Aligning the Product, Factory and ICT Life Cycles: Challenges and Opportunities

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia CIRP 12 (2013) 390 – 395

8th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering

Aligning the Product, Factory and ICT Life Cycles: Challenges and Opportunities C. Constantinescua, b, M. Landherra, c, *, M. Neumanna, c a

Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation Fraunhofer IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany b Institute of Industrial Manufacturing and Management IFF, University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany c Graduate School of Excellence advanced Manufacturing Engineering in Stuttgart GSaME, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 711 970-1851; fax: : +49 711 970-1009; E-mail address: [email protected].

Abstract Manufacturing companies are subject to permanently changing environments. The factories have to be continuously adapted to stay sustainable and competitive in the global market. As a result, today’s factories are characterized by evolved structures not only in terms of the factory structure with its production resources but also of the supporting information and communication technologies (ICT). Additionally the products to be produced have to be considered, because they are one of the most influencing objects in manufacturing companies. A complicating fact is that objects of these three categories have their own life cycles that usually differ in their respective ranges and specificities. As a basis for supporting these companies throughout the whole life cycle of factories including the products to be produced and the used ICT, the single life cycles have to be understood with regard to their respective objects and interrelations and they have to be aligned to maximize further optimization potentials. The contribution presented here offers a fundament as a possibility to align these three life cycles with the employment of a knowledge-based, multi-scale modeling approach, called Factory DNA. Therefore the model of the DNA double helix, from the field of biology, is adapted to comprehend and visualize the different life cycles as an interrelated triple helix. After emphasizing the potential and the requirements for the alignment of these three different life cycles an overview of the state of the art regarding the product, factory and ICT life cycles is given. In a further step the main challenges regarding their alignment and the derived opportunities are presented. The paper concludes with the approach for the alignment of the product, factory and ICT life cycles, called Factory DNA. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Professor Roberto Teti. Selection and peer review under responsibility of Professor Roberto Teti Keywords: : Product life cycle; factory life cycle; information technology life cycle.

1. Motivation Manufacturing companies are subject to permanently changing environments. Shorter product life cycles and increasing numbers of product variants force the factories into a continuous adaptation to stay sustainable and competitive in the global competition. In the majority of cases, the production of new or legacy products requires a modification of existing production facilities. Every reconfiguration of production lines, deletion of outdated or uneconomic machines and integration of new machines or work

2212-8271 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and peer review under responsibility of Professor Roberto Teti doi:10.1016/j.procir.2013.09.067

places causes the need for a reconfiguration of the production-related information and communication technologies (ICT) like the used Manufacturing Execution System (MES) and for a consideration of the changes made in the Factory Life Cycle Management (FLM) system. It is not feasible to rebuild the whole factory or to replace the ICT because of changed production requirements. Thus, it is necessary to cope with the challenge of realizing a continuous adaption of the factory with its deployed ICT.

C. Constantinescu et al. / Procedia CIRP 12 (2013) 390 – 395

391

Fig. 1. Product life cycle [7]

To increase the economic effectiveness and efficiency through improving the interaction between the three domains of the product, the factory and the ICT, the respective life cycles have to be understood in detail and the interrelations and interfaces between the domains have to be analyzed and defined. The three integrated main pillars enable a highly productive operation of today’s factories. The intelligently connected pillars hold greater benefits than the sum of the benefits that can be generated by considering only a single pillar for optimization activities. The pillars can be seen as the stands of the DNA, a factory consists of: The Factory DNA. Only through facilitating the Factory DNA with its interlaced product life cycle, factory life cycle and the corresponding ICT life cycle at the same time, factories can be operated at the maximum of economic effectiveness and efficiency. After emphasizing the potential and the requirements for the alignment of these three different life cycles an overview of the state of the art regarding the product, factory and ICT life cycles is given. In a further step the main challenges regarding their alignment and the derived opportunities are presented. The paper concludes with the approach for the alignment of the product, factory and ICT life cycles, called Factory DNA.

interrelations. Thus, in this chapter, the state-of-the-art approaches and models will be presented. 2.1. Product life cycle The holistic management of a product over the whole life cycle is an established paradigm [1]. Thereby the whole planning, development, manufacturing and the usage as well as the recycling of the product is considered right from the beginning. There are various methods and approaches to support the product life cycle systematically [2] [3] [4] [5]. Within some of these methods and approaches ITsolutions which enable cross enterprise engineering and implementation strategies are defined to enhance existing PDM-systems (product data management) to PLM-systems (product life cycle management). These enhanced systems enable the management of the whole product life cycle within and between companies. State-of-the-art methods, models and digital tools to support the product life cycle aim at increasing the manageability of the complex system – product life cycle –, at an integrated data management over all phases of the life cycle and to optimize and synchronize the information and communication flows [6]. 2.2. Factory life cycle

2. State-of-the-Art The alignment of the different life cycles requires a deep understanding of every single life cycle and their

State-of-the-art reference models for the factory life cycle provide defined, structured and standardized workflows for different factory and process planning

392

C. Constantinescu et al. / Procedia CIRP 12 (2013) 390 – 395

activities to overcome the current challenges in manufacturing engineering [8]. The predefined standardized planning activities improve the communication between planning partners,

interdisciplinary teams or stakeholders, who participate in different phases of a factory life cycle activities [9].

Fig. 2. Factory life cycle [7]

Fig. 3. ICT life cycle [22]

Thereby, the first factory reference models were proposed as factory structure reference models. These

reference models are targeted to a specific industrial sector or they are very generic and describe the structure

C. Constantinescu et al. / Procedia CIRP 12 (2013) 390 – 395

of a factory without taking its life cycle or processes into account [10] [11]. Today’s factory life cycle reference models provide a various level of detail for each planning phase, support different phases and their activities. Some reference models concentrate on the factory planning (investment, building, layout and logistics planning and ramp-up) without considering the manufacturing execution planning and the dismantling of the factory [13] [14] [15]. A more holistic view on the factory life cycle is provided by the VDI and Westkämper. There the factory life cycle phase “manufacturing execution” is additionally taken into account [9] [16]. However, the dismantling is not considered in those approaches. More holistic factory life cycle reference models contain the factory and process planning phases and the manufacturing execution phases as well as the dismantling of the factory in a highly detailed way. An innovative point is that they take the relations and interdependencies between the planning phases into account [17] [18]. 2.3. ICT life cycle There are two different views on an ICT life cycle. The first one is the software development life cycle, which considers the development, the usage, the support and the development of the next version of the ICT software. The other one considers the viewpoint of the customer respectively the user of ICT software, with the life cycle phases: acquisition, integration, usage and migration. This paper concentrates on the users’ viewpoint, due to its focus on the manufacturing [19]. Today, the most promising approach to manage the ICT life cycle in a manufacturing enterprise is an ICT system landscape, which is modular, standardized and supported through a close collaboration with an ICT provider [20]. This requires a holistic approach of the whole company, its processes and its technology, regarding the IT environment. It also requires IT providers, which assist while implementing the software landscape and which assure an effective support through all the ICT life cycle phases [21]. 3. Challenges & Opportunities The main challenges for the alignment of the different life cycles are [23] [24]: Objects of the life cycles differ in their respective ranges and specificities Multiple interrelations between the phases of the different life cycles

393

Separated ways of thinking and domain specific paradigms along the life cycles Information which is generated in the different life cycles is propagated in specific and isolated “island” application systems. These aforementioned challenges lead to considerable delays between the start of product design and the start of production. Thus, the alignment of the three different life cycles holds great potentials for reducing the timeto-production. This will also lead to a cost reduction [25]. 4. Approach The proposed approach faces the challenges mentioned in Section 3 and increases the flexibility and changeability of a company and its production systems. This can be achieved through aligning the different life cycles (product, factory and ICT life cycle) and interconnecting them. Traditional approaches consider some interconnections between the product and the factory life cycle in early phases, but to enhance the flexibility and the changeability of this system this approach considers the ICT life cycle as well. Each of these life cycle phases consists of planning activities and tasks. The whole architecture thereby is modular and structured according to the factory scales as well as to the holistic view of the “Factory is a product” [1] approach. Furthermore each life cycle is extensible and open for implementing additional data in the planning activities. One reason for inefficient collaboration in the Production, Factory Operation and ICT Operation planning is the specific manner of planning and decision making. As depicted in Figure 4 the three different life cycles merge in the phase “Production – Factory Operation – ICT Operation”. Thereby the different approaching perspectives of planning activities complicate the communication. This approach takes this fact into account by interconnecting the different phases of the life cycles from the beginning (Figure 4). Thus an efficient communication and a proper understanding of the planning activities can be achieved. On a long term perspective this approach ensures advantages, such as higher planning efficiency, higher planning quality and lower planning cost.

394

C. Constantinescu et al. / Procedia CIRP 12 (2013) 390 – 395

Fig. 4. Proposed alignment of product, factory and ICT life cycles

References [1] Zahn, E., Westkämper, E., 2009. “Wandlungsfähige Produktionsunternehmen,”-Das Stuttgarter Unternehmensmodell. Berlin, Springer. [2] Feldhusen, J., Gebhard, B., 2008. “Product Lifecycle Management für die Praxis,” Berlin, Springer. [3] Eigner, M., Stelzer, R., 2009. “Product Lifecycle Management Ein Leitfaden für Product Development und Life Cycle Management, ” Berlin, Springer. [4] Lindemann, U., 2009. “Methodische Entwicklung technischer Produkte: Methoden flexibel und situationsgerecht anwenden,” Berlin, Springer. [5] Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., Grote, KH., 2007. “Konstruktionslehre Grundlagen erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung Methoden und Anwendung,” Berlin, Springer. [6] Schuh, G., Eversheim, W., 2005. “Integrierte Produkt- und Prozessgestaltung,” Berlin, Springer. [7] Constantinescu, C., Dürr, M., Decker, F., Westkämper, E., 2007. ”Virtual Environment for Collaborative Factory Planning,,” 40th CIRP IMS Seminar. [8] Constantinescu, C., Hummel, V., Westkämper, E., 2005. The Migration of the Life Cycle Paradigm into the Manufacturing Engineering. Institut für Industrielle Fertigung und Fabrikbetrieb. [9] Constantinescu, C., Eichelberger, H., Westkämper, E., 2009. Durchgängige und integrierte Fabrik- und Prozessplanung: Grid

[10] [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Engineering for Manufacturing, wt Werkstattstechnik online 993, p. 92. Zelm, M., Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., 1999. CIMOSA: Enterprise engineering and integration. Computers in Industry 402, p. 83. Albus, JS., Meystel, AM., 1996. A Reference Model Architecture for Design and Implementation of Intelligent Control in Large and Complex Systems. International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems 11, p. 15. Aggteleky, B., 1970. Fabrikplanung. München, Hanser. Kettner, H., Schmidt, J., Greim, HR., 1984. Leitfaden der systematischen Fabrikplanung. München, Hanser. Wiendahl, HP., Wiendahl, HH., Duffie, N., Brieke, M., 2007. Changeable manufacturing - classification, design and operation. Annals of the CIRP - Manufacturing Technology 562, p. 783. Grundig, CG., 2008. Fabrikplanung: Planungssystematik, Methoden und Anwendungen. München, Hanser. Association of German Engineers (VDI), 2009. VDI 5200: Fabrikplanung Planungsvorgehen. Düsseldorf, VDI. Helbing, KW., 2010. “Handbuch Fabrikprojektierung,” Berlin, Springer. Schenk, M., Wirth, S., Müller, E., 2010. “Factory Planning Manual,” Berlin, Springer. Zarnekow, R., Scheeg, J., Bremer, W., 2004. Untersuchungen der Lebenzykluskosten von IT-Anwendungen. Universität St. Gallen. Brown, AB., 2004. A best practice approach for automating IT management process. IBM: Research Division. Coex, DE., Kreger, H., 2005. Management of the serviceoriented-architecture life cycle. IBM Systems Journal, p. 444.

C. Constantinescu et al. / Procedia CIRP 12 (2013) 390 – 395 [22] Balzert, H., 2011. Lehrbuch der Informatik, Heidelberg, Spektrum. [23] Scheer, AW., 2004. Prozessorientierte Unternehmensmodellierung Grundlagen – Werkzeuge – Anwendungen. Wiesbaden, Gabler. [24] Bracht, U., Geckler, D., Wenzel, S., 2011. “Digitale Fabrik. Methoden und Praxisbeispiele, ” Berlin, Springer. [25] Jovane, F., Westkämper, E., Williams, D., 2009. ”The Manufuture Road Towards Competitive and Sustainable HighAdding-Value Manufacturing,” Berlin, Springer.

395