Series
Toward Realization of Smart Manufacturing Systems

Case: A cyber-physical manufacturing systemenhanced with collective knowledge

Robot Revolution Initiative
WG for manufacturing business revolution through IoT
The Industrial Machinery Steering Committee

March 2017
Committee members：

Supported by

Contents
1. Overview(1) Proposals(2) Organization(3) Outline(4) Scope
2. Background and vision(1) Future vision of smart manufacturing(2) Cyber-physical manufacturing system enhanced with collective
knowledge(3) Importance of machine tool interface standardization(4) In relation to international standard development for smart
manufacturing
3. Cyber-physical manufacturing system model that visualizes interfaces(1) Model-based analysis of the cyber-physical manufacturingsystem configurations(2) Model description rules(3) Model description process(4) Features of the model
4. The use cases for improving smart factory productivity in multiple
phases(1) Operation tracking and global optimization (use case 1)(2) Quality control (use case 2)(3) Repair, preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance (usecase 3)
5. Analysis of the machine tool interface enhanced with collective
knowledge(1) Examinations of use case analysis results(2) The retrieving process for the machine tool interface(3) Toward controlling accessibility to information on the interface
6. Conclusions

11. Overview(1) Proposals
In this year, the Industrial Machinery Steering Committee has prepared thefollowing proposals.
 It proposes the concept of smart manufacturing to which “Kaizen” on the
production engineering side including on-the-job sites is reflected as acyber-physical manufacturing system. (While international attention towards
smart manufacturing is increasing, the above concept considering “Kaizen”
has not been well discussed so far.) As the approach for promoting thediscussion about the above concept, it proposes a model-based approach toinvestigate information flows in the cyber-physical manufacturing system
including human judgment, clarifies the mechanism for reflecting humanjudgments in the cyber space, and tries to analyze the data items exchangedby the machine tools with the production management side by using specificuse cases.
 To realize the above concept in a secure environment, it proposes a
procedure to localize problems on information leakage based on theinformation model and use case analysis, while considering the relationshipamong the stakeholders of the business conducted in the cyber-physicalmanufacturing system and the characteristics of the information exchanged.
Based on our activities, we would like to promote international collaboration
toward realization of smart manufacturing, in which the standardization ofinterface of machine tools as the core components of cyber-physicalmanufacturing systems is regarded as an example of such collaboration.
(2) Organization
The Committee consists of the business practitioners who carry the strategies ofthe overall industry from machine tool manufacturers, control device
manufacturers, and machine tool users. In order to continue the last year’s
2discussion, this year, in addition to the Committee, the working group to
investigate machine tool interfaces based on the concept proposed by thisCommittee was formed. The members of the working group were chosen fromthe member companies of this Committee. Based on their background, themembers are able to discuss specific models and use cases. This report shows
the member list of this Committee and the working group at the end.
(3) Outline
This year, the Committee and working group mainly conducted the following
activities. Firstly, the members of the Committee discussed the concept of thecyber-physical manufacturing system enhanced with collective knowledge, andfuture vision of smart manufacturing (Chapter 2). Secondly, an information
model of the cyber-physical manufacturing system useful for examining themachine tool interface was examined (Chapter 3). The Committee suggested
use cases for this investigation. The working group then investigated three
specific use cases relating to the factory productivity enhancement by using themodel (Chapter 4). Finally, by conducting inter-disciplinary analysis for each of
the use cases that were analyzed, the common features of the machine interface
were summarized (Chapter 5).
(4) Scope
The machine tool interface that is taking an active role of the cyber-physicalmanufacturing system can be examined in various aspects. This report focuseson the contents of information in the interface. Although the sections relating toinstallation such as the communication format of the data exchanged bymachine tools and the management format are beyond the scope of thisinvestigation, the investigation of machine tool interface was conductedconsidering possibility of the implementation allowing multiple installations. The
investigation examined machine tool interface from the perspective of overall
production enhancement of the manufacturing system, and similar investigation
can be made for the other components of cyber-physical manufacturing systems
as required.
3

2. Background and vision(1) Future vision of smart manufacturing
Productivity enhancement of the manufacturing industry is an important issue
for building a sustainable society by managing both enhancement ofvalue-added and reduction of environmental impact. Based on this point,
machine tool manufacturers have played an essential role for automation of
production process and contributed to the productivity enhancement of the
manufacturing industry. Machine tool manufacturers will expand their role tomanufacturing service providers that provide services based on machine tools
as well as supplying machine tools to manufacturers.
The concept of the Internet of Things (IoT) is receiving much attention as a coreof the fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0). By accumulating and using theinformation on a variety of facilities that configure a production processincluding machine tools and robots, the overall production process can be
optimized, and therefore, realizing creation of added value over the entire
product life cycle.
Smart manufacturing is a typical realization of the IoT in the engineering
process. It uses the various information acquired from the manufacturingsystems and machine-based intelligence (artificial intelligence) to optimize bothproduction management (supply chain) and production engineering(engineering chain) over the entire product life cycle. The following are theexamples of optimizations which can be realized by smart manufacturing:
Visualization of production process: Through the visualization of operating
statuses and alarm history of machine tools, information for promoting “on-site
improvement activities (Kaizen)” becomes available at the site in real time.
This solution enables efficient checking and handling of the issues regarding anentire production line such as line balance and pileup between processes.
Furthermore, the scope of visualization expands further to the entire processesof both production management (supply chain) and production engineering(engineering chain) beyond the production line.
Effective utilization of “Kaizen” information: Reflection of the information such4

as the range of tasks handled by the operator and the process of the operator’s
awareness attributed to “Kaizen” in the model in the cyber space enables
substitution/support for more advanced decision-making processes.
Improvement of quality by inter-process coordination: Product quality can
improve comprehensively using the information of each process in a facility
such as machining, measurement, and assembly, and by computationally
supporting each of these processes.
Bi-directional collaboration between the production management side and the
production engineering side: In addition to simply forward information (e.g.,
production orders) from the production management side to the productionengineering side, the production management side could receive frequent
feedback of the information (e.g., weather production orders are executed asplanned or not) from the production engineering side. This is useful for flexible
production planning (e.g., changes of production orders and reassignment ofmachines).
Securing of manufacturing traceability: A mechanism for reliable communication
becomes feasible for notification of frequent design changes in job-orderproduction to various divisions (e.g., procurement, machining, and assembly) of
each factory. For the realization of product quality management, the informationsuch as facilities and parts that were used for processing, assembling, andinspection and the information on the operators assigned in each process canbe traced from the product.
Enhancement of preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, andmaintenance planning: Signs such as malfunctioning of machine tools can beverified more quickly through the continuous accumulation of factory data andutilization of artificial intelligence. Consequently, production planning andmaintenance planning can be optimized in real time in terms of the machine tool
life cycle.
(2) Cyber-physical manufacturing system enhanced with collective knowledge
A Cyber Physical System (CPS) refers to a concept of a system that closely
5coordinates the movements and changes of objects in the real space (physicalspace) such as materials, machineries, and people and the flow and changes of
the information in the cyber space. The system aims at co-evolution of both
spaces through bi-directional information flows between both spaces. To
achieve this aim, it is necessary to reflect the information that is sensed fromthe real space to the cyber space quickly and restore the information that has
been analyzed and intellectualized to the real space. The concept ofconsidering a manufacturing system as a kind of CPS is recently receivingmuch attention. In particular, there is a concept of concentrating every piece of
information relating to a manufacturing system in the real space into the cyber
space, evaluating the status of the system in the cyber space, and providing
instructions (feedback) for operation and maintenance of system through thejudgment made based on the statuses of the system evaluated in the cyber
space. With the increased feasibility of the concept as a result of the progressof various equipment units based on the recent progress of IoT/Al technology,
the concept is receiving the support from American and European researchcommunities relating to smart manufacturing.
The mechanisms for performing design, operation, and maintenance of
manufacturing systems by using the information in the cyber space following
the concept of CPS vary over a wide range according to the overall
configuration (architecture) and the value creation system (business model)that encompasses the configuration.
In Europe and America, several implementation mechanisms of smart
manufacturing have been proposed. One of the proposed mechanisms is thatevery piece of information in the physical space (including judgment made byworkers) is integrated in the cyber space. It then searches for the global
optimum solutions based on the vast volume of information, and as a result
production efficiency is enhanced by providing various related services. Anothermechanism that has been proposed is that the information that is loaded into
the cyber space from devices is combined according to the purpose while
recognizing the differences of the sites where the devices are installed, theinformation is circulated flexibly, and the overall manufacturing system is
optimized through the judgment by the local automatic processing and mutual
coordination. Either mechanism is based on a hypothesis that information
6

