Advertisement

Production Engineering

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 193–200 | Cite as

Defect classification for mechatronic products

  • Jan C. Aurich
  • Nico WolfEmail author
  • Andreas Grzegorski
  • Christian Wagenknecht
  • Jürgen Münch
Quality Assurance

Abstract

Modern investment goods such as commercial vehicles show a rise in complexity due to an increase in mechatronic elements. As a result, such products are more sensitive to defects, often reflected in reduced reliability during product usage. Therefore, reliability is a quality feature that is gaining more importance throughout the entire product life cycle (PLC). However, rather than considering the complete PLC, traditional quality assurance techniques typically focus on individual life cycle phases. The following paper thus proposes a new approach for closing the resulting gap. Adapting a technique originating from the domain of software engineering for the life cycle of mechatronic products enables a consistent classification of product defects. Based on this classification, proper means for quality improvement can be developed and implemented. Consequently, an evolutionary increase in reliability becomes possible.

Keywords

Quality assurance Defect classification Mechatronic 

References

  1. 1.
    Eversheim W, Schernikau J (1999) Product development and manufacturing for mechatronic production systems—technology integration motivates structural integration for machine tool manufacturers. In: Brussel van H, Valkenars P (eds) Proceedings of the second international workshop on intelligent manufacturing systems, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Little AD (2004) The future of trucks—How technology will change value chain structures, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schmitt-Thomas K-G (2005) Integrierte Schadenanalyse—Technikgestaltung und das System des Versagens, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nedeß Ch, Friedewald A (1996) Reklamations- und Beschwerdemanagement als Baustein des lernenden Unternehmens, VDI-Z, 138/10, S.74–77Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaiser B, Liggesmeyer P, Mäckel O (2003) A new component concept for fault trees. In: 8th Australian workshop on safety critical systems and software, vol 33, Australian Computer Society, Inc., Canberra, Darlinghurst, pp 37–46Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aurich J-C, Wolf N, Grzegorski A, Wagenknecht C (2007) Die Nadel im Heuhaufen—Steigerung der Zuverlässigkeit komplexer Mechatronikprodukte QZ Qualität Zuverlässigkeit 52/4:72–73Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freimut B, Denger Ch, Ketterer M (2005) An industrial case study of implementing and validating defect classification for process improvement and quality management. In: 11th IEEE international symposium on software metrics, IEEE Computer Society, ComoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfeifer T (2002) Quality management. Strategies, methods, techniques, Hanser, München, WienGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danke S-M (2000) QM-Konzept zur präventiven Qualitätssicherung für die Montageplanung in der Automobilindustrie. Weißensee, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pelz G (2001) Modellierung und Simulation mecha-tronischer Systeme. Vom Chip- zum Systementwurf mit Hardwarebeschreibungs-sprachen. Hüthig, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schäfer L (2003) Analyse und Gestaltung fertigungstechnischer Prozessketten. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, KaiserslauternGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huber J-T (2000) A comparison of IBM’s orthogonal defect classification to Hewlett Packard’s defect origins, types, and modes, SM/ASM 2000 conference, software quality engineering, Sao JoseGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chillarege R, Bhandari I-S, Chaar J-K, Halliday, Michael M-J, Moebus D-S, Ray B-K, Wong M-Y (1992) Orthogonal defect classification—a concept for in-process measurements. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(11)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dalal S, Hamada M, Matthews P, Patton G (1999) Using defect patterns to uncover opportunities for improvement, SM/ASM 1999 conference, software quality engineering, Sao JoseGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernardi M, Bley H, Schmitt B (2004) Integrating a mechatronics-oriented development process into a development department. In: Proceedings of the 37th CIRP international seminar on manufacturing systems, Budapest, pp 265–270Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aurich J-C, Wolf N, Grzegorski A, Wagenknecht C (2007) Prozessorientierter Qualitätsregelzyklus—Ansatz zur Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit komplexer mechatronischer Produkte, wt Werkstattstechnik online, 97/7-8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan C. Aurich
    • 1
  • Nico Wolf
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Grzegorski
    • 1
  • Christian Wagenknecht
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Production Management, FBKUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations