An Engineering Change Order (ECO) is the formal process for modifying a product after its initial release. When implemented correctly, ECOs take 2-3 days from request to implementation. When implemented poorly, they take 3-4 weeks, introduce errors, and frustrate everyone involved.

This guide explains how to design and optimize an engineering change order process that balances speed with control, reduces approval time by 60-80%, and eliminates the manual errors that plague most change management systems.

Who this guide is for:

• PLM program managers implementing or optimizing change processes

• Engineering managers frustrated with slow change approval cycles

• Quality leaders ensuring traceability and compliance

• Manufacturing planners dealing with frequent design changes

• IT directors configuring PLM workflow systems

What you'll learn:

• The difference between ECO, ECN, ECR, and when to use each

• How to design approval workflows that are fast but controlled

• Change categorization by risk (not all changes are equal)

• Integration between PLM, ERP, and manufacturing systems

• How to eliminate the bottlenecks that slow down most ECO processes

• Metrics to track change management effectiveness

Reading time: 24 minutes
Complexity level: Intermediate
Prerequisites: Basic PLM knowledge helpful but not required

What Is an Engineering Change Order (ECO)?

The Simple Definition

An Engineering Change Order (ECO) is a document that describes, approves, and authorizes changes to a product, component, or process after it has been formally released.

Key components:

• What's changing (parts, BOMs, specifications, documents)

• Why it's changing (problem being solved, improvement being made)

• Who approved it (signatures/approvals from required stakeholders)

• When it takes effect (effectivity date, serial number cutover)

• How it impacts (cost, schedule, inventory, customers)

ECO vs ECN vs ECR: What's the Difference?

These three terms are often confused. Here's the distinction:

ECR - Engineering Change Request

• Purpose: Propose a change (request for approval)

• Status: Not yet approved

• Who creates: Anyone (engineer, quality, customer, supplier)

• Typical workflow: Request → Review → Approve/Reject

• If approved: Becomes an ECO or ECN

ECO - Engineering Change Order

• Purpose: Authorize and implement a change

• Status: Approved

• Who creates: Engineering (usually from approved ECR)

• Typical workflow: Create → Approve → Implement → Close

• Scope: Can include BOMs, drawings, specifications, processes

ECN - Engineering Change Notice

• Purpose: Notify others of an approved change

• Status: For information only (change already approved)

• Who creates: Engineering

• Typical workflow: Create → Distribute → Acknowledge

• Scope: Usually informational (not requiring implementation actions)

In practice: Many organizations use ECO and ECN interchangeably. What matters is having a clear, consistent process—not the specific terminology.

Element's recommendation: Use ECR for requests, ECO for approved changes. Skip ECN unless you need a separate notification step.

Why Most ECO Processes Are Too Slow

The Typical Timeline Problem

Scenario: Engineer needs to change a part material from aluminum to steel (simple change).

Typical ECO timeline:

Total time: 21 days for a simple material change.

Cost of delay:

• Engineering team delayed waiting for approval (wasted productivity)

• Manufacturing using old material (potential quality issue)

• Customer delivery delayed (competitive disadvantage)

• Opportunity cost (what else could team have worked on?)

The Five Bottlenecks

Bottleneck #1: Serial Approvals (Everyone Waits)

The problem: Each approver waits for the previous person to approve before seeing the change.

Why it's slow: If quality manager is on vacation (days 4-6), everyone downstream waits even though the change doesn't affect them.

The fix: Parallel approvals. Everyone who needs to review sees it simultaneously.

Engineer → [Mgr, Quality, Mfg, Ops, Finance]

Time saved: 17 days → 4 days (76% reduction)

Bottleneck #2: All Changes Treated Equally

The problem: Simple documentation update requires same approval as safety-critical change.

Examples:

• Fixing typo in drawing title → 7 approvals, 2 weeks

• Changing material that affects strength → 7 approvals, 2 weeks

• Updating supplier on BOM → 7 approvals, 2 weeks

Why it's slow: Approvers spend time on low-risk changes that don't need their expertise.

The fix: Categorize changes by risk. Route based on impact.

Low risk (1 approval, same-day):

• Documentation corrections

• Drawing clarifications

• Title/description updates

• Non-functional changes

Medium risk (3 approvals, 2-3 days):

• Material changes (non-critical)

• Supplier changes

• Process improvements

• Cost reduction initiatives

High risk (full approval, 5-7 days):

• Safety-critical changes

• Regulatory impact

• Customer-visible changes

• Major cost increase (>$10K)

Time saved: 67% of changes are low-risk → processed in 1 day instead of 14 days.

Bottleneck #3: Unclear Change Description

The problem: Approvers can't tell what changed, so they ask questions or delay approval.

Bad ECO description:

"Update Part 12345"

What approvers see: Part number. No context. They have to:

1. Open part in PLM

2. Compare current version to previous

3. Try to figure out what changed

4. Ask engineer for clarification

5. Wait for response

Time wasted: 2-3 days per approver.

Good ECO description:

Change: Part 12345-A material from Aluminum 6061 to Stainless Steel 304
Reason: Corrosion observed in field after 6 months (RMA-847)
Impact: +$8.40 per unit cost, no fit/function change, same suppliers
Effectivity: Serial numbers 1001 and higher
Affected Products: Model X (227 units in inventory), Model Y (none in stock)

What approvers see: Complete picture. Can approve immediately if they agree with rationale.

Time saved: Eliminates clarification loops (2-3 days per approver).

Bottleneck #4: Approvers Don't Check PLM Daily

The problem: ECO sits in queue for days because approver doesn't know it's there.

Typical scenario:

• Engineer submits ECO Monday morning

• Quality manager gets email notification

• Quality manager doesn't check PLM until Thursday (busy with other work)

• Thursday: Quality approves

• ECO sat idle for 3 days

Why it's slow: Approvers are reactive (respond when they remember to check) not proactive (notified effectively).

The fix: Better notifications + escalation

Notification improvements:

• Email subject: "ACTION REQUIRED: ECO-2847 Material Change (High Priority)"

• Email body: Complete change description (don't make them open PLM)

• Direct link: "Approve" button in email (one-click)

• Visual: Before/after comparison image

Escalation rules:

• 24 hours: Reminder email

• 48 hours: Email to approver's manager

• 72 hours: Auto-approve (if low-risk) or escalate to director (if high-risk)

Time saved: Reduces approval time from 3-7 days to <24 hours.

Bottleneck #5: Implementation Happens Manually

The problem: After ECO approval, someone manually updates ERP, MES, quality systems.

Manual implementation steps:

1. Export BOM from PLM (CSV file)

2. Open ERP

3. Find manufacturing BOM

4. Manually update 47 line items

5. Make 2 typos (catch 1, miss 1)

6. Update work instructions in MES

7. Update inspection criteria in quality system

8. Hope everything matches

Time wasted: 2-4 hours per ECO
Error rate: 8-12% (something gets updated wrong)

The fix: Integration between PLM, ERP, MES, quality systems

Automated implementation:

1. ECO approved in PLM → Trigger integration

2. Integration reads BOM changes

3. Validates data

4. Updates ERP manufacturing BOM

5. Updates MES work instructions

6. Updates quality inspection plans

7. Notifies affected people

8. Logs completion

Time saved: 2-4 hours → 3 minutes (98% reduction)
Error rate: 12% → 0.3% (96% reduction)

The Element ECO Framework: 4-Phase Approach

Phase 1: Process Design (Week 1-2)

Goal: Design an ECO process that balances speed with appropriate control.

Step 1: Define Change Categories

Not all changes are equal. Categorize by risk to route appropriately.

Low Risk:

• Documentation corrections (typos, clarifications)

• Non-functional changes (color, cosmetic)

• Supplier updates (approved alternative)

• Minor cost reductions (<$500)

Medium Risk:

• Material changes (non-critical parts)

• Process improvements

• Dimensional changes (non-critical)

• Cost changes ($500-$10K)

High Risk:

• Safety-critical changes

• Regulatory impact (FDA, FAA, etc.)

• Customer-visible changes

• Major cost increase (>$10K)

• Form/fit/function changes

Deliverable: Change categorization matrix with examples.

Step 2: Design Approval Workflows

For each category, define:

• Who must approve (required)

• Who should review (optional/FYI)

• Approval sequence (serial vs parallel)

• Timeframe expectations

• Escalation rules

Example workflows:

Low Risk (Fast Track):

Medium Risk (Standard):

Originator → [Engineering, Quality, Manufacturing]

High Risk (Full Approval):

Originator → Engineering Review → [Quality, Mfg, Ops, Finance]

Deliverable: Workflow diagrams for each change category.

Step 3: Define Effectivity Rules

Effectivity determines when a change takes effect. Options include:

Immediate:

• Takes effect as soon as approved

• Use for: Documentation corrections, non-impactful changes

• Risk: May affect work in process

Date-based:

• Takes effect on specific date

• Use for: Planned improvements, supplier transitions

• Requires: Coordination with planning

Serial number:

• Takes effect at specific unit number

• Use for: Mid-production changes, phased transitions

• Requires: Traceability system

Lot-based:

• Takes effect at specific lot/batch

• Use for: Material changes, process changes

• Requires: Lot tracking in ERP/MES

Deliverable: Effectivity policy document.

Phase 2: System Configuration (Week 3-4)

Goal: Configure PLM system to support designed process.

Step 1: Create Change Object Types

In PLM, define:

ECR (Engineering Change Request):

• Fields: Problem description, proposed solution, impact analysis

• Workflow: Request → Review → Approve/Reject

• If approved: Creates ECO

ECO (Engineering Change Order):

• Fields: What's changing, why, impact, effectivity

• Workflow: Based on change category (low/medium/high risk)

• Links to: Parts, BOMs, documents affected

MCO (Manufacturing Change Order) - Optional:

• Same as ECO but originates from manufacturing

• Use when: Manufacturing-driven process improvements

Step 2: Configure Workflows

For each workflow:

Define states:

• Draft (being created)

• In Review (circulating for approval)

• Approved (ready to implement)

• In Work (implementation in progress)

• Complete (implemented and verified)

• Cancelled (if withdrawn)

Define transitions:

• What triggers each state change

• Who can make each transition

• What validations must pass

Define notifications:

• Who gets notified at each state

• What information is included

• When reminders are sent

• How escalation works

Step 3: Create Templates

Standard templates ensure consistency:

ECO Description Template:

**CHANGE:**
[What specifically is changing]

**REASON:**
[Why this change is necessary - problem being solved]

**IMPACT ANALYSIS:**
- Cost: [Change in unit cost, tooling cost, NRE]
- Schedule: [Impact to delivery dates]
- Inventory: [Obsolete stock, rework needed]
- Customers: [Customer notification needed? Compatibility impact?]
- Suppliers: [New suppliers? Supplier notification?]

**EFFECTIVITY:**
[When this change takes effect - date, serial number, lot]

**AFFECTED ITEMS:**
[List of parts, BOMs, documents that change]

**IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:**
[Steps to implement, who's responsible, timeline]

Deliverable: PLM system configured with workflows and templates.

Phase 3: Integration (Week 5-8)

Goal: Connect PLM to downstream systems so approved changes flow automatically.

Step 1: PLM → ERP Integration

What to sync:

• Part master changes (description, attributes, etc.)

• BOM changes (new parts, revised quantities, obsolete parts)

• Revision updates (part at Rev B instead of Rev A)

• Effectivity dates

When to sync:

• When ECO state = "Approved"

• Real-time (event-driven) vs batch (nightly)

• Element recommendation: Real-time for critical changes, batch for minor updates

What to validate:

• Part numbers match naming convention

• BOM structure valid (no circular references)

• Required fields populated

• No duplicate records

What to log:

• Every sync transaction (success or failure)

• What data was sent

• What errors occurred

• Who to notify if failed

Step 2: PLM → MES Integration

What to sync:

• Work instruction updates (reflect design changes)

• BOM changes (build to correct revision)

• Routing updates (if process changed)

• Quality checkpoints (updated inspection criteria)

Complexity:

• MES must reflect current approved design

• Can't have operators building to old work instructions

• Must handle in-process work (what about units mid-build when change happens?)

Effectivity handling:

• If serial-based: Update work instructions to show both versions (before/after)

• If date-based: Schedule cutover for clean break (between shifts)

Step 3: PLM → Quality System Integration

What to sync:

• Inspection plan updates (what to inspect)

• Acceptance criteria updates (pass/fail limits)

• Test procedure updates (how to test)

• Calibration requirements (if measurement changed)

Critical: Quality must inspect to correct revision. Building Rev C but inspecting to Rev A criteria = defects missed.

Phase 4: Rollout & Adoption (Week 9-12)

Goal: Train users, deploy process, achieve 80%+ adoption.

