Product Life Cycle: the evolution of a paradigm and

literature review from 1950-2009

Hui Cao and Paul Folan

Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

([email protected])

Computer Integrated Manufacturing Research Unit (CIMRU), National University of

Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland

([email protected])
 Product Life Cycle: the evolution of a paradigm and
literature review from 1950-2009

Abstract

Recently, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) has become a popular topic in the
academic literature. However, although it shares the same title, contemporary PLM is
quite different from the early 20th century’s product lifecycle management culture,
which was established upon the basis of the classical life cycle body of theory, which
continued to be refined, right up to the end of 1960s. A comprehensive understanding of
the creation and deployment of different strands of PLM strategy requires a knowledge
of the basis of such paradigms—that is, the variety of product life cycle theories
available to the researcher, and how these have come about. This paper reviews relevant
product life cycle models presented historically in the literature and divides them into
two categories—the long-established Marketing Product Life Cycle Model, and the
emerging Engineering Product Life Cycle Model. An explanation of the former model
leads to an understanding of its perceived shortcomings, and the reason for the take-up
of later models. A correct knowledge of this is important, as contemporary PLM has
been inundated with a variety of PLM methodologies and techniques, largely from the
periodical literature and across the internet, often with no clear explication of the
underlining product life cycle model used to derive the methodology. There is a need
for analysis upon this issue; not just to clarify the mutable term “product life cycle”, but
for the provision of a correct understanding of the models that are informing the current
debate, often outside academic circles.

Keywords: Marketing Product Life Cycle; Engineering Product Life Cycle Model

1 Introduction

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) receives considerable attention from a wide

range of academic disciplines, and from all aspects of the business community.
Academic papers have appeared on the subject from the 1950s, while there is a huge
2
volume of white papers, periodical articles, consultant’s opinions, and vendor’s
advertisements that appear at regular intervals in trade publications, on internet websites,
and across a plethora of other media forms—all of which confirms that PLM, if nothing
else, is a subject of considerable popularity and a topic of heated debate in the casual
and grey business literature. Among this paper’s objectives is to plot briefly the
contemporary development of the product life cycle concept from its initial beginnings
in marketing, to its take-up by researchers in other fields, with a subsequent
concentration upon the models of the product life cycle that are often unconsciously
informing much of the popular debate on the subject of PLM. As will become clear
from the discussion below, the product lifecycle concept can mean different things to
different researchers, hence we must be careful to define its content and meaning here.

Before examining historical academic evidence, however, we may first address a word
on the current practitioner literature, which is enjoying widespread popularity. Public
perception of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) has been driven by an extended
marketing campaign on the part of many PLM interest groups that see PLM as an
important business opportunity. In the periodical literature—including vendor white
papers, grey literature, and internet forums sites dedicated to business solutions—we
can see that it posits an optimistic future for a brand of PLM that remains essentially
mechanistic in its origin.

In this view PLM development has really depended upon the idea of an evolution and
continual assimilation of computer-oriented product-based solutions, from early
engineering design applications (e.g. Computer Aided Design (CAD), or Computer
Aided Manufacturing (CAM)) in the 1970s and 1980s, through to the integration of
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), and
Supply Chain Management (SCM) solutions in the early years of this century [Ameri
and Dutta, 2005]. This evolution is depicted in Figure 1 after Ameri and Duttas’ [2005]
description of the same, and can stand very well for the form of PLM that influences the
research of most of the existing PLM vendors currently in business.

3
 ERP

CRM

PLM
SCM
Other
CAD specialised PDM
product-focused
computer PDM Web Interface
applications
ERP/CRM/SCM
Integration
CAM CAD CAM Others

Visualization tools

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Timeline

Figure 1: The development of PLM, described as an evolution of computing applications

In this figure we can see that the development of isolated computer applications, often
for product design, were merged to form basic Product Data Management (PDM)
systems in the 1980-90s, and then advanced by supplementing them with additional web
and visibility tools; while the development of early PLM occurred with the
incorporation of separate systems such as ERP, CRM and SCM into PDM in the new
millennium—a process still continuing and being refined with additional
supplementations today. Vendors have built their reputation on their ability to integrate
these widely-varying systems into coherent, inter-organisational PLM solutions, while
differentiation between them depends very much upon the variety of PLM “extras” that
they can offer to their customers.

The theoretical reliance upon a mechanistic, computer-enabled, PLM infrastructure, as

described in Figure 1 above, that subsumes all previously developed product-
technologies, cannot adequately address problems outside of its original remit—issues
such as those examined by supply chain, extended enterprise and virtual enterprise
researchers, for example. Instead, inhibiting factors upon PLM (such as unclear
customer requirements, shorter delivery times and numerous technical constraints [Lee
et al., 2006]; or those noted by Kim et al. [2006]: product data interoperability, system
application interoperability, and process interoperability) may only be solved if a value-
chain orientation is factored-in for our consideration. The major problem with the
4
current vendor-oriented PLM remit, as described above, is that it cannot adequately
handle such an additional value chain focus; instead, such a viewpoint must be tackled
by the deployment of PLM concepts that have emerged from other viewpoints of the
product lifecycle concept that is not dependent upon a simplistic examination of the
emergence and merging of product-oriented computing tools in the past few decades.

If we turn to the initial research that propelled the term product lifecycle into the wider
conciousness, we see that the concept centred around the need to produce a coherent
framework that could account for the relative success or failure of an individual product
introduced onto the market, when best to change strategies such as pricing [Dean, 1950]
or product manufacture, and determining when a product should be discontinued [Kotler,
1965]. From these early studies a biologically-inspired life cycle of the product emerged
that was divided into four phases (birth, growth, maturity, and decline), together with
the familiar bell-shaped curve describing a simple parabola upon an axis of sales
volume versus time [Levitt, 1965]. This theory was well-established by the 1960s, with
sharp criticism of the approach first appeared in the 1970s. Concerns over the
construct’s validity when applied empirically, caused ambivalence towards the theory in
the marketing environment in the long-term [Day, 1981].

The questioning has continued: products today have not remained a simple output of an
individual organisation—who are free to delineate phases of ‘life’ for the product, such
as introduction, growth, maturity and decline—as in the traditional product life cycle
model; rather the validity of such a model has been questioned for the operation of
today’s companies in an inter-organizational context, and it may be criticised for its
non-promotion of inter-connections between the phases involved, and its view of the
product as having only a relatively finite existence. Contemporary research have moved
beyond the one-of-a-kind product life cycle model with isolated phases of introduction,
growth, maturity, and decline; instead the model must take into account, in a more
explicit manner, the value chain itself, and be in some way part of its own regeneration.

Since the middle of the 1980s another type of product life cycle concept has emerged,
and has been rigorously reviewed by many authors since its inception. This life cycle
concept does not solely focuses on the market life of the product; instead, it examines
the real and complete life of a single product—from product conception, through design,
5
production, sale, customer use, and service, to, finally, decommissioning. The
emergence of this model—which continues to use much of the same terminology that
was initially introduced by the product life cycle, although very much in its own way—
is a direct result of a continued interest in a biologically inspired ‘life’ ideology for the
product under consideration. What has changed is the focus of the model, and its
application.

The purpose of this paper is to provide clarity for the term ‘product life cycle’, and to
chart its development from a marketing concept, to its wider emergence as a tool that is
now used by an ever-broadening set of professionals—academics, researchers,
consultants, vendors etc. The need for analysis upon this issue is necessary, not just to
clarify the apparent mutability of the term—although this is important,—but also to
ensure the appropriate provision of a correct understanding of the models that are
informing the current debate. This debate is emerging inside academic circles, where the
relationship and use of so-called product life cycle models must be coherently related to
previously conceived paradigms, resulting in a sharpening of both a conceptual
awareness regarding what constitutes a product life cycle model and what doesn’t, and
also how such models may be legitimately applied. But the debate is also operating in a
more unstructured fashion outside academic circles, fuelled by a plethora of grey
literature and internet contributions, many positing their own form of the product life
cycle. If the paradigm of the product life cycle is not to be damaged by this very
ubiquity, then there is a need to consider periodically the evidence adduced for the
major models that lie within its remit; and for an analysis of how, and why, multiple
models appear to be informing separate debates, although there is a superficial
commonality of terminology.

