https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2019.

027

Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art

Daniela Silva dos Santosa, Diane Aparecida Reisa, André Leme Fleurya
a
Universidade de São Paulo – USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract: Intelligent manufacturing has produced a revolutionary change, mainly driven by the current competitive
world, reinforcing the importance of inserting Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) approach. PLM emerges with
the aim of efficiently managing product-related information throughout the product lifecycle with sustainability.
It also satisfies the interest in managing the services and products lifecycle, and in the case of products, their
management, from their insertion in production processes, to their lifecycle end, generating a closed management
cycle. This paper aims mainly to understand how the concept of PLM is being approached and defined by academics.
For this, a systematic literature review with bibliometrics, networks and contents analysis were applied. The goal
of this paper to evidencing the main PLM definitions, providing a comprehensive view of the current researches
and raising knowledge gaps for future research about it.

Keywords: Product Lifecycle, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Lifecycle Management.

1. Introduction
Currently, new business challenges are constantly information management has received a considerable
emerging in a scenario of short product lifecycles, attention, mainly because organizations work in a complex
increase of outsourcing, mass customization demands, business environment characterized by information
geographical dispersal of teams and fast depreciation. overload, high levels of competitiveness and acceleration
This scenario enhances collaborative and integrated of technological change. These efforts led to the Product
engineering, caused by the management need of products Lifecycle Management (PLM) software, offering powerful
are increasing in diversity and complexity (Ming et al., tools and enabling high levels of manageable information
2008; Fortineau et al., 2013). This demands the reduction (Soto-Acosta et al., 2016; Jun et al., 2009; Sharma, 2005).
of the time-to-market and production costs, while PLM has been recognized for evidencing challenges and
improving quality (Fortineau et al., 2013), resulting opportunities, once modern technological advances have
in a highly competitive and fast change of the global resulted in innumerable complex systems, processes, and
marketplace, challenging for a modern collaborative products, and this increasing complexity offers considerable
business environment, requiring the industry to consider challenges in design, analyses, production and management,
design, control and optimization of the whole product for their whole lifecycle (Venkatasubramanian, 2005).
lifecycle, besides the capability to operate in a dynamic A new knowledge research field is thus provided which aims
global environment. It also demands the acquisition to assist in the current industry challenges (Fortineau et al.,
of new capabilities for competitive advantages in the 2013).
current Internet Economy (Jun et al., 2009; Young et al., Therefore, this study aims to understand and to evidence:
2007; Ming et al., 2008). This way, the management of How is the PLM concept being approached and defined
the lifecycle becomes critical to innovations, meeting by academics? The paper also investigated the evolution
the customer needs, without driving up costs, sacrificing of PLM, providing an overview of the researches already
quality or delaying deliveries (Jun et al., 2009; Young et al., conducted and the knowledge gaps for future researches.
2007). A systematic literature review was applied, assisted by
Academics and industrial researchers engage tremendous bibliometrics, networks and contents analysis.
efforts in research and develop industrial information This paper comprises five sections. The first section
technologies, pursuing more competitive business details the context and relevance of this study. Section two
advantages in product lifecycle, highlighting the increasing presents the method. Section three evidences the results.
interest in the benefits of the effective use of lifecycle Big Section four discusses the results, while section five
Data (Ming et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2017b). This way, provides the conclusions.

70 Product: Management & Development Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020

2. Research method 2.2. Research method steps
The research conducted a systematic literature review Bibliometrics analysis uses empirical evidence to
to understand the use of PLM by academics. The purpose explore a research field (Neely, 2005), summarizing the
was to evidence the state of the art about PLM, providing major research trends and subjects (Kolle et al., 2017;
a comprehensive view of the research already conducted Yu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017b), guiding future
about the theme and the possible knowledge gaps for future researches (Zhang et al., 2017b). Assuming that the authors
research. of a theme cited the most relevant researches in the field,
The systematic literature review was used for searching evidencing the most relevant citations and co-citations
the state of the art to detect the advances and the limitations (Ramos-Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004). The network
of the research already published (Palmarini et al., 2018). analysis evidences a photograph of the publications (Takey
This allows identifying the future research opportunities, the & Carvalho, 2016). The application of bibliometrics
research gaps and evidencing the subject structure, causes, and networks analysis allows the active investigation of
effects and processes (Dikici et al., 2018; Maier et al., 2016). publications (Yataganbaba et al., 2017). The content analysis
assists in the conceptualization of the research in different
2.1. Sample and procedures ways (Hazen et al., 2015), assisting in the analysis of the
The sample of analyzed papers is a result of searches in information (Wasike, 2017; Arslan, 2012) and evidencing
two databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). common practices, interpretations, and relationships
Figure 1 summarizes the research based on 962 documents, (Allen et al., 2014).
selected after different filters, resulting in 469 papers The research methods steps were first analyzing
about the subject of interest, used for the bibliometrics the number of publications per year and per journal,
and networks analysis, and 56 most relevant articles for highlighting the evolution of the subject published over the
full reading, forming the database for this article content years, and the journals that published about it. The second
analysis. The method is detailed in the next topics. step, all the publications were analyzed to develop a coding

Figure 1. Systematic literature review workflow.

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 71

 scheme involving the publication methods and main subject. 3.1.1. Bibliometrics results
The third step consists of the network’s development,
using the VOSviewer 1.6.6 software to elaborate and to Analyzing the publications, it is possible to
visualize the networks and the NetDraw software to edit the evidence 469 papers meeting to this study interest, in an
networks, analyzing all the publications, developing three evolution along the years evidenced in Figure 2, with the
networks: co-authorship countries, co-occurrence keywords, number of accumulated publications increasing along the
and citation authors. The fourth step, the database for the analyzed years (2001-2018), since the first publication in
qualitative analysis were developed; for that, the papers’ the theme of interest.
Impact Factor (IF) was calculated, using Equation 1, as This evidenced that the main journals publishing in the
in Carvalho et al. (2013). Pareto’s analysis from Takey & subject were Computers in Industry (8%), International
Carvalho (2016) was used to select the papers representing Journal of Product Lifecycle Management (5%) and
an 80% IF, resulting in 56 publications, composing this Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications (4%).
study content analysis. The other journals have a representatively inferior to 3%,
being a subject of interest from different journals.
=IF C * ( JCR + 1) (1)
3.1.2. Networks results
Equation 1. Impact Factor (IF). Out of 56 different countries, 21 countries presented a
C - represents the number of citations and JCR - the impact minimum of five documents published; the co-authorship
factor of the journal in which the paper was published, countries network evidences the countries publishing
based on its Journal Citation Report. Source: Carvalho et al. together, see Figure 3.
(2013). The main connections are between France and the
United Kingdom; France and Switzerland; Germany and
3. Results the United States of America; and China and Singapore.
The results of this research were classified into two Only four countries represent 53% of the citations and 51%
main categories, quantitative results and qualitative results. of the publications number, respectively, the United States
of America (20%; 13%), China (13%; 14%), the United
3.1. Quantitative results Kingdom (11%; 10%) and France (10%; 14%).
This section presents the quantitative results of this There are 3,194 different keywords, 31 keywords have a
research, divided into two groups, bibliometrics and minimum of 17 occurrences, leading a three main clusters,
networks results. see Figure 4.

Figure 2. Accumulated view of the publications, evolution along the years.

72 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
Figure 3. Co-authorship countries network.

Figure 4. Co-occurrence keywords network.

The major clusters were Management, Development and represented 51% of the occurrences, Product Lifecycle
Systems, the pillars of currently concept of PLM. The main Management (20%), Lifecycle (15%), Product Development
connections are between Product Lifecycle Management (9%) and Product Design (7%).
and Lifecycle; Product Lifecycle Management and Product Out of 1,074 different authors, only 16 authors present a
Design; Lifecycle and Product Lifecycle Management; and minimum of five publications; forming five main clusters,
Lifecycle and Product Development. Only five keywords see Figure 5.

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 73

Figure 5. Citation authors network.

