factors for projects. Department of
Construction Management.
Bartholomew, D., Knott, M., Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor
analysis, third ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, UK.
References
281
Bate, R., Kuhn, D., Wells, C., Armitage, J., Clark, G. (1995). A systems engineering
capability maturity model, Version 1.1 (No. CMU/SEI-95-MM-003). Carnegie-Mellon
University Pittsburgh PA Software Engineering Institute.
Bazelmans, R. (1985). Evolution of configuration management. ACM SIGSOFT
Software Engineering Notes, 10(5), 37-46.
Beecham, S., Hall, T., Britton, C., Cottee, M., & Rainer, A. (2005a). Using an expert
panel to validate a requirements process improvement model. Journal of Systems and
Software, 76(3), 251-275.
Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A. (2005b). Defining a requirements process
improvement model. Software Quality Journal, 13(3), 247-279.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3),
141-151.
Bhat, K. S., Rajashekhar, J. (2009). An empirical study of barriers to TQM
implementation in Indian industries. The TQM Journal, 21 (3), 261-272.
Boznak, R. G. (1990a). Improving reliability and maintainability programs with
configuration management-the next revolution. In Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium, 1990. Proceedings, Annual (pp. 109-112). IEEE.
Boznak, R. G. (1990b). Reducing manufacturing costs with configuration management.
Atlanta, GA, USA, Published by American Soc of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. 2nd Edition. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Buckley, K. F. (1993). Configuration management - key to process improvement.
Published by SME, United States.
References
282
Burgess, T. F., Byrne, K., Kidd, C. (2003). Making project status visible in complex
aerospace projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21 (4), 251-259.
Burgess, T. F., McKee, D., Kidd, C. (2005). Configuration management in the aerospace
industry: a review of industry practice. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 25 (3-4), 290-301.
Burnstein, I., Homyen, A., Grom, R., Carlson, C. R. (1998). A model to assess testing
process maturity. Crosstalk, 11(11), 26-30.
Burnstein, I., Suwanassart, T., Carlson, R. (1996). Developing a testing maturity model
for software test process evaluation and improvement. In Test Conference, 1996.
Proceedings., International (pp. 581-589). IEEE.
Albacete-Sáez, C. A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., Bojica, A. M. (2011). Quality
management, strategic priorities and performance: the role of quality leadership.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(8), 1173-1193.
Cantamessa, M., Montagna F., Neirotti P. (2012). Understanding the organizational
impact of PLM systems: evidence from an aerospace company. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 32 (2), 191-215.
Carson, J. S. (1986). Convincing users of model's validity is challenging aspect of
modeler's job. Industrial Engineering, 18(6), 74-85.
Castor, A. (2007). Configuration management: A practical approach, Pittsburgh, PA,
Kenilworth Media Inc. United states.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Checkland, P. (1995). Model validation in soft systems practice. Systems Research,
12(1), 47-54.
Checkland, P. B. (1979). Techniques in soft systems practice, Parts 1 and 2. Journal of
Applied Systems Analysis, 6.
References
283
Churchman C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.
Clarke, P. R. (2003). Invitation to Research - Non-Empirical Research Techniques.
(PowerPoint Slides - 51-NonEmp), Xamax Consultancy Pvt Ltd Canberra,
http://www.rogerclarke.com/Res/InvIndex.html.
CMMI, S. T. f. (2006). "CMMI for Development, Version 1.2, Software Engineering
Institute, Carnegie Mellon University."
Cooke-Davies, T. J., Arzymanow, A., (2003). The maturity of project management in
different industries: An investigation into variations between project management
models. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 471-478.
Crawford, J. K. (2006). The project management maturity model. Information systems
management, 23(4), 50-58.
Creswell, J. W., Clark V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research, sage publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain (Vol. 94). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Daniel, D. R. (1961). Management information crisis. Harvard Business Review, 39(5),
111-121.
Darlington, R. B. (2012). Factor Analysis,
http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm (downloaded on 13 April 2012).
Da-Silva, L.A., Damian, I. P. M., De-Pádua, S.I.D. (2012). Process management tasks
and barriers: functional to processes approach. Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 18 Iss: 5 pp. 762 – 776.
References
284
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Centre for Advanced Engineering Study,
Cambridge, Mass.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide: For small-scale social research
projects. Open University Press Buckingham MK18 1XW.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to
sociological methods. London: Butterworths.
Dyba, T. (2000). An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software
process improvement. Empirical software engineering, 5(4), 357-390.
Toro, I. D., McCabe, T. (1997). How to stay flexible and elude fads. Quality Progress,
30(3), 55-62.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Lowe, A. (1991). Management research: an
introduction. Sage Publications, London.
EIA-649. (2011). EIA-649, National consensus standard for configuration management.
Electronic Industries Alliance.
El Emam, K., & Birk, A. (2000). Validating the ISO / IEC 15504 measure of software
requirements analysis process capability. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on,
26(6), 541-566.
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods: an
easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist,
63(7), 591-601.
Felix, C., N., Monroy C., R. (2009). How is configuration management in aircraft
industry implemented?. Seventh LACCEI Latin American and Caribbean Conference
for Engineering and Technology (LACCEI, 2009) “Energy and Technology for the
Americas: Education, Innovation, Technology and Practice” June 2-5, 2009, San
Cristóbal, Venezuela.
References
285
Field, M., Keller, L. (1998). Project management. The Open University, Thomson.
Filho, A. P. G., Andrade, J. C. S., Marinho, M. M. D. O. (2010). A safety culture
maturity model for petrochemical companies in Brazil. Safety Science, 48(5), 615-624.
Fortune, J., White D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems
model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53-65.
Fowler, A. (1992). Models and Applications of configuration management. Omega –
The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 425-431.
Fowler, A. (1996). Case experience of implementing configuration management in a UK
shipbuilding organization. International Journal of Project Management, Vol 14 Iss. 4
pp. 221-230.
Fowler, A. (1993). Quality led application of configuration management, Newcastle
upon Tyne, United Kingdom, Penshaw Press.
Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods in Business Studies: a Practical
Guide. 3rd Edition, Harlow, Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Gill, J., Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. (third edition), Sage
Publications Limited.
Glass, G. V., Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology.
(third edition.). Boston, London: Allyn and Bacon.
Gonzalez, P. J. (2002). "A Guide to Configuration Management for Intelligent
Transportation Systems." Mitretek Systems, Inc. Washington, DC.
Gonzalez, R., Zaalouk, M. G. (1997). Configuration management- crossing the
boundaries. In Proceedings of the American Power Conference. (Vol. 59, pp. 279-282).
Gottschalk, P., Solli-Sæther, H. (2006). Maturity model for IT outsourcing relationships.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(2), 200-212.
References
286
Government Office of the South West UK (2007). Managing Change. [Guide published
on www.oursouthwest.com].
Grant, K. P., Pennypacker, J. S., (2006). Project management maturity: An assessment
of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 53(1): 59-68.
Guess, V. C. (2006). CMII for business process infrastructure, 2nd ed. CMII Research
Institute Scottsdale, AZ 85261-4333.
Guo, Z., Sheffield, J. (2008). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of
knowledge management research: 2000 to 2004. Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 673-
688.
Hancock, L. R. (1993a). Configuration management; solution for mid-life crisis.
Published by Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hancock, L. R. (1993b). Enhancing operability and reliability through configuration
management. In the 2nd ASME-JSME Nuclear Engineering Joint Conference, San
Francisco, CA, USA, 03/21-24/93 (pp. 707-709).
Hancock, L. R. (1994). O & M cost containment by effective configuration
management. In proceedings of the American Power Conference (Vol. 56, pp. 1470-
1471).
Hass, A. M. J. (2003). Configuration management principles and practice. Addison-
Wesley Professional.
Hillson, D. A. (1997). Towards a risk maturity model. International Journal of Project
and Business Risk Management, 1(1), 35-45.
Huang, G. Q., Mak K. L. (1999). Current practices of engineering change management
in UK manufacturing industries. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 19 (1), 21-37.
References
287
Huang, G. Q., Yee, W. Y., Mak, K. L. (2003). Current practice of engineering change
management in Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 139(1), 481-487.
Huang, S., Tilley, S. (2003). Towards a documentation maturity model. In Proceedings
of the 21st annual international conference on Documentation (pp. 93-99). ACM.
Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the software process (Vol. 88). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hussey, J., Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research, a practical guide for undergraduate
and postgraduate students. Macmillan Press LTD.
Ibbs, C. W., Wong, C. K., Kwak, Y. H. (2001). Project change management system.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(3), 159-165.
Ibbs, C. W., Kwak, Y. H. (1997). The benefits of project management—Financial and
organizational rewards to corporations, Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, Pa.
Institute, A. N. S. (1987). ANSI / IEEE Std1042, IEEE Guide to Software Configuration
Management.
ISO. (2003). ISO-10007: Quality management systems — Guidelines for configuration
management. International organization for standardization (ISO), Switzerland.
James C, T., Andrea O, S., Patricia, M. S. (1999). Configuration Management of an
Optimization Application in a Research Environment.
Jankowicz, A. D. (2004). Business research projects, Thomson Learning Publishers,
London.
Jarratt, T., Eckert, C. M., Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Development of a product model to
support engineering change management. Proceedings of the TCME, 331-344.
References
288
Jarratt, T. A. W., Eckert, C. M., Caldwell, N.N.M., Clarkson, P.J. (2011). Engineering
change: an overview and perspective on the literature. Research in Engineering Design,
22 (2), 103-124.
Jenkins G. M. (1969). The systems approach. Journal of System Engineering, 1 (1)
Jones, R. (1992). Configuration management impacts on customer support and
satisfaction. In AHS, Annual Forum, 48th, Washington (pp. 283-304).
Jugdev, K., Thomas, J. (2002). Project management maturity models: The silver bullets
of competitive advantage. Project Management Journal, 33(4), 4-14.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on Planning for Quality. The Free Press. New York:
Kajko-Mattsson, M., Forssander, S., Olsson, U. (2001). Corrective maintenance maturity
model (CM3): maintainer's education and training. In Software Engineering, 2001. ICSE
2001. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on (pp. 610-619). IEEE.
Kidd, C., Burgess, T. F. (2007). Managing configurations and data for effective project
management. in: Peter W. G. Morriss and Jeffrey K. Pinto, The Wiley Guide to
Managing Projects, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 498-513
Kinner, P. R., Gray, C. D. (2000). SPSS for windows made simple. (Release 10),
Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group, UK.
Kulkarni, U., Freeze, R. (2004). Development and validation of a knowledge
management capability assessment model. In Proceedings of the 25th International
Conference on Information Systems (pp. 657-670).
Kwak, Y. H., William, C. (2000). The Berkeley project management process maturity
model: Measuring the value of project management. In Engineering Management
Society, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Kwak, Y. H., Ibbs, C. W. (2002). Project management process maturity (PM) 2 model.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 150-155.
References
289
Lester, A. (2007). Project Management, Planning and Control. 5th edition, Published by
Elsevier Ltd.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., Hardcastle, C. (2005). Critical success factors for
PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry. Construction management and
economics, 23(5), 459-471.
Loch, C. H., Terwiesch, C. (1999). Accelerating the process of engineering change
orders: capacity and congestion effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
16(2), 145-159.
Lyon, D. D. (2008). Practical CM III: best configuration management practices for the
21st century. Second ed. RAVEN publishing company.
Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., Gardner, B. (2004). Combining quantitative and qualitative
methodologies in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 34(7), 565-578.
Mannan, S., Tollette, S., West, H. (1998). Configuration management as a risk
assessment tool for pipeline integrity. Pipes & pipelines international, 43(1), 26-33.
McCaffery, F., Coleman, G. (2007). Developing a configuration management capability
model for the medical device industry. International Journal of Information Systems and
Change Management, 2(2), 139-154.
McCaffery, F., O’Connor, R. V., Coleman, G. (2008). Mapping Medical Device
Standards against the CMMI for Configuration Management. Software and Data
Technologies, 153-164.
McNeill, P. (1990). Research Methods. Second Edition, Routledge.
MIL-HDBK-61. (1997). MIL-HDBK-61, Configuration management guidance, Military
Handbook.
References
290
Miller, D., Friesen, P. H., & Mintzberg, H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MIL-STD-973. (1992). MIL-STD-973, Configuration Management, Military Standard.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall
Motulsky, H. (1995). Intuitive biostatistics. (first edition), Oxford University Press Inc.
Myers, M. D., Avison, D. E. (2002). Qualitative research in information systems: a
reader. Sage.
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D. (2005). A maturity model for the implementation of
software process improvement: an empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 74
(2 SPEC. ISS.), 155-172.
Norusis, M. (2008). SPSS 16.0, guide to data analysis, second ed. Prentice Hall Press,
USA.
Novy, D. R. (1992). Critical success factors for implementing a configuration
management system. In the 1992 ASME International Computers in Engineering
Conference and Exposition (pp. 91-95).
Oates, B. J. (2005). Researching information systems and computing. Sage Publications
Limited.
Pallant, J., 2010. SPSS survival manual. (4th edition), Open University Press, McGraw-
Hill Education, England.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (Vol. 4). Sage
Publications.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity
model. version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
References
291
Paulzen, O., Perc, P. (2002). A maturity model for quality improvement in knowledge
management. Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Conference on Information Systems
(ACIS) (pp. 243-253).
Pinto, J. K., Slevin D. P. (1989). Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research
Technology Management, 32(1), 31-31.
PMI, (2007). Practice Standard for Project Configuration Management, Project
Management Institute, Inc. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
Radice, R. A., Harding, J. T., Munnis, P. E., Phillips, R. W. (1985). A programming
process study. IBM Systems Journal, 24(2), 91-101.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
Robert, J. M. (2004). Training Notes of Certified International Configuration Manager.
Course held in Canberra, Australia in March – April 2004.
Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard business
review, 57(2), 81-93.
Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J. (2012). Maturity models in business process
management. Business Process Management Journal, 18(2), 328-346.
Rowell, W., Duffy, A. H., Boyle, I. M., Masson, N., Babcock Marine, R. (2009). The
nature of engineering change in a complex product development cycle. In 7th Annual
Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER 2009).
Sachs, L. (2007). CM and the new math: teamwork when 1 plus 1 equals 3.
http://www.cmcrossroads.com/cm-journal-articles (downloaded on 1st September,
2011).
References
292
Sachs, L. (2009). Personality matters – CM planning or planning for CM.
http://www.cmcrossroads.com/cm-journal-articles (downloaded on 1st September,
2011).
Sachs, L. (2010). Personality matters – which best practice is best?
http://www.cmcrossroads.com/cm-journal-articles (downloaded on 1st September,
2011).
Sage, A. P., Rouse, W.B. (2009). Hand Book of System Engineering and Management.
(second edition), John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey.
Samaras, T. T. (1988). Configuration management desk book, a modern approach for
assuring that products meet customer requirements, Advanced Applications Consultants,
Inc. North Babylon, New York.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students.
(3rd edition) Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students.
(5th edition), Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Sawyer, P., Sommerville, I., Viller, S. (1997). Requirements process improvement
through the phased introduction of good practice. Software Process Improvement and
Practice, 3(1), 19-34.
Sebastianelli, R., Tamimi, N. (2003). Understanding the obstacles to TQM success. The
Quality Management Journal, 10(3), 45.
Smith, P. R. (1989). Configuration management: Are you operating the plant you
licensed? Transactions of the American Nuclear Society; (USA), 60 (CONF-891103).
Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P., Viller, S., 1997. Requirements process improvement
through the phased introduction of good practice. Software Process Improvement and
Practice (3), 19–34.
References
293
Spanyi, A. (2004). "Beyond Process Maturity to Process Competence." Published at
www.bptrends.com.
Stevens, C. A., Wright, K. (1991). Managing change with configuration management.
National Productivity Review, 10(4), 509-518.
Strutt, J. E., Sharp, J. V., Terry, E., Miles, R. (2006). Capability maturity models for
offshore organisational management. Environment International, 32(8), 1094-1105.
Sun, P. Y.-T., Scott J. L. (2006). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, 4th ed. New York:
HarperCollins.
Tavcar, J., Duhovnik, J. (2005). Engineering change management in individual and mass
production. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 21(3), 205-215.
Team, C. P. (2006). CMMI for Development, version 1.2. Software Engineering
Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Terwiesch, C., Loch, C. H. (1999). Managing the process of engineering change orders:
the case of the climate control system in automobile development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16(2), 160-172.
Titone, R. (1996). Configuration Management: What is it and how does it promote
customer flexibility?. In international conference proceedings-American production and
inventory control society (pp. 40-41).
Thompson, S. M. (1997). Configuration management - keeping it all together. British
Telecom Technology Journal, 15(3), 48-60.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). Research Methods Knowledge Base [downloaded on 1st
September, 2011, http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php].
References
294
Turner, J. R. (1997). The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Improving the
processes for achieving strategic objectives, second ed. McGRAW-HILL Publishing,
Berkshire, England
Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide. (third
edition), Pearson Education.
Wasmer, A., Staub, G., Vroom, R.W. (2011). An industry approach to shared, cross-
organisational engineering change handling - The road towards standards for product
data processing. Computer Aided Design, 43(5), 533-45.
Watts, F. B. (2008). Engineering documentation control handbook, configuration
management, third ed. William Andrew Inc. 13 Eaton Avenue Norwich, NY 13815.
