The illusion of tacit knowledge as the great problem in the development of product configurators

Abstract

In many cases, the use of product configurators provides a number of benefits for engineering-oriented companies, such as shorter lead times, the use of fewer man hours, and improved product quality. However, not all of these projects are successful. The task of defining what should be implemented into the configurator is much more complex than anticipated in many configurator projects. In the worst-case scenario, this implies that the configurator is never fully developed or it fails to support the users in a satisfactory manner. The difficulties in creating adequate specifications of what to implement in the knowledge base of a configurator have been explained in much of the configuration literature by the assumption that much of the relevant knowledge of the product experts is tacit. However, this paper shows that this kind of explanation can be misleading and may even be incorrect. This is accomplished by discussing the problems inherent in such explanations and through interviews with configuration project knowledge engineers. Therefore, according to this basis, this paper provides general recommendations concerning the use of the term tacit knowledge and outlines issues related to the acquisition of product knowledge in configuration projects.

From a literature review of product configuration definitions to a reference framework

“…Soininen et al (1998) also provides a definition, which is a superset of the definition of Mittal and Frayman. Haug (2007) provides a definition of the configuration task that uses the term entity instead of the term component in order to escape the world of physical products. Salvador and Forza (2004) also comply with the definition of Mittal and Frayman (1989).…”

“…The definition of Haug (2007) builds upon the definitions of Mittal and Frayman (1989), Sabin and Weigel (1998), and Soininen et al (1998). However, it is necessary to point out that configuration is the same as the term configuration task .…”

“…These are often used interchangeably. As Haug (2007) notes, this would not represent a problem if there was consensus on using the three terms interchangeably. However, as the following quotation illustrates, by configuration system, for example, Forza and Salvador (2007) mean more than merely the software application: “Configuration system: The set of human and computing resources that contributes to accomplishing the configuration and modelling processes.”…”

Modeling detailed design knowledge with the extended structure–behavior–function model

“…Detailed design is primarily aimed at assigning values to the geometrical parameters of an entity. The knowledge that supports such decision-making processes is regarded as detailed design knowledge, which can also be called tacit knowledge in existing research (Haug, 2012). Just like design rationale, detailed design knowledge can also be further classified as issue knowledge and solution knowledge.…”

A Novel Method for Acquiring Engineering-Oriented Operational Empirical Knowledge

“…With the operational know-how transferred to novice, the novice can improve his operational skills and then increase manufacturing productivity and product quality. However, the operational know-how has not been sufficiently harnessed due to the lack of an efficient knowledge acquisition method [3][4][5]. Therefore, it is imperative to develop an efficient acquisition method for such knowledge acquisition.…”