Only three authors represented 51% of the citations, the technical sophistication of products as well as stricter
detailing, Kiritsis (32%), Eynard (10%) and Vezzetti (9%). governmental regulations for lifecycle management
The main connections are between Demoly and Gomes; (Främling et al., 2006).
Demoly and Kiritsis; Demoly and Eynard; and Kiritsis and PLM concept provides a definition of a complete
Eynard. Evidencing only few authors publishing about the product lifecycle, including all information and processes
theme. required to plan, develop, manufacture and support the
product from conception through the end of its lifecycle,
3.2. Qualitative results integrating: people, processes, business systems and
This section presents these research qualitative results, information (Lee et al., 2008a). Appearing to focus on
presenting the contents analysis, which can also be a design perspective with the best association with the
considered as the literature review of this study. manufacture components parts (Young et al., 2007). This
concept evidence the importance of a manufacturing model
3.2.1. PLM evolution and concept that not only provides a common information source to
support design decisions, but which focus in the business
The concept of Product Lifecycle Management
core competencies, providing a new understanding of the
(PLM) appeared in the 90s as an extension of Product
product manufacturer, with a model that can be updated for
Data Management (PDM) (Stark, 2011), providing more
future benefits (Young et al., 2007).
information related to large organizations (Kiritsis, As benefits, the PLM is a strategic business system that
2011). The PDM has been developed to improve the allows effective communication among different groups at
data management and documented knowledge for new dispersed locations, to share ideas and access information,
products design, allowing the focus on the product design to develop new products and execute innovative processes
and production phases (Kiritsis, 2011). In this view, PLM (Lee et al., 2008a). In summary, PLM not only provide
development depended upon the idea of an evolution and process management throughout the entire product lifecycle,
continual assimilation of computer-oriented product-based but also enables effective collaboration among networked
solutions, from early engineering design applications participants in product value chain, which distinguishes it
(e.g. Computer-Aided Design (CAD) or Computer-Aided from other enterprise application systems, such as Enterprise
Manufacturing (CAM)) in the 70s and 80s, through to Resource Planning (ERP), Supply Chain Management
the integration of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), (SCM), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), etc.
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Supply (Ming et al., 2008). With the goal of reducing the product
Chain Management (SCM) solutions (Ameri & Dutta 2005). time to market improving the product functionality and
The importance of product information management increasing the ability to customize (Schuh et al., 2008).
during the whole product lifecycle has increased due to Under these circumstances, new PLM system development

74 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
technologies are being employed to develop attractive PLM Kiritsis, 2011; Cao et al., 2009). However, the information
systems that will provide more satisfaction to customers flow becomes vague or unrecognized after BOL, demanding
(Schuh et al., 2008). the feedbacks of product-related information such as product
In the literature review, several different PLM definitions usage data, and disposal conditions to have information
were found, summarized in the Table 1. supporting the MOL and EOL phases (Jun et al., 2007).
In a scenario where the lifecycle activities of MOL and
3.2.2. PLM in the products’ lifecycle EOL phases have limited visibility of the product-related
The product lifecycle consists of three main phases: information (Jun et al., 2007), emerging the PLM to allow
the management of product lifecycle data, offering the
• Beginning-Of-Life (BOL): including design and features present in Figure 6.
manufacture; Detailing the PLM system, they are generally computer-
• Middle-Of-Life (MOL): including use, service, based information systems which assist the organization’s
maintenance, and distribution (logistics); PLM strategy. The components in a full PLM system include
the items evidenced in Figure 7.
• End-Of-Life (EOL): where products are recollected,
The idea is that information of MOL could be used at the
disassembled, remanufactured, recycled, reused, or
EOL to support deciding the most appropriate EOL option
disposed.
(specially to plan for re-manufacturing and reuse), providing
During BOL, information flow is quite complete and feedback for the BOL, improving a new generation of
supported by information systems such as Computer products (Demoly et al., 2012).
Aided Design (CAD)/Computer Aided Manufacture All these phases have as objective to minimize cost
(CAM), Product Data Management (PDM) and Knowledge and time by understanding problems before the product
Management systems (Jun et al., 2009; Cao & Folan, 2011; development and manufacturing processes, improving the

Table 1. PLM definitions.

Author Definition
A concept that aims to integrate the various processes and phases involved during a typical product lifecycle.
Sharma (2005)
Based on horizontal business processes without a single tool or a package that can describe the whole PLM.
A new strategic approach to manage the product lifecycle information efficiently. Enabling to gather and analyze
Jun et al. (2007)
the product lifecycle information and make decisions on several issues.
Chen et al. (2008) A strategic business approach that manage all the product lifecycle stages.
Lee et al. (2008a) A concept that evidence the information management, throughout all the stages of a products’ lifecycle.
New strategic business model to support collaborative creation, management, dissemination, and use of product
Ming et al. (2008) assets, including data, information, knowledge, etc. Assist organizations in conceptualizing end of life, integrating
people, processes and technology.
A strategic approach to create and manage the organization’s intellectual capital, from the since a product initial
Rachuri et al. (2008) conception until its discontinuity of production. Supports the product lifecycle by modeling, capturing, manipulating
and exchanging the information.
An extension of Product Data Management (PDM), representing the missing link between Computer Aided Design
Alemanni et al. (2010) (CAD), digital manufacturing, and simulation. Representing the virtual world and interfaces with the Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system supporting the physical side of modern manufacturing along the supply chain.
Strategical approach with three fundamental dimensions: (i) universal, secure, managed access and use of product
definition information, (ii) maintaining the integrity of the product definition, being related with information
Kiritsis (2011)
throughout the life of the product or plant and (iii) managing and maintaining business processes used to create,
manage, disseminate, share and use of information.
Marchetta et al. (2011) A key concept for manufacturing industries to improve product quality, time-to-market and costs.
Strategy and technique that assist the organizations to succeed in the manufacturing industry. Assisting to maintain
Al-Ashaab et al. (2012)
the product data timeliness, validity, accuracy, and traceability.
A wide-ranging concept that aim to integrate the product lifecycle, including people, data, products, processes,
Kubler et al. (2015a)
metrics and so forth.
Integrated management of relevant information throughout the product lifecycle from customer needs capture,
Zhao et al. (2015)
through product design and engineering, manufacturing, maintenance, and service, to market.
Is the overarching process for all the product development activities. Including the customer-oriented strategic
Bonou et al. (2016)
planning, design, and development, monitoring the whole product lifecycle activities.
A new approach for management information along the product lifecycle, enabling organizations to reduce
Soto-Acosta et al. (2016)
products’ time to market as well as to respond to a growing demand for quality and customization of products.

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 75

Figure 6. Features obtained by PLM for product lifecycle data management. Source: Adapted from Cao et al. (2009).

Figure 7. PLM system components.

Source: Adapted from Cao et al. (2009).

organization’s performance utilizing technology and support and supply chain processes with PLM support, including:
(Soto-Acosta et al., 2016). Around 40% of engineer’s time Product Data Management (PDM), Component Supplier
is spent to connect the information about the processes, Management (CSM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP),
with information search and sharing, and in this scenario, Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES), Customer
the correct usage of PLM can save at least 50% of this time, Relationship Management (CRM), Supply and Planning
which could be used to develop more value-adding tasks
Management (SPM), and others (Rachuri et al., 2008).
(Soto-Acosta et al., 2016).
Occurring the PLM optimization achievement only when the
PLM offers a range of tools to support the business,
including the ability to manage workflows, but the heart knowledge sharing happens in the whole product lifecycle,
of an effective PLM system is the database structuration, with the PLM development being the result of integrating
ensuring that all users have access to effective information many lifecycle data (Zhang et al., 2017a).
support (Young et al., 2007). Companies need to connect Still on PLM in the product’s life cycle, some relevant
the product design and analysis processes to the production improvement opportunities emerge, evidenced in Figure 8.

76 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
Figure 8. Improvement opportunities

Opportunities which can be seeen as gaps/needs that can be areas that have less than 1% of representativeness on the
filled in with the improvement of PLM. PLM topic which can be seen by the author in Appendix 1.
Besides that, the articles were separated by subject, see
3.2.3. PLM applications Figure 10, evidencing the most published articles on the
A big challenge is to understand the implications of topic are related to systems from which it can be connected
developing and interoperating across different types of and used in conjunction with PLM.
knowledge environments and product lifecycle systems The more representative keywords can be visualized
(Chungoora et al., 2013). Thereby, there is a tendency in Figure 11, and the detailing with the authors are in
in converting existing models into ontologies and the Appendix 2.
creation of new models, and because of this in the PLM
field, there are several recent works dealing with ontologies
3.2.4. PLM implementation
(Matsokis & Kiritsis, 2010). Besides that, the past years have When a company adopts PLM for the first time, the
presenting growing investments in the field of PLM, by the implementation process itself becomes a process of change
automotive sector and the manufacturing industry, that is (Soto-Acosta et al., 2016). This is because these changes
facing tremendous pressure on environmental regulations, should occur not only at the IT level but also at strategic and
such as the reduction of pollutants, e.g., carbon dioxide process level, more specifically, at the level of the individual
(Tang & Qian, 2008). skills and capabilities of employees (Soto-Acosta et al.,
In this scenario, the researchers classified the application 2016). With the PLM being currently a technological
fields according to the number of published papers, 68% solution for a system with a high number and variety
of the publications are from the application areas shown in of information systems that need to communicate over
Figure 9 and the other 32% of the articles are from application organizational limits and overtime (Främling et al., 2013).

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 77

Figure 9. Representativeness of the most relevant application areas x Published articles

Figure 10. Number of articles published x Subject article.

Figure 11. Keywords x Articles published.

78 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
 Companies aiming to implement PLM can refer to tools. Another discovery was that the three most advanced
the provided conceptual framework to establish their areas are Ontology, Automotive, and Manufacturing. Areas
own framework, linking the company elements in a such as Oil and Gas, Healthcare and Food Industry have a
comprehensive PLM environment (Schuh et al., 2008). high potential for the development of application of PLM.
Therefore, the following ten steps are necessary: define the The co-occurrence keywords evidenced the keyword
goal of PLM implementation; analyze the existent PLM Product Lifecycle Management in all clusters, but being
foundation; rank processes; identify company maturity evidenced as the abbreviation PLM only in one cluster, more
level (as-is process); select an appropriate reference model; related to product development and information technology
customize reference model; specify requirements for system with mathematical models. The bibliographical research
selection; select software solution; define the evolution evidence that the published articles are centralized in some
path; implement software solution; and teach employees journals and in a few countries.
(Schuh et al., 2008). Besides the fact that the implementation In a highly competitive and fast-changing global
of PLM strategy is a very long-period investment and the marketplace, PLM is a new strategic approach to efficient
benefits are not measurable in a short period. management, its concept is composed of the following
PLM implementation failures in cases of incompatibly steps: beginning-of-life, middle-of-life and end-of-life,
between the selected software and the company philosophy which includes the design and the manufacture until the
(Soto-Acosta et al., 2016). In order to avoid this type of recycle, reuse and disposing of the product. Therefore, the
issue, the choice of the PLM solution must be preceded by PLM enables to gather and analyze the product lifecycle
an extensive analysis of business processes and procedures information, which means that it is a key approach for
(Soto-Acosta et al., 2016), and ever-stricter environmental industries who are searching to improve product quality,
legislation over the past decade has led to the search for time-to-market and costs.
greater efficiencies everywhere, including the whole product The article also has the PLM implementation perspective.
lifecycle (Cao et al., 2009). It becomes as a process of change, that presents opportunities
Although the potential of closed-loop PLM is widely for improvement at architectures, and requires a high
recognized and have started to address its challenge, there company maturity level to the software implementation.
are still fundamental questions and issues that need to be However, it is possible to admit that the concept of PLM is
addressed. (Främling et al., 2014). There are limitations evolving and has already brought benefits, but still demand
of commercial PLM software which means that adopting more specific case studies to better evidence the theoretical
commercial PLM software implies assuming certain studies about the relevance of the system, the stages of the
limitations since the beginning. For instance, the integration cycle, the results of system implementation and the best
of the PLM with other systems (Soto-Acosta et al., practices for the ones who participate of the implementation
2016). It’s necessary to manage a set of relations to and for those who receive this change in their process.
provide consistency of data spread across different media
and formats, sometimes referred to as “associativity” 5. Conclusion
(Alemanni et al., 2010) and, there is also opportunity for This paper has provided an overview of PLM state of
improvement at architectures which tend to be inflexible the art. The PLM was described through PLM justification;
at data interface (Främling et al. 2014; Young et al., 2007), goals; concept; applications and implementation showing
meaning more points of potential failure (Alemanni et al., the benefits and the gaps for all steps. Thereby, the study
2010). Also, it’s necessary to improve the traceability and brings into view of the main authors and their approaches
data synchronization (Kubler et al., 2015a), and the ability to the theme with different and complementary views of
to share information across competitive software tools the concept. Besides that, it can also show the difficulties
(Young et al., 2007). found by them during their studies.
Thus, for future researchers, it is important to understand
4. Discussion these difficulties and to explore these points and other
The main objective of the article is to understand how the elements such as PLM applications with real cases studies.
concept of PLM was approached in the academy. The article Mainly with application in the strategical decision making;
presents the main approaches on the subject aiming to give more management indicators that involve PLM; to
a comprehensive view of the researches already done and include semantic, heuristics and mathematical models; to
gaps in studies that can be focused in future researches. explore the data synchronization mechanisms; reinforce
With this study, it is possible to show that among the the connection and the challenges between the PLM, the
articles studied there are more studies approaching only big data, and the IoT. Exploring also the communication,
the applications of the system in few areas or studies that the intelligent products and the integration between them
are focused in PLM applications in conjunction with other with the objective of reducing environmental impacts and

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 79

applying all these studies with the goal to explore in Closed- Arslan, D. (2012). Examining first-grade teachers’ handwriting
Loop Lifecycle Management (CL2M) as well. instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
In conclusion, with this, PLM is a complex concept and 12(4), 2839-2846.
there is a lack of a deep understanding of the real potential Avventuroso, G., Silvestri, M., & Pedrazzoli, P. (2017).
of its application. And there is also a need to have more A networked production system to implement virtual
studies with more integration between all the parts that enterprise and Product Lifecycle information loops. Ifac-
integrate it through real applications. With this article having papersonline, 50(1), 7964-7969.
as limitations the fact that only used the Scopus and WoS
databases, and some figures and analysis were developed Aziz, H., Gao, J., Maropoulos, P., & Cheung, W. M. (2005).
only for the papers that compose the contents analysis. Open standard, open source and peer-to-peer tools and
methods for collaborative product development. Computers
6. References in Industry, 56(3), 260-271.
Abid, H., Pernelle, P., Noterman, D., Campagne, J., & Ben Bartholomew, D. (2004). The juice flows again. Industry Week,
Amar, C. (2014). SysML approach for the integration of a 253(3), 31-34.
mechatronics system within PLM systems. International
Bartholomew, D. (2005). Manufacturers nibbling on PLM.
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 28(9),
Industry Week, 254(4), 63-64.
972-998.
Adami-Sampson, M. (2007). Design for environmental Barthorpe, S., Chien, H. J., & Jack, K. C. S. (2004). A survey
compliance. Control Engineering, 54(2), 12-14. of the potential for enterprise resource planning (ERP) in
improving the effectiveness of construction management
Al-Ashaab, A., Molyneaux, M., Doultsinou, A., Brunner, B., in the UK construction industry. International Journal of
Martínez, E., Moliner, F., Santamaría, V., Tanjore, D., Ewers, Computer Applications in Technology, 20(1-3), 120-128.
P., & Knight, G. (2012). Knowledge-based environment
to support product design validation. Knowledge-Based Baughey, K. (2009). The future of automotive design & amp;
Systems, 26, 48-60. development: 3D for all. SAE International Journal of
Materials and Manufacturing, 2(1), 258-264.
Alemanni, M., Alessia, G., Tornincasa, S., & Vezzetti, E.
(2008). Key performance indicators for PLM benefits Bonou, A., Skelton, K., & Olsen, S. I. (2016). Ecodesign
evaluation: the Alcatel Alenia Space case study. Computers framework for developing wind turbines. Journal of Cleaner
in Industry, 59(8), 833-841. Production, 126, 643-653.
Alemanni, M., Destefanis, F., & Vezzetti, E. (2010). Model- Borsato, M. (2014). Bridging the gap between product lifecycle
based definition design in the product lifecycle management management and sustainability in manufacturing through
scenario. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing ontology building. Computers in Industry, 65(2), 258-269.
Technology, 52(1-4), 1-14.
Borsato, M., Estorilio, C. C. A., Cziulik, C., Ugaya, C. M. L.,
Alison, W. (2010). Controlling the lifecycle. Drapers, 26-27. & Rozenfeld, H. (2010). An ontology building approach
for knowledge sharing in product lifecycle management.
Allanic, M., Durupt, A., Eynard, B., Allanic, M., Joliot, M.,
Allanic, M., Brial, T., & Boutinaud, P. (2014). Towards International Journal of Business and Systems Research,
enhancement of relationships browsing in mature PLM 4(3), 278-292.
systems. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Brezgin, V. I., Brodov, Y. M., Chubarov, A. A., & Brezgin, D.
Technology, 422(1), 345-354. V. (2013). Modern technologies for rendering information
Allen, D. G., Hancock, J. I., Vardaman, J. M., & Mckee, D. N. support to cogeneration steam turbine units in their design
(2014). Analytical mindsets in turnover research. Journal and operation stages. Thermal Engineering, 60(8), 573-579.
of Organizational Behavior, 35, 61-86. Brière-Côté, A., Rivest, L., & Desrochers, A. (2010). Adaptive
Ameri, F., & Dutta, D. (2005). Product lifecycle management: generic product structure modeling for design reuse in
closing the knowledge loops. Computer-Aided Design and engineer-to-order products. Computers in Industry, 61(1),
Applications, 2(5), 577-590. 53-65.
Anderson, A. (2002). From product first to better products. Brincheck, B. (2005). End-to-end 3-D PLM puts 2-D in its
Msi, 20(10), 2A-8A. proper place. Design Engineering (London), 51(6), 26-28.
Anišić, Z., Veža, I., Suzić, N., Sremčev, N., & Tekic, A. (2013). Bruno, G., Korf, R., Lentes, J., & Zimmermann, N. (2016).
Improving product design with IPS-DFX methodology Efficient management of product lifecycle information
incorporated in PLM software. Tehnicki Vjesnik (Strojarski through a semantic platform. International Journal of
Fakultet), 20(1), 183-193. Product Lifecycle Management, 9(1), 45-64.

