Advertisement

Product/ion-Aware Analysis of Collaborative Systems Engineering Processes

  • Lukas KathreinEmail author
  • Arndt Lüder
  • Kristof Meixner
  • Dietmar Winkler
  • Stefan Biffl
Chapter

Abstract

Flexible manufacturing systems, as a vision of Industry 4.0, depend on the collaboration of domain experts coming from different engineering disciplines. These experts often depend on (interdisciplinary) results from previous engineering phases and require an explicit representation of knowledge on relationships between products and production systems. However, production systems engineering organizations, which are set in a multidisciplinary environment, rather than focusing on process analysis and improvement options ranging over multiple disciplines, focus mostly on one particular discipline and neglect collaborations between several workgroups. In this chapter, we investigate requirements for the product/ion (i.e., product and production process)-aware analysis of engineering processes to improve the engineering process across workgroups. We, therefore, consider the following three aspects: (1) engineering process analysis methods; (2) artifact and data modeling approaches, from business informatics and from production systems engineering; and (3) persistent representation of product/ion-aware engineering knowledge and data. We extend existing work on business process analysis methods and BPMN 2.0 to address their limited capabilities for product/ion-aware process analysis. We evaluate the resulting contributions in a case study with domain experts from a large production system engineering company. We conclude that an improved product/ion-aware knowledge representation facilitates traceable design decisions as foundation for better quality assurance in the engineering process.

