Evaluation of the proposed approach
| Objective | Effects of the proposed approach | Explanation of effects |
|---|---|---|
| Support the development process | Ensured a structured process for making informed decisions about the scope of the prospective configurator | The maintenance manager and the maintenance engineer perceived the approach as providing guidance in assessing the existing situation and identifying opportunities for the configurator, making the company more confident in the scope of the configurator, which resulted in a prioritized focus area with clearly specified boundaries |
| Ensured that holistic performance metrics were identified before and during implementation | The digitalization manager and the software developer considered it likely that without this approach, they would (for example) have overlooked many relevant measures before and during implementation | |
| Ensured that relevant performance information was acquired for conducting iterative development cycles to focus the development efforts and achieve continuous improvement | Both the digitalization manager and the software developer believed that the approach enabled them to justify the direction of the next development cycle based on performance assessment, avoiding subjective decisions | |
| Ensured stable, comparable measurements during the project stages to measure the impact of the implemented changes | The digitalization manager found that the approach enabled continuous monitoring of development progress and performance, replacing the time-consuming analyses they would have considered conducting toward the end of development or after development | |
| Helped define a common performance perception among all the involved stakeholders | The maintenance and digitalization managers, maintenance preparers, and maintenance engineer all stated that the approach facilitated a common perception of performance to be shared and discussed among stakeholders as opposed to each stakeholder having an individual formal or informal perception, which could be difficult to align | |
| Made it possible to account for changes to the configurator and plan the performance assessment accordingly to maintain measurements | The digitalization manager and the software developer expressed that the structured approach enabled them to justify changes to improve the performance of the configurator, and it enabled accounting for those changes in the assessment (e.g. ensuring usage data were still collectible) | |
| Required more effort for performance assessment planning early in the development phase to improve performance evaluation quality | The digitalization manager found that they had to put more effort into the planning and selection of measures and the collection of data earlier in the project but recognized the necessity of doing so to improve the accuracy and quality of the performance assessment | |
| Ensure the completeness and accuracy of the performance assessment | Ensured a fit between the objectives and requirements and the evaluation of the developed configurator | The maintenance and digitalization managers perceived that the systematic approach instilled confidence within the company, affirming that the configurator was not only successful but also one that had been specifically designed to address the company’s challenges |
| Ensured that the necessary data were available for measurements during early-stage performance consideration and planning | Both the maintenance manager and the digitalization manager stated that the systematic approach helped ensure the collection of data. This included usage data stored in the configurator and certain data extracted from the ERP system that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain | |
| Ensured an appropriate comparison between the existing situation and the achieved target situation and during the transition between them | The maintenance manager stated that a more reliable and trustworthy comparison had been established, because the foundation for the assessment relied on the same measures and data | |
| Ensured a reliable, transparent assessment of the impact achieved by implementing the configurator | The maintenance and digitalization managers both found that the company had gained confidence in the configurator’s impact due to the clearly traceable, well-defined process from the selection of measures through the sourcing of data to conducting the impact assessment |
| Objective | Effects of the proposed approach | Explanation of effects |
|---|---|---|
| Support the development process | Ensured a structured process for making informed decisions about the scope of the prospective configurator | The maintenance manager and the maintenance engineer perceived the approach as providing guidance in assessing the existing situation and identifying opportunities for the configurator, making the company more confident in the scope of the configurator, which resulted in a prioritized focus area with clearly specified boundaries |
| Ensured that holistic performance metrics were identified before and during implementation | The digitalization manager and the software developer considered it likely that without this approach, they would (for example) have overlooked many relevant measures before and during implementation | |
| Ensured that relevant performance information was acquired for conducting iterative development cycles to focus the development efforts and achieve continuous improvement | Both the digitalization manager and the software developer believed that the approach enabled them to justify the direction of the next development cycle based on performance assessment, avoiding subjective decisions | |
| Ensured stable, comparable measurements during the project stages to measure the impact of the implemented changes | The digitalization manager found that the approach enabled continuous monitoring of development progress and performance, replacing the time-consuming analyses they would have considered conducting toward the end of development or after development | |
| Helped define a common performance perception among all the involved stakeholders | The maintenance and digitalization managers, maintenance preparers, and maintenance engineer all stated that the approach facilitated a common perception of performance to be shared and discussed among stakeholders as opposed to each stakeholder having an individual formal or informal perception, which could be difficult to align | |
| Made it possible to account for changes to the configurator and plan the performance assessment accordingly to maintain measurements | The digitalization manager and the software developer expressed that the structured approach enabled them to justify changes to improve the performance of the configurator, and it enabled accounting for those changes in the assessment (e.g. ensuring usage data were still collectible) | |
| Required more effort for performance assessment planning early in the development phase to improve performance evaluation quality | The digitalization manager found that they had to put more effort into the planning and selection of measures and the collection of data earlier in the project but recognized the necessity of doing so to improve the accuracy and quality of the performance assessment | |
| Ensure the completeness and accuracy of the performance assessment | Ensured a fit between the objectives and requirements and the evaluation of the developed configurator | The maintenance and digitalization managers perceived that the systematic approach instilled confidence within the company, affirming that the configurator was not only successful but also one that had been specifically designed to address the company’s challenges |
| Ensured that the necessary data were available for measurements during early-stage performance consideration and planning | Both the maintenance manager and the digitalization manager stated that the systematic approach helped ensure the collection of data. This included usage data stored in the configurator and certain data extracted from the ERP system that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain | |
| Ensured an appropriate comparison between the existing situation and the achieved target situation and during the transition between them | The maintenance manager stated that a more reliable and trustworthy comparison had been established, because the foundation for the assessment relied on the same measures and data | |
| Ensured a reliable, transparent assessment of the impact achieved by implementing the configurator | The maintenance and digitalization managers both found that the company had gained confidence in the configurator’s impact due to the clearly traceable, well-defined process from the selection of measures through the sourcing of data to conducting the impact assessment |
Source(s): Authors’ own creation/work
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.