80 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
Brunsmann, J., Wilkes, W., Schlageter, G., & Hemmje, M. Chiappinelli, C. (2008). Lean + technology = lean2. Managing
(2012). State-of-the-art of long-term preservation in product Automation, 23(12), 36-38.
lifecycle management. International Journal on Digital
Chungoora, N., Young, R. I., Gunendran, G., Palmer, C.,
Libraries, 12(1), 27-39.
Usman, Z., Anjum, N. A., Cutting-Decelle, A. F., Harding,
Bruun, H. P. L., Mortensen, N. H., Harlou, U., Wörösch, M., & J. A., & Case, K. (2013). A model-driven ontology approach
Proschowsky, M. (2015). PLM system support for modular for manufacturing system interoperability and knowledge
product development. Computers in Industry, 67, 97-111. sharing. Computers in Industry, 64(4), 392-40.
Cáceres, M. S., Castillo, R. A., & Rosário, J. M. (2010). Digital Cole, M. D. (2009). PLM for C2M. Apparel, 50(6), 31-33.
manufacturing - Integration and collaborative industrial
Courtney, M. (2014). Keeping track [Product lifecycle
automation approach. International Review of Mechanical
management software]. Engineering & Technology, 9(12),
Engineering, 4(3), 336-345.
64-66.
Cai, H., Xu, L., & Xu, B. (2014). IoT-Based configurable
Crawford, C. (2006). O PLM or not to PLM? That is the
information service platform for Product Lifecycle
question. AATCC Review, 6(9), 24-26.
Management. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics,
10(2), 1558-1567. Cui, J., Qi, G. N., Ji, Y. J., Gu, Q. X., Su, S. H., & Hu, H. (2008).
Customer requirement based on customer architecture
Camarillo, A., Ríos, J., & Althoff, K. (2018). Knowledge-based
hierarchy and BP in product lifecycle management system.
multi-agent system for manufacturing problem solving
Journal of Zhejiang University, 42(3), 528-533.
process in production plants. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, 47, 115-127. Cummings, T. (2006). Get your data in order. Control
Engineering, 53(10)
Camarillo, A., Ríos, J., & Althoff, K. D. (2017). CBR and
PLM applied to diagnosis and technical support during D’Avolio, E., Bandinelli, R., & Rinaldi, R. (2017). A process-
problem solving in the Continuous Improvement Process oriented framework for PLM implementation in fashion
of manufacturing plants. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, companies. International Journal of Product Lifecycle
987-994. Management, 109(3), 191-209.
Cantamessa, M., Montagna, F., & Neirotti, P. (2012). Demoly, F., Dutartre, O., Yan, X., Eynard, B., Kiritsis, D.,
Understanding the organizational impact of PLM systems: & Gomes, S. (2013). Product relationships management
evidence from an aerospace company. International Journal enabler for concurrent engineering and product lifecycle
of Operations & Production Management, 32(2), 191-215. management. Computers in Industry, 64(7), 833-848.
Cao, H., & Folan, P. (2011). Product life cycle: the evolution Demoly, F., Matsokis, A., & Kiritsis, D. (2012). A
of a paradigm and literature review from 1950–2009. mereotopological product relationship description approach
Production Planning and Control, 23(8), 641-662. for assembly oriented design. Robotics and Computer-
integrated Manufacturing, 28(6), 681-693.
Cao, H., Folan, P., Mascolo, J., & Browne, J. (2009). RFID
in product lifecycle management: a case in the automotive Demoly, F., Monticolo, D., Eynard, B., Rivest, L., & Gomes, S.
industry. International Journal of Computer Integrated (2010). Multiple viewpoint modeling frameworks enabling
Manufacturing, 22(7), 616-637. integrated product–process design. International Journal
on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 4(4), 269-280.
Caro, E., Bolarin, F., & Chocano, J. (2011). Mejora del
desarrollo de productos desde la perspectiva de gestión del Demoly, F., Toussaint, L., Eynard, B., Kiritsis, D., & Gomes,
conocimiento. Dyna Ingenieria e Industria, 86(3), 699-706. S. (2011b). Geometric skeleton computation enabling
concurrent product engineering and assembly sequence
Carvalho, M. M., Fleury, A., & Lopes, A. P. (2013). An
planning. Computer Aided Design, 43(12), 1654-1673.
overview of the literature on technology roadmapping
(TRM): contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting Demoly, F., Yan, X.-T., Eynard, B., Rivest, L., & Gomes, S.
and Social Change, 80(7), 1418-1437. (2011a). An assembly oriented design framework for product
structure engineering and assembly sequence planning.
Case, L. (2006). Solution built on UGS’ teamcenter software
Robotics and Computer-integrated Manufacturing, 27(1),
drives dramatic cost savings for industries managing
33-46.
embedded software associated with electro-mechanical
systems. Automotive Industries Ai, 186(4), 7. Denkena, B., Shpitalni, M., Kowalski, P., Molcho, G., & Zipori,
Y. (2007). Knowledge management in process planning.
Chen, H. H., Kang, H.-Y., Xing, X., Lee, A. H. I., & Tong,
CIRP Annals, 56(1), 175-180.
Y. (2008). Developing new products with knowledge
management methods and process development management Dhuieb, M. A. (2014). Interoperability framework for
in a network. Computers in Industry, 59(2-3), 242-253. supporting information-based assistance in the factory. IFIP

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 81

 Advances in Information and Communication Technology, with description logic-based models - The state of the art.
442(1), 201-310. Computers in Industry, 64(4), 363-375.
Dikici, A., Turetken, O., & Demirors, O. (2018). Factors Fortineau, V., Talhi, A., Paviot, T., & Lamouri, S. (2017).
influencing the understandability of process models: A DALTON: a generic meta-model to support business rules
systematic literature review. Information and Software and requirements engineering in a PLM system. IFAC –
Technology, 93, 112-129. Papers Online, 50(1), 7272-7277.
Ding, L., Ball, A., Patel, M., Mullineux, G., & Matthews, Främling, K., Ala-Risku, T., Kärkkäinen, M., & Holmström, J.
J. (2011). Lightweight product lifecycle information (2006). Agent-based model for managing composite product
management for small enterprises. International Journal information. Computers in Industry, 57(1), 72-81.
of Product Lifecycle Management, 5(1), 21-36. Främling, K., Holmström, J., Loukkola, J., Nyman, J., &
Ducellier, G., Yvars, P., & Eynard, B. (2014). Managing Kaustell, A. (2013). Sustainable PLM through Intelligent
design change order in a PLM platform using a CSP Products. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
approach. International Journal on Interactive Design and 26(2), 789-799.
Manufacturing, 8(3), 151-158. Främling, K., Kubler, S., & Buda, A. (2014). Universal
El Souri, M., Gao, J., Owodunni, O., Simmonds, C., & messaging standards for the IoT from a lifecycle management
Martin, N. (2017). A structured approach to defect data perspective. Ieee Internet of Things Journal, 1(4), 319-327.
management for improving DFM implementation in Garcia, P. B., & Fan, I. S. (2008). Practitioner requirements
aerospace manufacturing. International Journal of Product for integrated knowledge-based engineering in Product
Lifecycle Management, 10(4), 282-300. Lifecycle Management. International Journal of Product
Essop, I. A., Evans, R. D., Wan, S., Giddaluru, M. P., Gao, J. Lifecycle Management, 3(1), 3-20.
X., Baudry, D., Mahdikhah, S., & Messaadia, M. (2016). Golovatchev, J. D., Budde, O., & Hong, C. G. (2010).
Investigation into current industrial practices relating Integrated PLM-process-approach for the development
to product lifecycle management in a multi-national and management of telecommunications products in a
manufacturing company. Computer-Aided Design and multi-lifecycle environment. International Journal of
Applications, 13(5), 647-661. Manufacturing Technology and Management, 19(3-4),
224-237.
Eynard, B., Troussier, N., & Carratt, B. (2010). PLM-based
certification process in aeronautics extended enterprise. Gomes, S., Varret, A., Bluntzer, J. B., & Sagot, J. C. (2009a).
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Functional design and optimization of parametric
Management, 19(3-4), 312-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ CAD models in a knowledge-based PLM environment.
ijmtm.2010.031376. International Journal of Product Development, 9(1-3),
60-77.
Falkiewicz, Ö. (2011). Electrical computer-aided engineering
(E-CAE) software. Intech, Research Triangle, 58(3-4), 1-4. Gomes, S., Monticolo, D., Hilaire, V., & Eynard, B. (2009b).
Content management based on multi-agent system for
Farish, M. (2008). Joined-up planning [product lifecycle collaborative design. International Journal of Product
management]. Engineering & Technology, 3(21), 61-63. Development, 8(2), 178-192.
Farish, M. (2012). Word on the street. Engineering (London), Gort, A. (2015). Improving your product launch success.
253(2), 8-9. Industry Week, 254(4), 61-1.
Feng, Q., Ren, Y., Zeng, S.-K., & Sun, B. (2009). Ontology- Granros, R. (2009). Regulatory compliance for food safety.
based multi-view modeling for integrated product Control Engineering, 56(10)
development. Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao Xitong, 15(4), 633-
638. Gulledge, T., & Simon, G. (2009). Innovation and transformation
using product lifecycle management enabled by NetWeaver.
Feng, Q., Sun, B., Ren, Y., & Zeng, S.-K. (2010). Modeling International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 6(1),
method for product comprehensive design process and its 15-32.
realization. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems –
Hachani, S., Gzara, L., & Verjus, H. (2013). A service-oriented
CIMS, 16(4), 772-782.
approach for flexible process support within enterprises:
Forcinio, H. (2007). Going green. Managing Automation, application on PLM systems. Enterprise Information
22(4), 48-51. Systems, 7(1), 79-99.
Fortineau, V., Paviot, T., & Lamouri, S. (2013). Improving Hachani, S., Verjus, H., & Gzara, L. (2012). Support of
the interoperability of industrial information systems product design processes flexibility in PLM systems using

