The proposed framework for executing a DE project consists of input, throughput, output, feedback and external forces. These five strategic choices must be made as input to implementation:
- Degree of Change: Refine, or Innovate, or Transform (Blackburn et al., 2017).
- Target for Lean Impact: Process, or Product & Service. (Tortorella et al., 2021).
- Degree of Circular Economy: Data Transformation, Resource Optimization, Data Flow Process. (Kristoffersen et al., 2020).
- Primary Design Principles: Flexibility, Real-Time Capability, Decentralization, Modularity. (Nosalska et al., 2019).
- Limit of Digitization (Donnelly, 2019).
The intent is to achieve the DE Strategy goals: using models to inform decision making, creating an authoritative source of truth, technological innovation, supporting infrastructure and environments, and transforming the culture and workforce.
Throughput is the process of selecting processes, then digitalizing them. One alternative is to use the 6-step design science research process (Janiesch et al., 2019), while another may be classic Project Management Institute project planning. While executing the project, continuously assess the opportunities as they emerge (Linde et al., 2021). Digital Engineering is a process itself. That process is a mini-project plan for each business process under consideration of constraining the problem, setting goals, finding a solution, test, demonstration and deployment. Constraining the problem necessarily includes assessing the opportunity for process improvement, because some process improvements may not yield sufficient benefits to make the solutions cost effective or the margin for improvement may be too small. Lastly, as the process moves forward the team must continually assess risks. If the project understands the value the process creates (why we do it), the value delivery process (how we do it), and value realization (what we get out of it) those typical traps will be escaped.
The end-state (output) is a new digitalized business model (process and database that enables better decisions), where technical and business aspects are intertwined (Nosalska et al., 2019). As the internal business model changes, relationships with internal users, external customers, and the supply chain will change, then new opportunities will arise (Cong et al., 2021; Dethine et al., 2020; Garay-Rondero et al., 2020; Laïfi & Josserand, 2016). This the entire purpose of digitalization. While a DoD acquisition program does not realize revenue (they do not get ‘paid’ by the Pentagon for systems delivered), they certainly realize costs and deliver product. Having a well-documented business model, especially one that is digitally accessible will enable resource managers to see how their funds are being used, and will enable warfighters to see how their capabilities are being delivered. In addition, legislative authorizers and appropriators will be more easily persuaded to fund programs that are transparent to them.
Many external forces are at work, either constraints or opportunities. People, resources, organization and the supply chain form an ecosystem, which you may or may not have control of (Cong et al., 2021; Correani et al., 2020; Dethine et al., 2020; Garay-Rondero et al., 2020; Gastaldi et al., 2018; Linde et al., 2021). The computing environment platforms, technologies, and data are technical options or forces (Correani et al., 2020; Ghadge et al., 2020; Ivančić et al., 2019). While some might say “Everything is better with Bluetooth,” a given technology will not equally benefit every business objective (Tortorella et al., 2021), several are key to Industry 4.0 (Nosalska et al., 2019).
While the number of external forces at work could be infinite, the list must be constrained to provide meaningful decision points. The ecosystem forces were selected because their presence is necessary for success, even if they are constraints beyond the immediate control of the process owner. A process owner may not be able to change the people assigned, or may not have the authority to redirect resources, but both must be present in some limited quantity to succeed. A small operation may have complete control of its organization and culture, while many will be part of a larger organization with a set culture. Both can succeed, but the choices available are different. The digital supply chain for an office is crucial, and every office can identify who it depends on for data to execute owned processes, and what other offices consume data produced. Those players constitute the digital supply chain, and the participation of data suppliers and data consumers in digitally engineering a process is critical. The more they are integrated to the effort, the more opportunities may be exposed for further refinement, enhancing the recursive nature of digitalization.
Technical forces are more likely to be options than constraints. This is where people naturally gravitate to when considering digitalization. An office must consider its computing environment (platform), the technologies available (and affordable), and the data repositories it will require, create, and share. A small office may able to change its platforms, whereas a larger office inside a large organization may have no control, or limited choices within a menu. A major choice will be between on-premises (e.g. desktop) and off-premises (e.g. cloud) computing, and that choice could be driven by security considerations. Industry 4.0 technologies are centered on IoT, and there are many technologies associated with that. Application of technologies like AI, ML, NFC or Bluetooth may accelerate IoT deployment, or they may have limited impact efficacy; being judicious is important. The new business model will hinge on the new data model. Businesses can collect data they never use, or fail to relate or visualize the data they have in a usable manner. A vast repository of stove piped data serves nobody. Data that is interrelated cross-functionally is more likely to have meaning. Data should be collected, created and shared because it is required to execute a process or make a decision.