2 Methodology
The aim of this paper is to explicitly distinguish the ‘product life cycle’ theories,
specifying the realm, models, usage, and state-of-the-art development for each type of
the theories. As the theories are presented both in business and engineering domain, the
EBSCO Business Source Premier Database is employed by us for searching the journal
articles related to the concepts. Owing to the time and resource limits, we limited our
explorations in the peer-reviewed papers that contain the keyword of “product life
6
cycle” or “product lifecycle” in the title. Furthermore, the articles which are not
available in full text in the database are ignored.

From the specified database a total of 118 records are retrieved using above criteria.
Among the articles, 115 papers are identified for further examination, excluding one
erratum and two other articles that are not directly related to the product life cycle
theories discussed in this paper. Among the 115 articles, 77 articles merely discussed
the traditional product life cycle model (M-PLC), and 37 articles purely follow the latter
product life cycle concept (E-PLC); while the other article is related to both of the
theory. Table 1 gives the number of articles published in each category by year. For a
more reasonable analysis, the total number of articles available in the EBSCO Business
Source Premier Database is also retrieved for comparison. The proportion of the articles
identified to the total articles available is also shown in Table 1. Figure 2 and Figure 3
demonstrate the trends of the contributions over time more intuitively using column
charts. The more detailed review of the two product life cycle categories will be given
in the following two sections.

Table 1: Summary of the articles

Year Total M-PLC Related E-PLC Related

From To Available Number Proportion (‰) Number Proportion (‰)
1965 1967 20699 4 0.19 0 0.00
1968 1970 22439 3 0.13 0 0.00
1971 1973 25433 2 0.08 0 0.00
1974 1976 32754 4 0.12 0 0.00
1977 1979 37342 3 0.08 0 0.00
1980 1982 39942 11 0.28 0 0.00
1983 1985 41849 10 0.24 0 0.00
1986 1988 42087 2 0.05 0 0.00
1989 1991 54560 6 0.11 1 0.02
1992 1994 67973 3 0.04 0 0.00
1995 1997 88745 8 0.09 3 0.03
1998 2000 109677 4 0.04 5 0.05
2001 2003 129118 4 0.03 7 0.05
2004 2006 152839 9 0.06 11 0.07
2007 2009 114295 5 0.04 11 0.10
Summary 979752 78 0.08 38 0.04

7
 Figure 2: Number of contributions related to product life cycle theories

Figure 3: Proportion of contributions related to product life cycle theories

8
3 Marketing Product Life Cycle Model

3.1 Background

The initial literature that heralds the beginning of product lifecycle analysis may be
traced back to the 1950s, to the field of marketing. The first ‘official’ theory of the
product lifecycle was firmly in place by the mid-1960s in marketing circles, and has
continued to enjoy popularity, despite its age, with revivals of its original content
occurring periodically. Equally, however, criticism of the original work—and thus its
revival also—continues as a counterbalance to such literature.

Aside from this “initial” brand of the product lifecycle concept in marketing, the last 25
years or so has seen the development of a number of off-shoots to the original research
that has allowed the concept to change from its initial conception in the marketing
literature, to become the focus of attention in other research silos. This is the main
delineation between the marketing product life cycle and the engineering product life
cycle made here. The initial product lifecycle concept, although focused primarily upon
marketing needs and conceptions, often strayed-off into regions that lay outside of the
contemporaneous marketing purview, thus explaining its attraction for non-marketing
researchers. As will become clear from the representative description of the product
lifecycle, taken from Levitt [1965] and described below, the product lifecycle theory,
once elaborated, tends to draw into its orbit a number of related fields not immediately
open to the originators and which were, consequently, only elaborated later.

The marketing product life cycle germinated in the American atmosphere that existed
following the Second World War. At that time the American economy was enjoying
unparalleled success that was unmatched by Europe, depressed in the aftermath of war.
Bennett and Cooper [1984] note two environmental factors that contributed to this: mid-
century technological innovation; and vigourous market demand propelled by a growing
population. Marketing research was dominated by this upsurge of economic prosperity
which saw a huge growth in the number of product introductions, individual product
growth and product successes or failures, as well as new product strategies for product
placement and advertising, all catering for consumers that were increasingly demanding

9
greater product choice following the lean war years.Explanations of the product life
cycle theory can be traced back to Dean [1950], who studied the price policies for each
phase of a product’s market development. Dean believed that ‘new products have a
protected distinctiveness which is doomed to progressive degeneration from competitive
inroads’; and this progress he called the ‘cycle of competitive degeneration’:

‘The invention of a new marketable specialty is usually followed by a period

of patent protection when markets are still hesitant and unexplored and
when product design is fluid. Then comes a period of rapid expansion of
sales as market acceptance is gained. Next the product becomes a target for
competitive encroachment. New competitors enter the field, and innovations
narrow the gap of distinctiveness between the product and its substitutes…’
[Dean, 1950]

Although Dean only explored the pricing policies in the pioneering phase and the
mature phase of a product’s life cycle, his explanation of the cycle was explicit enough
to be seen as the origin of the emerging product life cycle theory.

3.2 Classical Product Life Cycle Theory

Initially, the product lifecycle concept centred around the need to produce a coherent
framework that could account for the relative success or failure of an individual product
introduced onto the market, when best to change strategies such as pricing or product
manufacture, and determining when a product should be discontinued. The proliferation
of competition, and the increased number of brands individual companies were bringing
to market, had made this job far more difficult than previously. Price-fixing of products
at different levels of maturity was only one issue that was troubling the marketing
research at the time; another was product obsolesce—the stage in a product’s existence
when it had outgrown its usefulness, or when the demand for its services was on the
decline. Owing to the continual introduction and failure of new products into a viciously
competitive market-place, product decline research was in abeyance, with many firms
retaining product lines that had become obsolete without the appropriate steps towards
retirement being taken. Theories for the appropriate phasing out of weaker products

10
[Kotler, 1965] were in short supply, and would eventually become incorporated into the
general theory of product lifecycles.

Eventually, by the end of the 1950s and throughout the following decade, the product
lifecycle body of theory was emerging as an established entity in its own right, with the
first promulgators and early influential papers including those by Forrester [1958],
Patton [1959], Levitt [1965], Cox [1967], and Polli and Cook [1969]. In the first
instance, the product lifecycle concept must have owed some of its adoption success to
the high-profile publications that, throughout it earliest years, continued to revisit and
promulgate its contents; these included the Harvard Business Review, and popular
journals such as the Journal of Business. Practically speaking, the period ranging from
the end of the 1950s to the mid-1970s were more about the promulgation of the theory,
and combating its critics, than about any major empirical investigations of the theory in
its own right. A later phase of empiricism would come in the late-1970s, and continues
up to today, despite a vestige of the initial scepticism still being in evidence in the
research.

The initial theory may now be outlined. As representative of this initial research we
exhibit Levitt’s conception in his Harvard Business Review paper “Exploit the product
life cycle” in 1965; the main elements of this, and indeed the whole theory, are

11
 displayed in

Box 1
Product Lifecycle Theory
after Levitt (1965)
Sales Volume

Stage #1
Stage #2 Stage #3 Stage #4
MARKET
GROWTH MATURITY DECLINE
DEVELOPMENT

Time

The life story of most successful products is a history of their passing through certain recognizable stages.
These are (refer to figure):

Stage 1: Market Development—this is when a new product is first brought to market, before there is a proved
demand for it, and often before it has been fully proved out technically in all respects. Sales are low and
creep along slowly.
Bringing a new product to market is fraught with risks and unknowns; demand must be “created”. There are a number
of ravaging costs and frequent fatalities associated with launching new products; nothing takes more time, cost more
money, involve more pitfalls, cause more anguish, or break more careers than new product programs. Therefore
many firms avoid this stage, and will follow the innovator, who breaks the new ground. Many products fail and do not
get past this stage; retailers and other sellers heavily relied upon to promote new products.

Stage 2: Market Growth—demand begins to accelerate and the size of the total market expands rapidly. It
might also be called the “Takeoff Stage”.
With a successful product there is a gradual rise in the sales curve. Potential competitors, who have been watching
developments, launch competing products; product and brand differentiation begin to develop. The innovator must
now switch from policies of trying to get customers to “try the product” in Stage 1, to “prefer his brand” over rivals;
presence of competitors dictates and limits policies that can be used to achieve this. Increased sales results in
opening new distribution channels, and even more competitors. Price undercutting begins to occur because of later
advances in technology, production shortcuts etc.

Stage 3: Market Maturity—demand levels off and grows, for the most part, only at the replacement and new-
family formation rate.
Market saturation, both of innovator’s and rival’s brands; all sales prospects are full. Sales only grow on par with the
population. Price competition becomes intense; finer and finer differentiations in the product and promotional and
customer services, so as to achieve and hold brand preference. Retention of market niches important. Producer must
hold his distribution outlets, retain shelf space, and try to secure more intensive distribution. Retailers’ role reduced to
that of merchandise-displayers.

Stage 4: Market Decline—the product begins to lose consumer appeal and sales drift downward.
Few companies able to weather the competitive storm. Overcapacity of product in the marketplace becomes
epidemic. To hasten competitors’ decline, some initiate depressive tactics: propose mergers/buy-outs, steep price-
cutting etc. Production gets concentrated into fewer hands as more and more firms leave the competitive space,
deeming it to be too unprofitable; prices and margins get depressed; consumers get bored with the product offering,
revived only slightly by styling and fashion elements. Product declines to death or near-death.

Figure 4. Although even at this time there was some minute differences between the
various authors in their explanations of the theory, these are practically insignificant and

12
needn’t detain us here; Levitt’s [1965] version is representative and explains the concept
well.

What is immediately contained in the explanation of the product lifecycle theory offered
by Levitt [1965] in Figure 4 is a generic agenda for future product-related research to
capture the ideals outlined in the notes that apply to each product lifecycle stage. Many
of the elements discussed here, and by other practitioners stretching back to Dean
[1950], would continue to occupy, and do occupy, the product-research space to the
present day. The curve formed in the diagram—a simple parabola that can be
represented by the equation [Cox, 1967]: Y = a + bX + cX2;—is divided into four
segments, not necessarily equidistant in terms of time, and named 1) market
development, 2) growth, 3) maturity, and 4) decline; these divisions are agreed upon by
all early commentators (later commentators felt free to add to this four-phase
description of the product lifecycle (see, for example, Rink et al. [1999] who added a
pre-lifecycle phase called “pioneering” just before introduction)). Each segment, or
stage, has associated advice from whence the future research has drawn most of its
impetus.

The key point of the division of the product’s life into stages is that different strategies
may be applied to a product class as it moves from one to another, thus allowing the
product lifecycle to act as a basis for production planning and control [Forrester, 1958;
Cox, 1967]. The metaphor of a product having a “life” is biological in origin [Dhalla
and Yuspeh, 1976; Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979a], implying that the phases are fixed
and non-negotiable. Although, even at the time of the original promulgation, initial
empirical testing had meant that the theory could not be taken too seriously, “several
writers have used the product lifecycle as a basis for recommendations about the content
of marketing programs at different stages of the lifecycle” [Polli and Cook, 1969];
which meant, in effect, that despite its validity being suspect, the theory was gaining
influence among marketers. The attraction of the theory to non-marketing specialists has
already been noted, but this influence was to arrive later after the initial debate of the
theory in marketing circles. The initial statement of the theory was followed by some
not-very-extensive empirical work and a refutation of some of its basic contentions by
opposing marketing researchers in the 1970s.

13
We use the term Marketing Product Life Cycle (M-PLC) for this life cycle theory in the
following parts of this paper.

14
 Box 1
Product Lifecycle Theory
Sales Volume after Levitt (1965)

Stage #1
Stage #2 Stage #3 Stage #4
MARKET
GROWTH MATURITY DECLINE
DEVELOPMENT

Time

The life story of most successful products is a history of their passing through certain recognizable stages.
These are (refer to figure):

Stage 1: Market Development—this is when a new product is first brought to market, before there is a proved
demand for it, and often before it has been fully proved out technically in all respects. Sales are low and
creep along slowly.
Bringing a new product to market is fraught with risks and unknowns; demand must be “created”. There are a number
of ravaging costs and frequent fatalities associated with launching new products; nothing takes more time, cost more
money, involve more pitfalls, cause more anguish, or break more careers than new product programs. Therefore
many firms avoid this stage, and will follow the innovator, who breaks the new ground. Many products fail and do not
get past this stage; retailers and other sellers heavily relied upon to promote new products.

Stage 2: Market Growth—demand begins to accelerate and the size of the total market expands rapidly. It
might also be called the “Takeoff Stage”.
With a successful product there is a gradual rise in the sales curve. Potential competitors, who have been watching
developments, launch competing products; product and brand differentiation begin to develop. The innovator must
now switch from policies of trying to get customers to “try the product” in Stage 1, to “prefer his brand” over rivals;
presence of competitors dictates and limits policies that can be used to achieve this. Increased sales results in
opening new distribution channels, and even more competitors. Price undercutting begins to occur because of later
advances in technology, production shortcuts etc.

Stage 3: Market Maturity—demand levels off and grows, for the most part, only at the replacement and new-
family formation rate.
Market saturation, both of innovator’s and rival’s brands; all sales prospects are full. Sales only grow on par with the
population. Price competition becomes intense; finer and finer differentiations in the product and promotional and
customer services, so as to achieve and hold brand preference. Retention of market niches important. Producer must
hold his distribution outlets, retain shelf space, and try to secure more intensive distribution. Retailers’ role reduced to
that of merchandise-displayers.

Stage 4: Market Decline—the product begins to lose consumer appeal and sales drift downward.
Few companies able to weather the competitive storm. Overcapacity of product in the marketplace becomes
epidemic. To hasten competitors’ decline, some initiate depressive tactics: propose mergers/buy-outs, steep price-
cutting etc. Production gets concentrated into fewer hands as more and more firms leave the competitive space,
deeming it to be too unprofitable; prices and margins get depressed; consumers get bored with the product offering,
revived only slightly by styling and fashion elements. Product declines to death or near-death.

Figure 4: Product Life cycle Theory (adapted from Levitt [1965])

15
For examining the revolutionary path of the M-PLC theory, we identified the purpose of
the 78 M-PCL related articles that we retrieved into seven categories (Table 2). After
the theory was introduced (Introduction) to the public in 1960s, authors were engaged in
quantitive validating the theory by empirically data (Validation), discussing the issues
raised by the theory (Issues), and proposing their alternative patterns of the M-PLC
model (Modification). The boom of the M-PLC theory took place in 1980s, when the
theory was employed by researchers for analysis the business strategies in various
situations (Usage), or extending the theory to other areas, e.g. international trade and
religions (Extension). Till this stage, the M-PLC theory is considered to be well
established and accepted by the majority. After the boom of a decade or so, the
contributions to the M-PLC theory fell down to a moderate level from 1990s, or even a
impoverished level considering its proportion to the total available articles in the
database.

Table 2: Contributions to M-PLC

Year M-PLC
From To Introduction Validation Issues Modification Usage Extension Other Summary ‰
1965 1967 2 1 1 4 0.19
1968 1970 1 1 1 3 0.13
1971 1973 1 1 2 0.08
1974 1976 2 2 4 0.12
1977 1979 1 1 1 3 0.08
1980 1982 2 1 6 2 11 0.28
1983 1985 1 7 2 10 0.24
1986 1988 2 2 0.05
1989 1991 2 1 3 6 0.11
1992 1994 1 1 1 3 0.04
1995 1997 6 1 1 8 0.09
1998 2000 4 4 0.04
2001 2003 4 4 0.03
2004 2006 7 1 1 9 0.06
2007 2009 4 1 5 0.04
Summary 2 6 5 3 45 13 4 78 0.08

16
3.3 Challenges and Variations

The key criticisms of this initial exposition of the product lifecycle theory may now be
recounted. Dhalla and Yuspeh in their 1976 article ‘Forget the product life cycle
concept!’ tackled a number of issues regarding the initial theory; their main criticisms
are depicted in Table 1. These criticisms have had a direct result on the theory,
particularly those related to product form and the fixed nature of the sequencing of the
stages involved. It is generally allowed that the widely diverging empirical evidence
collected since these criticisms were first made means that the product lifecycle theory
cannot be applied in absolutist terms; rather, as Hayes and Wheelwright (1979a)
concede, directly from Dhalla and Yuspehs’ (1976) article:—

Irrespective of whether the product lifecycle pattern is a general rule or holds only for
specific cases, it does provide a useful and provocative framework for thinking about
the growth and development of a new product, a company, or an entire industry.

