Integrated Engineering – A SME-Suitable Model for
Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE)
towards the Smart Factory

Günther Würtz, Bernhard Kölmel

► To cite this version:

Günther Würtz, Bernhard Kölmel. Integrated Engineering – A SME-Suitable Model for Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE) towards the Smart Factory. 13th Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises (PROVE), Oct 2012, Bournemouth, United Kingdom. pp.494-502, 10.1007/978-3-642-32775-9_50. hal-01520455

HAL Id: hal-01520455

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01520455

Submitted on 10 May 2017

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Integrated Engineering – A SME-suitable Model for Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE) Towards the Smart Factory

Günther Würtz, Bernhard Kölmel

Steinbeis University Berlin, Gürtelstraße 29A/30, 10247 Berlin
Steinbeis-Stiftung für Wirtschaftsförderung, Willi-Bleicher-Str. 19, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany

**Abstract.** Integrated Engineering is a BISE-model and combines the following dimensions within an network-oriented SME:

- Cooperation engineering: networking of product features, process features and project parameters (internal Relationship Management);

- Collaborative networking: initiation, management, controlling of business relationships along the value chain (external RM);

- Corporate range: adaptation of the xRM-principles to the product development process (project engineering), to the complexity management (variants engineering) and to the life cycle engineering.

Integrated Engineering consists of 3 modules:

- *my*PEP cube: customized integration of product features, process features and engineering rules based on the specific product development process (PEP);

- *my*Variants cube: customized integration of the value-added system, the variants life cycle and the variants design rules based on the complexity management system;

- *my*xRM cube: customized integration of the corporate know-how, the collective competence and the collaborative guide lines based on the product- and technology life cycle process within the production network.

# 1 Introduction: Increasing Complexity - Requirements for SMEs

There is a growing trend in manufacturing to move towards highly customized products, ultimately one-of-a-kind, which is reflected in the term mass customization. Important challenges in such manufacturing contexts can be elicited from the requirements of complex technical infrastructures, like security infrastructures, alternative energy, or illumination systems in large public buildings or urban equipments, but also in more traditional complex products such as customized kitchens:

- These products typically require a variety of competencies and resources, hardly available in a single enterprise, which calls for collaboration among several companies and individuals.

- A complex multi-supplier product with a high degree of customization would benefit from associated services (e.g. maintenance support, assistance wizard, etc.), which are more difficult to plan and arrange as with standardized mass products.

- Customization demands that the recipients of the customized goods transfer their specific needs and desires into a concrete product specification. This calls for
customers' integration into value creation to detailed defining, configuring, matching, and/or modifying an individual solution.

These requirements cannot be fulfilled by centrally managed organisations or systems any more – a new approach for organisations and enterprises is necessary. [1]

## 2. Cyber Physical Systems: The Smart Factory

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are engineered systems that are built from and depend upon the synergy of computational and physical components. Examples can be found in smart electric grid, smart transportation, smart buildings, smart medical technologies, next-generation air traffic management, and advanced manufacturing. Recent efforts were focused on connecting objects (devices, sensors, sub-systems) to Internet, which led to the term Internet of Things; the challenge is now how to organize “communities” or “societies” (“ecosystems”) of cyber-physical artifacts where flat organizational structures are not appropriate [2].

CPS may be equipped with intelligent sensors and actors which allow them to interact with the environment. This enables CPS on the one hand to adopt its behaviour to the environment and on the other hand to learn new ways of reaction - and even the strategy to optimize this. These “smart” abilities belong to machines but also to products and modules – even in the phase of early development. This means that these smart products can control the whole production system in an early phase of development and can interact between machine and user [3].

## 3. Important Requirements for Smart Factories

Concerning the presented BISE model mainly developed for advanced manufacturing companies, the main requirements are:

**Smart Products:** standardization of mechatronical interfaces (mechanical, electronical, software-architectural) in order to realize the interoperability between different enterprise systems using and following design rules for standardized product development.

**Smart Processes:** design of innovative process chains capable to react and control the interdependencies within the processes inside the factory and even outside the factory within the value chain or the collaborative network.

**Smart IT-Systems:** integration of heterogeneous IT-Systems by realizing a consistent (business/software as a) service-model taking into account different systems as e.g. Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Management Execution System (MES), etc.

As a conclusion: in order to make the Smart Factory approach happen, an integrated (engineering) approach of product-process-organization level is needed [3]

## 4. Current Achievements and Goals Towards the Smart Factory

CPS in advanced manufacturing and producing companies mainly tackle with the two
key processes *order fulfillment* and *product(ion) development*. To improve these 2 key processes, more and more the system of the new product development process is going to be installed, combining well known aspects of simultaneous engineering, concurrent engineering and value stream designing. But to achieve the goals of the smart factory, there still the following main issues concerning these 2 main processes have to be solved [4], [5]:

* Interoperability between the production units of different suppliers

* Adaptivity of product features and processes of the whole value chain

* Integrated engineering of mechanical, electronical and software functions.

Conclusion: current gaps towards the smart factory.

CPS in producing companies therefore require on the one hand the aspects of collaboration engineering and on the other hand a cooperative networking approach, based on a life cycle engineering system to ensure the future development of the company (corporate range).

**5. Our Approach for Smart Factories: Model of Integrated Engineering**

The Business and Information System Engineering model of "*Integrated Engineering*" combines the following three dimensions within an innovative SME:

1. *Collaboration engineering:* the networking of product features, process features and project parameters in order to achieve product and process excellence;

2. *Cooperative networking:* the initiation, management and controlling of business relationships along the value chain in order to achieve business excellence;

3. *Corporate range:* the value-integrated integration of product development process (*myPEP*), complexity management system (*myVariants*) and the life cycle (*myxRM*) engineering.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

The business model hereby is based on

1. the concept of *integrated engineering* which attempts to transfer the subject oriented product development process (mechanical, electronical, software) towards a systems integrated approach (concerning collaboration engineering approach) [6].

2. the concept of *anything Relationship Management (xRM)* which attempts to design and optimize the growing complexity of relationship structures towards the smart factory (concerning cooperative networking approach) [7].

**6. Our solution for Collaborative Networks**

The business model *Integrated Engineering* consists of 3 modules to be developed as a customized solution for each SME, identifying the relevant parameters for each module:
1. myPEP cube: the customized integration of product features, process fea-
tures and engineering rules based on the specific product development proc-
ess (PEP)

2. myVariants cube: the customized integration of the value-added system, the variants life cycle and the variants design rules based on the complexity management system

3. myxRM cube: the customized integration of the corporate know-how, the collective competence and the collaborative guide lines based on the prod- uct- and technology life cycle process within the production network

**Use case 1: myPEP@Feinmetall**

Feinmetall is a SME in the testing area and has plenty of experience in safely bonding
electronic components in the test room. The number of test card and test adapter
projects and their level of complexity rose so sharply over the last few years at
Feinmetall, that something had to be done to take control of the situation again. The
next step:introduce a standardized process for completing engineering projects. This
process needed to do three things: help staff meet stipulated project completion
deadlines, reduce the number of rounds of changes and in doing so, improve
productivity among the project team. For years, Feinmetall has used a project
management system that organizes the scope of projects as well as timings. So the
mandate for the project was clear. From now on, engineering projects needed to
follow one standardized process – from the first stage of development to the
production handover – and include defined work packages to help staff accurately
assess costs and necessary resources.

Joining forces with the Steinbeis experts, the Feinmetall team embarked on the
project using an engineering method called myPEP. This links

* product engineering with

* process engineering and

* project engineering (rules),

uniting the seasoned approaches of simultaneous engineering with project manage-
ment to create an *integrated project engineering system*. Designed around each com-
pany individually, *myPEP* integrates and synchronizes three core components:

* work packages that outline the PEP;

* working guidelines (consisting of checklists and design rules) that govern how products and production must be designed;

* a kit of ready-to-use tools for fully functional products and processes within budget.

Work packages needed to create two things: product development based on estab-
lished routines and carefully coordinated production procedures. One important re-
source in this phase was a classification covering three types of projects: standard;
application/change; one-of-a-kind. One-of-a-kind-projects are the only ones that re-
quire engineers to work through the work packages according to plan. For applica-
tion/change and standard projects, engineers agreed to use a streamlined, shortened
version to make the best use of limited resources and man-hours.

Spanning *checklists and design guidelines*, the set of rules outlines standards drawn from best practice. The biggest task lay in clearing up. Nearly half of the 50
applicable procedures and checklists were eliminated entirely; those that remained
were revised, shortened and tailored to each particular application.

The greatest gains in efficiency were made when the teams structured the methods. Over the years, employees at Feinmetall had amassed an arsenal of product development and process planning methods. Here again, a cleanup was the order of the day. The methods that were kept in place were trimmed down to an easy-to-use “light version” and assigned to individual work packages. When it came to what is known at Feinmetall as a “specialist project”, the decision maker stook a much different tack.

The outcome: a standardized product engineering process myPEP@Feinmetall that primarily allows Feinmetall to offer a greater sense of security to all of the project stakeholders. This means that senior managers can manage the right projects with the right priority, thus minimizing risk. Heads of specialist departments will also have fewer fires to put out as they will be able to take other departmental needs into account earlier. Project managers will spend less time checking up on things internally. And project team members will see their productivity rise – now that they know precisely what needs to be delivered, by when, and what that will require. This tailor-made PEP affords everyone involved in the project more time to come up with solutions to the real technical and business challenges they are faced with. The supposed drain on creativity has been transformed into a catalyst for creativity!

myPEP@Feinmetall now builds the basis for work within the network of
customers and suppliers of Feinmetall. [8]

**Use case 2: myVariants@ZF**

ZF Lemförder, a member of the ZF Friedrichshafen AG group of companies, makes products such as tie rods, steering rods, suspension components and suspension modules. The concept for the solution of myVariants being used in this specific use case is based on a meta-modell, consisting of principles of method engineering and built of

* a 3 step model of phases which are organized within a process model;

* a set of techniques and tools (design rules) within each phase with defined input and output data which are directly linked together;

* a framework of objects and tools for product, process and project description (value-added system) combining all necessary information to create a variant systems.

*The 3 step model: phases to install a customized variant system: the variants life cycle*

* Step 1 – clearing the decks: stripping down products by removing overlaps, items gathering dust and profit killers

* Step 2 – design: designing products by laying down standard products and "specials" based on standard templates

* Step 3 – taking control: sustainable implementation and adherence to defined product structures by adapting standard processes in sales, D&D, logistics and production

In recent years, the number of different steering tie rods, axle rods and ball joints has risen sharply. The aim was therefore threefold: to slash the time needed for D&D to issue a detailed offer; to reduce prototype delivery times once quote were given the go-ahead; and to shorten delivery lead times for serial products. All of this should be achieved by standardizing products and processes, as part of on-going plant development projects. Even as the project got underway, ZF knew it would be necessary to
address many issues. All processes are integrated, so sales is involved through ac-
tively selling product standards, production is involved with standardized manufac-
turing processes, and financial accounts are involved with fixed calculation models
for standardized products. The scope of the project was therefore clear: a new end-to-
end variant management system was needed, involving standard processes that make
it possible to shorten lead-times by more than 50% – from the first point of contact
with the customer to final delivery – without reducing the deliverable scope of
products or raising prices. The aim was to map customer solutions by using
components and assemblies made from defined (standard) “building blocks.” To
define standard products, consensus was needed with all departments as to which
standards should be used.

*Toolset for product and process design rules and the framework (value-added system)*
An important tool in this respect was the use of a software program for product con-
figuration. This made it possible to significantly reduce the time taken to submit of-
fers, draft designs and prepare work processes. Equally important was the task of
dividing the entire job handling process into standard product processes and special
product processes. A major help in this respect turned out to be a lean production
system (LPS) which had already been in place at ZF for a number of years. Because
of the underlying principles it is based on, an LPS makes it possible to make variants
quite late in the production process. This makes it easier to reconcile the goals of
maximizing capacity use while keeping batch sizes and variants flexible. Extending
LPS principles to the entire job handling process – based on similar methods – made a
significant contribution to achieving overall goals. Instruction covered the theory
underlying the new system as well as knowledge-sharing by learning “on the job” as
part of live project work.

In the three areas looked at – ball joints, axle rods and steering/tie rods – laying
down standards based on pre-defined building blocks resulted in different levels of
standardization. In some areas, this was as high as 65%. In combination with process
optimizations, the resulting throughput times were reduced down to 50%, which was
even better than planned. But for the top management, the change in attitude among
co-workers was more important than bare numbers. [9]

Use case 3: *myxRM@2E*

2E mechatronic, is a specialist in the development of innovative mechatronics prod-
ucts in the fields of sensors, precision injection molding and microelectromechanical
systems. The project scope was clearly defined: the second generation of the
inclination sensor should be based on a clear design principle – similar to the
architecture of a house. Preplanned, combinable product and process elements should
be used to generate new customer-specific solutions quickly and reliably. The entire
life cycle of the product, from initial brainstorming to follow-on products, should be
taken into account, and all engineering processes should be set up accordingly. For
functions and processes beyond 2E’s core competences, value creation partners
should be identified and successfully integrated into company networks.

The team used the Steinbeis Transfer Center’s three-phase model:

1. Phase 1: Customer requirements and system development: Systematically classify customer and market needs and develop suitable integrated technology and functional modules.
including the relations between the different aspects of the cubes and can therefore be
used as a basic tooling to create the company-specific, customized solution for suc-
cessful collaborative and cooperative networking "my smartfactory". Nevertheless,
the identification of the specific parameters of each company which form the basis for
the creation of the customized solutions have to be developed for any use case
separately. This effort should be reduced by using basic business scenarios which is
one of the main aspects of the EC-funded research project GloNet [1]. Within the EU
research project GloNet (Glocal enterprise network focusing on customer-centric
collaboration), the xRM plus the Integrated Engineering approach is applied in real
life settings. GloNet aims at designing, developing, and deploying an agile virtual
enterprise environment for networks of SMEs involved in highly customized and
service-enhanced products through end-to-end collaboration with customers and local
suppliers (co-creation).

Main issues to be developed for the Integrated Engineering@xRM approach are:

* Creation of a framework and of business scenarios in order to identify the "global space" for companies acting in collaborative networks;

* Identification of key performance indicators in order to create the scenario for defining the my_IntegratedEngineering@smartfactory solution;

* Development of guidelines for mainly SMEs how to build up or improve their collaborative network for the whole life cycle of their products.

**Acknowledgements.** The authors would like to thank the European Commission for the financial support of the R&D project **GloNet** within the FinES cluster.

**References**

[1] Camarinha-Matos, L.M.; Afsarmanesh, H.; Koelmel, B. (2011). Collaborative Networks in Support of Service-Enhanced Products, Proceedings of PRO-VE’11, 17-19 Oct 2011, S. Paulo, Brazil, Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks, IFIP AICT Series 362/2011, Springer, pp. 95-104.

[2] Camarinha-Matos, L.M.; Afsarmanesh, A. (2012): Taxonomy of Collaborative Network Forms; GloNet project, Draft Working Document; FinES - Task Force on Collaborative Networks

[3] Broy, Manfred (Hrsg.) (2010): Cyber Physical Systems –Innovation durch SW-intensive eingebettete Systeme (acatech diskutiert), Heidelberg u.a.; Springer-Verlag

[4] Broy, Manfred u.a. (Hrsg.) (2012): Cyber Physical Systems –Integrierte Forschungsagenda (acatech Studie), Heidelberg u.a.; Springer-Verlag

[5] Passiante, Giuseppina (2010): Evolving towards the Internetworked Enterprise, Springer Science and Business Media, 2010

[6] Anderl, Rainer (Hrsg.), u.a. (2012): Smart Engineering – Interdisziplinäre Produktentstehung (acatech Diskussion), Heidelberg u.a.; Springer-Verlag

[7] Britsch, Johannes; Kölmel, Bernhard: Anything Relationship Management as Basis for Global Process Management in Networked Enterprises, proceedings of I-ESA 2012, 6th International Conference, Valencia

[8] Würtz, G. (2011): The art of getting everything done – seeing engineering projects through to completion, Transfer – The Steinbeis Magazine, p. 20-21

[9] Würtz, G. (2011): Combining customer-orientation with standardization, Transfer – The Steinbeis Magazine, p. 25-26

[10] Würtz, G. (2011): Life Cycle Engineering – Thinking about tomorrow- today, Transfer – The Steinbeis Magazine, p. 29-30.