A Federated Enterprise Architecture and MBSE Modeling Framework for Integrating Design Automation into a Global PLM Approach

  • Thomas Vosgien
  • Eugen Rigger
  • Martin Schwarz
  • Kristina Shea
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 517)


PLM and Design Automation (DA) are two interdependent and necessary approaches to increase the performance and efficiency of product development processes. Often, DA systems’ usability suffers due to a lack of integration in industrial business environments stemming from the independent consideration of PLM and DA. This article proposes a methodological and modeling framework for developing and deploying DA solutions within a global PLM approach. This framework supports the identification of DA potentials and the definition of the DA task building blocks to support DA task formalization by practitioners. The aim is to make the specification and development of DA solutions more efficient and aligned with the business requirements and with the existing digital environments. This framework combines the usage of two standardized modeling languages to make the captured knowledge re-usable across heterogeneous PLM and DA applications. An industrial case study demonstrating the applicability of the framework is introduced and discussed.


Design automation Product Lifecycle Management  Enterprise architecture Model-Based System Engineering ArchiMate SysML 



This work was supported by the K-Project ‘Advanced Engineering Design Automation’ (AEDA) that is financed under the COMET (COMpetence centers for Excellent Technologies) funding scheme of the Austrian Research Promotion Agency.


  1. 1.
    Abramovici, M.: Future trends in product lifecycle management (PLM). In: Krause, F.L. (ed.) The Future of Product Development, pp. 665–674. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ehrlenspiel, K., Kiewert, A., Lindemann, U.: Cost-Efficient Design. Springer, Heidelberg, ASME Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baxter, D., Gao, J., Case, K., et al.: A framework to integrate design knowledge reuse and requirements management in engineering design. Rob. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 24, 585–593 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rigger, E., Münzer, C., Shea, K.: Estimating the potential of state of the art design automation - tasks, methods, and benefits. In: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lund, J.G., Fife, N.L., Jensen, C.G.: PLM-based parametrics for design automation and optimization. Comput.-Aided Des. Appl. 2, 37–45 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cederfeldt, M., Elgh, F.: Design automation in SMEs - current state, potential, need and requirements. In: Proceedings ICED 2005, the 15th International Conference on Engineering Design: and Global Economics, p. 1507 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cagan, J., Campbell, M.I., Finger, S., Tomiyama, T.: A framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 5, 171 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whitman, L., Ramachandran, K., Ketkar, V.: A taxonomy of a living model of the enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 848–855. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling—the issue of integration. Adv. Eng. Inform. 18, 205–216 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moones, E., Vosgien, T., Kermad, L., Dafaoui, E.M., El Mhamedi, A., Figay, N.: PLM standards modelling for enterprise interoperability: a manufacturing case study for ERP and MES systems integration based on ISA-95. In: van Sinderen, M., Chapurlat, V. (eds.) IWEI 2015. LNBIP, vol. 213, pp. 157–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G.J.: Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2012). Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., Vernadat, F.: Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: past, present and future. Comput. Ind. 59, 647–659 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moones, E., Figay, N., Vosgien, T., et al.: Towards an extended interoperability systemic approach for dynamic manufacturing networks: role and assessment of PLMStandards. In: Boulanger, F., Krob, D., Morel, G., Roussel, J.C. (eds.) Complex Systems Design and Management, pp. 59–72. Springer, Cham (2015). Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dinar, M., Danielescu, A., MacLellan, C., et al.: Problem map: an ontological framework for a computational study of problem formulation in engineering design. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 15, 031007 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dinar, M., Summers, J.D., Shah, J., Park, Y.-S.: Evaluation of empirical design studies and metrics. In: Cash, P., Stanković, T., Štorga, M. (eds.) Experimental Design Research, pp. 13–39. Springer, Cham (2016). Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu, J., Cha, J., Lu, Y.: Design synthesis approach based on process decomposition to design reuse. J. Eng. Des. 23, 526–543 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panchal, J.H., Fernández, M.G., Paredis, C.J.J., et al.: A modular decision-centric approach for reusable design processes. Concurrent Eng. Res. Appl. 17, 5–19 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ming, Z., Yan, Y., Wang, G., et al.: Ontology-based executable design decision template representation and reuse. In: International Design Engineering Technical Conference and the Computer and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedenthal, S., Griego, R., Sampson, M.: INCOSE model based systems engineering (MBSE) initiative. In: INCOSE 2007 Symposium (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peak, R.S., Burkhart, R.M., Friedenthal, S.A., et al.: Simulation-based design using SysML part 1: a parametrics primer. In: INCOSE International Symposium, pp. 1516–1535. Wiley Online Library (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peak, R.S., Burkhart, R.M., Friedenthal, S.A., et al.: Simulation-based design using SysML part 2: celebrating diversity by example. In: INCOSE International Symposium, pp. 1536–1557. Wiley Online Library (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 3.0 Specification. The Open Group, Reading, UK (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sim, S.K., Duffy, A.H.B.: Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Res. Eng. Des. 14, 200–223 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Vosgien
    • 1
  • Eugen Rigger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin Schwarz
    • 3
  • Kristina Shea
    • 2
  1. 1.V-Research GmbHDornbirnAustria
  2. 2.ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Liebherr-Werk Nenzing GmbHNenzingAustria

Personalised recommendations