The authoritative ground, in the marketing sphere at least, has been conceded; the
theory’s inability to support itself by empirics, and the critical eye of Dhalla and Yuspeh
[1976], have been sufficient to relegate, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, the original
product lifecycle theory from its position as the cherished, dominant theory in
marketing, to a more subordinate, supporting, “useful” role. Day [1981], for example,
noted a contemporary ambivalence in marketing following such successful criticism,
but still registered its popularity.

Currently, in marketing, this original theory is still sometimes deployed by those

attracted to its simplicity. This, however, regularly induces the re-appearance of critical
articles (see, for example, Grantham [1997]) to refute the more wilder claims made for
the theory by these advocates.

Challenges have included queries into the inevitability of the sequences of the phases,
criticisms of the vagueness ofborderlines betweenphases, and doubts about the
difference between product class, product form and brand. These are discussed in
briefly in the following paragraphs.

17
 The concept of M-PLC has been discussed for over half a century; however, the
definition of a ‘product’ is still vague. Levitt [1965] suggest that the sales curve of the
originator’s brand usually does not form the same shape as the curve of the industry
illustrated in

Box 1
Product Lifecycle Theory
after Levitt (1965)
Sales Volume

Stage #1
Stage #2 Stage #3 Stage #4
MARKET
GROWTH MATURITY DECLINE
DEVELOPMENT

Time

The life story of most successful products is a history of their passing through certain recognizable stages.
These are (refer to figure):

Stage 1: Market Development—this is when a new product is first brought to market, before there is a proved
demand for it, and often before it has been fully proved out technically in all respects. Sales are low and
creep along slowly.
Bringing a new product to market is fraught with risks and unknowns; demand must be “created”. There are a number
of ravaging costs and frequent fatalities associated with launching new products; nothing takes more time, cost more
money, involve more pitfalls, cause more anguish, or break more careers than new product programs. Therefore
many firms avoid this stage, and will follow the innovator, who breaks the new ground. Many products fail and do not
get past this stage; retailers and other sellers heavily relied upon to promote new products.

Stage 2: Market Growth—demand begins to accelerate and the size of the total market expands rapidly. It
might also be called the “Takeoff Stage”.
With a successful product there is a gradual rise in the sales curve. Potential competitors, who have been watching
developments, launch competing products; product and brand differentiation begin to develop. The innovator must
now switch from policies of trying to get customers to “try the product” in Stage 1, to “prefer his brand” over rivals;
presence of competitors dictates and limits policies that can be used to achieve this. Increased sales results in
opening new distribution channels, and even more competitors. Price undercutting begins to occur because of later
advances in technology, production shortcuts etc.

Stage 3: Market Maturity—demand levels off and grows, for the most part, only at the replacement and new-
family formation rate.
Market saturation, both of innovator’s and rival’s brands; all sales prospects are full. Sales only grow on par with the
population. Price competition becomes intense; finer and finer differentiations in the product and promotional and
customer services, so as to achieve and hold brand preference. Retention of market niches important. Producer must
hold his distribution outlets, retain shelf space, and try to secure more intensive distribution. Retailers’ role reduced to
that of merchandise-displayers.

Stage 4: Market Decline—the product begins to lose consumer appeal and sales drift downward.
Few companies able to weather the competitive storm. Overcapacity of product in the marketplace becomes
epidemic. To hasten competitors’ decline, some initiate depressive tactics: propose mergers/buy-outs, steep price-
cutting etc. Production gets concentrated into fewer hands as more and more firms leave the competitive space,
deeming it to be too unprofitable; prices and margins get depressed; consumers get bored with the product offering,
revived only slightly by styling and fashion elements. Product declines to death or near-death.

18
Figure 4. According to him, the ‘product’ in the M-PLC concept indicates the products
of the whole industry, but not only a product brand. However, his meaning for the term
‘industry’ is unclear.The difference aggregation between product classes, product forms,
and brands was first defined by Polli and Cook [1969]: items which belong in different
product classes have near-zero demand cross-elasticity; all objects within a product
form can be mean fully added in physical units; and brands within a product form are
unique, apart from package differences. After a test of 140 products, including product
classes, product forms, and brands, Polli and Cook [1969] concluded that the M-PLC
model is a “good model”, especially suitable for dealing with product forms.

However, a study carried by Dhalla and Yuspeh [1976] declared that only 17% of the
observed sequences in product classes and 20% of the sequences in product forms were
significantly different from chance at the confidence of 99%; and when it comes to
brands, the M-PLC model has even less validity. In this case, the M-PLC model is
doubted by a few authors on its usage of managing existing brands, which is usually the
main task of a company.

Another major criticism on the M-PLC model is the identification of the four phases.
The qualitative description of the phases has been recognised since 1950s; however,
there are very few generic quantitative analyses on how to define the bounds of each
phase.

Table 3 gives two examples of quantitative distinction of the M-PLC phases. Cox [1967]
introduced two measures of product life—catalogue life and commercial life—to
determine the M-PLC phases in the investigation of the ethical-drug industry in the
United States.
While Polli and Cook [1969] established a distribution of percentage changes in sales to
identify the phases. On the assumption that distribution follows the normal function
with mean zero, Polli and Cook considered that the percentage changes lower than –σ/2
represent significant ‘declines’; values greater than +σ/2 represent significant ‘growth’;
while values in the range of ±σ/2 correspond to the ‘maturity’ phase.

19
 Table 3: Examples of criteria for phases

Phases Cox [1967] Polli and Cook [1969]

Introduction Up to five thousand new prescriptions in a single month Si less than 5% of peak sales
Growth From five thousand new prescriptions in a single month Si* greater than + .05
Maturity From maximum monthly revenue Si* in the + .05 to - .05 range
Decline Below 20% or 10% of maximum monthly revenue Si* greater than - .05
Si = Yearly sales of nondurable i divided by sales of all nondurables
Si* = Yearly percentage changes in Si

Despite the above-mentioned definitions, there are few contributions on the quantitative
identification of the M-PLC phases. Owing to a lack of well-testified phase
identification methods, a few authors, including Wood [1990] and Grantham [1997],
concluded that the model is useful to monitor sales but is limited in forecasting. The
value of the M-PLC model then is limited to foreseeing the next phase of the market and
working backwards [Levitt, 1965] using qualitative analysis.

3.4 Alternative Stages and Patterns

Regardless of the widely acceptance of the M-PLC theory, the dividing of the life cycle
stages and the pattern of the life cycle curve is never unified. In the articles we
examined, there are 32 papers explicitly presented the life cycle stages they employed;
15 papers employed the popular four-stage version described above (introduction,
growth, maturity, and decline), while others had their own opinion. Some added a
pioneering stage at the beginning, some inserted a saturation stage between maturity
and decline, and some engaged the early-growth and late-growth stages instead of the
maturity and decline stages.

Furthermore, some authors asserted that not every product goes through all the four
stages of the M-PLC, e.g. the decline stage may not occur in some situation, or the sales
volume collapses suddenly at some point of the growth stage. There are also two
authors divided the M-PLC into introductory-growth and maturity-decline stages, owing
to the vagueness of the borders between the stages. Moreover, some authors proposed
that the product’s life may become resuscitation again after a period of decline and thus
a “second curve” begins.

