Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403
Abstract
The Industry 4.0 initiative fosters close collaboration between various disciplines in product development. Collaborative aspects are addressed
by several research activities, namely Systems Engineering and more precisely by Model Based Systems Engineering. This work contributes a
new method for interdisciplinary communication by an integrated visualization of conceptual models. The method describes an environment for
direct communication between experts in related disciplines. Common application scenarios are business process management workshops in
which process experts have to achieve commitment with experts from other disciplines like computer science, logistics or engineering. Especially
in Industry 4.0 scenarios, mutual understanding between experts from several domains is crucial for a successful process setup, planning and
preparation of production scenarios. The method comprises a theoretical framework for establishing inter-model relationships and their
visualization. For establishing links between models, an ontology based approach is applied. The Bunge-Wand-Weber Ontology for information
systems provides a generic and yet applicable basis for establishing consistent inter-model relationships. For supporting communication processes
the integrated models should be displayed. To provide an understandable visualization a three-dimensional environment is proposed, in which
the linked models are arranged and displayed. The scientific basis is given by applying the concept of visual variables described in the scientific
discipline of information visualization. The depth of space extends the set of visual variables. Applied to the semantic concept of integrated
models a discriminable visualization of integrated models is achieved.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: Industry 4.0; Collaboration; Information Visualization
2212-8271 © 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.069
Johannes Herter and Jivka Ovtcharova / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403 399
model as they are widely known and applied. This is a great perspectives in product engineering, I4.0 scenarios define the
benefit for collaboration within the domain, however there is organizational scope vaster. I4.0 scenarios furthermore
little benefit for inter-domain collaboration. consider value networks as the organizational framework for
Specific conceptual models are not necessarily known developing smart products on the basis of integrated production
outside their native domain and they cannot be used as a technologies and methods. This poses new demands for
common language. However, interdisciplinary communication collaboration between organizations, hierarchies and technical
requires users to achieve common ground for mutual domains. In 2014 a reference architecture titled RAMI was
understanding [1]. A method to support knowledge exchange introduced [5] to describe an architecture as basis for deriving
between domains based on visually linked conceptual models use-cases and further discussions. It describes multiple layers
could enhance mutual understanding. Still, experts can stick to and domains which collaborate closely for successful product
their familiar mental model and notation. Statements like: “… development.
that’s what I meant to say” should be made earlier with suitable Most of the addressed domains apply conceptual models for
communication support based on a good visualization. performing their daily tasks, throughout the product lifecycle
as well as in organizational hierarchies. This shows a
1.1. Objectives significant demand for a method to support communication and
collaboration between stakeholders.
This work contributes to the body of knowledge a method
to support model-based communication in interdisciplinary 2. Conceptual model integration
collaboration scenarios. Domain experts should be able to use
their native conceptual models and notation. The relationships Conceptual models are common structures for capturing and
between conceptual models should be transparent and communicating knowledge of a domain. Definitions describe
intuitively understandable. This should be achieved by visual some fundamental characteristics of conceptual models which
means. The method should cover the following: are comprehensively noted in General Model Theory [6]:
x An approach for selecting and linking elements of several x Mapping: A conceptual model is a reproduction of an
conceptual models based on semantics. original. The original might be a real world scenario or
x A method to provide a sound and intuitive visual another model [6].
representation for inter-model relationships. x Reduction: The conceptual model consists of a subset of
Both aspects should be based on scientific theories. elements contained in the original. Only relevant entities
The work introduced here is developed in scope of a are adopted in the model [6].
doctoral thesis, which is published in 2016 at Karlsruhe x Pragmatism: The selection of artefacts in the model is
Institute of Technology. This paper gives an overview of driven by the purpose of the model and the information
fundamentals and implementation of a conceptual framework demand of the modeler. The pragmatism determines the
published earlier [2,3]. The concept for a visual representation level of reduction and the structure of the model [6]
of inter-model relationships in the third dimension was The reduction and pragmatism indicate the difficulties of
addressed in [4]. domain-specific conceptual models in cross-discipline
This paper focusses on the ontology-based approach for collaboration scenarios: the understanding and information
model integration and gives insights about the implementation demand inside a domain determines the pragmatism.
and evaluation of the conceptual framework. Domain-specific conceptual models most likely define
varying entities as the models are developed with specific
1.2. Structure and Scope pragmatisms.
This results in heterogeneous conceptual models. Efforts for
This paper is structured as follows: Initially the issue of information integration become necessary to support
cross-domain collaboration is put in the context of Industry 4.0. information exchange between models.
This is followed by introducing the fundamentals of semantic
model integration. On this basis the concept for establishing 2.1. Integrating conceptual models for a common
inter-model relationships is described. The fourth section visualization
introduces the essentials of information visualization with
focusing on concepts for graphic representation of conceptual The challenge to resolve heterogeneity between conceptual
models. Both approaches for model integration and models seems to be a general issue in various domains. The
visualization are integrated in section five which briefly heterogeneity is caused by different data formats and
introduces the prototypical implementation. The final section structures, as well as varying semantics of elements in models
gives an overview about the results of empirical and theoretical [7]. Efforts were conducted for integrating conceptual models.
evaluation. The conclusion then focusses on future application Two general approaches seem to give promising results:
scenarios in the context of Industry 4.0. x Applying singular models which cover concepts from
several domains, e.g. MBSE (system level) [8], STEP [9],
1.3. Application Scenario internal models of ERP Systems
component as visual variable indicates the inter-model in a model, only the entities are displayed which have their
characteristic of the relationship. The coloring of the lines are origin or target on the clicked artefact. This feature implements
additive means for displaying the inter-model relationships. the widely accepted “mantra” for graphic visualization
“overview first – filter–details on demand” [28].
7. Evaluation
8. Conclusion [9] ISO/IEC, ISO 10303-214 DIS -Part 214 2nd Edition, ISO -
International Organisation for Standardization, 2003.
This paper describes a method to interconnect and visualize [10] V. Bittel, Semantische Informationsintegration − Konzeption eines
conceptual models from different domains which formalize a auf Beschreibungslogiken basierenden Integrationssystems für die
common problem set. This method supports collaborative Produktentwicklung, KIT, 2014.
issues in industrial product development by making the [11] M. Fowler, Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, Wiley,
interrelation between the models visible and transparent. In 2003.
industry 4.0 scenarios the demand for collaboration between [12] M. Rosemann, I. Vessey, R. Weber, B. Wyssusek, On the
experts from several domains is expected to increase, indicated applicability of the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology to enterprise
by the multidimensional RAMI architecture for I4.0 scenarios. systems requirements, in: Australas. Conf. Inf. Syst., 2004.
The method introduced provides a tool to ease collaboration [13] Y. Wand, R. Weber, An Ontological Model of an Information
and accelerate decision making processes based on a spatial System, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16 (1990) 1282–1292.
visualization of linked conceptual models. [14] B. Wyssusek, Ontological foundations of conceptual modelling
Future work focuses on evaluating the method introduced in reconsidered: a response, Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 18 (2006) 139–152.
industrial application scenarios. [15] J. Becker, P. Bergener, D. Breuker, M. Räckers, Evaluating the
Furthermore we implement a multi-layer model expressiveness of domain specific modeling languages using the
visualization to evaluate several models are arranged behind Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology, Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst.
each other for visualizing a multi-layer architecture of models. Sci. (2010).
This contributes to understanding and communicating [16] A. Gehlert, D. Pfeiffer, J. Becker, The BWW-Model as Method
instances of the RAMI reference architecture in Industry 4.0 Engineering Theory, Proc. 13th Am. Conf. Inf. Syst. (AMCIS
scenarios. 2007). (2007) 1–10.
[17] S. Nurcan, C. Salinesi, C. Souveyet, J. Ralyté, Intentional
References Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.
[18] P. Green, M. Rosemann, Integrated process modeling: An
[1] H. Clark, S. Brennan, Grounding in communication, in: Perspect. ontological evaluation, Inf. Syst. 25 (2000) 73–87.
Soc. Shar. Cogn., American Psychological Association, [19] C. Ware, Information visualization: perception for design, Morgan
Washington, D.C., USA, 1991: pp. 127–149. Kaufmann, 2004.
[2] D. Eichhorn, J. Herter, A. Oberweis, An Approach for a Domain- [20] J. Bertin, Semiology of Graphics, Esri Press, 2010.
spanning Collaboration Platform for Decision Support Using [21] D. Moody, The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis
Immersive Visualization Techniques in Product Manufacturing, in: for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering, IEEE
A. Nolte, M. Prilla, S. Lukosch, G. Kolfschoten, T. Herrmann Trans. Softw. Eng. 35 (2009) 756–779.
(Eds.), 1st Int. Work. Collab. Usage Dev. Model. Vis. CollabViz, [22] E.R. Tufte, Envisioning Information, Graph. Press. 79 (1998) 346–
Aarhus, Denmark, 2011. 348.
[3] R. Brown, J. Herter, Virtual World Process Perspective [23] J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.
Visualization, in: Conf. Information, Process Konwledge Manag., [24] S. Meyers, The Keyhole Problem, Sites J. 20Th Century Contemp.
Valencia, Spain, 2012. French Stud. (2002) 1–25.
[4] J. Herter, R. Brown, J. Ovtcharova, A Visual Language for the [25] V. Häfner, PolyVR - A Virtual Reality Authoring System, in: G.
Collaborative Visualization of Integrated Conceptual Models in Zachmann, J. Perret, A. Amditis (Eds.), Conf. Exhib. Eur. Assoc.
Product Development Scenarios, in: M. Abramovici, R. Stark Virtual Augment. Real., The Eurographics Association, 2014.
(Eds.), Smart Prod. Eng., Springer, 2013: pp. 805–814. [26] S. Harper, E. Michailidou, R. Stevens, Toward a definition of visual
[5] J.H. Henning Kargermann, Wolfgang Wahlster, complexity as an implicit measure of cognitive load, ACM Trans.
Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0, Appl. Percept. 6 (2009) 1–18.
Acatech, 2013. [27] S.A. White, Introduction to BPMN, (2004) 2008–2029.
[6] H. Stachowiak, Allgemeine Modelltheroie, Springer Berlin / [28] B. Shneiderman, The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for
Heidelberg, 1973. information visualizations, Proc. 1996 IEEE Symp. Vis. Lang.
[7] L. Obrst, Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems, Proc. (1996) 336–343.
Twelfth Int. Conf. Inf. Knowl. Manag. - CIKM ’03. (2003) 366. [29] R. Brown, F. Cliquet, Communication of Business Process Models
[8] M. Eigner, R. Daniil, R. Zafirov, Modellbasierte Virtuelle via Virtual Environment Simulations, BPTrends. 12 (2008) 1–7.
Produktentwicklung, 2014.