Advertisement

PLM Standards Modelling for Enterprise Interoperability: A Manufacturing Case Study for ERP and MES Systems Integration Based on ISA-95

  • Emna Moones
  • Thomas Vosgien
  • Lyes Kermad
  • El Mouloudi Dafaoui
  • Abderrahman El Mhamedi
  • Nicolas Figay
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 213)

Abstract

Today Enterprise Interoperability is considered as a key factor of successful collaboration. It was identified as a critical need that has to be taken into account all along the lifecycle of a manufactured product. To deal with this problem and to reduce complexity of the different systems of interest used when different companies have to collaborate together, Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Enterprise Modelling (EM) are considered as solutions to facilitate Enterprise Interoperability. Dealing with interoperability issues in the context of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), we have to mention the importance of product data and process standards implementation as interoperability enablers. In order to address the complexity of PLM standards, we propose to apply a model-driven methodology for modelling these standards and the related collaboration scenarios. This approach intends to make standards more comprehensive and to better manage standards evolutions, but also to instantiate and re-use these “generic” standards models to specify specific business collaboration scenarios. This proposal aims also to facilitate the exchange, testing and simulation of standards implementations. In this paper, the focus is on the ISA 95 standard for manufacturing-PLM integration, with an exchange scenario between Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Manufacturing Execution System (MES) based on ISA 95 standard.

Keywords

Enterprise architecture Enterprise interoperability Manufacturing PLM standards ERP/MES ISA-95 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research work has been carried out under the leadership of the Technological Research Institute SystemX, and therefore granted with public funds within the scope of the French Program “Investissements d’avenir”.

References

  1. 1.
    CIMDATA About PLM – CIMdata (2014). https://www.cimdata.com/en/resources/about-plm
  2. 2.
    Figay, N.: Interoperability of Technical Enterprise Application. Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    INTEROP European Commission: CORDIS (2007). http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/71148_en.html
  4. 4.
    ATHENA Interoperability Framework v2.0 - NEHTA. “Interoperability Framework. v2.0” (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morris, E., Levine, L., Meyers, C, et al.: System of Systems Interoperability (SOSI): final report (No. CMU/SEI-2004-TR-004). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Figay, N., Tchoffa, D., Ghodous, P., et al.: Dynamic manufacturing network, PLM hub and business standards testbed. In: Mertins, K., Bénabe, F., Poler, R., Bourrières, J.-P. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability VI, pp. 453–463. Springer, Switzerland (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moones, E., Figay, N., Vosgien, T., et al.: Towards an extended interoperability systemic approach for dynamic manufacturing networks: role and assessment of PLM standards. In: Boulanger, F., Krob, D., Morel, G., Roussel, J.-C. (eds.) Complex Systems Design and Management, pp. 59–72. Springer, Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourey, J.P., Grangel, R., Ducq, Y, et al.: Report on Model Driven Interoperability (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rachuri, S., Subrahmanian, E., Bouras, A., et al.: Information sharing and exchange in the context of product lifecycle management: role of standards. CAD Comput. Aided. Des. 40, 789–800 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2007.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling - the issue of integration. Adv. Eng. Inform. 18, 205–216 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2005.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., Vernadat, F.: Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Comput. Ind. 59, 647–659 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zachman, J.A.: The Zachman framework for enterprise architecture, primer for enterprise engineering and manufacturing. CA Mag. 128, 15 (2003). doi: 10.1109/CSIE.2009.478 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., Zelm, M.: CIMOSA: enterprise engineering and integration. Comput. Ind. 40, 83–87 (1999). doi: 10.1016/S0166-3615(99)00016-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    TOGAF® Version 9.1. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/. Accessed 11 Feburary 2015
  15. 15.
    Harjunkoski, I., Bauer, R.: Sharing data for production scheduling using the ISA-95 standard. 2:1–15 (2014). doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2014.00044
  16. 16.
    ISA95, Enterprise-Control System Integration - ISA. https://www.isa.org/isa95/. Accessed 11 Feburary 2015

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emna Moones
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Vosgien
    • 1
  • Lyes Kermad
    • 2
  • El Mouloudi Dafaoui
    • 2
  • Abderrahman El Mhamedi
    • 2
  • Nicolas Figay
    • 3
  1. 1.Technological Research Institute SystemXPalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.University Paris8MontreuilFrance
  3. 3.Airbus Group InnovationsSuresnesFrance

Personalised recommendations