This article is part of the How Do YOU CM2? blog series in collaboration with the Institute for Process Excellence (IpX). Although I receive compensation for writing this series, I stand behind its content. I will continue to create and publish high-quality articles that I can fully endorse. Enjoy this new series, and please share your thoughts!
Effectivity isn’t a single value. It has a lifecycle inside every change, and the intelligence lives in the gaps between the stages.
It starts as the desired effectivity on the change request: the intended cut-in point, expressed as a production need, submitted to the CIB as input for implementation planning. It becomes the planned effectivity on the change notice once the CIB has evaluated scope, production schedule, and inventory position; that’s the actual commitment. It ends when the actual effectivity is recorded in ERP when the change is physically executed.
Three values. Three moments. Three different owners.
Most organizations only manage the last one. Desired effectivity is noted informally in the change request, if at all. Planned effectivity either matches the desired exactly, which suggests no real implementation analysis happened, or differs from it without a documented explanation. Actual effectivity is in ERP because ERP requires it.
The diagnostic value is in the gaps. A significant difference between desired and planned effectivity is a signal: the original need was not feasible as stated, or the CIB negotiated it away. Both are legitimate outcomes. Neither is useful unless the reasoning is recorded.
A difference between planned and actual is an execution slippage: the schedule changed, the inventory position shifted, or the cut-in was moved without updating the change notice. Again, normal, and invisible in most change systems, because the intermediate record was never created.
EIA-649C requires organizations to maintain effectivity and incorporation status as configuration status accounting data. Recording the actual satisfies that requirement. The process intelligence lies in maintaining all three, and in understanding what it means when the desired and the planned diverge before any physical change occurs.
Does your change process track all three effectivity values, or only the one that made it into ERP?