82 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
 a service-based approach. International Journal of Services Kahlert, T., & Rezaie, A. (2005). Reporting-Strategien für
Operations and Informatics, 7(4), 313-329. PLM-Umgebungen. Zwf Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftlichen
Fabrikbetrieb, 100(9), 520-523.
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Boone, C. A. (2015). Suggested
reporting guidelines for structural equation modeling in Kang, L. (2008). Microfluidics for drug discovery and
supply chain management research. International Journal development: from target selection to product lifecycle
of Logistics Management, 26(3), 627-641. management. Drug Discovery Today, 13(1-2), 1-13.
Hincapié, M., De Jesús Ramírez, M., Valenzuela, A., & Valdez, J. Kärkkäinen, H., & Silventoinen, A. (2016). What is product
A. (2014). Mixing real and virtual components in automated lifecycle management (PLM) maturity? Analysis of
manufacturing systems using PLM tools. International current PLM maturity models. Journal of Modern Project
Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 8(3)209- Management, 3(3), 96-103.
230.
Kiritsis, D. (2011). Closed-loop PLM for intelligent products
Holzer, D. (2014). Fostering the link from PLM to ERP via BIM in the era of the Internet of things. Computer Aided Design,
the aec industry in transition. IFIP Advances in Information 43(5), 479-501.
and Communication Technology, 442, 75-82.
Kolle, S. R., Shankarappa, T. H., Arun, M., & Reddy, T. B. M.
Huang, G. Q., Wright, P. K., & Newman, S. T. (2009). Wireless (2017). Characteristics and trends in global lead removal
manufacturing: a literature review, recent developments, and research: a science citation index expanded-based analysis.
case studies. International Journal of Computer Integrated Desalination and Water Treatment, 80, 164-173.
Manufacturing, 22(7), 579-594.
Kubler, S., Derigent, W., Voisin, A., Thomas, A., & Rondeau,
Hughes, D., & Taverna, M. A. (2004). Expanding the digital É. (2014). Method for embedding context-sensitive
envelope. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 160(19), information on “communicating textiles” via fuzzy AHP.
50-52. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 26(2), 597-610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ifs-120753.
Ibrahim, R., & Paulson, B. C. (2008). Discontinuity in
organizations: identifying business environments affecting Kubler, S., Derigent, W., Främling, K., Thomas, A., & Rondeau,
efficiency of knowledge flows in Product Lifecycle É. (2015a). Enhanced Product Lifecycle Information
Management. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management using “communicating materials”. Computer
Management, 3(1), 21-36. Aided Design, 59, 192-200.
Ilieva, I., Meier, G., Schubert, P., & Ovtcharova, J. (2009). Kubler, S., Främling, K., & Derigent, W. (2015b). P2P
Integration of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Data synchronization for product lifecycle management.
and Multi Project Management: toward increasing Computers in Industry, 66, 82-98.
transparency in product development. Zwf Zeitschrift Fuer
Kultyshev, A. Y., Blagodarev, A. A., Gladkii, A. V., &
Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, 104(11), 931-936.
Shanturov, D. N. (2013). The experience of implementing
Iosif, G., Iordache, I., Stoica, V., Luchian, A. M., Costea, E., and using the Windchill product lifecycle management
Suciu, G., & Suciu, V. (2018). Achieving a more electric system at the energy machine building enterprise. Thermal
aircraft: a comparative study between the concurrent and Engineering, 60(8), 559-566.
traditional engineering models. Incas Bulletin, 10(1), 221-
Lazarevic, M., Ostojic, G., Cosic, I., Stankovski, S. V., Vukelic,
228.
D., & Zecevic, I. (2011). Product Lifecycle Management
Johnson, C., & Gavilanes, J. (2003). Quick and below budget. (PLM) methodology for product tracking based on Radio-
Intech, Research Triangle, 50(5), 51-54. Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. Scientific
Research and Essays, 6(22), 4776-4787.
Joshi, N., & Dutta, D. (2008). Managing extended producer
responsibility using PLM part 2: identification of joints for Le Duigou, J. L., Bernard, A., & Perry, N. (2011). Framework
end-of-life treatment planning. Computer-Aided Design and for Product Lifecycle Management integration in small and
Applications, 5(6), 764-773. medium enterprises networks. Computer-Aided Design and
Applications, 8(4), 531-544.
Jun, H., Kiritsis, D., & Xirouchakis, P. (2007). Research
issues on closed-loop PLM. Computers in Industry, 58(8- Lee, S. G., Ma, Y.-S., Thimm, G. L., & Verstraeten, J. (2008a).
9), 855-868. Product Lifecycle Management in aviation maintenance,
repair and overhaul. Computers in Industry, 59(2-3), 296-
Jun, H.-B., Shin, J.-H., Kim, Y.-S., Kiritsis, D., & Xirouchakis,
303.
P. (2009). A framework for RFID applications in product
lifecycle management. International Journal of Computer Lee, Y., Sheu, L., & Tsou, Y. (2008b). Quality function
Integrated Manufacturing, 22(7), 595-615. deployment implementation based on Fuzzy Kano model:

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 83

 an application in PLM system. Computers & Industrial Matsokis, A., & Kiritsis, D. (2011). Ontology applications
Engineering, 55(1), 48-63. in PLM. International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Management, 5(1), 84-97.
Legardeur, J., Merlo, C., & Fischer, X. (2006). An integrated
information system for product design assistance based on Mejía, R. G., Echeverri, C. M. C., Montoya, J. E. C., &
artificial intelligence and collaborative tools. International Álzate, A. F. G. (2016). Implementation of methodology
Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 1(3), 211-229. of maintenance of molds of injection supported in tools of
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). Espacios, 37(25),
Li, H.-F., & Wu, H.-Z. (2005). Design and implementation of
1-20.
PLM based on meta-model driven. Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao
Xitong, 7, 963-968. Meloni, W. (2017). Growing by design. Computer Graphics
World, 32-34.
Li, J., Tao, F., Cheng, Y., & Zhao, L. (2015). Big Data in product
lifecycle management. International Journal of Advanced Meng, X., Zhang, X., Ning, R., & Song, Y. (2008). Enterprise
Manufacturing Technology, 81(1-4), 667-684. integration platform based on service-oriented architecture.
Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 21(3), 36-40.
Li, X.-S., & Qi, G.-N. (2008). Integrated product model to
support implementation of product lifecycle management. Ming, X. G., Yan, J. Q., Wang, X. H., Li, S. N., Lu, W. F., Peng,
Journal of Zhejiang University, 42(3), 418-424. Q. J., & Ma, Y. S. (2008). Collaborative process planning
and manufacturing in product lifecycle management.
Liao, X., & Zhang, L. (2005). Access control model for
Computers in Industry, 59(2-3), 154-166.
workflow management system for PLM. Jisuanji Jicheng
Zhizao Xitong, 11(10), 1367-1371. Mo, R., Qiao, Y.-W., Chang, Z.-Y., Shi, Y., & Chen, Z.-F.
(2010). Validation informatization based on product
Lin, W.-T., Wang, S.-T., Li, M.-H., Huang, J.-M., & Chen, W.-
lifecycle management-teamcenter. Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao
K. (2011). Modular fiber optic cable product architecture for
Xitong, 16(7), 1458-1464.
application in Product Lifecycle Management. Information
Technology Journal, 10(1), 16-28. Nathan, S. (2009). Fast lane to production vehicle manufacturers
are implementing PLM systems to better integrate
Löwer, M., & Heller, J. E. (2014). PLM reference model for
development and manufacturing. Engineer, 294(7781),
integrated idea and innovation management. IFIP Advances
38-40.
in Information and Communication Technology, 422(1),
257-266. Navarro, R., Tiwari, A., & Turner, C. (2013). Improving
product lifecycle management implementations by applying
Lundin, M., Lejon, E., Dagman, A., Näsström, M., &
‘lean’ principles. International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Jeppsson, P. (2017). Efficient design module capture
Management, 6(4), 357-380.
and representation for product family reuse. Journal of
Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 17(3) Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement
research: developments in the last decade and a research
Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit
agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations
organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review.
& Production Management, 25(12), 1264-1277.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64-86.
Neil, S. (2009). A work in progress. Managing Automation,
Marchetta, M. G., Mayer, F., & Forradellas, R. Q. (2011). A
24(4), 14-21.
reference framework following a proactive approach for
Product Lifecycle Management. Computers in Industry, Paavel, M., Karjust, K., & Majak, J. (2017). Development of
62(7), 672-683. a product lifecycle management model based on the fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process. Proceedings of the Estonian
Marconnet, B., Demoly, F., Monticolo, D., & Gomes, S. (2017).
Academy of Sciences, 66(3), 279-286.
An assembly oriented design and optimization approach
for mechatronic system engineering. International Journal Palmarini, R., Erkoyuncu, J. A., Roy, R., & Torabmostaedi, H.
for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, (2018). Systematic review of augmented reality applications
8(4), A7. in maintenance. Robotics and Computer-integrated
Manufacturing, 49, 215-228.
Marucheck, A., Greis, N., Mena, C., & Cai, L. (2011).
Product safety and security in the global supply chain: Palmer, D. (2004). No-one pretends this is easy. Manufacturing
Issues, challenges and research opportunities. Journal of Computer Solutions, 10(3), 35-36.
Operations Management, 29(7-8), 707-720.
Piancastelli, L., Frizziero, L., Donnici, G., Di Giacomo,
Matsokis, A., & Kiritsis, D. (2010). An ontology-based G., & Gattii, A. (2015). Optimized FSI flow simulation
approach for Product Lifecycle Management. Computers using modern up-to-date software systems: A direct
in Industry, 61(8), 787-797. comparison between simulated and tunnel results. Journal