20
Corresponding to the various dividing of M-PLC stages, the patterns of the M-PLC
curve also varied from the dominance of the parabolic M-PLC curve illustrated in
Figure 4 Error! Reference source not found. in the M-PLC literature, variations of the
curve are proposed by several researchers. Cox [1967] described the follwing curve
forms when revenue (Y) is plotted against time (X), with aggregation parameters
denoted by a, b, c, d and e:

 Type 1: Y = a + bX + cX2

 Type 2: Y = a + bX (where b is positive)

 Type 3: Y = a + bX (where b is negative)

 Type 4: Y = a + bX (where b is zero)

 Type 5: Y = a + bX + cX2 + dX3

 Type 6: Y = a + bX + cX2 + dX3 + eX4

Cox found that curve types 1, 2, and 5 may evolve into curve type 6 which can be
considered as the basic M-PLC curve in the ethical-drug industry he studied.
Corresponding to this, Levitt [1965] also believed that the life cycle can be managed
and extended by promotion or other sales strategies. Furthermore, according to Wood
[1990], Meenaghan and O’Sullivan attempted to consolidate the situation and presented
some alternative patterns of the variant curve shape in their discussion of shape and
length of M-PLC.

3.5 New Issues for M-PLC

Owing to rapid changes in production and marketing environments in recent decades,

various forms of collaborative networks have come into force, and the definition of the
word ‘product’ as term has become more elastic. Latter-day concerns for the M-PLC
theory are listed below:

21
1. Considering an extended product, which is served by a variety of enterprises along
the value chain, the M-PLC model depicts the life cycle of the production/sale
process of the product (usually from the point of view of just one frim), with no
consideration for the viewpoints of other businesses along the value chain? Are
there also ‘design life cycle’, ‘service life cycle’, and ‘decommission life cycle’
models existing for other collaboration network partners to manage their business?
If so, are there any connections or interactions among these models?

2. Due to eco-regulations and economic benefits, the demanufacturing of a product or

component becomes more favourable and even essential to a value chain. When
these refurbished or remanufactured products enter the market, how should the M-
PLC model describe these second-hand products? Do they pose a threat to the
primary route of the product, from birth to decline?

3. Furthermore, since the product is mass customised and varies one with another,
how should the word ‘product’be exactly defined? Even if the difference
aggregation between product classes, product forms, and brands is still valid in
mass customisation, the theory of M-PLC will be less valuable in the management
of mass customised production, owing to its poor reliability on detailed forecasting.

4. On the other hand, more and more technology-driven companies, such as Intel, are
benefiting from time-pacing innovations, a strategy for competing in fast-changing,
unpredictable markets by scheduling change at predictable time intervals
[Eisenhardt and Brown 1998]. Time-pacing introduces products according to a pre-
arranged schedule, or a pre-determined development rhythm (Lagenevik et al.,
2003); it tackles the central concept of ‘introduction’ in the classic M-PLC model,
whereby product introduction is generally based upon demand characteristics of the
existing market, and where it does not attempt to synchronise product introduction
as with time-pacing, which effectively trys to set-up as an ‘internal metronome’
reflecting the marketplace inside the organization. Time-pacing changes the
concept of product introduction, which in turn alters the way that the product may
be viewed and condisered through its product life.

22
4 Engineering Product Life Cycle

The original product life cycle model traditionally resided within the marketing arena.
However, for the concept to develop, a focus beyond marketing became a prerequisite;
this led to different formations of the product lifecycle theory emerging outside of
marketing, as non-marketing practitioners took the concept up, and applied it to their
own research strands. Much of the associated advice in, for example, Levitt’s [1965]
description of the market product life cycle, strayed outside of the contemporareous
marketing purview; so much so, in fact, that an explicitly non-marketing focus became
important if the concept was to retain its relevance. Current product offerings were not
the simple output of an individual organisation—with traditionally delineated phases of
‘life’, such as introduction, growth, maturity and decline, as in the traditional M-PLC
model; rather the validity of this a model was being reconsidered in the light of the
operation of today’s companies, with the subsequent emergence of criticisim of the M-
PLC’s non-promotion of inter-connections between the phases involved, and its view of
the product as having only a relatively finite existence. Contemporary research was to
move beyond the one-of-a-kind product life cycle model with isolated phases of
introduction, growth, maturity, and decline, as mentioned previously; instead the model
was to take into account, in a more explicit manner, the value chain itself, and be in
some way part of its own regeneration.

Instances of this change of direction began to emerge in the mid-1960s, and had
solidified into a new sphere of development for product life cycle research by the 1970s.
As early as 1966 the initial concept of the product lifecycle had evolved a politicized,
“international” dimension in the work of Vernon [1966], who originated the concept of
the “international product lifecycle”—a theory that exploits economic/locational factors
to explain the movement and evolution of new product technology diffusion across
national boundaries. Here the focus of the lifecycle had moved beyond the simple
requirements of the product itself, to include its processes also, and then posits a
lifecycle from initial “advanced” countries to final “less developed” countries.

Elsewhere Hayes and Wheelwright [1979a, b] were beginning to examine the link
between the process and the product lifecycle. They describe a ‘product-process matrix’
23
with product structure on the x-axis, and process structure on the y-axis. Mapped onto
this structure in a diagonal line, thus matching each x-axis type against its
corresponding y-axis type, were typical company positions that are characterised by
each product/process mapping; those companies who seek a position ‘off the diagonal’
were seeking a competitive advantage [Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979a, b]. The
meaning of this new framework was intentionally strategic in focus: Hayes and
Wheelwright developed ‘a framework that can help a company to conduct a diagnosis
of its strategic evolution, think creatively about possible future strategic directions, and
explicitly involve both marketing and manufacturing in coordinating and implementing
its competitive goals’ [Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979b]. Effectively they tied the
concept of the product lifecycle into its associated process lifecycle and used this
combination to formulate strategy. By so doing, they explicitly free the product lifecycle
concept from an exclusively marketing orientation, and apply a corresponding process
lifecycle structure to form their matrix framework. Here strategic management
subordinates the ‘product life’ to its need to find a coherent company strategy; in the
marketing literature, the product lifecycle concept was elevated to an end in itself, with
strategies being sought to satisfy its requirements.

This difference of approach was to be repeated throughout other research silos as time
went on, with the product lifecycle theory, its terminology or even its underpinning
precepts, undergoing subordination to whatever elements happen to be dominant in the
research field under discussion. Space is insufficient to document all of these variations,
but mention may be made of the following: Bennett and Coopers’ [1984] business life
cycle; Potts’ [1988] service life cycle; and the emergence of research upon life cycle
assessment, which is documented further below in the development of the E-PLC.

Since the middle of the 1980s, another type of product life cycle concept has raised the
researchers’ attention and has been rigorously reviewed by many authors since its
inception. This life cycle concept does not solely focuses on the market life of the
product; instead, it examines the real and complete life of a single product—from
product conception, through design, production, sale, customer use, and service, to,
finally, decommissioning. In order to distinguish these emerging models from the
established M-PLC models, these all-embracing models are referred to as Engineering
Product Life Cycle (E-PLC) models.
24
4.1 Emergence of the E-PLC

Research on the E-PLC originated with the development of life cycle costing (LCC) and
life cycle assessment (LCA). LCC was initiated by the US Department of Defence
(DoD) in the early 1960s to increase the effectiveness of government procurement
[Asiedu and Gu, 1998]. Stimulated by findings that operation and support costs for a
typical weapon system accounted for 75% of the total cost, the DoD developed LCC
analysis as a framework for specifying the estimated total incremental costs of
developing, producing, using, and retiring a particular item [Asiedu and Gu, 1998].

In the meantime, LCA was developed from the already existing substance flow analysis
in the late 1960s and early 1970s; it is a methodology for assessing the environmental
impacts and resource consumption associated with the existence of products from cradle
to grave [Westkaemper et al., 2001a].

The concepts of LCC and LCA both quietly evolved throughout the 1970s. With the
advent of a range of Computer-Aided design, Manufacturing and Engineering
(CAD/CAM/CAE) tools in 1980s, the introduction of innovative products entered a new
era. In establishing the earlier computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) vision, it was
found necessary to integrate design and manufacturing, which has resulted in terms such
as ‘design for manufacture’, ‘design for production’, and ‘design for assembly’ etc.
[Alting, 1993]; however, little attention was paid to the usage or disposal/recycling
phases.

In the mid 1980s, measures on packaging and packaging-waste-management were

introduced in many European countries by the EU directive 85/339/EEC. Since then,
LCA and LCC has experienced a revival, and associated research has emerged to cope
with the rapid extension of environmental concerns, and the resultant change in
competitive circumstances that this has fostered. Meanwhile, additional approaches—
e.g. ‘design for service’, ‘design for disassembly’, and ‘design for recycling’—were
introduced into the ‘design for X’ (DfX) realm. Subsequently, Life Cycle

25
Design/Engineering was explored when researchers (see for example,Alting [1993;
1995]; and Ishii [1994]) tried to integrate these disparate DfX methodologies.

In parallel with the development of CAX (Computer Aided Design/Engineering/etc.)

tools, Product Data Management (PDM) systems appeared to centralise product
information—created by various information authoring tools—into a single,
authoritative database. Over time, with the integration of new functionalities, such as
change management, document management, workflow management and project
management into PDM categories, PDM systems held the promise of providing both for
concurrent engineering and streamlined product development processes, within the
enterprise, and across the extended enterprise, when enabled by web technologies
[Ameri and Dutta, 2005].

Supported by the above-mentioned methodologies, contemporary E-PLC, based on

PLM (Product Lifecycle Management), emerged as a combination of academic research
and commercial exploitation of organisational applications [Cao et al., 2007]. Figure 5
gives a sketch of the contemporary E-PLC related research, as suggested by
Westkämper [2001a].

Figure 5: Applications of E-PLC Management [Westkaemper et al., 2001a]

Upon an examination of the research that has emerged that has principally focused upon
the E-PLC model, foundational studies in life cycle analysis remain prevalent. In the 38
E-PLC related articles we reviewed, the most popular topic is LCC and LCA
26
(categorised as Evaluation in Table 4). The second most popular is the presentation of
IT technologies for collecting life cycle data and assisting E-PLC management (IT). The
other popular topics include life cycle design/modelling (Engineering), and
recycling/reuse tactics (EOL, end-of-life) etc. This collection of topics appears to have
explored the E-PLC from the technology/engineering perspective, which is the reason
why we categorise them as theEngineering Product Life Cycle. Table 4 gives the
number of the papers we identified in each category. The first E-PLC related paper that
we retrieved from the EBSCO database was published at the end of 1980s. Since then, it
shows a steady increase both in the number and the proportion to the total available
articles in the database.

Table 4: Contributions to E-PLC

Year E-PLC
From To Introduction Evaluation Engineering MOL EOL IT Other Summary ‰
1965 1967 0
1968 1970 0
1971 1973 0
1974 1976 0
1977 1979 0
1980 1982 0
1983 1985 0
1986 1988 0
1989 1991 1 1 0.02
1992 1994 0 0.00
1995 1997 1 1 1 3 0.03
1998 2000 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.05
2001 2003 2 3 2 7 0.05
2004 2006 5 1 1 2 2 11 0.07
2007 2009 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 0.10
Summary 2 10 6 1 5 9 5 38 0.04

4.2 Contemporary Perspectives of E-PLC

The E-PLC model involves the study of the complete life of a product—from cradle to
grave, from product conception, through design, production, sale, customer use, and
service, to decommissioning. Currently there is no standardised E-PLC model
27
available—a consequence of researchers in particular research fields investigating PLC
elements in relative isolation from each other; however, a number of E-PLC
perspectives have been proposed in the last two decades, with one of the most
fundamental elements of these models being the consistent reliance upon the same
leading publications. Design, Production, Customer Usage and End-of-life
decommissioning are common phases in the E-PLC models suggested by these authors,
and these are described below in general.

From the point of view of product design, a six-phase life cycle (needs recognition,
design/development, production, distribution, usage, and disposal/recycling) is
suggested by Alting [1993], who believes that all six phases which a product goes
through have to be considered at the conceptual stage.

Additionly, and also based on life cycle design, Ishii et al. [1994] introduced a ‘material
life cycle’ concept (Figure 6.b) extended from their product life cycle vision (Figure
6.a). Material life cycle analysis was addressed by them to assess the residual value of a
material when recycled under a certain scenario.

Figure 6: Product life cycle and material life cycle by Ishii et al. [1994]

The product life cycle model proposed by Ishii et al. [1994] was further adapted by
Asiedu and Gu [1998]. The remanufacture process was introduced and a connection
between disposal and the environmental impact was amended (Figure 7). Nevertheless,
in their analysis of product life cycle cost, Asiedu and Gu [1998] distinguish between
only four phases: design development, production, use, and disposal. Meanwhile,
28
WestKämper [2001b] included five phases (concept, design, manufacturing and
assembly, use and support, reuse and/or recycling) in their analysis of LCC and LCA.

Figure 7: Product life cycle adapted by Asiedu and Gu [1998]

Furthermore, a System Life Cycle was introduced by Kriwet et al. [1995] that integrated
product life cycle design. Accordingly, the system here includes a life cycle of three
elements: the product, its related processes, and its logistic support (Figure 8); these
three life cycles should be considered simultaneously when following the system life
cycle during the acquisition, utilisation, and recycling phases [Kriwet et al., 1995].

Figure 8: Product, Process, and Support Life Cycles suggested by Kriwet et al. [1995]

Figure 9 illustrates a recently developed generic E-PLC model, which follows the model
generically outlined by Kiritsis et al. [2003]. The contemporary vision utilised in this
model tightly couples both material and information flows at the product’s design and
manufacturing stages (called the beginning-of-life (BOL) phase). A second phase
follows, where the finished product is purchased by the customer and is used and
repaired when necessary (called the middle-of-life (MOL) phase)—this phase decouples

29
the information flow from the material flow and returns information to BOL as required.
In a final phase the customer has completed their use of the product and this, in turn, is
released for decommissioning (called the end-of-life (EOL) phase); here the final
decoupling of the material and information flows first forged in BOL is made and
material and components are returned to BOL and MOL, while information flows return
useful maintenance information to MOL, and design and manufacturing information to
BOL. This product lifecycle model becomes a closed-loop of continuous improvement,
with flows from BOL to MOL and EOL and back again, allowing product designers in
BOL to introduce ever-improved products to the market; with the added possibility of
improving the existing product in the field by the provision of value chain services as
and when it is deemed expedient. This E-PLC model, being most sophisticated
produced yet, is described in more detail in the following sub-sections, according to its
leading phses, BOL, MOL, and EOL.

Figure 9: Closed loop E-PLC perspective

4.2.1 Beginning-of-Life

BOL is the phase where the product concept is generated and its physical model is
realized. The activities included in this phase contain product conception, preliminary
and detailed design, manufacturing and assembly, and may include some initial
distribution to the consumer.

30
As the product design stage determines 70% of the product cost [Lee et al., 2006](a
figure that may rise to 85%, according to research by Asiedu and Gu [1998]), the BOL
phase is critical in the E-PLC. In the closed-loop E-PLC, as in the figure above,
designers and producers will receive feedback with detailed information from
distributors, maintenance/service engineers, or customers on product usage, conditions
of retirement, and the disposal of their products. Therefore, they will be able to exploit
the expertise and know-how of the other players in the E-PLC. It will improve the
quality of future product designs and the efficiency of production processes put in place
to produce these designs.

4.2.2 Middle-of-Life

MOL is the phase where products are distributed, used, maintained, and serviced by
customers or engineers. MOL activities include distribution, maintenance/service, spare
parts management, hotline/enquiries, training, inspections, preventive maintenance,
repairs, and usage/operation.

The MOL phase of a product expands the value-added processes after the delivery of
the product to the customer; indeed, this phase of the life cycle is experiencing rapid
growth as its importance becomes increasingly recognised. After-sales market sizes in
the auto-, computer-, and telecommunication-industries in 1994 were 90, 16.4 and 15.8
billion dollars respectively [Cohen and Whang, 1997]. Further, it is reported that up to
30% of the funds quota of the German mechanical engineering industry results from
after-sales service [Westkaemper et al., 2001b]; while Cohen and Whang [1997] has
argued that in some industries — including construction equipment, elevators, main
frame computers, and automobiles — the profit margin for the provision of service parts
and after-sales services far exceeds the margin on the sale of the product itself.

4.2.3 End-of-Life

Legislation related to EOL product management has proliferated over the past decade
both in the EU and in the US. Governments require manufacturers in many industries,
including automotive and electronic industries, to take the responsibility for their
products’ EOL processing under programmes such as the extended producer responsibly
scheme [Bellmann and Khare, 2000]. EOL is the phase where products that have lost
31
their usage value are collected, disassembled, refurbished, reassembled, recycled, reused,
or disposed. EOL starts from the time when the product no longer satisfies the initial
purchaser [Rose et al., 2002]; then the product is collected to Materials Recover
Facilities (MRF) for reprocessing.

According to de Brito and Dekker [2004], reprocessing can occur at different levels:
product level (repair), module level (refurbishing), component level (remanufacturing),
selective part level (retrieval), material level (recycling), and energy level (incineration).
Furthermore, as can be seen from Figure 9, a variety of material return flows exist from
EOL, depending upon final component quality; these include: reuse components (to
MOL); remanufactured components (retooled to original quality levels and reused in
BOL); recycled materials (base materials—not components; back to BOL); and
disposables from which some useful base materials may yet be retained [Thierry et al.,
1995]. The detailed description of these processes are listed below [adapted from
Parlikad et al., 2003]:

 Repair and reuse: simply correction of specified faults in a product to return the
used products in working order. Generally, the quality of the repaired products
is inferior to those of remanufactured and reconditioned alternatives.
 Refurbishing/Recondition: to bring the quality of used products up to a specified
level by disassembly to the module level, inspection and replacement of broken
modules. Refurbishing could also involve technology upgrading by replacing
outdated modules or components with technologically superior ones.
 Remanufacturing: to bring used products up to quality standards that are as
rigorous as those for new products by complete disassembly down to the
component level and extensive inspection and replacement of broken/outdated
parts.
 Cannibalisation: to recover a relatively small number of reusable parts and
modules from the used products, to be used in any of the three operations
mentioned above.
 Recycling, to reuse materials from used products and parts by various separation
processes and reusing them in the production of the original or other products.

32
  Shredding, to reduce material size to facilitate sorting. The shredded material is
separated using techniques based on magnetic, density or other properties of the
materials.
 Incineration: incinerate the product for energy recovery.
 Disposal, to landfill the product without energy recovery.

5 Relationships between M-PCL and E-PLC

Although M-PLC and E-PLC bear the same name—Product Life Cycle—in the
reviewed literature, they were developed separately, and consequently have different
models, methods and intentions. Thus they should be distinguished more explicitly:

 M-PLC is developed from a macro view of the production business, and the life
cycle describes the business life of one product type/brand. On the other hand,
E-PLC is developed with a focus on the micro view of a product, and the life
cycle in E-PLC describes the life activities of an individual product.
 M-PLC usually focuses on the physical product and serves as a tool for
forecasting and managing the marketing strategy for the producer; while E-PLC
focuses on the extended product [Thoben et al., 2001], which combines
intangible services with the tangible product.
 Traditional M-PLC is tended by the producer itself, making it effectively intra-
organisational in nature; while E-PLC is managed by the extended enterprise,
and collaboration in the extended enterprise is crucial to the E-PLC
management.
 Information in M-PLC is dedicated to the specific product type/brand, and this
information has very limited usage in the next generation of the product; while
the information in E-PLC forms ‘improving’ loops, and continuously supports
the development of a new generation of products.

Despite their differences, however, the research and management of M-PLC and E-PLC
should not be isolated. The management of E-PLC can derive benefits from the research
on M-PLC of the product, as the products that appear from different phases of the M-
PLC will experience a different E-PLC route:

33
  The products sold in the introduction phase of M-PLC may be owned by
fashion-driven customers. They may be willing to purchase these products,
although expensive, and the product may be discarded relatively quickly when a
replacement item is introduced. In this case, the product will experience a
shorter first-hand lifespan and may still have good have sufficient resource
recovery value in the EOL phase, particularly for reuse.
 The products sold in the growth phase of M-PLC may have flaws in design and
manufacturing, thus they may require more servicing than a product sold in its
mature phase. Buyers of this phase’s products may hold the product longer than
buyers at the introduction phase, thus products sold in the growth phase may be
discarded with a quality suitable for remanufacturing in the EOL phase.
 In the decline phase of the M-PLC, the reused/refurbished/remanufactured
products may take-up a considerable portion of the market. These products are
usually cheap and the servicing of these second-hand products may be a
problem owing to the availability of spare parts etc.

On the other hand, information collected in the management of the E-PLC can also
benefit research of the M-PLC by the provision of critical information on the service
and decommission businesses of the product. This information should raise the accuracy
of the prediction of M-PLC phases.

6 Conclusion

By the end of the 1960s, the M-PLC theory was well established and validated.
According to the theory, most successful products in the market passed through four
recognisable phases: development, growth, maturity, and decline. Each of these four
phases required different business strategies to maximise the product’s profitability, and
the purpose of the M-PLC model was to fit the product’s marketing status into
established phases and then to choose the best business strategies for competitive
purposes.

Despite significant criticism, this classical model has shown remarkable resilence in the
past five decades, withthe M-PLC theory becoming a core element in the marking arena.

34
However, critiques have continued to appear. These challenges include queries
regarding the inevitability of the sequences of the phases, criticisms concerning the
borderlines between the phases, and doubts about differentiating between product class,
product form and brand.

Since the birth of the theory in 1950, relatively few changes have been brought to the
model. However, the circumstances of business and production have change
considerably since its inception. The dynamic nature of the business environment today
has forced enterprises to work together and engage in a variety of inter-organisational
infrastructures, e.g. extended enterprises and virtual enterprises, to transform simple
products into extended products, and hence to improve their competitiveness. The pace
of product-oriented innovations has increased drastically too, owing to the emergence
and wide diffusion of high-technology applications, forcing companies to challenge
existing viewpoints about once-stable product conceptions. Moreover, stricter eco-
regulations, together with the rapid inflation in the price of virgin materials, has had the
consequent effect of pushing enterprises towards a focus upon end-of-life product
decommission, and subsequent resource recovery.

These changes have brought more issues to the M-PLC model, especially when it is
used with the extended product. In the mean time, a new definition of the ‘product life
cycle’ was being adopted by many researchers, who examined the behaviour of
products from a much more ‘micro’ view, by means of contemporary ICTs. This model
is called the Engineering Product Life Cycle (E-PLC) by us here, for explanation
purposes.

Distinguishing itself from previous M-PLC models, E-PLC is developed with a focus on
the micro view of a product, i.e. the life cycle in E-PLC describes the life activities of an
individual clone of a particular product. Focusing on the extend product instead of the
physical product, E-PLC is usually managed by the extended enterprise, a value-chain
conception, which may, or may-not, be led by the prime firm—or Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM).

E-PLC models involve the complete life of a product—from cradle to grave, from
product conception, through design, production, sale, customer use, and service, to

35
decommissioning. With a research basis both in life cycle analysis and inter-
organisational modelling, coupled with an appropriation of some earlier M-PLC model
terminology, thecontemporary vision utilised in this model tightly couples both material
and information flows at the product’s design and manufacturing stages (BOL);
proceeding to a second phase where the product has emerged and is purchased by the
customer and is used and repaired when necessary (MOL)—this phase decouples the
information flow from the material flow and returns information to BOL as necessary.
In a final phase the customer has completed their use of the product and this, in turn, is
released for decommissioning (EOL); here the final decoupling of the material and
information flows first forged in BOL is made and material and components are
returned to BOL and MOL, while information flows return useful maintenance
information to MOL, and design and manufacturing information to BOL.

The environmental attributes of a product are largely fixed in its BOL phase; however,
owing to a lack of information and heterogeneous product returns, production planning
and control encounters more difficulty in the EOL business. The performance of the
EOL business is usually limited by these uncertainties.

The E-PLC based Product Lifecycle Management has emerged, in the last decade or so,
as the most sustained approach towards the management of the product both inside the
four walls of the company, and further afield, in the company’s value chain. By
managing the product throughout the whole value chain, uncertainties are expected to
diminish owing to the availability of information related to the whole E-PLC activity.

