When Should Change Control Begin in New Product Development/Introductions?

When do you start change control in new product introductions?

👉 After the release of a dataset or document?
👉 From the very beginning?
👉 Or do you wait till the end and release the entire project at once?

This single decision shapes the DNA of your product lifecycle. And yet, many organizations still treat it as an afterthought. Teams that lock in change control too early create bottlenecks, while others delay too long, leading to chaos. Both extremes are costly. That is why the timing of change control is not just a procedural question, but a strategic one that directly impacts your ability to innovate fast. 

The Myth of “Too Early”

One of the most common pushbacks I hear is:

 “We don’t want to slow innovation by burdening our team with too much administration too soon.”

That makes sense. When a start-up team is working on initial ideas, they really shouldn’t be weighed down by paperwork and processes. However, there’s a catch: delaying proper accountability until the “real work” begins can ultimately prove more costly in the long run.

📊 According to industry data, up to 80% of lifecycle costs are locked in by decisions made in the early design stages. 

This means that by the time you formally begin change control, you may already be committing to expensive rework and potential hidden compromises.

Here’s the kicker: early CM doesn’t have to mean heavy CM.

When done right, you don’t start with bureaucracy; you start with clarity. CM2 teaches us that change control isn’t about adding friction. It’s about ensuring traceability, accountability, and communication from the moment an idea begins to crystallize into a requirement.

Think of it this way: You don’t put on a seatbelt after you’ve reached your destination.

People view process stunts as their “agile” ways of working, but agile shouldn’t be considered a free-for-all (crutch) that allows engineers (or others) to make changes continuously without accountability for the true costs of change. The key is to have a fit-for-purpose change control process that is light and lean when needed early in development, and then becomes more rigorous as the project progresses. 

The strategy of timing can be different for long lead-time items or other time-critical items/materials. 

Lightweight ≠ Optional

Many organizations attempt a compromise: a “lightweight” change process for the early phase. Done well, this works. Done poorly, it becomes an excuse to avoid discipline.

Let’s be clear: lightweight does not mean optional.

A lightweight track should still capture:

• Baseline assumptions (requirements, constraints, design intent)
• Traceability (what changed, when, and why)
• Decision accountability (who approved, who was informed)

Skipping this creates the illusion of speed. But the moment your concept moves toward prototype, you face a wall of inconsistencies: documents that don’t align, CAD models with hidden assumptions, and test plans that don’t match the requirements. And you know, what prototypes are not for free. The irony? You end up creating more processes later to untangle the mess.

The Cost of Postponement

Imagine you are developing a new piece of equipment. In the rush to prototype, you delayed formal change control. Working in parallel, making “quick fixes” and undocumented tweaks during the build of the prototype. The prototype worked, but no one could fully explain why it did.

Now, try to move into pilot production, using drawings that have not been updated with all the “quick fixes”. You can imagine how that goes. It doesn’t, not without a lot of delays and rework. 

This is a pattern I see far too often. Organizations assume that change control is something to be “bolted on” once designs are mature. But by then, you’ve already accumulated a configuration debt.

Much like technical debt in software, configuration debt compounds silently until it blows up schedules and budgets. Configuration debt is the accumulation of unmanaged changes and inconsistencies in a product’s design and documentation. These can lead to rework, delays, and increased costs down the line.

The Review Trap: Who Was Really Involved?

Here’s a subtle but critical problem with postponing change control: how do you know the right people were involved in reviews?

Sometimes design reviews are design-focused (or siloed) and may not include the ultimate users; we need to be mindful about this. Creators of a dataset are responsible for the “technical” completeness and correctness of the dataset. But in the end, the creator is often not the user of the dataset. So, before releasing a dataset, we must ensure that the (designated) user has reviewed the dataset from a usability perspective. Although a dataset can be technically correct and complete, if users are unable to use it as input for their activity, it remains useless. 

Change control isn’t just about “locking down” a dataset; it’s about building an auditable record of who was engaged, when, and how. Without that, reviews become opinion-driven rather than traceable decisions. It’s about documenting the story along the way! This is often overlooked, and over time, it is easy to forget the decisions and justifications that led to them. Lessons learned become tribal knowledge. Or lost in SharePoint to never be found until during an archeological dig at a later date. 

