Aerospace products undergo frequent modifications throughout their product life cycle due to changes in requirements, technology, policy or environmental concerns. These modifications/changes are dealt with through configuration management (CM), which is a techno-managerial function. Conflicting interests of teams involved, complexity due to a long product life cycle spanning over years, R&D nature and techno-political compromises often end up in sub-optimal decisions during aerospace product development. In this article, an attempt is made to apply a scientific method to CM decision-making rather than leave it to techno-political compromises. The CM decision-making is modelled as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem and is solved using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). As an example, the CM change proposal on propellant tank material in aerospace is taken up and solved using the model. The authors believe that results of the study will also pave way for substitute development with improved attributes, realized through advances in technologies such as nanotechnology and additive manufacturing, as mentioned in directions for future research.
Abu-SarhanZ. (2011). Application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in the evaluation and selection of an information system reengineering projects. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 11(1), 172–177.
3.
AdhikariP. R., & MirshamsR. (2017). Study of knowledge-based system (KBS) and decision making methodologies in materials selection for lightweight aircraft metallic structures. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 5(1), 1–19.
4.
AguiarD. C., SouzaH. J. C., & SalomonV. A. (2010). AHP application to evaluate scoring criteria for failure mode and effect analysis. International Journal of Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2, 3–13.
5.
Al-HarbiK. M. A. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 19–27.
6.
AliU., & KiddC. (2013). Configuration management process capabilities. 2nd International Through-life Engineering Service Conference, Procedia CRIP, 11, 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.07.043
7.
ArifM.AsifM. & AhmedI., (2017). Advanced composite material for aerospace application—A review. International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing Science, 7(2), 393–409. https://www.ripublication.com/ijems17/ijemsv7n2_21.pdf
8.
ArnoldS. M. (2012). Materials selection for aerospace systems. NASA Center for Aerospace Information, NASA/TM—2012-217411. http://www.sti.nasa.gov
9.
AshillN. J. (2013). The effect of experience on managerial decision-making uncertainty. Journal of General Management, 39(1), 88–110.
BertoniM., EresH., & IsakssonO. (2011, May2–4). Criteria for assessing the value of product service system design alternatives: An aerospace investigation. Paper presented at the third CIRP International Conference on Industrial Product Service Systems, Braunschweig. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19689-8_26
12.
BonnerB. L., BaumannM. R., & DalalR. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 88, 719–736.
13.
BrouseP. S. (2008). Configuration management. In SageA. P. (Ed.), System engineering and management for sustainable development (pp. 214–242). EOLSS.
14.
BrownN. (1998). Little book of configuration management. Software Program Managers Network. https://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/Little%20book%20of%20Configuration%20Management.pdf
15.
BurgessT. F., ByrneK., & KiddC. (2003). Making project status visible in complex aerospace projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 251–259.
16.
BurgessT. F., McKeeD., & KiddC. (2005). Configuration management in the aerospace industry: A review of industry practice. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(3), 290–301.
17.
ChaiX., YuX., & WangY. (2017). Tradeoff study between cost and environmental impact of aircraft using simultaneous optimization of airframe and engine cycle. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2468535
18.
ChangS. H., & TsengH. E. (2008). Fuzzy TOPISIS decision method for configuration management. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15(3), 304–313.
19.
CheshmberahM., MakuiA., & SeyedhoseiniS. (2011). A new fuzzy MCDA framework for make-or-buy decisions: A case study of aerospace industry. Management Science Letters, 1(3), 323–330.
20.
ChoG. H., ParkH., JeonK. S., LeeJ. W., ByunY. H., KimS., & ChangJ. W. (2008). A logical approach for evaluating preliminary shape design of a very light jet. Paper presented at the 26th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Alaska, AIAA 2008-8948. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-8948
21.
CMII-100E. (2010). CMII standard for enterprise configuration management. CMII Research Institute.
22.
ConrowE. H. (2011). Estimating technology readiness level coefficients. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.46753
23.
DartS. A. (1992). The past, present, and future of configuration management. Technical Report, CMU/SEI-92-TR-8, ESC-TR-92-8, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
24.