Watts, F. B. (2010). Configuration management metrices, product lifecycle and
engineering documentation control measurements, first ed. Elsevier Inc. Linacre House,
Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP, UK.
Wettstein, T., Kueng, P. (2002). A maturity model for performance measurement
systems. Management Information Systems, 113-122.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2009). The project-specific formal system model. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 36-52.
Wong, K. Y. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management
in small and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 261-
279.
Wright, I. C. (1997). A review of research into engineering change management:
implications for product design. Design Studies, 18(1), 33-42.
Wu, W. H., Fang, L. C., Lin, T. H., Yeh, S. C., Ho, C. F., (2012). A Novel CMII-Based
Engineering Change Management Framework: An Example in Taiwan's Motorcycle
Industry. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 59(3), 494-505.
References
295
Yeh, J. Y., Wu, T. H. (2005). Solutions for product configuration management: An
empirical study. AI EDAM-Artificial Intelligence Engineering Design Analysis and
Manufacturing, 19(1), 39-48.
Yeh, Y. J., Lai, S. Q., Ho, C. T. (2006). Knowledge management enablers: a case study.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 793-810.
Yeo, K. T., Ren, Y. (2008). Risk management capability maturity model for complex
product systems (CoPS) projects. Systems Engineering, 12(4), 275-294.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research : Design and Methods. second edition, SAGE
Publications.
Zubrow, D., Hayes, W., Siegel, J., Goldenson, D. (1994). Maturity questionnaire (No.
CMU/SEI-94-SR-7). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering
Institute.
296
APPENDIX A
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WORLD-
CLASS CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PROCESS
This questionnaire is part of a research in The University of Manchester. We are looking
to identify the Critical Success Factors which could directly affect the implementation of
World-Class configuration management process in organizations. These critical success
factors would help us in developing a model for the continuous maturity of configuration
management process within organizations.
This questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. This data are
gathered in confidence and shall not be communicated in any form to identify
participants without prior permission. Please give your opinion by providing text, numbers
and ( ���� ) mark where applicable.
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
S. NO Questions Responses
a. Name?
b. Gender? 1. Male:
2. Female:
c. Contact details? Email: ___________________
Phone: ___________________
Appendix A
297
d. What is your academic
qualification(s)? 1. Bachelor Degree:
2. Master Degree:
3. Doctorate Degree:
4. HND / HNC:
5. Other: _________________
e. Do you have any form of
Configuration Management
qualification / training?
Provider: __________________
Duration: __________________
f. For how long you have worked in a
Configuration Management role? 1. Less than 5 Years:
2. Between 5 to 10 Years:
3. Between 10 to 15 Years:
4. 15 years and above:
g. Have you worked previously in
stakeholder departments e.g. quality,
design, and manufacturing etc?
Department: ____________________
Experience in Years: ______________
h. In which tier does your organization
belong? Have you previously worked
in another tier?
1. Tier one ( Experience in Years): __
2. Tier two ( Experience in Years): __
3. Tier three ( Experience in Years): _
i. What type of Configuration
Management organization do you
have in your company?
1. Centralized:
2. Decentralized:
3. Matrix:
Appendix A
298
j. How many people are working in
Configuration Management role
within your organization?
Number of Peoples: __________
k. In which sector of the defence
industries does your company exist
in?
1. Aerospace:
2. Military Hardware:
3. Naval:
4. Software / Systems:
5. Munitions:
6. Others: _________________
2. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
S. No Critical Success Factors What is your Opinion?
a. Management Support
Management support is very important
for the implementation of world-class
configuration management Process.
b. Configuration Management
Organization
Without proper configuration
management organization, it is hard to
implement an effective configuration
management process.
Appendix A
299
c. Effective Leadership
Experienced and Dedicated head of the
Configuration Management Process is
very important to take the current
process to a world class status.
d. Clear Vision, Mission, and Policies for
Configuration Management Process
Organizations should have clear vision,
mission, and policies for the
implementation of best configuration
management process.
e. Configuration Management Planning
Configuration management planning
plays a vital role in achieving best
configuration management process.
f. Competent Configuration
Management Practitioners
Competent configuration management
Practitioners are very important for the
implementation of an efficient
configuration management process.
g. Professional Development
Professional Development of all
personnel involved directly or indirectly
in the configuration management
activities can play a leading role in the
implementation of world class
configuration management process.
Appendix A
300
h. Effective Support from the
Stakeholder Departments
Effective support from the Stakeholder
departments (Quality, Manufacturing,
and Design etc.) is very important for
the implementation of the best
configuration management process.
i. Adequate Resources Allocation
Lack of resources (HR, financial, etc)
can affect the level of implementation of
configuration management.
j. Organizational Culture
Organizations must have a supportive
culture where configuration
management is every bodies job to
achieve excellence in configuration
management practice.
k. User friendly Software (tool) for
Configuration Management
Organizations can achieve a world-class
status of configuration management if
the selected Software (tool) for
Configuration Management is user
friendly and meets the requirements of
configuration management process.
l. Effective Control of Configuration
Management Process at Vendor
Premises
Configuration management process at
Appendix A
301
vendor premises should be checked at
regular interval as it will directly effect
the quality of the products and effect the
overall image of the configuration
management process within
organization.
m. Effective Communication of
Configuration Management with
Stakeholder Departments
Effective and prompt communication
between configuration management and
Stakeholder departments is necessary to
have an excellent configuration
management process.
n. Previous Configuration Management
Experience
At least one of the key configuration
management team members should have
previous experience of configuration
management execution to achieve world
class status for configuration
management process.
o. Continuous improvement in
configuration management practices
Continuous improvement in
configuration management practices is
vital to achieve and maintain world-class
configuration management process.
p. Committed and focused configuration
management practitioner
Hardworking and focused configuration
Appendix A
302
management staff is the backbone of
world-class configuration management
process.
q. Team work
Team work during configuration
management practices plays an
important role to enhance the
configuration management process.
r. Politics free projects environment
Politics within projects have negative
effects on the overall performance of
configuration management process.
s. Flexibility in Configuration
Management Practices
Best configuration management
processes should have flexibility in their
execution where the level of
implementation could be different
depending on the complexity and size of
the products.
t. Recognition of Configuration
Management Employees Efforts
Recognition of efforts of configuration
management staff by the top
management is very important for
continuous improvement of
configuration management practices.
