The document provides a comparative analysis of project management information systems used to support concurrent engineering across four case studies of capital goods enterprises. It finds that while enterprises have IT tools to manage engineering and production, their project management systems have room for improvement to better support collaborative concurrent engineering. Specifically, challenges include integrating project data, monitoring ongoing processes, enabling online collaboration with partners, and automatically generating performance indicators. The analysis aims to identify best practices as well as differences in critical success factors for designing and operating collaborative engineering project management platforms.

1. A Comparative Analysis of Project Management
Information Systems to Support Concurrent
Engineering
Camila de Araujoa
and Daniel Capaldo Amaralb1
a
Postgraduate student, University of Sao Paulo, BR
b
Assistant Professor, University of São Paulo, BR.
Abstract. Many organizations have attempted to create information technology systems to
support the collaborative concurrent engineering, including project management functions,
capable of meeting the needs of all types of industries, projects and purposes, i.e., a
universal collaboration platform. The result is an exceptional amount of IT products
organized under a myriad of tool classes and promising to solve all of the collaborative
engineering problems. However, each firm is a universe in itself, with its own culture,
specific product characteristics, language, methods, rules, standards, etc., and this makes all
the difference between efficient communication and efficient collaboration. Are the barriers
to the design of collaborative IT concurrent engineering infra-structure similar in all cases?
Since these systems are becoming popular, it is important that enterprises know that their
first challenge is to support senior and project management in the difficult task of finding for
the correct IT products in order to create a collaborative engineering environment that is
efficient and economically feasible.
Keywords. Project Management, Collaborative Concurrent Engineering, Information
Technology Systems.
1
Assistant Professor, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos School of Engineering, Industrial
Engineering Department, Integrated Engineering Research Group (EI2). Trabalhador
Saocarlense, 400; 13566-590; Sao Carlos-SP; Brazil; Tel+55(0)16 3373-8289; Fax +55(0)16
3373-8235; Email: amaral@sc.usp.br ; http://www.numa.sc.usp.br/grupoei/
1 Introduction
Collaborative product development projects require a complex mix of planning,
evaluation and decision-making. All of these activities, in turn, are based on
information generated during the projects. This information should be updated and
available to all. Research on collaborative engineering projects has emphasized the
importance of this information to concurrent engineering (CE) by indicating factors
that prevent the accomplishment of their objectives (except for those of a political
nature) [3]. These factors are: ignorance about what other project teams are doing,
failure in controlling project change, different perspectives on project goals,

2. 342 C. Araujo and D. Amaral
rigidity in planning projects and routines, faulty reactions to sudden changes in
project environment, and unexpected technological hindrances. In addition, Barnes,
Pashby and Gibbons [1] carried out a literature review and identified indicators of
success with respect to company-company collaborative projects: well defined
goals, clearly assigned responsibilities, consensual project planning, proper
resources, defined project milestones, synchronized project assessment, effective
communication, and assured delivery by collaborators.
In order to meet communication and collaboration needs of engineering
projects, mitigating their problems and focusing on the aforementioned factors of
success, several IT tools have been created and are currently available to
enterprises. Besides engineering applications, these tools include project
management applications that may, for instance, assist in monitoring the project
progress. In spite of this, some problems can be found in today’s IT tools. A review
of recent research on CE carried out by Li, Fu and Wong [4], shows an emphasis
on engineering application tools to the detriment of project management tools.
Rodriguez and Al-Ashaab [5] also present a literature review of collaborative
product development systems, and only two of them involve project management
functions. Moreover, White and Fortune [6] carried out a survey in which project
management software appears as a chief limitation to project management
methods/tools/techniques because of its inadequacy to collaborative projects.
Although it is possible to verify in the literature that existing project
management tools still require improvement as regards their application to
collaborative CE, it is not clear about the difficulties encountered by different types
of enterprises that carry out collaborative CE projects. This work is part of a
research project that aims to investigate these issues in the industry of capital
goods. Its objective is to present a comparison of IT collaborative platforms of new
product project management in order to identify, beyond the best and bad practices,
differences in critical success factors in the design and operation of these
platforms. This paper presents a first attempt, a comparison among four enterprises
with distinct size and production strategies.
2 Methods
The method used was the multiple-case studies according to Yin [7]. It was
adopted a holistic approach. Three dimensions were considered in each case: the
product development process (PDP), the IT infrastructure employed to support this
process and problems, and the practices and critical factors of success for
collaborative CE projects. The data collection instruments were: interviews, non-
participant observations and document analysis. Models of the enterprises’s PDP
phases were devised to analyze the data, which included the modeling of software
used to assist the processes. BPMN [2] was employed in the process modeling. The
study analyzed capital goods enterprises with distinct sizes (medium versus large)
and different manufacturing strategies (only Engineer-To-Order versus a mix of
Engineer-To-Order, Make-To-Stock, Make-To-Order and Assembly-To-Order).
Figure 1 represents each case.

3. A Comparative Analysis of Project Management Information Systems 343
Figure 1. Cases description
3 Results
The results presented in this article derive from the study of four cases as described
in the above section, i.e., capital goods enterprises. The deficient areas are
presented without detailed descriptions.
3.1 Enterprise A
3.1.1 The product development process(PDP) and IT infrastructure
Enterprise A’s PDP comprised the following areas: Sales, Management,
Engineering, Supplies and Manufacture. The IT infrastructure supporting its PDP
was composed of:
• PDM (Product Data Management) software, acting on Sales and
Management processes;
• ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) software used after product sales (it
has an integration customization and employs PDM data);
• Project management software to manage engineering processes activities
(additional project management software is also employed to display
results and follow customers’ tasks);
• Electronic spreadsheet to generate product sales reports for the
management of finished projects.
Figure 2 depicts the information macro-flow throughout PDP, showing where
IT tools were employed.

4. 344 C. Araujo and D. Amaral
Figure 2. Representation of Enterprise A’s information macro-flow
3.1.2 Problems, practices and critical success factors of collaborative CE projects
Enterprise A showed a satisfactory performance in controlling its projects since its
ERP and PDM systems seemed to meet the perceived needs. The customization of
these project control tools may reinforce the hypothesis that existing project
management tools should be modified.
The main problems were found in the functions:
• Global contract of projects, activities and resources;
• Information exchange between partners via monitored system;
• Generation of on-line consultation about finished projects;
• Integration of existing databases, discontinued use of electronic
spreadsheets and project management software;
• On-line monitoring of on-going processes, with swift interactions.
3.2 Enterprise B
3.2.1 The product development process and IT infrastructure
Enterprise B organized its PDP around the following areas: Board, R&D (Research
and Development), Thin Films and Industrial Operations. Figure 3 depicts its
information macro-flow.

5. A Comparative Analysis of Project Management Information Systems 345
Figure 3. Representation of Enterprise B’s information macro-flow
The IT infrastructure employed by the enterprise comprised the following tools:
• ERP software to oversee production plans, acquisitions and costs;
• Local net area to store engineering data;
• Word processor to enter product configurations and information as well as
to prepare reports in general;
• Project management software to monitor project timetable;
• Electronic spreadsheet to store information generated by project
management software and to establish a database to monitor the
development of projects and generate reports on performance indicators.
3.2.2 Problems, practices and critical success factors of collaborative CE projects
Enterprise B displayed a positive aspect as regards project management. It made
use of a visual board, which allowed communication of indicators to all involved in
the project. However, the main problems were related to its functions:
• Automatic generation of indicators;
• Integration of project management tools and product data;
• Use of database to manage resources by using effort data;
• On-line collaboration tools to contact external partners or collaborators
from other units.

