Why You Should Stop Calling It an Engineering Change and Start Saying Enterprise Change

When I hear the phrase Engineering Change, alarm bells go off in my head. Not because I have something against engineers—I am one—but because the term limits the conversation and the scope of our thinking. In my decades of experience, I’ve rarely seen a product change that didn’t ripple across the entire organization. Everyone from the inventory management folks, through the manufacturing line, the procurement personnel, and perhaps the engineers may be impacted at any given time.

The origin of this post is from a LinkedIn Post.

Why Language Shapes Assumptions

Words guide our assumptions, and assumptions shape our actions. Calling a change “engineering” implies that the scope is isolated to design or technical specifications. That’s not true. A product change can impact:

Manufacturing: New tools, fixtures, and production methods.
Supply Chain: Material sourcing, supplier qualification, and lead times.
Service and Support: Updated instructions, training, and parts stocking.
Compliance: Meeting regulatory and certification requirements.

When we label it as only “engineering,” we often fail to involve the right people early enough. That leads to higher costs, longer delays, and avoidable risk.

A Real-World Example of Missed Scope

I once encountered a situation where a customer requested an improved version of an existing product. The engineering team calculated the cost based solely on design changes. The problem? The new version required assembly in an ISO 14644-1 Class 5 cleanroom, but the existing facility was Class 8.

That one overlooked detail didn’t just impact engineering—it required a major facility upgrade. The misstep came from treating the change as an engineering-only concern.

Another Change Example

A customer (an OEM) has two suppliers; the sub-assembly supplier sends their component to the tier 1 supplier of the total assembly. A version of the product is in production, with the lower-tier supplier providing a component (filter) that is then part of the tier 1 larger assembly. The OEM engineering requires a new filter. This is an actual engineering change, and the consequences are wide-ranging. In this instance, there were iterations of material at the lower tier and the tier one supplier, that needed to be accounted. The change was in drawings, material definition, and even the manner of assembling. The implications were wide-ranging throughout the pipeline. This included how to handle the excess stock, which was very large throughout the pipeline, and the result of errant orders and material projections (poor use of the ERP system).

Why Enterprise Change is the Right Term

An Enterprise Change recognizes that a product modification affects far more than the design drawings. It touches every major function of the organization, and each of these areas must assess its risks, costs, and readiness before the change moves forward:

Procurement: Evaluating supplier capabilities, renegotiating contracts, and managing existing material commitments, including material on site.
Material Handling: Updating storage, transportation, and cleanliness protocols to meet new requirements.
Engineering: Redesigning components, updating CAD models, and revising specifications.
Testing & Validation: Creating or modifying test plans, ensuring compliance with quality and regulatory standards.
Manufacturing: Adjusting processes, fixtures, and production schedules to align with the change.
Service & Support: Revising repair procedures, training technicians, and updating customer-facing documentation (installation and superseding part documents).

Viewing the change through these dimensions ensures that no critical area is overlooked. It also forces early cross-functional engagement, which dramatically reduces downstream issues.

The Role of Systems Engineering and Platform Management in Enterprise Change

Enterprise Change decisions are best guided by systems thinking—understanding how a modification affects the entire product ecosystem rather than a single component.

Systems Engineering provides the discipline to trace a change’s impact across requirements, interfaces, and life-cycle stages. This means:

Mapping the shift in upstream requirements and downstream deliverables.
Identifying cross-domain effects—mechanical, electrical, software, and human factors.
Ensuring that verification and validation activities continue to prove compliance after the change.

Equally important is Platform Management. In many organizations, products share common platforms—chassis, software architectures, or core components. A change in one product may cascade into others that share the same platform. Without platform oversight, you risk:

Creating unintentional product divergence.
Losing economies of scale in procurement and manufacturing.
Increasing complexity in service and support documentation.

When the systems engineering discipline is paired with platform management oversight, changes are evaluated not just for their immediate necessity but for their broader organizational and portfolio impact. This prevents short-term fixes from creating long-term complexity and cost.

Building a Resilient Organization Through Cross-Functional Alignment

Every time a change requires input from multiple disciplines, the organization learns more about its interconnectedness. Procurement understands engineering better. Engineering understands manufacturing constraints. Service teams foresee customer impact earlier.

Over time, this collaboration builds resilience. The organization becomes more adaptable, more capable of absorbing unexpected challenges, and ultimately more competitive in the marketplace.

Final Thoughts

If you want fewer surprises, lower costs, and a smoother path to market, stop thinking in terms of “engineering changes.” Call them what they are—Enterprise Changes. You’ll find that changing your language changes your results.