# Analysis of Manufacturing Platforms in the Context of Zero-Defect Process Establishment

Artem A. Nazarenko, Joao Sarraipa, Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, Marc Dorchain, Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves

► To cite this version:

Artem A. Nazarenko, Joao Sarraipa, Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, Marc Dorchain, Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves. Analysis of Manufacturing Platforms in the Context of Zero-Defect Process Establishment. 21th Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises (PRO-VE), Nov 2020, Valencia, Spain. pp.583-596, 10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_48 . hal-03745792

HAL Id: hal-03745792

https://inria.hal.science/hal-03745792v1

Submitted on 4 Aug 2022

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 CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Analysis of Manufacturing Platforms in the Context of Zero-Defect Process Establishment

Artem A. Nazarenko<fnref n="1" />, Joao Sarraipa<fnref n="1" />, Luis M. Camarinha-Matos<fnref n="1" />, Marc Dorchain<fnref n="2" />
and Ricardo Jardim-Gonçalves<fnref n="1" />

**Abstract.** The fourth Industrial Revolution sets higher standards for the manufacturing itself and all associated processes. A promising direction in this context is the concept of Zero-Defect Manufacturing (ZDM) aiming at further automatization and optimisation of the production processes to reduce resources and avoid useless elements in the production chains. Moreover, the modern industrial systems are highly complex and require collaboration with other systems for the products' manufacturing and maintenance. This fact leads to the necessity for the better approaches for design, development, evaluation and assessment of manufacturing systems. The goal of this article is to assess some key European research projects on industrial manufacturing to re-use their achievements for design of the ZDM systems. Another goal is to identify the basis for an umbrella platform able to integrate the functionalities of other manufacturing platforms. Thus, interoperability and collaboration issues are also in the scope of this work.

**Keywords:** Zero Defect Manufacturing, RAMI 4.0, Industry 4.0, Systems Interoperability, Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems, Business Ecosystem.

## 1 Introduction

Technological advancements in recent decades led to a new era of manufacturing or 4th industrial revolution, introducing flexible production processes aligned with the customer's demands [1]. Transition to the new generation of manufacturing systems sets new challenges both at technological and organisational levels [2]. Some of the core challenges are: collaboration, safety and security, standardization, staff training, improved resources use, industrial infrastructure, complexity / cost reduction, real-time coordination and optimisation, interoperability [2, 3, 4]. Another important

<footnote n="1">¹ Faculty of Sciences and Technology & UNINOVA-CTS,
Nova University of Lisbon</footnote>

<footnote>2829-516 Monte Caparica, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote>a.nazarenko@campus.fct.unl.pt, (jfss, cam, rg)@uninova.pt</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Software AG</footnote>

<footnote>Marc.Dorchain@softwareag.com</footnote>
challenge is the digitalisation of manufacturing processes, whereas combining
physical and cyber dimensions of industrial systems. Thus, complex industrial
systems designed in line with the Industry 4.0 concept are, in fact, complex Cyber
Physical Production Systems (CPPS) containing collaborative components [2, 5].
CPPS cover the whole conventional automation stack [6]: (i) physics and mechanics
of production, (ii) sensing and actuation, (iii) field level control over production
process, (iv) execution system, and (v) enterprise resource planning with one
additional dimension, namely the inter-systems collaboration [2, 7]. However, the
manufacturing processes are not limited to the production itself, but also include the
whole product life cycle from design to post-sale maintenance and even recycling.

Industry 4.0 implies production costs reduction, as well as resources use
optimisation. This led to emergence of the Zero-Defect Manufacturing (ZDM)
strategy. ZDM is directed towards achieving various benefits: lower energy
consumption, lower costs, less scrap output, less material waste, production system
resilience, improved production status overview, improved planning ability, etc. [8].
Among recent efforts made in line with ZDM strategy we can mention: the
“ForZDM” and “ZAero” European projects. ForZDM implements the ZDM strategy
through “combining sensor readouts, visual inspections, or manual measurements at
every production stage in a centralized database” [9]. The proposed platform follows
the “state of the art” architecture including the shop-floor layer, cyber layer, and the
middleware layer. ZAero on the other hand targets the inline quality control for
aerospace parts production merged with decision support systems and simulation [10].

This work is done in the context of providing the basis for the technological and
standardization approach for the EU project Zero Defect Manufacturing Platform
(ZDMP). ZDMP focuses on both Process and Product quality for pre-, during,
supervisory, and postproduction quality issues. ZDMP targets an open Industry 4.0
environment where a new generation of developed zero-defect service applications
will be available in a marketplace, contributing to create a collaborative business
ecosystem [11] where ZDMP stakeholders would be able to interact with each other.

The remaining of this paper is structured as follows: section 2 gives a brief
overview of reference models for manufacturing systems; section 3 discusses the
strategy for manufacturing platforms assessment; section 4 proceeds with the analysis
of selected projects based on identified topics and discusses standardisation efforts
towards ZDM strategy; and finally, section 5 presents some conclusions and
directions for further work.

## 2 Reference Architecture Models for Intelligent Manufacturing

It is very important that designed systems follow some standard or widely recognised
architectural approach. In fact, the reference architectures can be used not only for
designing new industrial manufacturing systems, but also to assess already developed
systems. The use of reference models improves understanding if and how some of the
elements of already developed systems can be reused in the newly designed systems
considering collaborative and interoperability issues. Several efforts are undertaken
towards establishment of common architectural approaches to industrial
manufacturing platforms in regard to their functionality, technologies, and organizational structure. Some architectural approaches are of particular interest [12, 13, 14, 15], such as: Industrial Internet Reference Architecture (IIRA), International Data Spaces Reference Architecture (IDS RAM), Intelligent Manufacturing System Architecture (IMSA), Reference Architecture Model for Industry 4.0 (RAMI 4.0), and a Reference model for Collaborative Networks (ARCON) [16]. Some research activities target how the mentioned models can be aligned in terms of layers' concordance. Remarkable works are the joint report of Sino-German Industry 4.0 working group [17] addressing the alignment of IMSA and RAMI 4.0 architectural approaches, or the functional mapping of IIRA and RAMI 4.0 [18].

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. RAMI 4.0, IIRA, IDS RAM and IMSA architecture approaches.</figcaption></figure>

Fig. 1 represents 4 reference models RAMI 4.0, IMSA, IDS RAM, and IIRA, which focus mostly on a single enterprise. For better understanding of layers' alignment and interoperability of different models, same colours are used to mark either completely interoperable system layers (horizontal layers) or layers with same functionality. Thus, Business layer, Business Viewpoint, or New Business Pattern are marked with the same colour; the same logic is applied to other layers.

IIRA is an open architecture for Industrial Information Systems (IIS) based on ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 standard [19]. The core four viewpoints of IIRA are: (i) Business, (ii) Usage, (iii) Functional, and (iv) Implementation. Business viewpoint serves the goal to assess the system from the business context, i.e. stakeholders' identification, visions, objectives, and high-level representation of how functionalities of the system are meeting the stated objectives. On the Usage layer a set of activities required for providing the system's functionality is presented. The system's structure along with core components, internal relations, and relation patterns with outer elements and systems are in the scope of the Functional layer. The Implementation layer copes with technologies for embodiment of functional blocks, communication schemes, and lifecycles of the designed systems.
The IDS RAM is an architecture aimed at "generalisation of concepts, functionality, and overall processes involved in the creation of a secure "network of trusted data"" [12]. In spite of the fact that IDS RAM is mostly focused on processes around data, including generation, exchange, formats, and licensing, the model can be considered as relevant from the cyber perspective of CPPS. This model also partially follows the ISO 42010 standard and is similar to IIRA offering a common basis for compatibility. This architecture includes five layers: (i) Business, (ii) Functional, (iii) Process, (iv) Information, and (v) System, and three perspectives valid across all layers, that are: (i) Security, (ii) Certification, and (iii) Governance.

IMSA is a three-dimensional model, in some works referred as "Chinese Industry 4.0" [20]. The first dimension reflects the system levels [17]: (i) Equipment, (ii) Control, (iii) Workshop, (iv) Enterprise, and (v) Cooperation. This dimension represents the hierarchy of entities on various scales of production processes. The second dimension – Lifecycle, covers the stages of value creation process [15]: (i) Design, (ii) Production, (iii) Logistics, (iv) Sales, and (v) Services, i.e. form the products design and assembly to the after-sales maintenance. The Intelligent Functions is the third dimension and corresponds to the layers in RAMI 4.0.

RAMI 4.0 is focused on the design and development process of Industry 4.0 systems regarding 3 dimensions: (i) Hierarchy Levels, (ii) Lifecycle, and Value Stream, and (iii) Layers [13]. The Hierarchy Levels dimension follows the IEC 62264 and IEC 61512 standards considering collaboration on the "Connected World" scale and degree of product's involvement on every manufacturing or maintenance stage in "Product" [21]. Other levels are: (i) Enterprise, (ii) Work Centres, (iii) Station, (iv) Control Device, and Field Device (v). The Life Cycle and Value Stream dimension follows the IEC 62890 standard, whereas introducing the differentiation between the "type" – virtual prototype, model, and "instance" – already implemented object or software component, subdivided onto development/ and maintenance stages.

The Layers dimension of RAMI 4.0 introduces the building blocks from which the system comprises. There are 6 sub-layers within the "Layers" dimension: (i) Business, (ii) Functional, (iii) Information, (iv) Communication, (v) Integration, and (vi) Asset, covering the whole CPPS stack from machines to high-level business processes.
Although the mentioned models briefly refer to the "collaboration perspective", a core enabler of Industry 4.0 [2], they are mostly focused on the "internals" of a single enterprise. On a completely different direction, ARCON [16, 22] is focused on collaborative networks, thus better addressing the value chain perspective and distributed manufacturing systems. ARCON considers 3 main dimensions (Fig. 2): (i) Life-cycle, (ii), Environment characteristics, and (iii) Modelling intent. The environment characteristics include the Endogenous Elements of the CN (E1-Structural, E2- Componential, E3- Functional, E4- Behavioural) and the Exogenous Interactions of the CN (I1-Market, I2- Support, I3- Societal, I4-Constituency).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. ARCON reference model framework for collaborative networks (based on [16]).</figcaption></figure>

## 3 Strategy for Manufacturing Platforms Assessment

The analysis of current manufacturing initiatives and projects can give a good indication for the establishment of the manufacturing platforms assessment strategy, allowing getting the best practices, as well as avoiding unnecessary efforts to develop components from the scratch. Moreover, the marketplace being developed within the ZDMP project can benefit from collaboration with other manufacturing platforms and services. This may enrich the marketplace and create a kind of “umbrella” platform, integrating the European efforts towards intelligent manufacturing systems. As ZDMP follows the RAMI 4.0 architectural approach, the studied manufacturing platforms were analysed using the same reference model in order to have a common basis, which is crucial for compatibility and interoperability of the ZDMP platform with other manufacturing platforms. To summarise the efforts undertaken to fulfil the stated goals, the high-level vision of the steps required is introduced:
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** High-level vision of platforms assessment strategy</figcaption></figure>

The methodology to analyse deliverables of manufacturing research projects in order to establish the manufacturing platforms assessment strategy has three stages: Alignment, Analysis, and Estimation (Fig. 3). At the first stage the requirements and goals are identified and set, followed by the focus points such as security, privacy, application/user metadata, underlying technologies, and licensing. The second stage presumes the application of RAMI 4.0 architectural framework to the analysed projects in order to identify which components of the manufacturing platforms are covering the previously mentioned focus points and how they are addressed, in other words, what technologies and approaches are used. During the last stage the important goal is to understand how the identified technologies suit the focus points and how they are compatible (Layers in RAMI 4.0) with the ZDMP platform being developed. A final task is to develop a strategy or a common approach for integration/adoption of manufacturing applications into the common ecosystem. It is important to mention that this particular work is mostly focused on second stage that is Analysis.

# 4 Manufacturing Platforms Assessment Results and Discussion

The architectural approaches described in the second section serve the purpose of common understanding of standards, technologies, protocols and use-cases. System design by following one of the mentioned architectural approaches should simplify further collaboration, enable the modular system composition and contribute to interoperability. This means that required functionality can be delivered on demand without requiring enormous efforts to align blocks developed in different platforms but following the same approach.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. RAMI 4.0, Internet Protocol Stack and RAMI 4.0 Communication Layer.</figcaption></figure>

For this work the RAMI 4.0 was chosen, based on various reasons: (i) RAMI 4.0 is compatible with other reference models, (ii) some analysed projects already follow this methodology, as for instance BEinCPPS [23], (iii) ZDMP project is making use of the RAMI 4.0 [13], (iv) RAMI 4.0 is compatible with OSI and Internet Protocol Stack Model (Fig. 4), (v) RAMI 4.0 improves the collective understanding of standards and use-cases in the context of Industry 4.0. It helps to map manufacturing requirements with standards to facilitate development of Industry 4.0 related products. Moreover, RAMI 4.0 specifies the Asset Administration Shell (AAS) [29] that is a digital shell of the physical asset containing all data for linking the assets together and with digital platform. In its turn, the AAS is used to describe the digital dimension of the physical Asset in a standardized way.

Since the work is focused mostly on inside the manufacturing company, and not on networked enterprises, this option is reasonable instead of a more collaboration-oriented model such as ARCON. In terms of compatibility with RAMI 4.0, the Endogenous and to some extent Exogenous elements of ARCON are close to the Layers and Hierarchy Levels of RAMI 4.0. The Life Cycles in both models represent the stages of a product or a system life time. The RAMI 4.0 also presumes some space for collaboration within the Hierarchy Levels, on the last level "Connected World", although less elaborated than in ARCON. In this particular work, platforms are analysed individually to establish a technological foundation for platforms integration. This is also justified by the fact that the ZDMP project is a member of 4DMP cluster interlinking several ongoing projects in the area of digital manufacturing: ZDMP, QUALITY, EFPF, Kyklos 4.0, digiPRIME and SHOP4CF. Thus, the main goal is to analyse innovative manufacturing platforms to establish the interoperability within 4DMP cluster. The core focus layers of the RAMI 4.0 considered in this work are Information and Communication layers for their particular importance for the AAS. The following aspects are in focus: security, privacy, user and application metadata and underlying technologies, as well as licensing issues.
The inter-platform linking and interoperability with external platforms is essential in the context of reusing deliverables of projects from the area of Internet of Things and CPPS. The following research projects are considered in this study: vf-OS, Disrupt, MANTIS, CREMA, BEinCPPS, I-BiDaaS, DIGICOR, RestAssured, GOODMAN. One of the main goals of the 4DMP cluster is to establish a fundament for integration of some functionality/services developed within various European research projects; in a later phase also interlinking to commercial platforms is targeted. Thus, understanding of underlying communication basis is important for the establishment of interfaces for integration of different modules. To give the common basis for interoperability assessment, the RAMI 4.0 model is applied to the platforms' architectures.

In Fig. 5 the architectures of vf-OS, BiDaaS and RestAssured are analysed and the functional blocks responsible for “Information” and “Communication” layers are identified. The black arrows point on the blocks that correspond to “Information” layer and the red arrows to blocks belonging to the “Communication” layers. Thus, system integrators having a look on these blocks can develop a high-level strategy on interoperability opportunities and difficulties. After this step, every block can be zoomed in and analysed in detail with all corresponding technologies, approaches, and protocols that are used, which will result in a set of concrete steps for building the integration middleware.

Table 1 presents an analysis of the above motioned projects based on 5 core aspects: security, privacy, licensing, and App/User data with underlying technologies. On its turn, each aspect contains several analysis points that are important for establishing the vision of how various platforms can be combined within one marketplace either directly, by inclusion of functional blocks or through linking the corresponding platform. The inputs for the table are based on the public available deliverables from those projects. Thus, some information might be not available for the public; if no data is available the table’s cell contains the “no details” label.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. RAMI 4.0 applied to I-BiDaaS, Restassured and vf-OS architectures</figcaption></figure>

Most of the reviewed projects use two communication paradigms: the Restful and the Publish/Subscribe. The restful approach follows the classical client-server architecture utilising basic HTTP methods: GET, PUT, POST and DELETE. At the same time, using the publish/subscribe approach allows implementation of the asynchronous messaging which is useful in communication with edge devices [24]. The main messaging protocols are AMQP and MQTT requiring a broker to ensure the asynchronous communication when publisher and subscriber do not need to be available at the same time, but the broker guarantees the message delivery.

The commonly used format for the payload in MQTT is JSON, especially in the edge layer, including fetching sensor data. The combination of these paradigms allows to use the Restful approach to communicate with end applications and messaging middleware [25] to act as a bridge between the edge devices and end applications, as well as for inter-component communication within the platform. However, the de-facto standard communication approach for the marketplace considering the analysed projects is the RESTful one, mostly using JSON documents for transmitting the user and application metadata or even security related data.
<table><caption>Table 1. Analysis of manufacturing projects against identified aspects</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="11">Technical Level zApps (high-level)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Rest Assured</th><th>DIGICOR</th><th>I-BiDaaS</th><th>BEinCPPS</th><th>CREMA</th><th>MANTIS</th><th>Disrupt</th><th>vf-OS</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GOODMAN [45.46]</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>JSON</td><td>Data Format (Messages)</td></tr><tr><td>MQTT, OPC UA</td><td>no details</td><td>MQTT, OPC UA AMQP</td><td>MQTT</td><td>MQTT, OPC UA AMQP</td><td>AMQP</td><td>AMQP</td><td>MOTT, IMS</td><td>AMQP</td><td>AMQP</td><td>Message (Message)</td></tr><tr><td>available</td><td>no details</td><td>AmazonMQ</td><td>available</td><td>RabbitMQ</td><td>Apache ActiveMQ</td><td>RabbitMQ</td><td>available</td><td>RabbitMQ</td><td>RabbitMQ</td><td>Message Broker</td></tr><tr><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>SOA</td><td>Architecture</td></tr><tr><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Publish/Subscribe, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Pub/Sub, Restful</td><td>Communication Paradigm, API</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>no details</td><td>no details</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>no details</td><td>yes</td><td>no details</td><td>Docker services</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>MySQL/MariaDB</td><td>no details</td><td>Cassandra/Hecla</td><td>no details</td><td>MongoDB, Sesame</td><td>Cassandra, Apache Hadoop</td><td>Cassandra</td><td>MongoDB, ZooKeeper</td><td>no details</td><td>Storage</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>yes (IBM)</td><td>Yes (OPC UA Server)</td><td>Preserving Encryption (EPE) Order</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Yes (EEBus)</td><td>no details</td><td>yes (KeyRock)</td><td>no details</td><td>Encryption</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>yes</td><td>SSL/TLS</td><td>yes (SSL)</td><td>Optional (SSL)</td><td>yes (SSL)</td><td>yes (SSL)</td><td>yes</td><td>no details</td><td>yes (TLS/SSL)</td><td>Data Integrity</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>Keycloack</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Yes (Auth protocol)</td><td>yes (security token)</td><td>Yes (PAP, Oauth 2.0)</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes (security token)</td><td>Identity Management</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>Keycloack (Kebreros)</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes (login, password)</td><td>yes (RFC 4949)</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Fiware KeyRock</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>JWT token introspection</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>no details</td><td>no details</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Fiware KeyRock</td></tr><tr><td>no details</td><td>CBAC (context based AC)</td><td>RBAC/ABAC</td><td>RBAC</td><td>RBAC</td><td>RBAC</td><td>RBAC/ABAC (attribute based)</td><td>RBAC</td><td>RBAC</td><td>RBAC (Role based AC)</td><td>Data Confidentiality</td></tr><tr><td>Freeware/ Proprietary</td><td>Apache License 2.0/ Proprietary</td><td>no details</td><td>no details</td><td>GNU Public License/ Proprietary</td><td>Apache License v2/ Proprietary</td><td>Apache L v2, AGPL, L GPL</td><td>no details</td><td>Apache License v2</td><td>Apache License v2/Proprietary</td><td>Licensing</td></tr><tr><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Marketplace</td></tr></tbody></table>
For storage both SQL and NoSQL approaches are widely used. Examples are MongoDB – a document-oriented NoSQL DB enabling storage of JSON documents, Apache Zooper – a NoSQL database for storing the key-value pairs, Sesame for storing the RDF triples, but also conventional SQL databases, such as MySQL. It is hard to identify a common approach regarding storage tools selection, as it largely depends on the particular type, context, and form of the stored data. For instance, vf-OS is based on the polyglot persistence paradigm [24] combining various DB types in order to utilize different DBs to the best of their potential. An example is the user or application related data which are sent as JSON documents and stored in MongoDB without a need for excessive Extract Transform Load (ETL) operations.

Docker containers are wildly used to enable encapsulation of components as services to be further exposed as software packages [26]. This fact is related to the growing trend to “move from the monolithic software architecture where many components of a software system run in a single process” [27]. Docker is a platform used to run applications as a set of containers at the same time on the same host. This means that the functional blocks of the system are composed of many small services delivered as containers [28].

The analysis made shows that various projects are using their own developed security and privacy tools. Just a few utilize third-party solutions such as KeyRock Fiware Generic Enabler or the Keycloak. KeyRock, used in vf-OS, is based on OAuth 2.0 protocol supporting basic authorisation, encryption, authentication and data confidentiality. This protocol supports the Identity Management using “security tokens” that are issued to the client to access protected resources. Security tokens contain all the necessary data about the client, issuing entity and the lifetime of the token. Keycloak on its turn supports both the OAuth 2.0 protocol and the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML 2.0). Integrity and Encryption are usually assured using the Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), used by the majority of the analysed projects. As for the access control, the mostly used approach is the Role Based Access Control (RBAC), in some cases in conjunction with Attribute Based (ABAC) and in one case with Context Based (CBAC). The RBAC approach is based on roles and privileges mechanism, where every user acquires a role to access resources, whereas CBAC is used for traffic filtering and in ABAC access rights are provided through policies combining Boolean attributes.

Most of the technologies and third-party services used in the projects are open source or community editions of commercial software. However, some manufacturing partners might insist on making some parts of the platform available against a fee and thus distributed under proprietary licenses. Sometimes the project goals require utilization of proprietary software, so the resulting platform includes the fee of this component. However, most solutions follow the Apache 2.0 licence, e.g. Keycloak, Cassandra, Hadoop or GNU Public Licence as MySQL or MariaDB. However, a marketplace encapsulating several platforms should be able to cope with multiply licenses.

Whereas implementing the assessment, several limitations were identified, as for instance, integration of platforms and solutions provided by third-parties due to different interfaces, data formats and licensing schemas used. An illustrative example
here is the fact that there are more than 25 available vendor-specific industrial Ethernet protocols [30]. These difficulties appear during the Estimation stage of the assessment. An additional difficulty can be the fact that the same functional block in the platform architecture can be aligned with several Layers of the RAMI 4.0 fulfilling the tasks from several layers. An additional challenge can be further alignment of the functional block with the Hierarchy Levels and Life Cycle dimensions of the RAMI 4.0, whereas the current work's focus was on only one dimension - Layers.

**5 Conclusions and Further Work**

The fourth industrial revolution sets new challenges for design and development of manufacturing systems and platforms. One of those challenges is the strategy of Zero-Defect Manufacturing focusing on improving and optimising the production processes. This can be accomplished in various ways such as defects prediction, production optimisation using intelligent algorithms, strict measures to control the production flow, etc. The European ZDMP initiative aims at implementing this strategy through development of novel manufacturing applications, but also to establish a marketplace for encapsulation of manufacturing applications developed within other European manufacturing research projects and thus enrich the production ecosystem.

In this work we introduced the approach for analysis of European projects based on predefined focus points such as security, privacy, data and communication solutions, and licensing, whereas using RAMI 4.0 architectural approach as the basis. Moreover, issues of compatibility of RAMI 4.0 with other up to date reference models were also in the scope of the work. The strategy for assessment of the digital manufacturing platforms developed within several European projects such as vf-OS, Disrupt, MANTIS, CREMA, BEinCPPS, I-BiDaaS, DIGICOR, RestAssured, GOODMAN, was proposed. It consists of three phases: Alignment, Analysis, and Estimation, whereas the current work was mostly focused on the Analysis stage. During the assessment process, several limitations and challenges were identified: proprietary solutions even based on well standardised protocols and approaches, some platform functional blocks can be aligned with several RAMI 4.0 Layers, some assessment points, for instance, "Data Format" are not enough for deeper analysis, as they only state the syntax used (JSON), without giving an insight on the corresponding semantics and structure. Furthermore, the results of the assessment and analysis base on identified criteria were presented.

Further work will require efforts towards the Estimation phase of the methodology to finalise the analysis of the manufacturing platforms and choose the proper strategy for establishing the interoperability among the marketplaces of the manufacturing platforms and integrate manufacturing applications into the ZDMP marketplace. Moreover, alignment of the assessed platforms with other 2 dimensions of the RAMI 4.0 - Hierarchy Levels and Life Cycle, can be considered as a part of future work.
**Acknowledgments.** This work was supported in part by the European Union H2020 Program under grant agreement No. 825631 "Zero Defect Manufacturing Platform (ZDMP)", and by the Portuguese FCT foundation through the program UIDB/00066/2020.

**References**

1. Dombrowski, U., & Wagner, T. (2014). Mental Strain as Field of Action in the 4th Industrial Revolution. Procedia CIRP, 17, 100–105. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.077

2. Camarinha-Matos, L. M.; Fornasiero, R.; Ramezani, J.; Ferrada, F. (2019). Collaborative Networks: A Pillar of Digital Transformation. *Applied Sciences*, 2019, 9(24), 5431; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9245431

3. Zhou, K., Liu, T. & Zhou, L. (2015). Industry 4.0: Towards future industrial opportunities and challenges. 2015 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD). doi:10.1109/fskd.2015.7382284

4. Bigliardi, B., Bottani, E., Casella, G. (2020). Enabling technologies, application areas and impact of industry 4.0: a bibliographic analysis Procedia Manufacturing 42, pp. 322-326.

5. Nazarenko, A.; Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2019). Basis for an Approach to Design Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems. In: *Technological Innovation for Industry and Service Systems*. DoCEIS 2019. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 553, pp. 193-205. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17771-3_16.

6. Ribeiro, L., & Bjorkman, M. (2017). Transitioning From Standard Automation Solutions to Cyber-Physical Production Systems: An Assessment of Critical Conceptual and Technical Challenges. IEEE Systems Journal, 1–13. doi:10.1109/jsyst.2017.2771139

7. Nazarenko, A.; Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2017). Towards collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems, 2017 International Young Engineers Forum on Electrical and Computer Engineering (YEF-ECE), Costa da Caparica, Portugal, 2017, pp. 12-17. IEEE Xplore. doi: 10.1109/YEF-ECE.2017.7935633

8. Lindström, J., Lejon, E., Kyösti, P., Mecella, M., Heutelbeck, D., Hemmje, M., Sjödahl, M., Birk, W., Gunnarsson, B. (2019). Towards intelligent and sustainable production systems with a zero-defect manufacturing approach in an Industry4.0 context, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 81, pp. 880-885.

9. Eger, F., Tempel, P., Magnanini, M. C., Reiff, C., Colledani, M., & Verl, A. (2019). Part Variation Modeling in Multi-Stage Production Systems for Zero-Defect Manufacturing. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT). doi:10.1109/icit.2019.8754964

10. Steringer, R., Zörrer, H., Zambal, S., Eitzinger, C. (2019). Using Discrete Event Simulation in multiple System Life Cycles to support Zero-Defect Composite Manufacturing in Aerospace Industry. IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol 52(13), pp.1467-1472.

11. Graça, P.; Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2017). Performance Indicators for Collaborative Business Ecosystems – Literature review and trends, *Technological Forecasting & Social Change*, vol. 116, Mar 2017, pp 237-255. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.012

12. International Data Spaces Association. Reference Architecture Model https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/en/fields-of-research/industrial-data-space/IDS-Reference-Architecture-Model.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020
13. Fraile, F.; Sanchis, R.; Poler, R.; Ortiz, A. Reference Models for Digital Manufacturing Platforms. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4433.

14. Bader, S.R.; Maleshkova, M.; Lohmann, S. Structuring Reference Architectures for the Industrial Internet of Things. Future Internet 2019, 11, 151.

15. S. Wei, J. Hu, Y. Cheng, Y. Ma and Y. Yu, "The essential elements of intelligent Manufacturing System Architecture," 2017 13th IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Xi'an, 2017, pp. 1006-1011.

16. Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., Ermilova, E., Ferrada, F., Klen, A., Jarimo, T.: Arcon reference models for collaborative networks. In: Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling, pp. 83–112. Springer US (2008), 10.1007/978-0-387-79426-6_8

17. Sino-German Industrie 4.0/Intelligent Manufacturing Standardisation Sub-Working Group, Alignment Report for Reference Architectural Model for Industrie 4.0 / Intelligent Manufacturing System Architecture. (2018) https://sci40.com/files/assets_sci40.com/img/sci40/Alignment%20Report%20RAMI.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr 2020

18. Industrial Internet Consortium and Plattform Industrie 4.0. Architecture Alignment and Interoperability. Joint Whitepaper. (2017) https://www.iiconsortium.org/pdf/JTG2_Whitepaper_final_20171205.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2020

19. Industrial Internet Consortium. Industrial Internet Reference Architecture. (2014) https://www.iiconsortium.org/IIC_PUB_G1_V1.80_2017-01-31.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2020

20. Li, Q., Tang, Q., Chan, I., Wei, H., Pu, Y., Jiang, H., Li, J., Zhou, J. (2018). Smart manufacturing standardization: Architectures, reference models and standards framework. Computers in Industry, 101, pp. 91-106. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.005

21. DIN/DKE. GERMAN STANDARDIZATION ROADMAP. Industry 4.0 Version 2. (2016) https://sci40.com/files/assets_sci40.com/pdf/german-standardization-roadmap-industry-4-0-version-2-data.pdf. Accessed 09 Apr 2020

22. Camarinha-Matos, L. M.; Afsarmanesh, H.; Galeano, N.; Molina, A. (2009). Collaborative Networked Organizations - Concepts and practice in Manufacturing Enterprises, Journal of Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 57 (2009), pp 46-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2008.11.024.

23. D2.2 – BEinCPPS Architecture & Business Processes. https://6d5a66e7-aea5-4aab-9548-6ced0d99e05c.filesusr.com/ugd/03d390_b6a39ea817ca4c2d97b3ba9171868041.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

24. Nazarenko, A.A.; Giao, J.; Sarraipa, J.; Saiz, O.J.; Perales, O.G.; Jardim-Gonçalves, R. Data Management Component for Virtual Factories Systems. In Enterprise Interoperability: Smart Services and Business Impact of Enterprise Interoperability; Zelm, M., Jaekel, F.-W., Doumeingts, G., Wollschlaeger, M., Eds.; ISTE Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 99–106.

25. Giao J., Sarraipa J., Jardim-Gonçalves R. (2019) Open Modular Components in the Industry Using vf-OS Components. In: Camarinha-Matos L., Almeida R., Oliveira J. (eds) Technological Innovation for Industry and Service Systems. DoCEIS 2019. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 553. Springer, Cham

26. vf-OS D2.1: Global Architecture Definition – Vs: 1.2.2.(2017) https://ef136c81-3047-408f-b1ec-2955e8231f38.filesusr.com/ugd/0cf731_286b3f51e13141fa8aca27228b06aa87.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2020

27. Stubbs, J., Moreira, W., & Dooley, R. (2015). Distributed Systems of Microservices Using Docker and Serfnode. 2015 7th International Workshop on Science Gateways. doi:10.1109/iwsg.2015.16
28. Corista, P., Giao, J., Sarraipa, J., Garcia Perales, O., Almeida, R., & Moalla, N. (2018). Enablers Framework: Developing Applications Using FIWARE. Enterprise Interoperability, 83–89. doi:10.1002/9781119564034.ch10

29. ZDMP D2.4: Manufacturing Reference Model Analysis Document (2019) https://c53c19bc-6460-4dea-a74f-97b851e7af75.filesusr.com/ugd/851c99_57042ac5fb6a4adea44bf9ff81010f5e.pdf Accessed 02 Aug 2020

30. Givehchi, O., Landsdorf, K., Simoens, P., & Colombo, A. W. (2017). Interoperability for Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems: An Approach for Legacy Systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 13(6), 3370–3378. doi:10.1109/tii.2017.2740434

31. BEinCPPS D2.4 – IoT Platform Federation. (2017) https://6d5a66e7-aea5-4aab-9548-6ced0d99e05c.filesusr.com/ugd/03d390_6264ca6f678642edb48b62cf697fa903.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020

32. CREMA D3.3 Technical Specification. (2015) https://www.crema-project.eu/media/1082/t33-d33-technical-specification-v100.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020

33. CREMA D3.2: Functional Specification. (2015) https://www.crema-project.eu/media/1086/t32-d32-functional-specification-v100.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020

34. MANTIS D2.9 Reference architecture and design specification. (2018) http://www.mantis-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D2.9_Reference_Architecture_and_Design_Specification_Final.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2020

35. MANTIS D2.10 Interface, Protocol and Functional Interoperability Guidance and Specification (2018) http://www.mantis-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/D2.10_Interface_protocol_and_functional_interoperability_guidance_and_specification_v1.1.pdf Accessed 14 Apr 2020

36. vf-OS D1.2: User Scenarios Characterisation – Vs:1.11.(2018) https://ef136c81-3047-408f-b1ec-2955e8231f38.filesusr.com/ugd/0cf731_f0083b20243747619993661dfe6c7d22.pdf Accessed 15 Apr 2020

37. RestAssured Deliverable D9.6 Final RestAssured Handbook. Release 1.0. (2019) https://restassuredh2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/D9.6.pdf Accessed 14 Apr 2020

38. RestAssured Deliverable D3.3 Final High-Level Architecture & Methodology. Release 1.0. (2019) https://restassuredh2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/D3.3.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2020

39. DISRUPT Deliverable D2.3 The DISRUPT Platform Integration Plan. (2019) http://www.disrupt-project.eu/Files/Deliverables/D2.3-The%20DISRUPT%20Platform%20Integration%20Plan.pdf Accessed 12 Apr 2020

40. DISRUPT Deliverable 4.2. Data Analytics Toolkit (2019) http://www.disrupt-project.eu/Files/Deliverables/D4.2-Data_Analytics Tool Kit.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

41. DIGICOR D6.2: Knowledge Protection Specification. (2018) https://6c97d07e-2d66-4f14-9c19-8c5872c4c3ba.filesusr.com/ugd/2512a7_6256f94aca924310a507df5b8ed7bd8d.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020

42. DIGICOR D 5.8: Data access API & Reference data store (2019) https://6c97d07e-2d66-4f14-9c19-8c5872c4c3ba.filesusr.com/ugd/2512a7_a332d527b55e46a3935463fdd722453f.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020

43. I-BiDaaS D6.2: Experiments implementation – initial version. (2019) http://www.ibidaas.eu/sites/default/files/docs/ibidaas-d6.2.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020
44. I-BiDaaS Deliverable D1.3: Positioning of I-BiDaaS. (2018)
http://www.ibidaas.eu/sites/default/files/docs/ibidaas-d1.3.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

45. GO0DMAN Deliverable 2.1. Multi-Agent Architecture Specification. (2017)
http://go0dman-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GO0D-MAN-Deliverable-2.1.pdf.
Accessed 16 Apr 2020

46. GO0DMAN Deliverable 1.2 ZDM Management Methodology. (2017) http://go0dman-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GO0D-MAN-Deliverable-1.2.pdf. Accessed 16 Apr 2020