Appendix A
303
u. Equal Career Progression
Opportunities for Configuration
Management Staff
Equal career progression opportunities
for configuration management staff
enhance the configuration management
practices within organization.
3. Based on your own experience, can you list below any additional factors which are not
listed above and are most critical for the successful implementation of Configuration
Management process?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
4. As a result of your experience with the Configuration Management Process, can you list
below the problems, which in your opinion are the main barriers in the continuous
improvement of configuration management process?
Appendix A
304
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE
Once you have completed this questionnaire, post it to Mr. Callum Kidd, Room E2, Pariser
Building Sackville Street, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The
University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL.
305
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE
PURPOSE
The purpose behind this interview is twofold, first to explore the barriers which CM
practitioners faces in the effective implementation of CM process and second to define
mechanisms for the efficient governance of this process
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
It is important that all participants know that the information given in this interview is
confidential to The University of Manchester. The University of Manchester is fully
aware of the importance of maintaining secrecy of the individual participant. No
research participant will be referenced, identified, or comments attributed to them by
name without the formal written permission of the individual participants.
GENERAL INFORMATION
S. NO QUESTIONS RESPONSES
a. Name
b. What is your Academic Qualification(s)?
c. Do you have any Configuration Management
Qualification / Training?
d. For how long you have worked in a Configuration
Management role?
Appendix B
306
BARRIERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CM PROCESS
Question 1: During your career as a CM practitioner, what execution based problems
did you observe / face in the effective implementation of the configuration management
process?
Question 2: Do you think that following typical factors act as barriers in the
implementation of Configuration Management? If yes than how we can overcome these
barriers?
a. Lack of top management support
b. Lack of CM awareness and importance at top management level
c. Lack of support from Project Managers
d. Lack of Authority to Implement CM Principles
e. Incompetent CM Leadership
f. Lack of centralized corporate body (Lack of Core CM team)
g. Lack of CM Training
h. Lack of career progression for CM professionals
j. Lack of Simplified and Updated CM Standards
k. Lack of effective CM procedures
l. Lack of an adequate or current CM Plan
m. Lack of CM Process Across Life-Cycle
n. Outdated CM Process
o. Lack of early involvement within projects
p. Lack of clear road map for continuous process improvement
q. Lack of CM awareness in customer world
r. Lack of understanding the role / importance of CM by employees
s. Lack of support from stakeholders
t. Recruitment of non-technical staff
u. Lack of effective CM tools
v. Lack of Resources
Appendix B
307
CM GOVERNANCE
Question 1: Can you explain the CM structure in your organization? Is it the most
appropriate, if no, what would be the most appropriate structure [centralized
(functional), decentralized (divisional), hybrid, and matrix)? Who should be both
accountable and responsible for the CM process?
Question 2: What are the specific CM roles within your organization (e.g. CM analyst,
CM Engineer, CM Manager)? Are they always engineers?
Question 3: What qualification, academic and professional, would they typically have
level by level (e.g. degree, CM certification)?
Question 4: In your opinion, who should define CM rules and regulations within
organizations? From where should these rules be reviewed and approved?
Question 5: Who should deal with CM related issues with vendors within an
organization? What are the current practices?
308
APPENDIX C
BARRIERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONFIGURATION
MANAGEMENT (CM) PROCESS
This questionnaire is part of a research work in The University of Manchester. We are
looking to identify and finalize the barriers in the implementation of the configuration
management process. This data will help us in developing a model for maturating
configuration management as a process.
This questionnaire will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. This data is gathered
in confidence and shall not be communicated in any form to identify participants without
prior permission. Please give your opinion by providing text, numbers and / or dot mark
where applicable.
The questionnaire is in two parts i.e. general information and barriers in the
implementation of configuration management with a total of 31 questions.
1. General Information
S No QUESTIONS RESPONSES
1. What is your name?
2. What is your gender? Male:
Female:
3. What is your academic
qualification(s)?
HND / HNC:
Bachelor degree:
Master degree :
Doctorate degree :
Other (please specify):
Appendix C
309
4. Do you have any configuration
management qualification /
training?
Provider:
Method of delivery:
5. For how long have you worked
in a configuration management
role?
Less than 5 years:
Between 5 to 10 years:
Between 10 to 15 years:
15 years and above:
6. Have you worked previously in
stakeholder departments e.g.
quality, design, and
manufacturing etc?
Design:
Manufacturing:
Quality:
Project Management:
Other (please specify):
7. For how long have you worked
in the stakeholder departments
as highlighted in the previous
question?
Less than 5 years:
Between 5 to 10 years:
Between 10 to 15 years:
15 years and above:
8. How many projects have you
worked-on as a configuration
management practitioner?
Less than 10 projects:
Between 10 to 30 projects:
More than 30 projects:
9. How would you define the size
of your organization in terms
of employees?
Less than 500 employees:
Between 500 to 3000 employees:
More than 3000 employees:
10. How many people are working
in a configuration management
role within your organization?
Number of People:
11. In which sector do you
currently work in?
Aerospace:
Defence:
Appendix C
310
Naval:
IT:
Munitions:
Others (please specify):
2. Barriers in the implementation of configuration management (CM)
S. No Barriers in CM Implementation rank the statement by
checking one option
1.
Lack of top management support
Top management doesn’t understand the role,
importance, and criticality of CM process within
projects and hence ignore it.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
2. Lack of centralized body for the
governance of CM
Existence of centralized CM body for managing
CM activities is either missing or not effective,
resulting in lack of cross fertilisation of skills
and losing control on maintaining consistency
across projects.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
3. Lack of CM training across organizations
Lack of CM knowledge across organizations is
evident since management and even
stakeholders are unaware of the role and
importance of CM.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
Appendix C
311
4. Lack of authority to implement CM
principles / policies
Authorities of CM personnel to implement CM
activities are not effective because of their
dependencies on staff to whom they are
responsible being unfamiliar with the
importance of CM.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
5. Implementation costs outweigh CM
benefits
CM has been viewed as an overhead on projects
in terms of cost. Cases may arise where CM
implementation cost looks high and not feasible
within overall cost of some projects.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
6. Lack of recognition and underestimating
the importance of CM at every level of the
organization
CM process is not getting the due importance
and recognition from the top and is
underestimated at every level of the
organization.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
7. Lack of career progression for CM
professionals
People don’t join or continue their career in CM
because of lack of career progression for CM
professionals in organizations.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
Appendix C
312
8. Poorly defined CM requirements and
process
CM is not very well defined within
organizations. CM standards address general
requirements that require extensive
implementation procedures, which could be
interpreted in different ways by a CM
manager.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
9. Lack of maintaining consistency in CM
practices across projects
Organizations face a lack of consistency in the
CM activities from projects to projects.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
10. Lack of flexibility in CM process
CM process is inflexible in terms of
requirements for both complex and simple
projects hence doesn’t facilitate project
managers and as a result CM concepts can be
used inappropriately.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
11. Outdated CM process
CM process (standards & policies) has remain
unchanged and never been in-line with other
processes which have been optimized over the
years to cope with technological advancements.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
Appendix C
313
12. Lack of current CM plans
CM plans are unavailable / not effectively
generated / not updated through life cycle of
projects; hence create difficulty in the
implementation of CM activities within
products.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
13. Lack of CM process across the lifecycle
CM process has never received the due credence
across the lifecycle of projects especially in the
early phase and the maintenance / modification
phase of projects.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
14. Lack of CM awareness in customer world
There is a lack of awareness on the need and
benefits of CM in the customer world which
could facilitate them to ensure the availability of
quality products and maintain it through the
lifecycle.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
15. Lack of effective Communication
Lack of communication with stakeholders and
among CM groups create delays in the
completion of tasks and create disparity in CM
policies from project to project.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
Appendix C
314
16. Lack of effective CM tools
Organizations still face difficulty to get the right
CM tool to suit their process in terms of
fulfilling the company CM specific requirements
and satisfaction in ease of use.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
17. Lack of resources
Organizations have never had enough resources
for CM in terms of personnel, equipment, and
funding etc. for the effective implementation of
CM process.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
18. Lack of support from stakeholders
Stakeholders (project management, quality,
design etc.) don’t support CM implementation in
terms of requirements (HR, work processing
requirements, timely completion, etc) and hence
create delays in CM practices.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
19. Extreme project pressures
CM policies are disregarded and not practiced
by projects mainly due to extreme project
pressures to meet demands in urgency.
1 not at all true
2 slightly true
3 somewhat true
4 mostly true
5 completely true
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE
315
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW GUIDE
PURPOSE
The purpose behind this interview is to discuss ways and establish consensus on an
agreed maturity model that would help us in the effective implementation and
continuous development of a CM process.
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
It is important that all participants know that the information given in this interview is
confidential to The University of Manchester. The University of Manchester is fully
aware of the importance of maintaining secrecy of the individual participant. No
research participant will be referenced, identified, or comments attributed to them by
name without the formal written permission of the individual participants.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Names of participant:
Academic qualification:
CM training:
CM experience:
Appendix D
316
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL
Finalization of key capability areas
1. Are there any missing parameters in the attached list which you think would be
influential for the effective implementation and continuous development of a CM
process?
Measuring the strength of each parameter
2. What are the most important aspects to enquire when measuring the strength of each
parameter in a facility? What is your opinion about these highlighted practices?
3. What scales would you advise to measure the strength of these parameters (through
questions highlighted above) to evaluate its presence within an organization?
Defining the maturity levels and its key characteristics
4. How many maturity levels would you suggest when developing a maturity model on
the basis of the key parameters finalized above and why? What is your opinion about
this (presented proposed model) highlighted model?
5. How would you populate the key parameters finalized above in the maturity levels
finalized through question 4? Give your opinion on the proposed model and
populated parameters at each level.
Testing
6. How can we test the applicability and usability of this maturity model?
Appendix D
317
Applications
7. Do you believe that this model is only limited to aerospace and defence sectors or
could be used an effective tool for maturating the CM process in any other sector?
318
APPENDIX E
VALIDATION OF THE CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
MATURITY MODEL
This questionnaire is part of a research work in The University of Manchester. The objective of
this questionnaire is to validate the configuration management maturity model which is
developed as part of our research work through continuous interaction with configuration
management professionals working in different aerospace and defence sectors.
The questionnaire is divided in three sections i.e. general information having 5 questions,
structure of configuration management model (detail information on the model structure), and 17
questions on “model validation” at the end.
It is important to note that data is gathered in confidence and shall not be communicated in any
form to identify participants without prior permission. Please give your opinion by providing
text, numbers or selecting an option(s) from multiple choices.
1. General Information
S. NO QUESTIONS RESPONSES
e. What is your gender? Male:
Female:
f. What is your Academic
Qualification(s)?
Bachelor Degree:
Master Degree :
Doctorate Degree :
HND / HNC:
Other:
g. For how long you have worked in a
Configuration Management role?
Less than 5 Years:
Between 5 to 10 Years:
Between 10 to 15 Years:
Appendix E
319
15 years and above:
h. In which sector do you currently
work in?
Aerospace:
Defence:
Others:
i. In which country do you work?
j. If you are interested in the results of
this survey, please add your name
and email below.
name:
email:
2. Structure of configuration management maturity model
The configuration management maturity model is a four staged (static, reactive, proactive, and
dynamic) maturity model and is based on configuration management process capabilities. The
process capabilities for configuration management are finalized by analysing the data obtained
from the studies on critical success factors, barriers to configuration management
implementation, and semi structured interviews with configuration management professionals.
The configuration management process capabilities will be measured with the help of thirty-five
practices on a four point scale. The four point scale (static, reactive, proactive, and dynamic) will
be used to determine the overall maturity of the process in organization.
2.1. Configuration Management Maturity Model
Note: Figure 7.2 was provided in this place.
2.2. Configuration Management Process Capabilities
Note: Figure 7.1 was provided in this place.
2.3. Practices
Note: All thirty five practices (P1 to P35) highlighted in chapter 7 were provided in this place.
2.4. Scale to measure the maturity of CM process
All 35 practices will be measured on a four-point-scale i.e. Static, Reactive, Proactive, and
Dynamic. The criteria for marking each practice are given below.
Appendix E
320
Note: same text for scale discussed in appendix F and highlighted in chapter 7 was provided in
this place.
3. Validation of Configuration Management Maturity Model
In this section there are seventeen statements to measure the effectiveness of the CM maturity
model explained in section 2 on five point scale. Please rank each statement by keeping in view
the CM maturity model explained in section 2.
Statement strongly
disagree disagree Neutral agree
strongly
agree
Effective implementation and
continuous development of
configuration management practices
can be largely facilitated through
workable configuration management
maturity model.
1 2 3 4 5
The configuration management
maturity model based on key process
capabilities extracted from critical
success factors and barriers to
configuration management
implementation is the most effective
way to establish such models.
1 2 3 4 5
The four levels of maturity of the
configuration management maturity
model provide the necessary depth for
the implementation and continuous
development of configuration
management process.
1 2 3 4 5
The key process capabilities dedicated
to each maturity level shows its correct
representation.
1 2 3 4 5
Appendix E
321
The configuration management
maturity model has covered the core
elements of configuration management
process which are the requirements of
any international configuration
management standards.
1 2 3 4 5
The configuration management
maturity model covers all support
areas necessary for the implementation
and continuous development of
configuration management practices.
1 2 3 4 5
All thirty-five practices explaining the
configuration management process
capabilities are easy to understand and
are rightly explained to achieve the
desired goals.
1 2 3 4 5
All thirty-five practices are general in
nature and will equally apply to most
industries.
1 2 3 4 5
All thirty-five practices cover the
required parameters necessary for the
implementation and continuous
development of configuration
management practices.
1 2 3 4 5
The four point scale is well defined
and will provide the desired results
while measuring the strength of each
practice and maturity of an overall
configuration management process.
1 2 3 4 5
Appendix E
322
Implementation of process capabilities
in small groups at different levels of
maturity will help practitioners to
better implement the configuration
management process.
1 2 3 4 5
Implementation of configuration
management maturity model does not
need much experience of the maturity
process but demands understanding of
the configuration management process.
1 2 3 4 5
It is more realistic for industries to
implement and progressively improve
their configuration management
process by adopting this model.
1 2 3 4 5
It is easier to implement and improve
configuration management practices
by adopting this maturity concept
instead of any other haphazard
methodology.
1 2 3 4 5
The configuration management
maturity model will help organizations
to identify areas of weakness and
prioritise actions to streamline their
configuration management practices.
1 2 3 4 5
Questions asked in this questionnaire
have provided the necessary depth to
assess strengths and weaknesses of the
configuration management maturity
model.
1 2 3 4 5
Appendix E
323
Any further research on the topic
would be useful and help industries in
finding useful ways to transform their
configuration management process.
1 2 3 4 5
You can add your suggestions / remarks here on the maturity model or validation process
which you think could help us in developing this concept.
S No Your Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE
324
APPENDIX F
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PROCESS MATURITY
This questionnaire is part of a research work in The University of Manchester. The objective of
this questionnaire is to know the maturity of configuration management process within
aerospace and defence sectors and establish the designed hypothesis.
This questionnaire will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. This data is gathered in
confidence and shall not be communicated in any form to identify participants without prior
permission. Please give your opinion by providing text, numbers and / or check the appropriate
statement.
The questionnaire is in two parts i.e. general information having 6 questions and “fundamental
practices for configuration management process maturity” which has 35 questions.
2. General Information
S. NO QUESTIONS RESPONSES
k. What is your gender? Male:
Female:
l. What is your Academic
Qualification(s)?
Bachelor Degree:
Master Degree :
Doctorate Degree :
HND / HNC:
Other:
m. For how long you have worked in a
Configuration Management role?
Less than 5 Years:
Between 5 to 10 Years:
Between 10 to 15 Years:
Appendix F
325
15 years and above:
n. In which sector do you currently work
in?
Aerospace:
Defence:
Others:
o. In which country do you work?
p. If you are interested in the results of this
survey, please add your name and email
below.
name:
email:
3. Configuration Management Process Maturity
� Important note on the scale
Please mark the following 35 statements on a four-point-scale i.e. Static, Reactive, Proactive,
and Dynamic by keeping in view the implementation of each statement within your facility.
Explanation on the scale is given below.
1. Static (not properly implemented)
The practice is not properly practiced or supported.
2. Reactive (limited implementation)
The practice is limited to specific projects and has lack of holistic implementation across
projects and product life cycle. There is a visible lack of support from all functional
stakeholders.
3. Proactive (good implementation across projects)
The practice is fully implemented or provides the necessary support in the implementation of
CM practices across projects. The CM process is uniformly implemented across projects
irrespective of their size and complexity because of the lack of necessary flexibilities in CM
Appendix F
326
policies which most of the time diminish its importance in small projects because of its cost
versus benefit analysis. The environment is not supportive to accommodate new changes which
lacks in performance monitoring and continuous development of the process.