Feedback will come first from internal users, eventually from external customers, as well as the digital supply chain (Cong et al., 2021; Garay-Rondero et al., 2020; Rieken et al., 2020). Communication with them is essential to success and subsequent adjustments. Providing a means for users to provide faster feedback via a Digital Community Infrastructure will lead to changes in the organizational culture and increase likelihood of acceptance, as users feel they are an integral part of changing the way they do their work. If feedback from those users is not aggressively sought, there is a risk they will obstruct change or sabotage the project. Those users must include not only the performers of a given process, but the users of its results, the decision makers. The best process with poor visualizations may not improve outcomes.
The figure above illustrates the derived conceptual framework for digital engineering. DoD Goals feed project strategy decisions, the ecosystem constrains technology choices, process defines execution, a new business model delivers efficiencies, and feedback informs recursion.
The goal of digitalization is to arrive at a new set of processes that use a new set of data to achieve value. It is easy to see digitalization merely as a problem of new applications, or the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into processes, or new data models depending upon personal perspective or experience. However, none of those solutions alone will have sustained or meaningful impact. New models may be better, but may not result in better decisions if disconnected from a unified data model. A web services firm may be able to house petabytes of data for decades, but if it is not designed for people to use with their digital supply chain its customer value is limited. Using AI as support infrastructure to communicate with customers is common, but without integration with the business process it may not deliver value.
Entities have known they should digitalize, but did not know what or how to implement it. This framework provides a means to choose what projects to do and how to execute them in a balanced way.
References
Blackburn, M., Alexander, J., Legan, J. D., & Klabjan, D. (2017). Big Data and the Future of R&D Management: The rise of big data and big data analytics will have significant implications for R&D and innovation management in the next decade. Research Technology Management, 60(5), 43–50. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1080/08956308.2017.1348135
Cong, L.W., Li,B., & Zhang, Q.T. (2021). Internet of Things: Business Economics and Applications. Review of Business, 41(1), 15–29
Correani, A., DeMassis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020). Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620934864
Dethine, B., Enjolras, M., & Monticolo, D. (2020). Digitalization and SMEs’ Export Management: Impacts on Resources and Capabilities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10(4), 18–34. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.22215/timreview/1344
Donnelly, R. (2019). Aligning knowledge sharing interventions with the promotion of firm success: The need for SHRM to balance tensions and challenges. Journal of Business Research, 94, 344–352. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.007
Garay-Rondero, C. L., Martinez-Flores, J. L., Smith, N. R., Caballero Morales, S. O., & Aldrette-Malacara, A. (2020). Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(5), 887–933. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0280
Gastaldi, L., Appio, F. P., Corso, M., & Pistorio, A. (2018). Managing the exploration-exploitation paradox in healthcare : Three complementary paths to leverage on the digital transformation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(5), 1200–1234. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2017-0092
Ghadge, A., Er Kara, M., Moradlou, H., & Goswami, M. (2020). The impact of Industry 4.0 implementation on supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(4), 669–686. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1108/JMTM-10-2019-0368
Ivančić, L., Vukšić, V.B. & Spremić, M. (2019). Mastering the Digital Transformation Process: Business Practices and Lessons Learned. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(2), 36–50. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.22215/timreview/1217
Janiesch, C., Fischer, M., Winkelmann, A., & Nentwich, V. (2019). Specifying autonomy in the Internet of Things: the autonomy model and notation. Information Systems & E-Business Management, 17(1), 159–194. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1007/s10257-018-0379-x
Kristoffersen, E., Blomsma, F., Mikalef, P., & Li, J. (2020). The smart circular economy: A digital-enabled circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research, 120, 241–261. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.044
Laïfi, A., & Josserand, E. (2016). Legitimation in practice: A new digital publishing business model. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2343–2352. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.003
Linde, L., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., & Gebauer, H. (2021). Evaluation of Digital Business Model Opportunities: A Framework for Avoiding Digitalization Traps. Research Technology Management, 64(1), 43–53. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1080/08956308.2021.1842664
Nosalska, K., Piątek, Z.M., Mazurek, G. & Rządca, R. (2019). Industry 4.0: coherent definition framework with technological and organizational interdependencies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(5), 837–862. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0238
Rieken, F., Boehm, T., Heinzen, M., & Meboldt, M. (2020). Corporate makerspaces as innovation driver in companies: a literature review-based framework. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(1), 91–123. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1108/JMTM-03-2019-0098
Tortorella, G., Sawhney, R., Jurburg, D., de Paula, I. C., Tlapa, D., & Thurer, M. (2021). Towards the proposition of a Lean Automation framework: Integrating Industry 4.0 into Lean Production. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(3), 593–620. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1108/JMTM-01-2019-0032