Keywords

Production systems engineering Product-production process-production resource (PPR) relationships Engineering process analysis Engineering knowledge representation PPR knowledge persistence requirements 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support by the Christian Doppler Research Association, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs, and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Allweyer, T. (2016). BPMN 2.0: Introduction to the standard for business process modeling. Norderstedt: BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development: By example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Biffl, S., Gerhard, D., & Lüder, A. (2017). Introduction to the multi-disciplinary engineering for cyber-physical production systems. In Multi-disciplinary engineering for cyber-physical production systems (pp. 1–24). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Date, C. J., & Darwen, H. (1997). A guide to Sql standard (Vol. 3). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Drath, R. (Ed.). (2009). Datenaustausch in der Anlagenplanung mit AutomationML: Integration von CAEX, PLCopen XML und COLLADA. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. ElMaraghy, H. A. (2009). Changing and evolving products and systems–models and enablers. In Changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing systems (pp. 25–45). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fay, A., Löwen, U., Schertl, A., Runde, S., Schleipen, M., & El Sakka, F. (2018). Zusätzliche Wertschöpfung mit digitalem Modell. atp magazin, 60(6–7), 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Force, U. A. (1981). Integrated computer aided manufacturing (ICAM) architecture part II. Volume IV-functional modeling manual (IDEF0), Air Force Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  9. Fowler, M., Kobryn, C., & Scott, K. (2004). UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Huang, Y., Huang, J., Wu, B., & Chen, J. (2017). Modeling and analysis of data dependencies in business process for data-intensive services. Communications, 14(10), 151–163.Google Scholar
  11. Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  12. Humphrey, W. S. (1995). A discipline for software engineering. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Hundt, L., & Lüder, A. (2012, September). Development of a method for the implementation of interoperable tool chains applying mechatronical thinking—use case engineering of logic control. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 17th international conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA 2012) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.Google Scholar
  14. International Electrotechnical Commission. (2003). IEC 62264-1 Enterprise-control system integration–Part 1: Models and terminology. Geneva: IEC.Google Scholar
  15. International Electrotechnical Commission. (2013). Engineering data exchange format for use in industrial systems engineering – Automation Markup Language AML. Retrieved from http://www.automationml.org/
  16. ISO/IEC 27034-3. (2018). Information technology -- Application security -- Part 3: Application security management process. Retrieved March 6, 2019, from https://www.iso.org/standard/55583.html
  17. Jäger, T., Fay, A., Wagner, T., & Lowen, U. (2011). Mining technical dependencies throughout engineering process knowledge. Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2011 IEEE 16th Conference (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
  18. Kathrein, L., Lüder, A., Meixner, K., Winkler, D., & Biffl, S. (2018). Process analysis for communicating systems engineering workgroups; Technical report CDL-SQI-2018-11, TU Wien. http://qse.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/CDL-SQI-2018-11.pdf
  19. Kathrein, L., Lüder, A., Meixner, K., Winkler, D., & Biffl, S. (2019). Product/ion-aware analysis of multi-disciplinary systems engineering processes. In Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS (Vol. 2, pp. 48–60). Setúbal: SciTePress. ISBN 978-989-758-372-8.  https://doi.org/10.5220/0007618000480060 Google Scholar
  20. Khabbazi, M. R., Hasan, M. K., Sulaiman, R., & Shapi’i, A. (2013). Business process modeling in production logistics: Complementary use of BPMN and UML. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 15(4), 516–529.Google Scholar
  21. Kissel, R. L., Stine, K. M., Scholl, M. A., Rossman, H., Fahlsing, J., & Gulick, J. (2008). Security considerations in the system development life cycle (No. Special Publication (NIST SP)-800-64 Rev 2). National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  22. Lüder, A., Foehr, M., Köhlein, A., & Böhm, B. (2012). Application of engineering processes analysis to evaluate benefits of mechatronic engineering. In Emerging technologies & factory automation (ETFA), 2012 IEEE 17th conference (pp. 1–4). IEEE.Google Scholar
  23. Lüder, A., Pauly, J., Kirchheim, K., Rinker, F., & Biffl, S. (2018). Migration to AutomationML based tool chains –Incrementally overcoming engineering network challenges. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.automationml.org/o.red/up-loads/dateien/1548668540-17_Lueder_Migration-ToolChains_Paper.pdf
  24. Merunka, V. (2017). Symmetries of modellingconcepts and relationships in UML -Advances and opportunities. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 298, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moser, T., Biffl, S., Sunindyo, W. D., & Winkler, D. (2010, February). Integrating production automation expert knowledge across engineering stakeholder domains. In Complex, intelligent and software intensive systems (CISIS), 2010 international conference (pp. 352–359). IEEE.Google Scholar
  26. Nance, C., Losser, T., Iype, R., & Harmon, G. (2013). Nosql vs rdbms-why there is room for both. SAIS 2013 proceedings (p. 27).Google Scholar
  27. Paetzold, K. (2017). Product and systems engineering/CA∗ tool chains. In Multi-disciplinary engineering for cyber-physical production systems (pp. 27–62). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Presley, A., & Liles, D. H. (1995). The use of IDEF0 for the design and specification of methodologies. In Proceedings of the 4th industrial engineering research conference. Citeseer.Google Scholar
  29. Rilling, J., Witte, R., Schuegerl, P., & Charland, P. (2008). Beyond information silos—An omnipresent approach to software evolution. International Journal of Semantic Computing, 2(04), 431–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosenberger, P., Gerhard, D., & Rosenberger, P. (2018). Context-aware system analysis: Introduction of a process model for industrial applications. In ICEIS (Vol. 2, pp. 368–375). Setúbal: SciTePress.Google Scholar
  31. Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sabou, M., Ekaputra, F. J., & Biffl, S. (2017). Semantic web technologies for data integration in multi-disciplinary engineering. In Multi-disciplinary engineering for cyber-physical production systems (pp. 301–329). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadalage, P. J., & Fowler, M. (2013). NoSQL distilled: A brief guide to the emerging world of polyglot persistence. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  35. Santos, H., & Alves, C. (2017). Exploring the ambidextrous analysis of business processes: A design science research. In International conference on enterprise information systems (pp. 543–566). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Schafer, W., & Wehrheim, H. (2007, May). The challenges of building advanced mechatronic systems. In Future of software engineering, 2007 (FOSE’07) (pp. 72–84). IEEE.Google Scholar
  37. Scheer, A.-W. (1998). ARIS: Vom Geschäftsprozeß zum Anwendungssystem/August-Wilhelm Scheer. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schleipen, M., Lüder, A., Sauer, O., Flatt, H., & Jasperneite, J. (2015). Requirements and concept for plug-and-work. at-Automatisierungstechnik, 63(10), 801–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with scrum (Vol. 1). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Siddiqa, A., Karim, A., & Gani, A. (2017). Big data storage technologies: A survey. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 18(8), 1040–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stark, J. (2015). Product lifecycle management. In Product lifecycle management (Vol. 1, pp. 1–29). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. VDI 3682. (2005). Formalised process descriptions. Berlin: BeuthVerlag.Google Scholar
  43. VDI 3695. (2010). Engineering of industrial plants, evaluation and optimization, Part 1. Berlin: BeuthVerlag.Google Scholar
  44. Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A., & Majeed, B. (2008). Business process analysis and optimization: Beyond reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 38(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vicknair, C., Macias, M., Zhao, Z., Nan, X., Chen, Y., & Wilkins, D. (2010, April). A comparison of a graph database and a relational database: A data provenance perspective. In Proceedings of the 48th annual southeast regional conference (p. 42). ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Wieringa, R. (2014). Design science methodology for information systems and software engineering. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiesner, S., & Thoben, K. D. (2017). Cyber-physical product-service systems. In Multi-disciplinary engineering for cyber-physical production systems (pp. 63–88). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang, C., Chen, X., Feng, Y., & Luo, R. (2010, June). Modeling and functional design of logistic park using IDEFO method. In 2010 7th international conference on service systems and service management (pp. 1–5). IEEE.Google Scholar
  49. Zhu, L., Bass, L., & Champlin-Scharff, G. (2016). Devops and its practices. IEEE Software, 33(3), 32–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Kathrein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arndt Lüder
    • 2
  • Kristof Meixner
    • 1
  • Dietmar Winkler
    • 1
  • Stefan Biffl
    • 3
  1. 1.Christian Doppler Laboratory for Security and Quality Improvement in the Production System Lifecycle (CDL-SQI), Institute of Information Systems EngineeringTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Otto-v.-Guericke University/IAFMagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Information Systems EngineeringTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations