A review of the use of asset information standards for collaboration in the process industry

In this article the use of asset information standards for collaboration in the process industry is reviewed based on a survey of the literature and two case studies. The investigation shows that the process industry appears to have had only limited success in introducing such standards so far, despite significant efforts. Since information hand-over between asset life cycle phases is important, lack of information standardization suggests that collaboration costs are higher than necessary. Reported causes can be grouped into standard related causes (slow development of standards, stability, complexity, cost, quality/ontological problems), organization related causes (lack of direct financial incentives, organizational readiness, resistance to change) and business environment related causes (legal aspects, level of adoption, limited governmental enforcement and a lack of dominant actors in the process industry). It is also shown that initial local configuration of a standard may lead to successful acceptance of the standards, but may hinder later external use. The contribution of this article is insight into the use of asset information standards and the causes for lack of pervasiveness. This is necessary for improving the use of standards in collaboration in the process industry. The article concludes by suggesting future research directions.

[1]  Pekka Siltanen,et al.  Comparison of Data Models for Plant Lifecycle Information Management , 2006, ISPE CE.

[2]  Thomas F. Burgess,et al.  Configuration management in the aerospace industry: a review of industry practice , 2005 .

[3]  Susan D. Urban,et al.  From Engineering Information Management (EIM) to Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[4]  Yongsheng Ma,et al.  Product lifecycle management in aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul , 2008, Comput. Ind..

[5]  Barry Smith.  Against Idiosyncrasy in Ontology Development , 2006, FOIS.

[6]  Ladjel Bellatreche,et al.  Contribution of ontology-based data modeling to automatic integration of electronic catalogues within engineering databases , 2006, Comput. Ind..

[7]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[8]  Andries van Renssen,et al.  Gellish: a generic extensible ontological language - design and application of a universal data structure , 2005 .

[9]  Jc Jan Fransoo,et al.  Operations management research in process industries , 2006 .

[10]  Richard Greenough,et al.  Investigating the transfer of techniques for electronic technical support documentation from aerospace to machine tools , 2007 .

[11]  Wolter J. Fabrycky,et al.  Systems engineering and analysis , 1981 .

[12]  Angappa Gunasekaran.  Concurrent engineering: a competitive strategy for process industries , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[13]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[14]  Wim Gielingh,et al.  An assessment of the current state of product data technologies , 2008, Comput. Aided Des..

[15]  Jack R. Meredith,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Process Industry Transformation Systems , 2000 .

[16]  Nuno Silva,et al.  An Approach to Ontology Mapping Negotiation , 2005, Integrating Ontologies.

[17]  Julian Fowler,et al.  STEP for Data Management Exchange and Sharing , 1996 .

[18]  Jack R. Meredith,et al.  Building operations management theory through case and field research , 1998 .

[19]  Jan Holmström,et al.  Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach , 2009, Decis. Sci..

[20]  Avin D. Mathew,et al.  A Review of the MIMOSA OSA-EAI Database for Condition Monitoring Systems , 2006 .

[21]  Christina Soh,et al.  How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis , 1995, ICIS.

[22]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[23]  Frits Tolman,et al.  Product modeling standards for the building and construction industry: past, present and future , 1999 .

[24]  Wolfgang Wilkes.  Networking among product ontologies: The standard ISO13584 - PLIB and related developments , 2005, GI Jahrestagung.

[25]  W. B. Teeuw,et al.  Experiences with product data interchange: on product models, integration, and standardisation , 1996 .

[26]  Ray Dawson,et al.  A step towards the adoption of data-exchange standards: a UK defence community case study , 2005, The 4th Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, 2005..

[27]  J. Stavenuiter.  Cost effective management control of capital assets: An integrated life cycle management approach , 2002 .

[28]  Jim Melton,et al.  Standards in practice , 1998, SGMD.

[29]  Gregory L. Smith.  Utilization of STEP AP 210 at The Boeing Company , 2002, Comput. Aided Des..

[30]  A. Terry Bahill,et al.  Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C.

[31]  John L. Dettbarn,et al.  Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. , 2004 .

[32]  John S. Gero,et al.  Agent‐Based Interoperability without Product Model Standards , 2007, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[33]  Jc Jan Fransoo,et al.  A Typology of Production Control Situations in Process Industries , 1994 .

[34]  Li Li,et al.  Agent-based ontology integration for ontology-based applications , 2005 .

[35]  Alan C. Brent,et al.  Asset life cycle management : towards improving physical asset performance in the process industry , 2005 .

[36]  Bernard C. Reimann,et al.  Correlates of Decentralization: Closed and Open Systems Perspectives , 1973 .

[37]  Regine W. Vroom,et al.  The application of STEP in the automotive supply chain , 1996 .