680:. If for example the vehicle's air bags are found to automatically fill with air after driving long distances, this will without a doubt lead to customer complaints (or hopefully problem reports during the testing phase). In turn, these produce a change request (see Figure 2 on the right), which will probably justify a change. Nevertheless, a – most likely simplistic – cost and benefit analysis has to be done, after which the change request can be approved. Following an analysis of the impact on the car design and production schedules, the planning for the implementation of the change can be created. According to this planning, the change can actually be realized, after which the new version of the car is hopefully thoroughly tested before it is released to the public.
665:
110:
700:
has regulations that govern how changes are to be made and documented. The main requirement is that a thorough review of a proposed change be performed by a multi-disciplinary team to ensure that as many possible viewpoints are used to minimize the chances of missing a hazard. In this context, change
478:
Document that describes the requested change and why it is important; can originate from PROBLEM REPORTS, system enhancements, other projects, changes in underlying systems and senior management, here summarized as REQUIREMENTS (Dennis, et al., 2002). Important attribute: ‘go/no-go decision’, i.e. is
389:
The implementation of the change in the new SYSTEM RELEASE is verified for the last time, now by the project manager. Maybe this has to happen before the release, but due to conflicting literature sources and diagram complexity considerations it was chosen to model it this way and include this issue.
603:
According to the
Pennsylvania State University Libraries (2004) definition, DOCUMENTATION is “rinted material which accompanies other materials (usually non-book), and which explains, gives instructions for use, or otherwise functions as a guide to the major materials.” In this context, it can also
299:
The extent of the change (i.e. what other items the change effects) is determined in a CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS. It could be argued that this activity leads to another go/no-go decision, or that it even forms a part of the
Analyze change request activity. It is modeled here as a planning task for the
630:
Besides just ‘changes’, one can also distinguish deviations and waivers. A deviation is an authorization (or a request for it) to depart from a requirement of an item, prior to the creation of it. A waiver is essentially the same, but than during or after creation of the item. These two approaches
285:
Based on the CHANGE REQUEST, its CHANGE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY and CHANGE COSTS AND BENEFITS, the change committee makes the go/no-go decision. This is modeled as a separate activity because it is an important process step and has another role performing it. It is modeled as a sub-activity (without
660:
and when this change is propagated it probably causes other code fragments to change as well. After the initial test results seem satisfactory, the documentation can be brought up to date and be released, together with the software. Finally, the project manager verifies the change and closes this
489:
Distinct entry in the collection of all changes (e.g. for a project); consists of a CHANGE REQUEST, CHANGE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, CHANGE COSTS AND BENEFITS, CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS, CHANGE PLANNING, TEST REPORT and CHANGE VERIFICATION. Not all these have to be included if the process is terminated
465:
Document describing a problem that cannot be solved by a level 1 help desk employee; contains items like date, contact info of person reporting the problem, what is causing the problem, location and description of the problem, action taken and disposition, but this is not depicted in the diagram
426:
A few concepts are defined by the author (i.e. lack a reference), because either no (good) definitions could be found, or they are the obvious result of an activity. These concepts are marked with an asterisk (‘*’). Properties of concepts have been left out of the model, because most of them are
825:
Actually, there is no need for both a requirement for new functionality and a problem detected to occur in order to get a change request. Usually only one of the two will. Modeling them as unordered activities approximately approaches this meaning. An alternative would be to create two separate
47:
Change request management has been embraced for its ability to deliver benefits by improving the affected system and thereby satisfying "customer needs," but has also been criticized for its potential to confuse and needlessly complicate change administration. In some cases, notably in the
120:
There are six main activities, which jointly form the change request management process. They are: Identify potential change, Analyze change request, Evaluate change, Plan change, Implement change and Review and close change. These activities are executed by four different
696:, where improvised changes involving the bypassing of a stage in a reactor train was at the origin of the accident. The change had not been properly thought out, documented and risk-assessed, so that the event of breach of containment had not been identified. In the US,
272:
The project manager determines the costs and benefits of the proposed CHANGE REQUEST, resulting in CHANGE COSTS AND BENEFITS. This and the above sub-activity can be done in any order and they are independent of each other, hence the modeling as unordered activities.