DesaiS., BidandaB., & LovellM. R. (2012). Material and process selection in product design using decision making technique (AHP). European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 6(3), 322–346.
25.
DijkstraK. A., PlightJ. V. D., KleefG. A. V. (2013). Deliberation versus intuition: Decomposing the role of expertise in judgement and decision making. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 26, 285–294.
26.
DozicS., & KalicM. (2014). An AHP approach to aircraft selection process. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 165–174.
27.
ECSS-M-40B. (2005). Space project management—Configuration management. European Cooperation for Space Standardisation, ECSS Secretariat.
28.
EIA-649B. (2011). ANSI/EIA-649B national consensus standard for configuration management. Tech America Standards and Technology Department.
29.
EjimaboN. O. (2015). The influence of decision making in organisational leadership and management activities. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Organisational Management, 4(2), https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-026x.1000138
30.
FahmyS., NgahA., FaizA., HaslindaN., & RoslinaW. (2020). Human competency considerations in an integrated software configuration management framework. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 9(1.3), 34–44.
31.
FahmyS., DeramanA., YahayaJ., & HamdanA. R. (2021). Human competency for software configuration management. Annals of Emerging Technologies in Computing (AETiC), 5(5), 69–78.
32.
FengY. W., ChenJ. Y., LuC., & ZhuS. P. (2021). Civil aircraft spare parts prediction and configuration management techniques: Review and prospect. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 13(6), 1–17.
33.
Ferreria FilhoA.A.J. C.SalomonV. A. P., & MarinsF. A. S. (2007, July16–20). Measuring the efficiency of outsourcing: An illustrative case study from the aerospace industry. Paper presented at the 14th ISPE Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Springer London, 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-976-7_90
34.
GangulyK. K., & GuinK. K. (2013). A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk assessment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771311299524
35.
GonzalezP. J. (2002). A guide to configuration management for intelligent transportation system. Department of Transport, Mitretek Systems, Inc.
36.
GracaD. (2021). Process development and configuration management for aerospace projects. Journal of Aeronautics and Aerospace Engineering, 10(2), 1–3.
37.
HassA. M. J. (2002). Configuration management principles and practice. Addison Wesley.
38.
HuangG. Q., & MakK. L. (1998). Re-engineering the product development process with design for X’. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 212(4), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954405981515671
39.
HussainN. M., & SubramoniamS. (2014, June29–July2). Ranking critical success factors of healthcare management information systems using AHP. International Symposium of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Washington DC, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.13033/isahp.y2014.142
40.
HuzelD. K., & HuangD. H. (1971). Design of liquid propellant rocket engines (Technical Report, Document ID. 19710019929). NASA, NTRS. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19710019929
41.
ISO 10007. (2003). Quality management systems—Guidelines for configuration management. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 10007:2003.
42.
IvancoM., HouG., & MichaeliJ. (2017). Sensitivity analysis method to address user disparities in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 90, 111–126.
43.
JacobR., & SubramoniamS. (2021). Identifying the critical success factors of telecom switching barriers using the AHP. Global Business Review, 22(3), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918816897
44.
JiangJ., SongB., ChangM., & LiangQ. (2007). Fuzzy weight evaluation method based on AHP. Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance, 1, 294–296.
45.
KarthikeyanR., VenkatesanK. G. S., & ChandrasekarA. (2016). A comparison of strengths and weakness for analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 9(3), 12–15.
46.
KartikaA., & HananiA. D. (2019). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to aircraft type selection on high-frequency domestic routes. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced, Technology (IJEAT), 8(5C), 697–704.
47.
KiddC. (2001). The case of configuration management. IEEE Management Review, 47(5), 37–41.
48.
KopardekarP., BilimoriaK., & SridharB. (2007, September18–20). Initial concepts for dynamic airspace configuration. Paper presented at the 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operation, Conference (ATIO), Belfast, Northern Ireland. https://aviationsystems.arc.nasa.gov/publications/strategic/Kopardekar_AIAA_ATIO_2007_1.pdf
49.
KossmannM., SamhanA., OdehM., QaddoumiE., TbakhiA. G., & WattsS. (2020). Extending the scope of configuration management for the development and life cycle support of systems of systems—An ontology-driven framework applied to the Enceladus Submarine Exploration Lander. Systems Engineering, 23, 366–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21532
50.
LafleurJ. M., SharmaJ. L., & ApaJ. (2007, September18–20). From mission objective to design: An efficient framework for down-selection in Robotic Space Exploration. Paper presented at AIAA SPACE2007 Conference and Exposition, California. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-6258
51.
LiY., & MavrisD. (2006, September3–8). An intelligent, knowledge-based multi-criteria decision making advisor for aerospace systems design. Paper presented at the 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Hamburg, Germany. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/14559
52.
LindkvistC., StasisA. & WhyteJ. (2013). Configuration management in complex engineering projects. Paper presented at the 2nd International Through-Life Engineering Science Conference—Procedia CIRP II., 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.07.046
53.
LopezP., CanoM., & SeguraA. G. (2009, October25–29). Airspace configuration management in the future air traffic management system. Paper presented at the 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 3E2-1–3E2-11. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2009.5347507
54.
LovalloD., & KahnemanD. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63.
55.
MalekiH., & SaadatY. (2013). Comparison of failure mode and effects by using AHP vs REMBRANDT system. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 14(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISE.2013.052918
56.
MIL-HDBK-61B. (2002). Military handbook configuration management guidance. Department of Defense, USA.
57.
MIL-STD-3046 (ARMY). (2013). Interim standard practice: Configuration management. Department of Defense, USA, AMSC 9275 AREA SESS.
58.
MorrisP. W. G. (2013). Reconstructing project management. John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118536698
59.
NarswariN. P. A., BamfordD., & DeheB. (2019). Testing and AHP model for aircraft spare parts. Production Planning and Control, 30(4), 329–344.
60.
NarvaezF. C., & MonroyC. R. (2009, June2–5). How is configuration management in aircraft industry implemented? Paper presented at the Seventh LACCEI Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology (LACCEI’2009), Sn Cristobal, Venezula. http://laccei.org/LACCEI2009-Venezuela/p89.pdf
61.
NASA-STD-0005. (2008). NASA technical standard. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
62.
Naval Surface Warfare Centre. (2010). Handbook of reliability prediction procedures for mechanical equipment. Naval Surface Warfare Centre. http://everyspec.com/USN/NSWC/download.php?spec=NSWC-10_RELIABILITY_HDBK_JAN2010.045818.pdf
63.
PintoJ. K. (2013). Lies, damned lies, and project plans: Recurring human errors that can ruin the project planning process. Business Horizons, 56, 43–653.
64.
PirdashtiM., ChadiA., MohammadiM., & ShojatalabG. (2009). Multi-criteria decision-making selection model with application to chemical engineering management decisions. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 49, 54–59.
65.
PTC. (2010). Addressing the change and configuration management imperative (PTC Best Practice White Paper). http://www.ptc.com/solutions//inter.htm
66.
QuigleyJ. M., & RobertsonK. L. (2015). Configuration management theory, practice and applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
67.
RanaS. (2019). Managing business relevance beyond technology. FIIB Business Review, 7(4), 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714518231
68.
RanaS., SaikiaP. P., & BaraiM. K. (2018). Globalisation and Indian manufacturing enterprises. FIIB Business Review, 7(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714518803440
69.
RunyanP., HepingW., ZhengpingW., & YuL. (2010). Decision-making of aircraft optimum configuration utilizing multi-dimensional game theory. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 23, 195–197.
70.
SaatyT. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill.
71.
SaatyT. L. (2005). Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 14, 1–36.
72.
SaatyT. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
73.
SadraeyM., & BertozziN. (2015, June). Systems engineering approach in aircraft design education, techniques and challenges. Paper presented at the 2015 ASSE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, 26–1453. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24790
74.
SalasE., RosenM. A., & GranadosD. D. (2009). Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organisations. Journal of Management, 20(10), 1–33.
