Purpose – The adoption of the product-service system business model means that the designing company has greater scope and motivation to learn from experience of its products in use to improve their core design and engineering capabilities. Continuous improvement, however, depends crucially upon the implementation of effective knowledge and information management (KIM) systems within a dynamic learning environment that impinge on diverse communities throughout the product lifecycle. This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper consolidates literature reviews and presents empirical observations relating to the current KIM systems and practices within large aerospace and manufacturing companies. In particular, experiences from a case study to enhance reuse of in-service feedback conducted with an aerospace company are reported. Findings – The empirical observations suggest that the feedback processes rely on a combination of formal and informal personalization and codification approaches, but companies are placing greater emphasis on the development of information systems to support learning from in-service experience. It is argued that greater value could be realized from collective reuse of in-service information but should be considered from the outset such that its content and representation could be made more amenable to computational analysis and organization for knowledge discovery. Research limitations/implications – To achieve the full aspirations of learning from in-service experience, issues and challenges of KIM need to be addressed. These are summarized as strategies to promote success of codification approaches. Originality/value – The initial value of the techniques for improving in-service information reuse has been demonstrated to the industrial collaborator.
- Knowledge management
- Knowledge management systems
- Experiential learning
Goh, Y-M., & McMahon, C. (2009). Improving reuse of in-service information capture and feedback. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), 626-639. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910961028