No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Challenges and Architectural Approaches for Automotive PLM in Multi-Brand Organisations - A Discussion Paper
Part of:
Design Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Today, top-down processes, centralized IT infrastructures, and one-vendor strategies prevail in Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) of large multi-brand Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) groups. Given the usually decentralized organisation and structures and processes that emerge from cross-brand collaboration, these centralized approaches are challenging the adaptiveness and performance of the OEM groups.
In this concept paper, we investigate challenges for cross-brand and cross-domain cooperation from the perspective of processes and IT systems. The main contribution of this paper is that we motivate and outline a novel technical architecture approach combining service-orientation with an event-driven software architecture and asynchronous event processing to support users from different brands and domains in their collaboration along the development process. We analyse related work on collaboration models as well as on event processing and discuss our approach before the background of the state of the art. Finally, we summarize our findings and give an outlook to future research venues.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1095 - 1104
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Belay, A.M., Welo, T. and Helo, P. (2014), “Approaching lean product development using system dynamics: investigating front-load effects”, Advances in Manufacturing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 130–140.Google Scholar
Bruns, R. and Dunkel, J. (2010), “Event-Driven Architecture: Softwarearchitektur für ereignisgesteuerte Geschäftsprozesse, Xpert.press, Springer”, Berlin.Google Scholar
Chin, K.-S., Zhao, Y. and Mok, C.K. (2002), “STEP-Based Multiview Integrated Product Modelling for Concurrent Engineering”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 896–906.Google Scholar
Dayarathna, M. and Perera, S., (2018), “Recent Advancements in Event Processing”, ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 33:1–33:36.Google Scholar
Deuter, A. and Rizzo, S. (2016), “A Critical View on PLM/ALM Convergence in Practice and Research”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 26, pp. 405–412.Google Scholar
Dongre, A.U., Jha, B.K., Aachat, P.S. and Patil, V.R. (2017), “Concurrent Engineering. A Review”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 2766–2770.Google Scholar
Durão, L.F.C.S., Eichhorn, H., Anderl, R., Schützer, K. and Zancul, Senzi, de, E. (2015), “Integrated Component Data Model based on UML for Smart Components Lifecycle Management. A Conceptual Approach”, in Bouras, A., Eynard, B., Foufou, S. and Thoben, K.-D. (Eds.), 12th IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
Eckert, M. (2008), “Complex Event Processing with XChangeEQ: Language Design, Formal Semantics, and Incremental Evaluation for Querying Events, Dissertation, LMU München: Fakultät für Mathematik, Informatik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München”, München.Google Scholar
Eigner, M., Dickopf, T. and Huwig, C. (2016), “An Interdisciplinary Model-Based Design Approach for Developing Cybertronic Systems”. In: DESIGN 2016 - 14th International Design Conference. Hrsg. von Marjanovic Dorian, Storga Mario, Pavkovic Neven, Bojcetic Nenad und Skec Stanko. DESIGN. 2016, S. 1647-1656.Google Scholar
Flouris, I., Giatrakos, N., Deligiannakis, A., Garofalakis, M., Kamp, M. and Mock, M., “Issues in complex event processing: Status and prospects in the Big Data era”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 127, pp. 217–236Google Scholar
Groll, M.W. and Heber, D.T. (2016), “E/E-Product Data Management in Consideration of Model-Based Systems Engineering?”, in Stjepandi, J., Borsato, M., Peruzzini, M., Wognum, N. and Verhagen, W.J.C. (Eds.), Transdisciplinary engineering: Crossing boundaries proceedings of the 23rd ISPE Inc. International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering October 3-7, 2016, Advances in transdisciplinary engineering, IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hammerschmidt, C. and Hoffmann, D. (2018), Product Lifecycle Management: Das PLM von morgen, Media-Manufaktur GmbH, Pattensen.Google Scholar
Hesselmann, C., Kehl, S., Stiefel, P. and Müller, J.P. (2017), “Decentralized handling of conflicts in multi-brand engineering change management”, in Maier, A., Skec, S., Kim, H., Kokkolaras, M., Oehmen, J., Fadel, G., Salustri, F. and van der Loos, M. (Eds.), ICED17: 20th-25th August 2017, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, Design organisation and management, Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Engineering Design, Design Society, pp. 683–692.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (2014), “ISO10303-242-2014: Industrial automation systems and integration – Product data representation and exchange – Part 242: Application protocol: Managed model-based 3D engineering No. 10303, 242nd ed., Geneva, CH, available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/57620.html (accessed 14 September 2017).Google Scholar
Janiesch, C., Matzner, M. and Müller, O. (2012), “Beyond process monitoring. A proof-of-concept of event-driven business activity management”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 625–643.Google Scholar
Kees, M. and Seibertz, A. (2010), “Compositional Variant Management and its Application in Embedded Software Development”, available at: http://www.prostep.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ProSTEPiViP/Events/Symposium-2010/Presentation_Tag_2/1002_Presentation_Symposium_Seibertz-ProSTEP-IMP_Kees-Ford.pdf (accessed 23 February 2016).Google Scholar
Kehl, S., Stiefel, P. and Mueller, J.P. (2015), “Changes on changes: towards an agent-based approach for managing complexity in decentralized product development”, in Weber, C., Husung, S., Cascini, G., Cantamessa, M. and Marjanovic, D. (Eds.), ICED15: 27th-30th July 2015, Politecnico di Milano, Italy proceedings of ICED15, Design organisation and management, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design, Design Society, pp. 219–228.Google Scholar
Kehl, S., Hesselmann, C., Stiefel, P. and Müller, J.P. (2016), “Static Product Structures. An Industrial Standard on the Wane”, in Harik, R., Rivest, L., Bernard, A., Eynard, B. and Bouras, A. (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management for Digital Transformation of Industries: 13th IFIP WG 5.1 International Conference, PLM 2016, Columbia, SC, USA, July 11-13, 2016, Revised Selected Papers, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Kehl, S. (2019), “Marken- und domänenübergreifendes Management industrieller Produktdaten”, 1. Auflage 2019, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH; Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Krumeich, J., Weis, B., Werth, D. and Loos, P., (2014), “Event-Driven Business Process Management - Where are we now?”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 615–633Google Scholar
Luckham, David C. (2002), “The power of events. An introduction to complex event processing in distributed enterprise systems”, Reading, Addison-Wesley, Boston Mass.Google Scholar
Michelson, Brenda M. (2006), “Event-Driven Architecture Overview”, Patricia Seybold Group Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
Opiela, N., Hoepner, P. and Weber, M. (2016), Das ÖFIT-Trendsonar der IT-Sicherheit, Kompetenzzentrum öffentliche Informationstechnologie, Fraunhofer-Institut für Offene Kommunikationssysteme FOKUS, Berlin.Google Scholar
Pan, J.Z. (2009), “Resource Description Framework”, in Staab, S. and Studer, R. (Eds.), Handbook on Ontologies, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Pielmeier, J., Braunreuther, S. and Reinhart, G. (2017), “Modeling Approach for Situational Event-handling within Production Planning and Control Based on Complex Event Processing”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 271–276.Google Scholar
Pielmeier, J., Braunreuther, S. and Reinhart, G. (2018), “Approach for Defining Rules in the Context of Complex Event Processing”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 67, pp. 8–12.Google Scholar
Robin, V. and Girard, P. (2006), “An integrated product-process-organisation model to manage design system”, in The Proceedings of the Multiconference on “Computational Engineering in Systems Applications”, Beijing, China, 04.10.2006 - 06.10.2006, IEEE, pp. 1287–1293.Google Scholar
Roucoules, L., Noel, F., Teissandier, D., Lombard, M., Debarbouille, G., Girard, P., Merlo, C. and Eynard, B. (2006), “IPPOP: an open source collaborative design platform to link product, design process and industrial organisation information”. In: 6th International Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering, IDMME 06. 2006, CDROM.Google Scholar
Schlegel, T., Vidackovic, K., Dusch, S. and Seiger, R. (2012), “Management of interactive business processes in decentralized service infrastructures through event processing”, Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
Shi, S., Jin, D. and Tiong-Thye, G. (2017), “Real-time Public Mood Tracking of Chinese Microblog Streams with Complex Event Processing”, IEEE Access, Vol. 5, pp. 421–431.Google Scholar
Soffer, P., Hinze, A., Koschmider, A., Ziekow, H., Di Ciccio, C., Koldehofe, B., Kopp, O., Jacobsen, A., Sürmeli, J. and Song, W. (2017), “From event streams to process models and back: Challenges and opportunities”, Information Systems.Google Scholar
Stiefel, P.D., Hausknecht, C. and Müller, J.P. (2012), “Using ontologies to support decentral product development processes”, in Fischer, K., Müller, J.P. and Levy, R. (Eds.), Agent-Based Technologies and Applications for Enterprise Interoperability, Springer-Verlag, pp. 114–129.Google Scholar
Streaming Analytics Market - Worldwide Market Forecast and Analysis (2015 - 2020), Research and Markets.Google Scholar
Terroso-Sáenz, F., Valdés-Vela, M., Campuzano, F., Botia, J.A. and Skarmeta-Gómez, A.F. (2015), “A complex event processing approach to perceive the vehicular context”, Information Fusion, Vol. 21, pp. 187–209.Google Scholar
Terzi, S., Bouras, A., Dutta, D., Garetti, M. and Kiritsis, D. (2010), “Product lifecycle management – from its history to its new role”, International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 360.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. and Fujimoto, T. (2000), “The Effect of “Front-Loading” Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 128–142.Google Scholar
Zheng, C., Bricogne, M., Le Duigou, J. and Eynard, B. (2014), “Mechatronic Design Process. A Survey of Product Data Model”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 21, pp. 282–287.Google Scholar
zur Muehlen, M. and Shapiro, R. (2010), “Business Process Analytics”, Handbook on Business Process Management 2: Strategic Alignment, Governance, People and Culture, Springer, Berlin, pp. 137–157.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access