75.
SalomonM. F. B., MelloC. H. P., & SalgadoE. G. (2019). Prioritization of product-service business model elements at aerospace industry using analytical hierarchy process. Acta Scientiarum Technology, 41, 1807–8664. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascitechnol.v41i1.37934
76.
SamarasT. T. (1988). Configuration management deskbook instruction supplement: A modern approach for assuming that products meet customer requirements. Advanced Application Consultants.
77.
SareenA., & PandeyS. (2021). Organisational innovation in knowledge intensive business services: The role of networks, culture and resources for innovation. FIIB Business Review, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211020737
78.
SarghiniF., & VivoA. D. (2017). Analysis of preliminary design requirements of a heavy lift multi-rotor drone for agricultural use. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 58, 625–630.
79.
SaxenaA., RoychoudhuryI., GoebelK. K., & LinW. (2013). Towards requirements in systems engineering for aerospace IVHM design. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4659
80.
SerranoJ. P., & PereiraR. F. (2020). Improvement in IT infrastructure management by using configuration management and maturity models: A systematic literature review and critical analysis. Organizacija, 53(1), 3–19.
81.
SilvaA. C., BelderrainM. C., & PantojaF. C. (2010). Prioritization of R&D projects inthe aerospace sector: AHP methodwith ratings. Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, 2(3), 339–348.
SuttonG. P. (2017). Rocket propulsion elements, JWOEX (9th ed.). John Wiley.
86.
System Engineering Fundamentals. (2001). Supplementary text by US Army. Defense Acquisition University Press.
87.
SzwedP. S. (2016). Expert judgment in project management: Narrowing the theory-practice gap. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/research/expert-judgement.pdf?v=b42a6e52-f133-4e7c-85f6-cb3e600d4582
88.
TriantaphyllouE., & MannS. H. (1995). Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in Engineering applications: Some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Application and Practices, 2(1), 35–44.
89.
VelasquezM., & HesterP. T. (2013). An analysis of multi criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56–66.
90.
VengugopalanS. R., SaiL. P., GaneshL. S., & RamakrishnanG. (2008). Application of AHP for PLM tools selection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, PLM’08, Inderscience, PLMSP4 (pp. 111–125). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr-Venugopalan-S-R/publication/317185388_Application_of_AHP_for_PLM_tools_selection/links/5ca43a1b299bf1b86d60fa16/Application-of-AHP-for-PLM-tools-selection.pdf
91.
WaldenD. D., RoedlerG. J., ForsbergK. J., HamelinR. D., & ShortellT. M. (2015). INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04-2015, system engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle process and activities. John Willey.
92.
WangJ., & LinY. I. (2003). A fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making approach to select configuration items for software development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134, 343–363.
93.
WelchJ. W. (2010). Flight unit qualification guidelines aerospace (Report No. TOR-2010(8591)-20). US Space Program Mission Assurance Improvement Workshop. https://vdocument.in
94.
WhitakerR. (2007). Criticisms of the analytical hierarchy process: Why they often make no sense. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 948–961.
95.
WhyteJ., StasisA., & LindkvistC. (2016). Managing change in the delivery of complex projects: Configuration management asset information and ‘big data’. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 339–351.
96.
WindY., & SaatyL. T. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 26(7), 641–658.
97.
XuY., MalisettyM. K., & RoundM. (2013). Configuration management in aerospace industry. Paper presented at the 2nd International Through-Life Engineering Science Conference—Science direct, Procedia CIRP 11 (pp. 183–186). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.07.052
98.
YaganE. (2018). Ranking human factor risks for quality manger in aviation environment by using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Aerospace and Aerodynamics, Spain. https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9792-C2-026
99.
ZhuL., LiN., & ChildsP. R. N. (2018). Light-weighting in aerospace component andsystem design. Propulsion and Power Research, 7(2), 103–119.
100.
ZubowskiD. R. (2020). Configuration management challenges of model based systems engineering on multiple variant aircraft fleets. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education and Research, 29(3), 69–81.