84 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
 of Engineering and Applied Sciences (Asian Research Sharma, A. (2005). Collaborative product innovation:
Publishing Network), 10(20), 9174-9182. integrating elements of CPI via PLM framework. Computer
Aided Design, 37(13), 1425-1434.
Pinna, C., Plo, L., Robin, V., Girard, P., & Terzi, S. (2017).
An approach to improve implementation of PLM solution Shelley, T. (2007). Controlling change. Manufacturing
in food industry - case study of Poult Group. International Computer Solutions, 13(5), 28-29.
Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 10(2), 151-170. Shen, J.-X., & Zhou, R.-R. (2003). Research on PLM system
Pitcher, G. (2005). From cradle to grave. New Electronics, framework and key technologies. Journal of Nanjing
38(7), 42-43. University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 35(5), 565-571.

Polcar, J., & Horejsi, P. (2015). Knowledge acquisition and Shi, J.-G., Si, H., Wu, G., Su, Y., & Lan, J. (2018). Critical
cybersickness: a comparison of VR devices in virtual tours. factors to achieve dockless bike-sharing sustainability
Mm Science Journal, 2015(2), 613-616. in China: A stakeholder-oriented network perspective.
Sustainability, 10(6)
Portillo-Barco, C., & Charnley, F. (2015). Data requirements
and assessment of technologies enabling a product passport Simonova, L. A., & Khisamutdinov, M. R. (2013). Scientific
within products exposed to harsh environments: a case study - industrial aspects of integration product lifecycle
of a high pressure nozzle guide vane. International Journal management and enterprise resource planning systems.
of Product Lifecycle Management, 8(3), 253-282. World Applied Sciences Journal, 25(4), 690-693.

Pullin, J. (2013). Making connections. Environmental Skarka, W. (2005). Contemporary problems connected with
Engineering, 26(2), 39-41. including Standard for the Exchange of Product Model
Data (ISO 10303 - STEP) in designing ontology using UML
Qiu, M., Chen, G., & Dong, J.-X. (2015). Ontology based and XML. Computer Assisted Mechanics and Engineering
adaptive product lifecycle management system. Computer Sciences, 12(2-3), 231-246.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems - CIMS, 11(6), 825-830.
Sodhro, A. H., Pirbhulal, S., & Sangaiah, A. K. (2018).
Rachuri, S., Subrahmanian, E., Bouras, A., Fenves, S. J., Convergence of IoT and product lifecycle management in
Foufou, S., & Sriram, R. D. (2008). Information sharing and medical health care. Future Generation Computer Systems,
exchange in the context of product lifecycle management: 86, 380-391.
role of standards. Computer Aided Design, 40(7), 789-800.
Soto-Acosta, P., Placer-Maruri, E., & Perez-Gonzalez, D.
Ramos-Rodríguez, A., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in (2016). A case analysis of a product lifecycle information
the intellectual structure of strategic management research: management framework for SMEs. International Journal
a bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, of Information Management, 36(2), 240-244.
1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981-1004. Spera, J. (2008). Manufacturing steps onto the enterprise IT
Ryan, T. J. (2003). Coming on strong. Apparel, 44(8), 27-32. stage. Circuits Assembly, 19(6), 28-29.
Sassanelli, C., Pezzotta, G., Pirola, F., Sala, R., Margarito, Srinivasan, V. (2011). An integration framework for product
A., Lazoi, M., Corallo, A., Rossi, M., & Terzi, S. (2018). lifecycle management. Computer Aided Design, 43(5),
Using design rules to guide the PSS design in an engineering 464-478.
platform based on the product service lifecycle management Sriti, M.-F., Assouroko, I., Ducellier, G., Boutinaud, P., &
paradigm. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Eynard, B. (2015). Ontology-based approach for product
Management, 11(2), 91-115. information exchange. International Journal of Product
Savino, M. M., Mazza, A., & Ouzrout, Y. (2012). PLM Lifecycle Management, 8(1), 1-23.
Maturity model: a multi-criteria assessment in southern Stark, J. (2011). Product Lifecycle Management. Decision
Italy companies. International Journal of Operations and Engineering, 1-562.
Quantitative Management, 18(3), 159-180.
Stelzer, R., Petermann, D., Saske, B., & Steger, W. (2009).
Schmitt, P. (2007). PLM in aerospace. Manufacturing Collaboration environment for computer aided design virtual
Engineering, 138(3). reality (CAD-VR). Zwf Zeitschrift Fuer Wirtschaftlichen
Schuh, G., Rozenfeld, H., Assmus, D., & Zancul, E. Fabrikbetrieb, 104(1-2), 89-93.
(2008). Process oriented framework to support PLM Stephens, S. (2006). PLM and steam generator replacement at
implementation. Computers in Industry, 59(2-3), 210-218. SONGS. Nuclear News, 49(11), 47-50.
Seibert, B. (2005). Design agility achieved with PDM/PLM. Sudarsan, R., Fenves, S. J., Sriram, R. D., & Wang, F. (2005).
Apparel, 46(9), 22-26. A product information modeling framework for product

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 85

 lifecycle management. Computer Aided Design, 37(13), Venkatasubramanian, V. (2005). Prognostic and diagnostic
1399-1411. monitoring of complex systems for product lifecycle
management: challenges and opportunities. Computers &
Tait, N. (2006). From point of conception to the point of sale:
Chemical Engineering, 29(6), 1253-1263.
PLM - Yet another three letter acronym? Textile Network,
9, 40-43. Venugopalan, S. R., Ganesh, L. S., & Sai, L. P. (2012).
Deployment maturity assessment of product lifecycle
Takey, S. M., & Carvalho, M. M. (2016). Fuzzy front end of
management systems: A study in Indian industries.
systemic innovations: a conceptual framework based on a
International Journal Of Product Lifecycle Management,
systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and
6(2), 178-210.
Social Change, 111, 97-109.
Vezzetti, E., Moos, S., & Kretli, S. (2011). A product lifecycle
Talhi, A., Huet, J.-C., Fortineau, V., & Lamouri, S. (2015).
management methodology for supporting knowledge reuse
Toward an ontology-based architecture for cloud
in the consumer packaged goods domain. Computer Aided
manufacturing. In T. Borangiu, A. Thomas & D. Trentesaux
Design, 43(12), 1902-1911.
(Eds.), Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi-agent
Manufacturing. Studies in Computational Intelligence (pp. Vieira, D. R., Vieira, R. K., & Chain, M. C. (2016). Elements
187-195, Vol. 594). Cham: Springer. of managerial integration for sustainable product lifecycle
management. International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Tang, D., & Qian, X. (2008). Product lifecycle management for
Management, 9(2), 87-107.
automotive development focusing on supplier integration.
Computers in Industry, 59(2-3), 288-295. Vila, C., Ugarte, D., Ríos, J., & Abellán, J. V. (2017). Project-
based collaborative engineering learning to develop
Tang, G., & Hu, L. (2015). A medical devices management
Industry 4.0 skills within a PLM framework. Procedia
information system supporting full life-cycle process
Manufacturing, 13, 1269-1276.
management. Chinese Journal of Medical Instrumentation,
34(4), 304-308. Von Buchstab, V. (2003). ABCs of CAD oversell. Design
Engineering (London), 49(4)
Taverna, M. A. (2004). New-fangled Falcon. Aviation Week
and Space Technology, 161(14), 62-64. Walker, A. J., & Cox, J. J. (2008). Incorporating global
characteristic data into virtual product development models.
Taverna, M. A. (2017). Time saver. Aviation Week and Space
Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 5(6), 900-920.
Technology (New York), 166(19), 60-61.
Wan, J., Tang, S., Li, D., Wang, S., Liu, C., Abbas, H., &
Teresko, J. (2004). Making a pitch for PLM. Industry Week,
Vasilakos, A. V. (2017). A manufacturing big data solution
253(8), 57-62.
for active preventive maintenance. IEEE Transactions on
Thilmany, J. (2011). Project and lifecycle together. Mechanical Industrial Informatics, 13(4), 2039-2047.
Engineering (New York, N.Y.), 133(2)
Wang, C.-F., & Xu, Y.-Q. (2005). Research on PLM for green
Tinham, B. (2003). Collaboration to slash 20% costs at manufacturing and its key technology. Zhuzao/foundry,
Kvaerner. Manufacturing Computer Solutions, 9(1), 28-29. 54(2), 108-111.
Tinham, B. (2004). PLM: evolving tools for an evolving Wasike, B. (2017). Africa rising: an analysis of emergent
market? Manufacturing Computer Solutions, 10(4), 24-26. Africa-focused mass communication scholarship from
2004 to 2014. International Journal of Communication,
Tran, A. (2006). Wanfeng auto holding group selects UGS’
11, 198-219.
teamcenter express for cPDM. Automotive Industries Ai,
186(11), 1-1. Waurzyniak, P. (2014). Connecting the digital world with the
factory floor: new collaborative 3D plant process planning
Trappey, A. J. C., & Hsiao, D. W. (2008). Applying
and visualization tools are helping manufacturers prove out
collaborative design and modularized assembly for
PLM’s promise. Manufacturing Engineering, 154(4), 53-64.
automotive ODM supply chain integration. Computers in
Industry, 59(2-3), 277-287. Waurzyniak, P. (2015a). Programming ingenuity into
manufacturing system: new software advances help
Trotta, M. G. (2010). Product lifecycle management:
manufacturers inject creativity and vision into their factory-
sustainability and knowledge management as keys in
floor processes. Manufacturing Engineering, 154(10), 3-9.
a complex system of product development. Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management, 3(2), 309-322. Waurzyniak, P. (2015b). Redefining PLM. Manufacturing
Engineering, 154(9), 117-126.
Vadoudi, K., Bratec, F., & Troussier, N. (2017). A GIS-oriented
semantic data model to support PLM for DfS. International Waurzyniak, P. (2017). PLM’s digital twins offer virtual view of
Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 10(3), 210-230. manufacturing. Manufacturing Engineering, 158(4), 67-73.

86 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
Wiens, D. (2006). Juggling WIP. New Electronics, 39(15), Zhang, H., Ouzrout, Y., Bouras, A., & Savino, M. M.
38-39. (2014). Sustainability consideration within product
lifecycle management through maturity models analysis.
Wong, K. (2006). We gather today to join ERP and PLM:
International Journal of Services and Operations
marrying enterprise data to product data. Cadalyst, 23(9), Management, 19(2), 151-171.
42-44.
Zhang, M.-J. Wang, Q.-H., Mo, X.-N., & Zhang, L. (2011).
Woods, T. (2005). Life aid. Engineering (London), 246(5), Performance evaluation method for product lifecycle
38-39. management. Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao Xitong, 17(2), 362-368.
Yataganbaba, A., Ozkahraman, B., & Kutbas, I. (2017). Zhang, Y., Ren, S., Liu, Y., & Si, S. (2017a). A big data analytics
Worldwide trends on encapsulation of phase change architecture for cleaner manufacturing and maintenance
materials: a bibliometric analysis (1990-2015). Applied processes of complex products. Journal of Cleaner
Energy, 185, 720-731. Production, 142(2), 626-641.
Yoo, M.-J., Um, J., Stroud, I., El Kadiri, S., & Kiritsis, D. Zhang, Y., Ren, S., Liu, Y., Sakao, T., & Huisingh, D. (2017b).
(2014). Integration of design intent during the product A framework for Big Data driven product lifecycle
lifecycle management. IFIP Advances in Information and management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 159, 229-240.
Communication Technology, 442, 101-110. Zhao, W.-B., Jeong, J.-W., Noh, S. D., & Yee, J. T.
Young, C. (2012). Bridging the data divide. IBM Data (2015). Energy simulation framework integrated with
Management Magazine, 6, 14. green manufacturing-enabled PLM information model.
International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Young, R. I. M., Gunendran, A. G., Cutting-Decelle, A. F., & Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2(3), 217-224.
Gruninger, M. (2007). Manufacturing knowledge sharing
Zhu, H., Gao, J., Li, D., & Tang, D. (2012). A web-based
in PLM: a progression towards the use of heavyweight
product service system for aerospace maintenance, repair and
ontologies. International Journal of Production Research, overhaul services. Computers in Industry, 63(4), 338-348.
45(7), 1505-1519.
Zhu, W., Bricogne, M., Durupt, A., Remy, S., Li, B., & Eynard,
Yu, H., Wei, Y., Tang, B., Mi, Z., & Pan, S. (2016). Assessment on B. (2016). implementations of model based definition and
the research trend of low-carbon energy technology investment: Product Lifecycle Management technologies: a case study
a bibliometric analysis. Applied Energy, 184, 960-970. in Chinese aeronautical industry. IFAC – Papers Online,
Yu, Y., Yan, J.-W., & Liu, M. (2010). Ontology mapping 49(12), 485-490.
approach oriented to product information collaboration. Zscheile, F. (2017). From machine files to maintenance history
Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao Xitong, 16(5), 1111-1119. files. Productivity Management, 22(1), 62-65.

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 87

Appendix 1. Author x Application Area.
Author Application area
Alemanni et al. (2008, 2010), Brière-Côté et al. (2010), Cantamessa et al. (2012),
Zhu et al. (2012, 2016), El Souri et al. (2017), Vieira et al. (2016), Navarro et al. (2013),
Aerospace
Venugopalan et al. (2012), Eynard et al. (2010), Taverna (2004, 2017), Schmitt (2007),
Hughes & Taverna (2004), Teresko (2004), Anderson (2002)
Alemanni et al. (2010), Cao et al. (2009), Matsokis & Kiritsis (2010), Srinivasan (2011),
Tang & Qian (2008), Venugopalan et al. (2012), Baughey (2009), Shelley (2007), Tran Automotive
(2006), Case (2006), Brincheck (2005), Teresko (2004), Trappey & Hsiao (2008)
Lee et al. (2008a) Aviation maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO)
Back-end systems, front-end commerce
Young (2012)
applications, and the data warehouse
Hachani et al. (2013) Business Processes (BPs)
Brezgin et al. (2013) Cogeneration turbines
Demoly et al. (2013) Concurrent engineering
Barthorpe et al. (2004), Holzer (2014) Construction industry
Vezzetti et al. (2011) Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) industry
Sharma (2005) CPI - Collaborative Product Innovation
Cáceres et al. (2010) Digital Manufacturing
Iosif et al. (2018) Electric aircraft
Courtney (2014), Savino et al. (2012) Electromechanical sectors
Kultyshev et al. (2013) Energy machine building enterprise
Brunsmann et al. (2012) Engineering industry
D’Avolio et al. (2017) Fashion companies
Pinna et al. (2017) Food industry
Anderson (2002), Forcinio (2007) Goods industries
Kubler et al. (2015b) Healthcare
Venugopalan et al. (2012) Hi-tech area
Avventuroso et al. (2017), Vila et al. (2017) Industry 4.0
Cai et al. (2014), Fortineau et al. (2013), Främling et al. (2014) IoT
Portillo-Barco & Charnley (2015) Jet engine
Shi et al. (2018), Camarillo et al. (2017), Marconnet et al. (2017), Essop et al. (2016),
Manufacturing
Waurzyniak (2014), Bartholomew (2005), Wang & Xu (2005), Trappey & Hsiao (2008)
Sodhro et al. (2018), Tang & Hu (2015), Allanic et al. (2014), Kang (2008), Kubler et al.
Medical area
(2015a)
Caro et al. (2011) Naval shipbuilding
Stephens (2006) Nuclear energy
Tinham (2003) Oil and gas
Aziz et al. (2005), Borsato (2014), Cai et al. (2014), Chungoora et al. (2013), Demoly et al.
(2012), Fortineau et al. (2013), Kiritsis (2011), Matsokis & Kiritsis (2010), Young et al.
Ontology
(2007), Sriti et al. (2015), Talhi et al. (2015), Yoo et al. (2014), Matsokis & Kiritsis (2011),
Yu et al. (2010), Borsato et al. (2010), Feng et al. (2009), Skarka (2005), Qiu et al. (2015)
Venkatasubramanian (2005) Pharmaceutical
Mejía et al. (2016) Plastic injection
Lazarevic et al. (2011) Radio-frequency identification (RFID
Sales, purchasing, accounting, manufacturing, and
Falkiewicz (2011)
service.
Gulledge & Simon (2009) Single Army Logistics Enterprise (SALE)
Marucheck et al. (2011) Safety and security
Le Duigou et al. (2011), Zhang et al. (2011), Alison (2010), Pitcher (2005), Tinham (2004),
Small and medium enterprises (SME’s)
Bruno et al. (2016)
Främling et al. (2013), Zhao et al. (2015), Trotta (2010) Sustainable area
Mo et al. (2010) Teamcenter (TC) architecture
Golovatchev et al. (2010) Telecommunications industry
Zhang et al. (2017b) Turbomachinery
Bonou et al. (2016) Wind turbines

88 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
Appendix 2. Author x Keywords.
Authors Keywords
Iosif et al. (2018) 2D/3D design software
Brière-Côté et al. (2010) Adaptive Generic Product Structure (AGPS)
Chen et al. (2008) Analytic network process (ANP)
Trappey & Hsiao (2008) Advanced product quality planning (APQP) &
Gomes et al. (2009b) Atelier Cooperatif de Suivi de Projet in French (ACSP)
El Souri et al. (2017) BAE Systems
Liao & Zhang (2005) Based Access Control Model (RBAC)
Zhang et al. (2017a), Li et al. (2015), Wan et al. (2017), Big Data
Marchetta et al. (2011) Business Process Model (BPM)
Lundin et al. (2017), Waurzyniak (2015a, 2015b, 2017), Zscheile (2017),
Farish (2008, 2012), Ding et al. (2011), Gomes et al. (2009a), Neil
(2009), Walker & Cox (2008), Shelley (2007), Sudarsan et al. (2005), Computer-aided design (CAD)
Lundin et al. (2017), Zscheile (2017), Lee et al. (2008a), Denkena et al.
(2007), Alemanni et al. (2010), Ming et al. (2008)
Piancastelli et al.(2015). CADembedded FSI (Fluid System Interaction)
Waurzyniak (2015a, 2015b, 2017), Pullin (2013), Falkiewicz (2011),
Walker & Cox (2008), Teresko (2004), Sudarsan et al. (2005), Lee et al. Computer-aided engineering (CAE)
(2008a), Ming et al. (2008)
Waurzyniak (2015a, 2015b, 2017), Walker & Cox (2008), Shelley (2007),
Meloni (2007), Woods (2005), Teresko (2004), Sudarsan et al. (2005), Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)
Lee et al. (2008a), Denkena et al. (2007), Ming et al. (2008)
Denkena et al. (2007), Ming et al. (2008) Computer Aided Process Planning (CAPP)
Nathan (2009), Palmer (2004) CATIA PLM
Chungoora et al. (2013) Computation Independent Model (CIM)
Kärkkäinen & Silventoinen (2016) Capability maturity modeling (CMM)
Sharma (2005) Collaborative Product Innovation (CPI)
Lundin et al. (2017), Vila et al. (2017), Shen & Zhou (2003). Computer-aided technologies (CAx)
Cole (2009) Concept2Market (C2M)
Borsato (2014) Core Product Model / Open Assembly Model (CPM/OAM)
Cui et al. (2008) Customer architecture hierarchy (CAH) method
Young (2012), Bartholomew (2004), Shen & Zhou (2003), Customer relationship management (CRM)
Fortineau et al. (2017) Data Linked Through Occurrences Network (DALTON)
Hincapié et al. (2014) Dassault Systemes (DELMIA)
Lee et al. (2008b) Delphi methods
Ducellier et al. (2014) Design Change Orders (DCO)
Wiens (2006) Design data management (DDM) system.
Anišić et al. (2013) Design for Excellence (DFX)
Marconnet et al. (2017) Design For Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA)
Vadoudi et al. (2017) Design for sustainability (DfS)
Dhuieb (2014) Digital Factory Assistant (DFA)
Sodhro et al. (2018) Duty-cycle optimization-based (JEHDO) algorithm
Case (2006) Electrical control unit (ECU)
Zhao et al. (2015) EnergyPlus’ program
Tang & Hu (2015), Holzer (2014), Simonova & Khisamutdinov
(2013), Young (2012), Falkiewicz (2011), Wong (2006), Gort (2015), Enterprise Resource planning (ERP)
Barthorpe et al. (2004), Shen & Zhou (2003)
Li & Wu (2005) Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Tait (2006) Fashion Lifecycle Management (FLM)
Shelley (2007) Finite element analysis (FEA) computation
Paavel et al. (2017), Kubler et al. (2014), Lee et al. (2008b) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process [FAHP]
Granros (2009) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
Portillo-Barco & Charnley (2015) High pressure nozzle guide vane (HPNGV)
Främling et al. (2014) Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP)
Chungoora et al. (2013) Knowledge Systems (IMKS)
Holzer (2014) Information Modeling (BIM)

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 89

Appendix 2. Continued...
Authors Keywords
Legardeur et al. (2006) Innovation Development and Diffusion (ID2) system
Li & Qi (2008) Integrated product model (IPM)
Camarillo et al. (2017, 2018), Shi et al. (2018) Integrates Case-Based Reasoning (CBR)
Lee et al. (2008b) Kano model
Al-Ashaab et al. (2012) Knowledge-based environment (KBEnv)
Knowledge-Based Environment to Support Product Design
Al-Ashaab et al. (2012)
Validation (KBE)
Garcia & Fan (2008) Knowledge Management (KM)
Ibrahim & Paulson (2008).
Bonou et al. (2016). Life cycle management (LCM)
Chiappinelli (2008). Manufacturing execution software (MES)
Johnson & Gavilanes (2003)
Spera (2008) Manufacturing operations system (MOS) software
Camarillo et al. (2018) Manufacturing Problem Solving (MPS)
Tinham (2004) MatrixOne and Smartteam
Abid et al. (2014) Mechatronic system e System Modelling Language (SysML).
Sodhro et al. (2018) Medical Things (IoMT)
Zhu et al. (2016) Model-Based Definition (MBD)
Li & Wu (2005), Chungoora et al. (2013) Model-Driven Architecture (MDA)
Aziz et al. (2005) MySQL
Ilieva et al. (2009) Multi-Project Management (MPM)
Venugopalan et al. (2012) New product development (NPD)
Srinivasan (2011) OMG PLM Services
Fortineau et al. (2013) OntoStep
Open Applications Group Integration Specifications OAGIS
Srinivasan (2011)
BODs
Joshi & Dutta (2008) Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)
Product design Engineering based on Generative Assembly
Demoly et al. (2010, 2011a, 2013)
Sequences planning (PEGASUS)
Huang et al. (2009), Jun et al. (2009), Cao et al. (2009) Product embedded information devices (PEIDs)
Marchetta et al. (2011), Chungoora et al. (2013). Product Information Model (PIM)
Soto-Acosta et al. (2016) Pladomin
Chungoora et al. (2013) Platform Specific Model (PSM)
Camarillo et al. (2018) Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (PFMEA)
Young et al. (2007) Process Specification Language (PSL)
Paavel et al. (2017), Löwer & Heller (2014), Falkiewicz (2011),
Cummings (2006), Crawford (2006), Seibert (2005), Kahlert & Rezaie Product Data Management (PDM)
(2005), Ryan (2003), Von Buchstab (2003)
Löwer & Heller (2014) Product Data Management Systems (PDMS)
Kiritsis (2011), Främling et al. (2014), Huang et al. (2009), Jun et al. Product Lifecycle Management and Information Tracking using
(2009), Cao et al. (2009), Kubler et al. (2015a) Smart Embedded Systems (PROMISE)
Sassanelli et al.(2018) Product service systems (PSSs)
Thilmany (2011). Project portfolio management (PPM)
Bruun et al. (2015) PTC Windchill PDMLink 9.1.
Lee et al. (2008b), Vezzetti et al. (2011) Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Främling et al. (2014), Främling et al. (2013), Tang & Qian (2008),
Quantum lifecycle management (QLM)
Kubler et al. (2015a)
Kiritsis (2011), Huang et al. (2009), Jun et al. (2009), Cao et al. (2009),
Radio frequency identification (RFID)
Kubler et al. (2015a)
Feng et al. (2010)
Reliability, Maintainability and Supportability (RMS)
Shared Experience using an Agent-based System Architecture
Camarillo et al. (2018)
LayouT (SEASALT)
Chen et al. (2008) Sensitivity analysis
Demoly et al. (2012) Semantic WebRuleLanguage (SWRL)

90 Project Lifecycle Management (PLM): evolution and state of the art Santos et al.
Appendix 2. Continued...
Authors Keywords
Hachani et al. (2012), Baughey (2009), Meng et al. (2008), Srinivasan
Server-Oriented Architecture (SOA)
(2011)
Al-Ashaab et al. (2012) Siemens Teamcenter Software (TcSE)
SKeLeton geometry-based Assembly Context Definition
Demoly et al. (2011b)
(SKLACD)
Kiritsis (2011), Srinivasan (2011) Standard for the Exchange of Product data model (STEP)
Zhang et al. (2014) TechnoWare, InforWare, FunctionWare, and OrgaWare (TIFO)
Vezzetti et al. (2011) Teoriya Resheniya Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch (TRIZ)
Tran (2006) UGS’ Teamcenter Express
Vadoudi et al. (2017), Eynard et al. (2010), Li & Wu (2005),
Sudarsan et al. (2005), Matsokis & Kiritsis (2010), Srinivasan (2011),
Unified Modeling Language (UML)
Zhao et al. (2015), Demoly et al. (2013), Young et al. (2007), Cao et al.
(2009)
Kultyshev et al. (2013) Ural Turbine Works (UTW)
Lin et al. (2011) Value Stream Mapping (VSM)
Polcar & Horejsi (2015), Stelzer et al. (2009) Virtual Reality (VR)
Zhu et al. (2012) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Yoo et al. (2014), Matsokis & Kiritsis (2010), Fortineau et al. (2013),
Web Ontology Language (OWL)
Zhu et al. (2012), Demoly et al. (2012)
Waste electrical and electronic equipment, Restriction of
Adami-Sampson (2007) hazardous substances, and end of life Vehicle
(WEEE, RoHS, and ELV).
Alemanni et al. (2008) Wide Alenia space Network Data (WAND)
Feng et al. (2009) Windchill FIexPLM
Liao & Zhang (2005) Workflow Management System (WfMS)

Vol. 18 nº 1 June 2020 Product: Management & Development 91