So much for the theory; for successful deployment of the E-PLC model, however, a
number of issues remain to be tackled, including:

1) Product lifecycle information integration

For managing a product throughout its life span, the availability of product information
along its whole value chain is crucial. TodayHowever, today the information flow
generally breaks down after the delivery of the product to the customer, and becomes
less and less complete from the usage/service phase to the final decommission scenario.

36
With product embedded information devices (e.g., Radia Frequcency Identification
(RFID) tags), it is possible to capture usage information automatically and share product
related information/knowledge with others in the value chain. The availability of
product related information from the MOL phase, for example from the service realm,
will facilitate the widespread emergence of continuous-imporovement services, such as
predictive maintenance. The implementation of such a system requires a high level of
inter-organizational informationsharing, with an attendant information infrastructure in
place, and an agreed set of cooperation policies amongst value chain partners, whilst
technical and political issues may remain to be resolved in real-time.

2) Issues of security and privacy

Once E-PLC information is integrated and shared throughout the whole value chain,
security and privacy issues become an issue. Here security is responsible for the full or
partial access, or denial of access, to the collected life cycle data by authorised and
unautnorised parties. The creation of privacy policies prevent the information system
collecting information which the holders don’t want other parties to receive. This is
fairly crucial in the E-PLC management; in the contemporary business environment
competition is between value chains, and it is common that one company is involved in
several value chains which compete with each other. There are risks that one company’s
private information is unveiled to its competitors by the third party while involved in E-
PLC management activities. Similarly, product consumers may have fears over how
collected data may be used or misused (e.g. vehicle owners may not want others to
know where they have been). So it is important to specify policies related to the
collection and usage of information, such as (1) what information can be retrieved; (2)
who can access the retrieved information; and (3) where the information can be used.
These must be agreed across the PLM value chain.

3) Product lifecycle management service

In a trend that appears to be emerging globally on the back of concerns over issues
regarding the environment, the product’s manufacturer is required to take more
responsibilty for their products in the service and demanufacturing stages. However, the
service/demanufacturing of product is often carried out by a third partner. In this case,
both of the manufacturer and the third partner suffer from a lack of the product

37
information—a significant barrier that inhibits the take-up of extended producer
responsibilities by the manufacturer.

In this regard, a service opportunity exists. A product lifecycle management service can
help to make product related information available to all the organisations along a
product’s value chain. Thus, the producer can track the product throughout its lifetime,
while logistics/service/demanufacturing partners can access appropriate design and
manufacturing information easily. This service may be hosted by a third party service
provider beyond the value chain via existing or relatively inexpensive technologies (e.g.
company intranets, web browsers etc.): an option which should be attractive to SMEs
and non-dedicated service personnel.

7 References

Alting, L. (1993). Life-cycle design of products: a new opportunity for manufacturing

enterprises. In A. Kusiak (Ed.), Concurrent Engineering: Automation, Tools, and
Techniques (pp. 1-17). New York: Wiley.

Alting, L. (1995). Life Cycle Engineering and Design. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
44(2), 569-580.

Ameri, F., & Dutta, D. (2005). Product lifecycle management: closing the knowledge loops.
Computer-Aided Design & Applications, 2(5), 577-590.

Asiedu, Y., & Gu, P. (1998). Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review.
International Journal of Production Research, 36(4), 883-908.

Bellmann, K., & Khare, A. (2000). Economic issues in recycling end-of-life vehicles.
Technovation, 20(12), 677-690.

Bennett, R. C., & Cooper, R. G. (1984). The Product Life Cycle Trap. Business Horizons, 27(5), 7.

Cao, H., Folan, P., Masocolo, J., & Browne, J. (2007). RFID in product lifecycle management: a
case in the automotive industry. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Cohen, M. A., & Whang, S. (1997). Competing in product and service: A product life-cycle
model. Management Science, 43(4), 535.

38
Cox, W. E., Jr. (1967). Product Life Cycles as Marketing Models. The Journal of Business, 40(4),
375-384.

Day, G. S. (1981). THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE: ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS ISSUES. Journal of
Marketing, 45(4), 60-67.

de Brito, M. P., & Dekker, R. (2004). A Framework for Reverse Logistics. In R. Dekker, M.
Fleischmann, K. Inderfurth & L. N. V. Wassenhove (Eds.), Reverse Logistics:
Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply Chains (pp. 3-28): Springer.

Dean, J. (1950). Pricing Policies for New Products. Harvard Business Review, 28(6), 45-53.

Dhalla, N. K., & Yuspeh, S. (1976). Forget the product life cycle concept! Harvard Business
Review, 54(1), 102-112.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and S. L. Brown (1998). TIME PACING: COMPETING IN MARKETS THAT WON'T
STAND STILL. Harvard Business Review 76(2): 59-69.

Forrester, J. W. (1958). Industrial dynamics. Harvard Business Review, 36(4), 37-66.

Grantham, L. M. (1997). The validity of the product life cycle in the high-tech industry.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(1), 4-10.

Hashimoto, K. (2003). Product life cycle theory: a quantitative application for casino courses in
higher education. Hospitality Management, 22(2), 177-195.

Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979a). The dynamics of process-product life cycles.
Harvard Business Review, March-April, 127-136.

Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979b). Link manufacturing process and product life cycles.
Harvard Business Review, January-February, 133-140.

Ishii, K., Eubanks, C. F., & Di Marco, P. (1994). Design for product retirement and material life-
cycle. Materials & Design, 15(4), 225-233.

Kim, H., Kim, H. S., Lee, J. H., Jung, J. M., Lee, J. Y., & Do, N. C. (2006). A framework for sharing
product information across enterprises. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 27, 610-618.

Kiritsis, D., Bufardi, A. and Xirouchakis, P., Research issues on product lifecycle management
and information tracking using smart embedded systems. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 2003, 17 (3-4), 189-202.

Kotler, P. (1965). Phasing out weak products. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 170-187.

39
Kriwet, A., Zussman, E., & Seliger, G. (1995). Systematic integration of design-for-recycling into
product design. International Journal of Production Economics, 38(1), 15-22.

Lee, C. K. M., Ho, G. T. S., Lau, H. C. W., & Yu, K. M. (2006). A dynamic information schema for
supporting product lifecycle management. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(1), 30-
40.

Levitt, T. (1965). EXPLOIT the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 81-94.

Parlikad, A. K., McFarlane, D., Fleisch, E., & Gross, S. (2003). The Role of Product Identity in
End-of-Life Decision Making [Electronic Version]. Auto-ID Center White Paper from
http://www.autoidlabs.org/single-view/dir/article/6/149/page.html.

Patton, A. (1959). Stretch your products' earning years. Management Review, 38(June), 67-79.

Polli, R., & Cook, V. (1969). VALIDITY OF THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE. Journal of Business, 42(4),
385-400.

Potts, G. W. (1988). Exploit your product's service life cycle. Harvard Business Review,
September-October, 32-36.

Rink, D. R., Roden, D. M., & Fox, H. W. (1999). Financial management and planning with the
product life cycle concept. Business Horizons, September-October, 65-72.

Rose, C. M., Ishii, K., & Stevels, A. (2002). Influencing Design to Improve Product End-of-Life
Stage Research in Engineering Design, 13(2), 83-93.

Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Van Nunen, J. and Van Wassenhove, L., Strategic issues in product
recovery management. California Management Review, 1995, 37 (2), 114.

Thoben, K., Eschenbacher, J., & Jagdev, H. (2001). Extended Products: Evolving Traditional
Product Concepts. Proc. 7th Inter. Conf. on Concurrent Enterprising, 27-29 June,
Bremen, Germany.

Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190-207.

Westkaemper, E., Alting, L., & Arndt, G. (2001a). Life cycle management and assessment:
approaches and visions towards sustainable manufacturing. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B, 215(5), 599-626.

Westkaemper, E., Niemann, J., & Dauensteiner, A. (2001b). Economic and ecological aspects in
product life cycle evaluation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Part B, 215(5), 673-681.

Wood, L. (1990). The End of the Product Life Cycle? Education Says Goodbye to an Old Friend.
Journal of Marketing Management, 6(2), 145-155.
40
41