Week 9: Change Champion Training

Identify champions (one per department):

• Engineering: Senior engineer who "gets it"

• Quality: QA manager with process focus

• Manufacturing: Lead planner

• Operations: Ops manager

Train them deeply:

• How the process works (not just how to use it)

• Why it's designed this way (business rationale)

• How to handle edge cases

• How to train their teams

Why champions matter:

• Peers trust peers more than management

• They speak department language

• They're there after consultants leave

Week 10: Pilot Launch

Start with one product family:

• 20-30 active parts

• 5-7 users

• Mix of change types (low/medium/high risk)

• 2-week pilot

Monitor closely:

• Daily standup with pilot users

• Track every ECO (timeline, issues)

• Fix problems within 24 hours

• Build confidence through responsiveness

Success criteria:

• 95%+ ECOs approved within target timeline

• Zero critical errors

• User satisfaction >4/5

Week 11: Phased Rollout

Expand incrementally:

• Week 11: Add 3 more product families

• Week 12: Add remaining products

Why phased:

• Catch issues at small scale

• Build confidence gradually

• Don't overwhelm support team

Support structure:

• Daily office hours (Week 11)

• Weekly office hours (Week 12+)

• On-demand help (always)

Week 12: Optimization

Review first 100 ECOs:

• Average approval time by category

• Where did delays occur?

• What caused confusion?

• What needs adjustment?

Common refinements:

• Adjust risk categories (some items miscategorized)

• Simplify notifications (too much information overwhelming)

• Add automation (eliminate remaining manual steps)

• Update training (address common mistakes)

Deliverable: Optimized, self-sufficient ECO process.

Common ECO Process Mistakes

Mistake #1: No Change Categorization

The problem: Every change goes through full approval process regardless of risk.

Example consequences:

• Engineer fixes typo in drawing title → 7 approvals, 2 weeks

• Approvers get approval fatigue (too many trivial changes)

• When critical change comes through, it's not recognized as urgent

• Organization becomes slow to respond

The fix: Categorize by risk. Fast-track low-risk changes. Focus attention on high-risk changes.

Mistake #2: Serial Approvals for Parallel Work

The problem: Approvers wait for each other when they could review simultaneously.

Example: Quality waits for engineering manager approval before seeing change. But quality's review is independent—they don't need to see manager's input first.

Time wasted: 2-3 days per serial step × 5 steps = 10-15 days.

The fix: Parallel approvals whenever possible. Serial only when dependent (e.g., cost approval must wait for cost calculation).

Mistake #3: Weak ECO Descriptions

The problem: Approvers can't tell what changed or why it matters.

Bad example:

"Update Part 12345"

Result: Approvers must:

• Open part record

• Compare versions

• Guess what changed

• Ask originator for clarification

• Wait for response

Time wasted: 1-2 days per approver.

The fix: Require complete description using template (what, why, impact, effectivity).

Mistake #4: No Escalation for Delayed Approvals

The problem: ECO sits in someone's queue for days/weeks because they forgot or are busy.

Example:

• Engineer submits ECO Monday

• Sits with quality manager (vacation, then busy)

• Noticed Thursday (3 days later)

• Quickly approved (takes 5 minutes)

Time wasted: 3 days (72 hours) for a 5-minute review.

The fix: Escalation rules:

• 24 hours: Reminder

• 48 hours: Manager notification

• 72 hours: Auto-approve (low-risk) or escalate to director (high-risk)

Mistake #5: Manual Implementation After Approval

The problem: Approval happens in PLM, but implementation is manual in downstream systems.

Result:

• 2-4 hours per ECO for manual data entry

• 8-12% error rate

• Trust erosion (PLM says Rev C, ERP says Rev B)

The fix: Integration between PLM and downstream systems. Approved change triggers automatic updates.

Metrics to Track ECO Process Health

Primary Metrics

1. Cycle Time by Change Category

How to measure: Timestamp from "submitted" to "approved" state.

What good looks like: 90%+ of ECOs meet target for their category.

2. Approval Bottleneck Analysis

Track time spent in each approval stage:

What this reveals: Manufacturing is the bottleneck (3.4 days, 47% over target).

Action: Investigate why. Common causes:

• Understaffed (too many changes, not enough reviewers)

• Unclear responsibilities (who should approve what?)

• Poor ECO descriptions (need clarification)

• Low priority (other work takes precedence)

3. Implementation Accuracy

Measure: % of ECOs implemented correctly first time (no errors).

How to track:

• Post-implementation audit (spot-check 10% of ECOs)

• Error reports (discrepancies found by users)

• Rework required (had to fix implementation)

Target: >95% accuracy

What good looks like:

• 98%+ for integrated systems (automated implementation)

• 85-92% for manual implementation (human error inevitable)

4. Effectivity Compliance

Measure: % of changes that took effect on intended date/serial number.

How to track:

• Compare intended effectivity to actual implementation date

• Check if inventory properly segregated (pre-change vs post-change units)

• Verify manufacturing built to correct revision

Target: 100% for critical changes, 95%+ overall

What bad looks like:

• Manufacturing built 50 units to old revision after change approved

• Inventory mixed (can't tell which units have change)

• Customer shipped product with wrong revision

Supporting Metrics

5. Change Volume Trends

Track: Number of ECOs per month by category.

Why it matters:

• Increasing low-risk changes: Maybe categorization too permissive

• Increasing high-risk changes: Product stability issues? Quality problems?

• Decreasing changes: Product maturing (good) or stagnation (bad)?

6. Change Reasons

Categorize: Why changes are happening.

Common categories:

• Corrective (fix defect/problem)

• Enhancement (improve product)

• Cost reduction

• Regulatory/compliance

• Obsolescence (supplier discontinuation)

Why it matters:

• High % of corrective: Quality issues in design process

• High % of cost reduction: Good (continuous improvement)

• High % of obsolescence: Supplier management problems

7. Customer Impact

Measure: % of changes that require customer notification.

Why it matters:

• Form/fit/function changes affect customers

• Too many: Product stability issues, customer frustration

• Document and manage carefully

Target: <10% of changes require customer notification

ECO Process for Regulated Industries

Additional Requirements for FDA, FAA, ISO

Regulated industries (medical devices, aerospace, etc.) have stricter requirements:

1. Complete Traceability

• Must be able to trace which units have which changes

• Serial number or lot traceability required

• Audit trail of all approvals and implementations

2. Change Review Board

• Formal board meets regularly (weekly/monthly)

• Reviews all changes above certain threshold

• Minutes documented

• Quorum requirements

3. Impact Assessment

• Risk analysis required for each change

• Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)

• Verification and validation testing

• Documentation of rationale

4. Change Notification

• Customers notified of form/fit/function changes

• Regulatory bodies notified (if required)

• Certificates updated (if specifications changed)

• Formal notification process

5. Configuration Control

• Strict control of effectivity

• No mixed configurations in inventory

• Clear delineation of pre/post-change units

• Traceability to end customer

FDA Specific (Medical Devices)

FDA requires:

Design History File (DHF):

• All changes documented

• Rationale for changes

• Verification/validation evidence

• Approval signatures

Change Control SOPs:

• Documented procedures

• Who can approve what

• When to file 510(k) supplement

• When to notify FDA

30-Day Notice:

• Certain changes require 30-day FDA notification before implementation

• Labeling changes, major design changes

PMA Supplement:

• Major changes require Pre-Market Approval supplement

• 180-day FDA review

• Cannot implement until approved

FAA Specific (Aerospace)

FAA requires:

Configuration Management Plan:

• How changes are controlled

• Effectivity tracking

• Supplier change management

Type Certificate Data Sheet Updates:

• Changes to certificated aircraft require TCDS update

• Engineering authorization required

• Flight testing may be required

Airworthiness Directives:

• Safety-critical changes may trigger AD

• Mandatory implementation

• Fleet-wide notification

Templates & Checklists

ECO Description Template

ENGINEERING CHANGE ORDER: ECO-[Number]

**1. CHANGE SUMMARY**
Brief one-sentence description of the change.

**2. AFFECTED ITEMS**
- Part Number(s):
- Drawing Number(s):
- Document(s):
- Assembly Number(s):

**3. CHANGE DESCRIPTION**
Detailed description of what is changing. Include:
- Current state (what is it now?)
- Proposed state (what will it become?)
- Physical changes (dimensions, materials, specifications)

**4. REASON FOR CHANGE**
Why is this change necessary? Include:
- Problem being solved (if corrective)
- Benefit being gained (if enhancement)
- Requirement driving change (if regulatory/customer)
- Reference number (RMA, NCR, customer request)

**5. IMPACT ANALYSIS**
**Cost Impact:**
- Unit cost change: $_____ per unit
- Tooling cost: $_____
- Engineering time: _____ hours
- Total NRE: $_____

**Schedule Impact:**
- Design time required: _____ days
- Procurement lead time: _____ days
- Manufacturing changeover: _____ days
- Total delay: _____ days

**Inventory Impact:**
- Obsolete parts: _____ units, $_____ value
- Rework possible? Yes/No, $_____ cost
- Scrap required? Yes/No, $_____ cost

**Customer Impact:**
- Form/fit/function change? Yes/No
- Customer notification required? Yes/No
- Backward compatible? Yes/No
- Field retrofit required? Yes/No

**Supplier Impact:**
- New suppliers needed? Yes/No
- Supplier notification required? Yes/No
- Supplier qualification needed? Yes/No

**6. EFFECTIVITY**
This change will take effect:
- [ ] Immediately upon approval
- [ ] Effective [Date]
- [ ] Serial number [XXXXX] and higher
- [ ] Lot number [XXXXX] and higher

**7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN**
Steps to implement:
1. [Action] by [Department] by [Date]
2. [Action] by [Department] by [Date]
3. [Action] by [Department] by [Date]

**8. VERIFICATION**
How will we verify the change is correct?
- [ ] Design verification testing
- [ ] First article inspection
- [ ] Production pilot run
- [ ] Field testing
- [ ] Customer approval

**9. ATTACHMENTS**
- [ ] Before/after drawings
- [ ] Test results
- [ ] Cost calculations
- [ ] Customer approval (if required)
- [ ] Risk assessment

**10. APPROVAL SIGNATURES**

ECO Review Checklist

For Approvers - Use This to Review ECOs:

☐ Change Description Clear

• Can I tell exactly what's changing?

• Do I understand why it's changing?

• Is the problem/opportunity clearly stated?

☐ Impact Fully Analyzed

• Cost impact assessed?

• Schedule impact assessed?

• Inventory impact assessed?

• Customer impact assessed?

☐ Effectivity Defined

• When does this take effect?

• Is cutover plan clear?

• What happens to in-process units?

☐ Implementation Plan Complete

• Who does what?

• When does each step happen?

• Are dependencies identified?

☐ Risk Assessment Adequate

• What could go wrong?

• How is risk mitigated?

• Is testing plan sufficient?

☐ My Department Ready

• Do we have required materials/resources?

• Is training needed?

• Are procedures updated?

☐ Customer Notification

• Does customer need to know?

• Is notification plan in place?

• Is approval required?

If all checked, APPROVE. If any concerns, REQUEST CLARIFICATION.

Getting Started: Your 30-Day ECO Process Improvement

Week 1: Current State Assessment

Day 1-2: Data Collection

• Pull last 50 ECOs from PLM

• Measure cycle time (submission to approval)

• Identify bottlenecks (where did they sit longest?)

• Track approval sequence (serial or parallel?)

Day 3-4: User Interviews

• Interview 5 people who create ECOs (engineers, quality)

• Interview 5 people who approve ECOs (managers, directors)

• Ask: "What frustrates you about the ECO process?"

Day 5: Analysis

• Calculate average cycle time by change type

• Identify top 3 bottlenecks

• Determine % of ECOs that are truly high-risk (probably <20%)

Deliverable: One-page current state summary.

Typical findings:

• Average cycle time: 14-21 days (too long)

• 67% of changes are low-risk (could be fast-tracked)

• Serial approvals adding 10-15 days

• No escalation (ECOs sit idle)

Week 2: Process Redesign

Day 6-7: Change Categorization

• Define low/medium/high risk categories

• Classify last 50 ECOs into categories

• Validate categories with stakeholders

Day 8-9: Workflow Design

• Design fast-track workflow for low-risk

• Design standard workflow for medium-risk

• Design full approval for high-risk

• Switch serial to parallel where possible

Day 10: Notification Design

• Improve email notifications (include full context)

• Add escalation rules (reminder, manager notification, auto-approve)

• Add direct approval links (one-click approve)

Deliverable: New ECO process design document.

Week 3: System Configuration

Day 11-13: PLM Configuration

• Create change categories in PLM

• Configure workflows (low/medium/high)

• Set up notifications and escalations

• Create ECO description template

Day 14-15: Testing

• Test each workflow in dev/test environment

• Verify notifications working

• Confirm escalations triggering correctly

• Get user feedback on templates

Deliverable: Configured PLM system ready for pilot.

Week 4: Pilot & Optimization

Day 16-18: Pilot Launch

• Select 10 users for pilot

• Process 15-20 ECOs through new workflows

• Monitor closely (daily check-ins)

• Fix issues immediately

Day 19-20: Analysis

• Review pilot results

• Measure cycle time improvement

• Collect user feedback

• Identify refinements needed

Deliverable: Validated process ready for full deployment.

Expected results:

• Cycle time reduced 60-80%

• User satisfaction improved

• Approval bottlenecks eliminated

When to Get Help

DIY vs Professional Services

You can likely handle internally if:

• Simple workflows (one approval path)

• Small user base (<20 people)

• No integration required (PLM only)

• Time available (not urgent)

Consider professional help if:

• Complex workflows (multiple approval paths, many approvers)

• Regulated industry (FDA, FAA, ISO requirements)

• Integration needed (PLM, ERP, MES, quality systems)

• Timeline is aggressive (need results in 60-90 days)

• High change volume (>100 ECOs/month)

What Element Consulting Provides

ECO Process Design:

• Current state assessment

• Workflow design (categorization, approvals, routing)

• Template creation

• Metrics definition

System Implementation:

• PLM configuration

• Integration design and build

• Testing and validation

• User training

Change Management:

• Champion training

• Pilot management

• Rollout support

• Adoption tracking

Deliverables:

• Documented ECO process

• Configured PLM system

• Integration to downstream systems (if needed)

• Trained users

• 60-80% cycle time reduction (typical)

Conclusion: Fast ECO Process = Competitive Advantage

Engineering agility matters. Companies that can change products quickly respond faster to:

• Customer requests

• Quality issues

• Competitive threats

• Supplier changes

• Regulatory requirements

Most ECO processes optimize for control at the expense of speed. You can have both—appropriate control with 3-day cycle times instead of 3-week cycle times.

The key is differentiation:

• Not all changes are equal (categorize by risk)

• Not all approvers are needed for every change (route intelligently)

• Not all steps need to be serial (parallelize when possible)

• Not all implementation needs to be manual (integrate systems)

Element's framework gets you there:

• Categorization by risk

• Parallel approvals

• Clear descriptions

• Escalation rules

• Automated implementation

Result: 60-80% faster ECO process without sacrificing control.

Your Next Step

Free ECO Process Assessment:
Answer 15 questions about your current ECO process.

Get:

• Cycle time estimate

• Bottleneck identification

• Improvement opportunity score

• Benchmark vs industry

Time: 8 minutes
Cost: Free
Take ECO Assessment →

30-Minute Expert Review:
Quick call with Element ECO process specialist.

We'll review:

• Your current cycle time

• Your biggest bottlenecks

• Quick wins (fast improvements)

• Long-term optimization approach

Time: 30 minutes
Cost: Free, no obligation
Schedule Review →

Related Resources

Knowledge Base:

• ERP-PLM Integration Guide - Automate ECO implementation across systems

• Bill of Materials Management - How ECOs affect BOMs

• Change Management for PLM - Getting users to adopt new ECO process

Blog Posts:

• Why Change Orders Take 3 Weeks When They Should Take 3 Days

• The Hidden Cost of Slow ECO Processes

• Fast-Track vs Full Approval: When to Use Each

Case Studies:

• Aerospace Manufacturer: 21 Days → 3 Days ECO Cycle Time

• Medical Device Company: FDA-Compliant ECO Process in 60 Days

• Automotive Supplier: 80% Cycle Time Reduction

About Element Consulting

Element Consulting specializes in optimizing PLM processes, including engineering change management, for manufacturing companies.

Our approach:

• Process first, technology second

• Appropriate control without sacrificing speed

• Integration across systems (PLM, ERP, MES, quality)

• Knowledge transfer (you become self-sufficient)

Industries we serve:

• Aerospace & Defense (AS9100 compliance)

• Automotive (IATF 16949 compliance)

• Medical Devices (FDA compliance)

• Industrial Equipment

Our experience:

• 127 ECO process optimizations

• Average 68% cycle time reduction

• Zero compliance failures

• 92% user adoption

Contact us:
eco@elementconsulting.com
Schedule a call →

Last updated: January 2026
Version: 1.8
Reading time: 24 minutes
Word count: 8,934