4. Dynamic (best implementation across projects)
The practice is effectively implemented or provides the desired support in the effective
implementation of the process to accommodate project specific requirements. Through
established improvements methodologies and supportive environment, inadequacies arising with
time are removed to assure effective implementation and continuous development of the process.
Please mark single option for each statement below
Statement Static Reactive Proactiv
e Dynamic
P1: The CM process is available in the form
of documented procedures describing the
organizational policies, activities, and
conventions related to CM planning,
configuration identification, configuration
control, configuration status accounting, and
configuration auditing.
1 2 3 4
P2: CM practices are implemented in all
projects irrespective of the value or
complexity of that project.
1 2 3 4
P3: Product configurations (hardware system
and software) and their related configuration
documentation have a strong correlation and
unique identification.
1 2 3 4
P4: Configuration documentation is released
through a formal release process which 1 2 3 4
Appendix F
327
includes the review and approval of all
functional stakeholders.
P5: The CM process specifies the rules and
procedures to identify and control
configuration items across all projects.
1 2 3 4
P6: The CM process specifies requirements
of managing baselines from concept to
disposal of the product or system, which are
implemented across projects through the
application of company-wide procedures.
1 2 3 4
P7: The configuration change management
process is implemented through a closed loop
cycle where configuration changes are
identified, documented, evaluated, and
implemented with appropriate approval.
1 2 3 4
P8: Engineering changes are classified in two
high-level categories i.e. permanent changes
(dealt through ECOs or ECPs) and temporary
changes (dealt through waivers and
deviations) which are properly identified and
recorded across all projects.
1 2 3 4
P9: The Change Control Board (CCB) is the
sole authority to accept or reject both 1 2 3 4
Appendix F
328
permanent and temporary changes.
P10: Configuration status accounting is in
place to capture and maintain product
configuration information throughout the
product life cycle.
1 2 3 4
P11: The physical and functional
configuration audits are conducted to provide
assurance of the physical and functional
configuration verifications before release of
the products to customers.
1 2 3 4
P12: The documented CM process fulfils
detailed requirements of any latest
international standard(s) on CM [e.g. EIA-
649 (Rev B)] which covers the sub-elements
of all areas highlighted from P3 to P11.
1 2 3 4
P13: The configuration management process
is governed through a defined organization
with dedicated staff having documented
responsibility and authority.
1 2 3 4
P14: Configuration management planning is
the fundamental activity during project
specific CM activities which are managed
through updated CM plans throughout the
1 2 3 4
Appendix F
329
product life cycle.
P15: The CM process is managed and
governed by a dedicated individual having
in-depth knowledge of CM and leadership
qualities.
1 2 3 4
P16: The CM process is backed by CM
expert(s) having previous experience with a
team of competent, committed, and focused
practitioners (according to requirements) to
carry out CM activities according to defined
CM principles and practices.
1 2 3 4
P17: The CM process has the required
infrastructure (buildings, equipment etc.) and
resources (human and financial) to
effectively execute the process within
projects.
1 2 3 4
P18: The CM process is supported by a
software tool which is easy to use and fulfils
the organizational requirements to effectively
implement and support CM principles and
practices.
1 2 3 4
P19: Professional development is part of the
organizational training programme to create 1 2 3 4
Appendix F
330
awareness, importance, and help in the
implementation of CM methodologies and
related fields in the organization where
required.
P20: Management understands the importance
of CM practices and are committed to
establish CM as a core business area.
1 2 3 4
P21: CM is recognized as a key process area
where both management and stakeholders
understand the importance and criticality of
the process.
1 2 3 4
P22: The growing awareness and importance
of CM practices has resulted in career
progression opportunities for CM
professionals similar to those in the fields of
project management, quality engineering, and
design etc.
1 2 3 4
P23: CM managers have the authority through
strong backing of senior management to
implement the process against established
guidelines.
1 2 3 4
P24: Stakeholders understand the importance
of CM, provide the required resources, 1 2 3 4
Appendix F
331
ensure effective coordination, and show
commitment to effectively implement the
process.
P25: The communication with both internal
and external customers is open, timely, and
free flowing both from top to bottom and
bottom to top.
1 2 3 4
P26: It is our company policy to maintain
close liaison with external customers to make
them aware of the completion of their major
milestone and ensures their active
participation in product design reviews to
validate their requirements before finalization
of product specifications.
1 2 3 4
P27: Organizational culture does support the
effective implementation and continuous
development of the CM process.
1 2 3 4
P28: The working environment is politics free
where decisions are made on merit to ensure
holistic implementation of the process for
quality products.
1 2 3 4
P29: CM professionals work as a team while
establishing, implementing, and continuously 1 2 3 4
Appendix F
332
improving CM practices.
P30: CM is planned against international
standards at a vendor’s premises which fulfils
your organizational CM requirements and is
assured through periodic audits to ensure
production of acceptable and consistent
products.
1 2 3 4
P31: CM practices are consistent throughout
the organization irrespective of the size and
complexity of projects and across the projects
or products life cycle phases whether it is
concept, development, production, and
maintenance or modification.
1 2 3 4
P32: CM practices are flexible and may vary
to accommodate project specific
requirements based on the complexity,
criticality, and project / product life cycle
phases while ensuring compliance with
company-wide CM principles and practices.
1 2 3 4
P33: CM system audits are planned and
conducted periodically to identify areas of
weakness, plan remedial actions, and address
needs to enhance performance of the process
1 2 3 4
Appendix F
333
in terms of identified and measurable criteria.
P34: The CM process is continuously
improved through small incremental changes
to accommodate technological advances,
reduce limitations of the process, and induce
more flexibility within the rigidity you have.
1 2 3 4
P35: CM activities are planned, effectively
communicated, and properly executed by
keeping in mind the criticality of tasks with
respect to project scheduling to effectively
handle project pressures.
1 2 3 4
S No Your Comments (if any)
6.
7.
8.
9.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE