Managing diagrammatic models with different perspectives on product information

In the context of engineering-oriented companies, a basic distinction can be made between the information needed during sales, engineering and manufacturing. When representing such information in diagrammatic models, these models will most often include both individual and shared content. For instance, during the sales phase, information about sales prices may be relevant, while this information is not relevant in the engineering and manufacturing phases, where, on the other hand, more detailed information about components and assembly is needed. However, such information models often share basic component definitions. Having this overlapping information across models means that when maintaining these, redundant work has to be carried out for the overlapping parts of the information. This, obviously, can be both time-consuming and a significant source of errors. In this paper, a modelling method for the management of diagrammatic models with different perspectives on product information is proposed. The aim of this method is to avoid redundant information across models, in order to reduce time needed for ensuring of consistency across models and minimize the chances of errors. The need for information models with different perspectives on the same product information is common in cases that involve design/redesign of complex products and/or the construction of product configurators. Besides a knowledge representation technique, the paper suggests two different solutions for software support, of which the application of one of these in an actual project is described.

[1]  G. Susman,et al.  An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. , 1978 .

[2]  Amaresh Chakrabarti Engineering Design Synthesis , 2002 .

[3]  Benoît Eynard,et al.  UML based specifications of PDM product structure and workflow , 2004, Comput. Ind..

[4]  C. Forza,et al.  Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfilment process: The contribution of product configuration systems , 2002 .

[5]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: a Study of Automotive Braking Systems , 1999 .

[6]  Stefano Lorenzi,et al.  Product modularity theory and practice: the benefits and difficulties in implementation within a company , 2001 .

[7]  Rafael Capilla,et al.  Architectural Modelling in Product Family Context , 2004, EWSA.

[8]  Kendall Scott,et al.  UML distilled - a brief guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language (2. ed.) , 2000, notThenot Addison-Wesley object technology series.

[9]  Lars Hvam,et al.  A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO GRAPHICAL NOTATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCT CONFIGURATION SYSTEMS , 2007 .

[10]  Ulf Harlou,et al.  Developing product families based on architectures: Contribution to a theory of product families , 2006 .

[11]  Mogens Myrup Andreasen,et al.  Two approaches to synthesis based on the domain theory , 2002 .

[12]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[13]  Liliana Ardissono,et al.  A Framework for the Development of Personalized, Distributed Web-Based Configuration Systems , 2003, AI Mag..

[14]  Fabrizio Salvador,et al.  Modularity, product variety, production volume and component sourcing: Theorizing beyond generic prescriptions , 2002 .

[15]  D. N. P. Murthy,et al.  Product performance and specification in new product development , 2006 .

[16]  Reijo Sulonen,et al.  Multiple abstraction levels in modelling product structures , 2001, Data Knowl. Eng..

[17]  Daniel Sabin,et al.  Product Configuration Frameworks - A Survey , 1998, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[18]  Lars Hvam,et al.  A multi-perspective approach for the design of product configuration systems , 2004 .

[19]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Integrated product and process design: A modularity perspective , 2002 .

[20]  Fabrizio Salvador,et al.  Product Information Management for Mass Customization , 2006 .

[21]  Lars Hvam,et al.  Product Structured Class Diagrams to support the development of Product Configuration Systems , 2007 .

[22]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  Uml as Domain Specific Language for the Construction of Knowledge-Based Configuration Systems , 1999, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[23]  Lars Hvam,et al.  A Software System for the Management of Generic Product Information Models , 2009 .

[24]  Benjamin Loer Hansen Development of industrial variant specification systems , 2003 .

[25]  Niels Henrik Mortensen,et al.  ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT STRUCTURE LAWS , 1997 .

[26]  Vladimir Hubka,et al.  Theory of Technical Systems , 1988 .