6. 346 C. Araujo and D. Amaral
3.3 Enterprise C
3.3.1 The product development process and IT infrastructure
Enterprise C’s PDP consisted of Sales, Engineering, PPC (Production Planning and
Control), Production and Quality, as shown by its information macro-flow in
Figure 4.
The IT tools used in project development were:
• ERP software employed in all involved sectors to control activities
focusing on PPC (Sales, specifically, used a ERP module related to the list
of products and parts to develop budgets);
• Project management software to control on-going engineering projects
and monitor planning management activities;
• CAD software to produce drawing,
• Word processor to prepare project reports;
• Electronic spreadsheet to produce graphic reports with indicators about
projects.
Figure 4. Representation of Enterprise C’s information macro-flow
3.3.2 Problems, practices and critical success factors of collaborative CE projects
From the analysis of information it is possible to affirm that Enterprise C is at a
highly positive organizational stage as it was capable of integrating its tools to
meet its project needs. The main problems identified lay in its functions:

7. A Comparative Analysis of Project Management Information Systems 347
• Use of tools to share product documents;
• Development of reports on performance indicators directly in ERP since it
gathers most project information;
• Adoption of risk analysis in all projects.
3.4 Enterprise D
4.4.1 The product development process and IT infrastructure
Enterprise D’s project development took place in the following areas: Directory,
Electronic Engineering, Mechanic Engineering and Manufacture. The following IT
tools were employed in the process:
• Word processor to develop reports on planning, validation, development
and alteration of projects;
• CAD software to design hardware components;
• Electronic spreadsheet to control list of project materials;
• Project management software to monitor Engineering activities only.
Figure 5 shows information macro-flow in Enterprise D’s project development.
Figure 5. Representation of Enterprise D’s information macro-flow
3.4.3 Problems, practices and critical success factors of collaborative CE projects
Enterprise D’s best practices lay in product planning as it was capable of
identifying differential characteristics and opportunities in the market. It also held

8. 348 C. Araujo and D. Amaral
weekly meetings to monitor projects and employed helpdesk systems. However,
Enterprise D needs to change with respect to the use of IT tools. The main
challenges were identified in its functions:
• Use of project management software to communicate knowledge on
project data, e.g., timetable and activities;
• Development of environments to manage documents and workflows;
• Establishment of databases to control materials, thus eliminating the
obstacle of employees’ tacit knowledge;
• Use of tools to manage documents and workflows;
• Definite implementation and use of ERP to better manage activities
related to process plans and integration of engineering, PPC and purchase
activities in Electronic Engineering;
• Generation of information to establish project performance indicators
4 Final Considerations
The requirements and challenges presented in this study illustrate the difficulties
encountered in managing collaborative CE projects, especially concerning the
integration of several types of data and their communication to all collaborators
involved in the projects. The main contribution of this paper is to present the
difficulties for use the features of current tools as well as the requirements and
challenges to development a new class of project management systems capable of
supporting collaborative work in the industry of capital goods. In addition, the
cases described in this study may be of assistance to professionals interested in
building or improving IT infrastructures to support project management in
collaborative concurrent engineering of capital goods.
5 References
[1] Barnes TA, Pashby IR, Gibbons AM. Managing collaborative R&D projects
development of a practical management tool. Int J of project management 2006;24:395-
404.
[2] BPMN. OMG Final Adopted Specification, 2006. Available at:
<http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/OMG%20Final%20Adopted%20BPMN%201-
0%20Spec%2006-02-01.pdf>. Access on: Dec. 15th
2007.
[3] Hameri A, Puittinen R. WWW-enabled knowledge management for distributed
engineering projects. Computers in Industry 2003;50:165-177.
[4] Li WD, Fuh JYH, Wong Y S. An Internet-enabled integrated system for co-design and
concurrent engineering. Computers in Industry 2004;55:87-103.
[5] Rodriguez R, Al-Ashaab A. Knowledge web-based system architecture for
collaborative product development. Computers in Industry 2005;56:125-140.
[6] White D, Fortune J. Current practice in project management: an empirical study. Int J
of Project Management 2002; 20:1-11.
[7] Yin RK. Case Study Research-Design and Methods. Newbury Park, Sage
Publications,1994.