651:
company then looks into the technical and economical feasibility of implementing this change and consequently it decides whether the change will actually be realized. If that indeed is the case, the change has to be planned, for example through the usage of
341:
The changes resulting from
Execute change have to be propagated to other system parts that are influenced by it. Because this and the above sub-activity are highly dependent on each other, they have been modeled as concurrent activities.
151:
is the role that requests a change due to problems encountered or new functionality requirements; this can be a person or an organizational entity and can be in- or external to the company that is asked to implement the change.
502:
Concept that indicates whether or not “reliable hardware and software, technical resources capable of meeting the needs of a proposed system can be acquired or developed by an organization in the required time” (Vogl, 2004).
88:
Notes: In the process below, it is arguable that the change committee should be responsible not only for accept/reject decisions, but also prioritization, which influences how change requests are batched for processing.
52:
domain, more funds and work are put into system maintenance (and change request management) than into the initial creation of a system. Typical investment by organizations during initial implementation of large
331:
The change is ‘programmed’; this activity has a strong relationship with
Propagate change, because sometimes the change has to be adapted to other parts of the system (or even other systems) as well.
85:, technological advances and demanding customers. Because many systems tend to change and evolve as they are used, the problems of these industries are experienced to some degree in many others.
515:
The expected effort required to implement and the advantages (e.g. cost savings, increased revenue) gained by implementing the change. Also named economic feasibility (Vogl, 2004).
555:, including systems, subsystems, assemblies, subassemblies, units, sets, accessories, computer programs, computer software or parts” (Rigby, 2003); has (overlapping)
194:
The change builder is the person who plans and implements the change; it could be argued that the planning component is (partially) taken on by the project manager.
427:
trivial and the diagram could otherwise quickly become too complex. Furthermore, some concepts (e.g. CHANGE REQUEST, SYSTEM RELEASE) lend themselves for the
81:
Change request management is also of great importance in the field of manufacturing, which is confronted with many changes due to increasing and worldwide
352:
The change builder tests whether what (s)he has built actually works and satisfies the CHANGE REQUEST. As depicted in the diagram, this can result in an
648:
109:
692:
is recognized as critical to safety. Undocumented, not properly risk assessed changes are a recipe for disaster. An eminent example of this is the
539:“A scheme, method or design for the attainment of some objective or to achieve something ” (Georgetown University, n.d.), in this case the change.
314:
of the change. Some process descriptions (e.g. Mäkäräinen, 2000) illustrate that is also possible to ‘save’ changes and process them later in a
614:“erchandise issued for sale or public showing” (Princeton University, 2003). Consists of one or more ITEMS and the accompanying DOCUMENTATION.
912:
884:
697:
419:
of each activity, i.e. the data. These deliverables or concepts are described in Table 3; in this context, the most important concepts are:
702:
664:
624:
A determination of whether or not the result of the change implementation fulfills the requirements established earlier (Rigby, 2003).
262:
The project manager determines the technical feasibility of the proposed CHANGE REQUEST, leading to a CHANGE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY.
1018:
1000:
125:, which are discussed in Table 1. The activities (or their sub-activities, if applicable) themselves are described in Table 2.
61:
184:
decides whether a CHANGE REQUEST will be implemented or not. Sometimes this task is performed by the project manager as well.
949:
170:
that the CHANGE REQUEST concerns. In some cases there is a distinct change manager, who in that case takes on this role.
591:“A document that describes the conduct and results of the testing carried out for a system or component ” (IEEE, 1991).
960:
897:
Huang, G.H. & Mak, K.L. (1999). Current practices of engineering change management in UK manufacturing industries.
77:: Through changes, the structure of a system becomes ever more complex, and more resources are required to simplify it.
758:
28:. Its main goals are to support the processing and traceability of changes to an interconnected set of factors.
24:
is the process of requesting, determining attainability, planning, implementing, and evaluating of changes to a
971:
688:
Since complex processes can be very sensitive to even small changes, proper management of change to industrial
1050:
54:
885:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060423164505/http://uis.georgetown.edu/departments/eets/dw/GLOSSARY0816.html
753:
631:
can be viewed as minimalistic change request management (i.e. no real solution to the problem at hand).
1045:
988:
Rajlich, V. (1999). Software Change and
Evolution. In Pavelka, J., Tel, G. & Bartošek, M. (Eds.),
431:
approach as proposed by Weerd, but this has also been left out due to diagram complexity constraints.
643:. Often users report bugs or desire new functionality from their software programs, which leads to a
724:
41:
909:
701:
request management is known as
Management of Change, or MOC. It is just one of many components of
1055:
98:
1019:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060411160145/http://www.321site.com/greg/courses/mis1/glossary.htm
521:
49:
1001:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060412081603/http://sparc.airtime.co.uk/users/wysywig/gloss.htm
941:
768:
689:
1029:
908:. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from:
693:
640:
102:
867:
Implementing and
Integrating Product Data Management and Software Configuration Management
8:
763:
672:
Another typical area for change request management in the way it is treated here, is the
21:
604:
be digital materials or even training, as long as it relates to (pieces of) the system.
927:
748:
585:
579:
Self-explanatory: an ITEM that already existed, but has been altered; subtype of ITEM.
552:
509:
945:
719:
496:
401:
961:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060307232014/http://mdp.ivv.nasa.gov/mdp_glossary.html
890:
Hinley, D.S. (1996). Software evolution management: a process-oriented perspective.
286:
any activity containing it) as recommended by Remko Helms (personal communication).
982:
315:
639:
A good example of the change request management process in action can be found in
916:
743:
428:
163:
656:. The actual execution of the change leads to the creation and/or alteration of
728:
714:
653:
644:
472:
420:
311:
300:
change builder because of its relationship with the activity
Propagate change.
37:
36:
There is considerable overlap and confusion between change request management,
71:: Systems that are used must change, or else automatically become less useful.
1039:
933:
673:
657:
597:
972:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060615021317/http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/
924:
Software change management processes in the development of embedded software
236:
826:"starting points" (i.e. initial states), both pointing to Request change.
449:
416:
376:
A new SYSTEM RELEASE, which reflects the applied change, is made public.
201:
Table 2: Activity descriptions for the change request management process
82:
435:
Table 3: Concept descriptions for the change request management process
1006:
Scott, J.A. & Nisse, D. (2001). Software
Configuration Management,
415:
Besides activities, the process-data diagram (Figure 1) also shows the
1026:
Meta-modeling
Technique: Draft for the course Method Engineering 05/06
957:
NASA IV&V Facility Metrics Data Program - Glossary and Definitions
556:
353:
181:
129:
Table 1: Role descriptions for the change request management process
545:
1017:. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from Uganda Martyrs University website:
899:
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19
249:
A customer proposes a change through creation of a CHANGE REQUEST.
225:
A customer desires new functionality and formulates a REQUIREMENT.
148:
874:
System Analysis & Design: An Object-Oriented Approach with UML
97:
For the description of the change request management process, the
733:
167:
926:. PhD dissertation. Espoo: VTT Publications. Available online:
910:
http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/sage/glossary/#reference_6
455:
A required functionality of a component (or item; NASA, 2005).
25:
865:
Crnković I., Asklund, U. & Persson-Dahlqvist, A. (2003).
366:
The DOCUMENTATION is updated to reflect the applied changes.
906:
Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (ANSI)
859:
318:. This activity could be viewed as a good point to do this.
738:
533:
527:
An assessment of the extent of the change (Rajlich, 1999).
122:
44:. The definition below does not yet integrate these areas.
1030:
https://bscw.cs.uu.nl/bscw/bscw.cgi/d1009019/Instructions
677:
676:
domain. Take for instance the design and production of a
569:
Self-explanatory: a newly created ITEM; subtype of ITEM.
404:
is completed, i.e. the CHANGE LOG ENTRY is wrapped up.
668:
Figure 2: Example change request for the car industry
928:
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2000/P416.pdf
356:
process together with the above two sub-activities.
239:) in the system and this leads to a PROBLEM REPORT.
872:Dennis, A., Wixom, B.H. & Tegarden, D. (2002).
92:
1015:Management Information Systems: Glossary of Terms
990:SOFSEM'99, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1725
490:earlier (i.e. if the change is not implemented).
1037:
983:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=release
966:Pennsylvania State University Libraries (2004).
876:. Hoboken, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1008:Guide to Software Engineering Body of Knowledge
938:Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
57:systems is 15 to 20 percent of overall budget.
60:In the same vein, Hinley describes two of
968:CCL Manual: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
1010:, Chapter 7, IEEE Computer Society Press.
860:Referenced literature and further reading
786:Crnkovic & Persson-Dahlqvist (2003).
551:“A non-specific term used to denote any
479:the change going to be executed or not?
235:A customer encounters a problem (e.g. a
892:Information and Software Technology, 38
774:
1038:
821:
819:
105:, which is explained in this section.
997:Managing Standards: Glossary of Terms
310:A CHANGE PLANNING is created for the
795:Dennis, Wixom & Tegarden (2002).
683:
816:
62:Lehman's laws of software evolution
13:
1032:for the process-data diagram.pdf .
663:
14:
1067:
981:. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from:
970:. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from:
883:. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from:
1028:. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from:
999:. Retrieved April 1, 2006 from:
959:. Retrieved March 4, 2006 from:
759:Application lifecycle management
259:Determine technical feasibility
108:
93:The process and its deliverables
75:The law of increasing complexity
410:
31:
879:Georgetown University (n.d.).
847:
838:
829:
807:
798:
789:
780:
101:is used. Figure 1 depicts the
1:
977:Princeton University (2003).
559:ADDED ITEM and CHANGED ITEM.
269:Determine costs and benefits
115:
974:cataloging/ccl/glossary.htm.
497:CHANGE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
69:The law of continuing change
7:
754:Software release life cycle
708:
634:
10:
1072:
222:Require new functionality
1024:Weerd, I. van de (2006).
844:Scott & Nisse (2001).
720:Change request management
705:, section 1910.119(l).1.
703:Process Safety Management
661:entry in the change log.
510:CHANGE COSTS AND BENEFITS
218:Identify potential change
18:change request management
881:Data Warehouse: Glossary
725:Engineering Change Order
466:(Dennis, et al., 2002).
42:configuration management
922:Mäkäräinen, M. (2000).
869:. London: Artech House.
813:Huang & Mak (1999).
382:Review and close change
99:meta-modeling technique
669:
522:CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS
423:and CHANGE LOG ENTRY.
296:Analyze change impact
255:Analyze change request
50:Information Technology
942:Butterworth-Heinemann
769:Issue tracking system
694:Flixborough explosion
667:
363:Update documentation
775:Notes and references
641:software development
166:is the owner of the
103:process-data diagram
1051:Systems engineering
940:(4th ed.). Oxford:
764:Systems engineering
620:CHANGE VERIFICATION
436:
202:
130:
22:systems engineering
995:Rigby, K. (2003).
915:2009-10-21 at the
749:Release management
670:
434:
232:Encounter problem
200:
128:
1046:Change management
1013:Vogl, G. (2004).
950:978-0-12-397189-0
684:In process plants
628:
627:
485:CHANGE LOG ENTRY*
408:
407:
338:Propagate change
198:
197:
1063:
854:
851:
845:
842:
836:
833:
827:
823:
814:
811:
805:
802:
796:
793:
787:
784:
649:product software
437:
433:
324:Implement change
307:Create planning
203:
199:
176:Change committee
131:
127:
112:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1036:
1035:
917:Wayback Machine
862:
857:
852:
848:
843:
839:
834:
830:
824:
817:
812:
808:
803:
799:
794:
790:
785:
781:
777:
711:
686:
654:function points
637:
534:CHANGE PLANNING
413:
373:Release change
328:Execute change
279:Evaluate change
246:Request change
164:project manager
158:Project manager
118:
95:
34:
12:
11:
5:
1069:
1059:
1058:
1056:Process safety
1053:
1048:
1034:
1033:
1022:
1011:
1004:
993:
986:
975:
964:
953:
931:
920:
902:
895:
888:
877:
870:
861:
858:
856:
855:
853:Mannan (2012).
846:
837:
828:
815:
806:
804:Hinley (1996).
797:
788:
778:
776:
773:
772:
771:
766:
761:
756:
751:
746:
741:
736:
731:
729:Change request
722:
717:
715:Change control
710:
707:
690:process plants
685:
682:
645:change request
636:
633:
626:
625:
622:
616:
615:
612:
610:SYSTEM RELEASE
606:
605:
601:
593:
592:
589:
581:
580:
577:
571:
570:
567:
561:
560:
549:
541:
540:
537:
529:
528:
525:
517:
516:
513:
505:
504:
500:
492:
491:
487:
481:
480:
476:
473:CHANGE REQUEST
468:
467:
463:
461:PROBLEM REPORT
457:
456:
453:
445:
444:
441:
421:CHANGE REQUEST
412:
409:
406:
405:
398:
395:
392:
391:
387:
386:Verify change
384:
378:
377:
374:
371:
368:
367:
364:
361:
358:
357:
350:
347:
344:
343:
339:
336:
333:
332:
329:
326:
320:
319:
312:implementation
308:
305:
302:
301:
297:
294:
288:
287:
283:
281:
275:
274:
270:
267:
264:
263:
260:
257:
251:
250:
247:
244:
241:
240:
233:
230:
227:
226:
223:
220:
214:
213:
210:
207:
196:
195:
192:
190:Change builder
186:
185:
178:
172:
171:
160:
154:
153:
145:
139:
138:
135:
117:
114:
94:
91:
79:
78:
72:
38:change control
33:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1068:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1041:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
987:
984:
980:
976:
973:
969:
965:
962:
958:
955:NASA (2005).
954:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
932:
929:
925:
921:
918:
914:
911:
907:
904:IEEE (1991).
903:
900:
896:
893:
889:
886:
882:
878:
875:
871:
868:
864:
863:
850:
841:
835:Weerd (2006).
832:
822:
820:
810:
801:
792:
783:
779:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
712:
706:
704:
699:
695:
691:
681:
679:
675:
674:manufacturing
666:
662:
659:
658:software code
655:
650:
646:
642:
632:
623:
621:
618:
617:
613:
611:
608:
607:
602:
600:
599:
598:DOCUMENTATION
595:
594:
590:
588:
587:
583:
582:
578:
576:
575:CHANGED ITEM*
573:
572:
568:
566:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
548:
547:
543:
542:
538:
536:
535:
531:
530:
526:
524:
523:
519:
518:
514:
512:
511:
507:
506:
501:
499:
498:
494:
493:
488:
486:
483:
482:
477:
475:
474:
470:
469:
464:
462:
459:
458:
454:
452:
451:
447:
446:
442:
439:
438:
432:
430:
424:
422:
418:
403:
399:
397:Close change
396:
394:
393:
388:
385:
383:
380:
379:
375:
372:
370:
369:
365:
362:
360:
359:
355:
351:
348:
346:
345:
340:
337:
335:
334:
330:
327:
325:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
304:
303:
298:
295:
293:
290:
289:
284:
282:
280:
277:
276:
271:
268:
266:
265:
261:
258:
256:
253:
252:
248:
245:
243:
242:
238:
234:
231:
229:
228:
224:
221:
219:
216:
215:
211:
208:
205:
204:
193:
191:
188:
187:
183:
179:
177:
174:
173:
169:
165:
161:
159:
156:
155:
150:
146:
144:
141:
140:
136:
133:
132:
126:
124:
113:
111:
106:
104:
100:
90:
86:
84:
76:
73:
70:
67:
66:
65:
63:
58:
56:
51:
45:
43:
39:
29:
27:
23:
19:
1025:
1014:
1007:
996:
989:
978:
967:
956:
937:
923:
905:
898:
891:
880:
873:
866:
849:
840:
831:
809:
800:
791:
782:
687:
671:
638:
629:
619:
609:
596:
584:
574:
564:
544:
532:
520:
508:
495:
484:
471:
460:
448:
443:Description
425:
417:deliverables
414:
411:Deliverables
400:This change
381:
349:Test change
323:
291:
278:
254:
217:
212:Description
209:Sub-activity
189:
175:
157:
142:
137:Description
119:
107:
96:
87:
80:
74:
68:
59:
46:
35:
32:Introduction
17:
15:
979:WordNet 2.0
934:Mannan, Sam
901:(1), 21–37.
586:TEST REPORT
565:ADDED ITEM*
450:REQUIREMENT
292:Plan change
180:The change
83:competition
20:process in
1040:Categories
992:, 189–202.
894:, 723–730.
744:Versioning
429:versioning
116:Activities
354:iterative
182:committee
936:(2012).
913:Archived
709:See also
635:Examples
557:subtypes
206:Activity
149:customer
143:Customer
734:PRINCE2
553:product
440:Concept
168:project
948:
647:. The
26:system
402:cycle
316:batch
123:roles
946:ISBN
739:ITIL
698:OSHA
546:ITEM
162:The
147:The
134:Role
40:and
16:The
678:car
237:bug
55:ERP
1042::
944:.
818:^
727:,
64::
1021:.
1003:.
985:.
963:.
952:.
930:.
919:.
887:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