Why No Dataset Stands Alone

Another reason early change control matters: a dataset is never just a dataset.

Every dataset is an input to another dataset, and often relies on multiple other inputs itself. Requirements feed system models. System models feed CAD. CAD feeds manufacturing instructions. Test procedures reference all of the above.

If one dataset changes informally, without being tracked, you’ve disrupted an entire chain by creating uncommunicated requirements. That ripple effect is exactly why CM2 emphasizes integrated baselines.

Without structured change control:

• Teams end up working from different sources.
• Updates get lost in email or coffee corner conversations.
• Dependencies aren’t fully understood until it’s too late.

In complex product environments, treating datasets as isolated deliverables is a dangerous practice. They’re nodes in a living network of configuration data, and networks require governance from day one.

The Model-Based Shift

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) adds a whole new dimension to this conversation.

In a model-based environment, you’re not just managing documents; you’re managing interconnected digital artifacts that dynamically update across disciplines.

On the surface, this makes change control easier: the model becomes a single source of truth. Timing becomes really crucial since you can see the impact of any changes right away. If you postpone change control in a model-based environment, you could propagate errors downstream, throughout the entire digital thread.

This is where CM2 principles come into play:

• Think of model elements as configuration items.
• Establish baselines early, even if they’re preliminary.
• Ensure that every model change, however small, is tied to an approved decision involving the right stakeholders.

In other words, MBSE doesn’t eliminate the need for early change control; it amplifies it.

CM2 Perspective: Start with Intent

The CM2 model offers a simple but powerful perspective: change control begins the moment you commit to an intent.

That doesn’t mean you need to run every brainstorm sticky note through a Change Request form. It means as soon as a decision becomes part of the product baseline, it enters the domain of change control.

Ask yourself:

• Has this requirement been communicated beyond one person’s notebook?
• Will this decision influence downstream work?
• If it changes tomorrow, will someone else need to know?

If the answer is yes, then congratulations, you’re in change control territory.

A Mindset Shift for Leaders

Too many leaders frame CM as a necessary evil. They see it as paperwork rather than as a strategic enabler of speed and quality. But the organizations that excel in complex product development flip this mindset. They treat change control not as a gatekeeper, but as a communication accelerator.

With a strong CM2 foundation:

• Teams don’t waste time guessing which revision is correct.
• Stakeholders don’t argue over “what changed and why.”
• Suppliers don’t get conflicting instructions.
• Compliance isn’t a fire drill at the end; it’s baked in from the start.

In other words, CM2 isn’t about slowing innovation; it’s providing guardrails to ensure that innovation is scalable and repeatable.

 Practical Takeaways

How do you actually put this into practice?

1. Define your entry point. Document the moment when concepts become “official enough” to baseline. For some teams, it’s the first approved requirements document. For others, it’s an initial architecture diagram. The key is consistency.
2. Tier your change processes. Not all changes are equal. Create levels of change control that scale with impact. A typo in a drawing doesn’t need the same rigor as a requirement change that impacts safety certification.
3. Invest in digital tools early. A spreadsheet may seem sufficient in the concept phase, but it won’t scale. PLM systems configured with CM2 principles provide traceability from day one without adding unnecessary burden.
4. Make it cultural. Train teams to see change control as part of their workflow, not as an afterthought. Normalize questions like: Has this been released? Do we have traceability?
5. In model-based environments baseline faster. Don’t assume models “self-document.” Apply CM2 rigor to digital threads from the start.

Leaders need to be mindful of how they communicate their opinions about configuration management. They need to own their silo of due diligence along the way and ensure they are following the best practices of their function. This is NOT the accountability of CM people.

Leaders who embrace early, structured, scalable change control aren’t just avoiding problems. They’re building resilient organizations that can innovate faster, collaborate better, and adapt more effectively. 

So, I’ll end with the same question I began with—only this time, I want your answer:

 👉 When do YOU start change control in new product introductions?

Share your stories, successes, struggles, and lessons learned in the comments.

So… How do YOU CM2?

Copyrights by the Institute for Process Excellence

Don’t forget to subscribe to this newsletter and follow me!