distribution in the manufacturing system model in the cyber space, which has
been abstracted with the knowledge and technology currently available inacademia and industry, will contribute to realization of the global optimization of
the system in the physical space. This is based on another hypothesis thatcollection of local optimization solutions by accumulation of intentions ofworkers who are engaged in design, operation, and maintenance of
manufacturing systems may not reach the global optimization. However, thesemechanisms may fall into inflexible production activities without reflecting thewisdom of on-site workers by placing production sites at the lower stream of theentire information flow starting at the production planning, while such amechanism contributes to the improvements of the overall judgments based on
the integration of the information held by the workers at the various levels whoare engaged in the manufacturing system.
In the manufacturing industry in Japan, the mechanism for “Kaizen” has been
traditionally practiced, where the machine tool operator of each machine tool ofthe manufacturing system, line administrators, and production planners provide
astute feedback, although locally, while having their own discretion to someextent. This mechanism is based on a historical background where the current
manufacturing system in Japan is based on the post-war recovery achieved
through the only asset that was remaining, which is people, due to the shortageof technologies and materials. In this mechanism, people make high-leveljudgment, considering the condition of the production system and surrounding
information in a versatile manner and play an essential role in materializing thesystem. This mechanism is based on hypotheses that the volume of informationthat can be evaluated on site in the real space exceeds the volume of
information that can be reflected in the cyber space and that the on-site
judgment made by fully utilizing the difference can be meaningfully utilized for“Kaizen” of the manufacturing system. The mechanism that is practiced inJapan, in which the emphasis is on the local knowledge, regards human as anactive component in CPS and produces delicate “Kaizen” performed by humanintervention as the starting point. However, at the same time, the mechanism
for propagating “Kaizen” across the entire system as information is limited andthis limitation may very likely hinder the global optimization.
The mechanism that is being developed in Europe and America, where7information on the planning side has the initiative and the traditional Japanesemechanism that emphasizes “Kaizen”, i.e., a set of local judgments withcollaborative knowledge, is opposite and at the same time, mutuallycomplementary. Therefore, the ”cyber-physical manufacturing systemenhanced with collective knowledge” is considered to be the source of “trueKaizen” for achieving more efficient and intelligent production sites. That is,the bi-directional close coordination between the real space and the cyber
space, which is the main objective of CPS, is realized by quickly extracting thewisdom of local production improvements by the discretion of production sites
into the cyber space as the critical information, quickly feeding back to the site
the wisdom of process improvements for global optimization with computational
analysis, and reflecting the wisdom for the local improvements at production
sites. As a result, “Circulation of Kaizen” that links both spaces is established,
thereby realizing “truly smart” manufacturing.
(3) Importance of machine tool interface standardization
As described before, effective extraction of human judgment in the physicalspace is an important requirement for the cyber-physical manufacturing systemenhanced with collective knowledge, and behaviors of machine tools closely
relate to such human judgment. For instance, a machine tool operator
dynamically makes fine adjustments of the machining speed considering thestate of the tool and, in some case, stops the machine tool operating in
automatic mode to prevent any damage to the tool or the work piece. As aresult, the machine tool plays a role as a medium (carrier) to inform the result of
the human judgment to the production management indirectly.
The interface of machine tools specifies the information that can be obtained
from the machine tools and information that is provided to the machine tools.
Machine tool designers need to pay attention to machine tool’s capability toretrieve the result of human judgment. Design of the interface without adequate
attention leads to the situation that forces unnecessary work on machine tool
operators (pressing a button when a specific operation occurs) or forces
retrieval of information that is duplicated in other sensors or peripheral devices,causing the unnecessary cost at integration of machine tools in the
cyber-physical system.
8

Machine tool manufacturers have made significant efforts in developing
machine tools with the functions that satisfy various requirements. Furthermore,they also develop machine tool peripheral functions for tool changers andoperation panels, beyond the scope of machining functions, which is the core,under the fiercely competitive environment. On the other hand, regarding themachine tool model used in the cyber space, mutual compatibility is essential
through the interface standardization by abstracting, to some extent, themachine tool features specific to each manufacturer. For instance, in case of
replacement of a machine tool with another one with equivalent functions, it isdesirable for the machine tool to be able to demonstrate the existing functions
without replacing the interface with peripheral devices and software withextended functions like preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance,
operation management, and production management. Interface standardization
itself does not hinder the competitiveness of the machine tool and the software
installed in the machine tool. Interface standardization promotes efficient inputof resources of research and development of each machine tool manufacturer
to improve the functions of the machine tool itself, which is the source ofcompetitiveness and associated services such as operation management, andmaintenance.
Design improvement of each machine tool to enable the person in charge of the
production line to produce the optimum result based on the experience is anactivity for machine tool manufacturers to attain competitiveness. Extraction of
the optimum operating conditions through design of configuration of machines
as well as process sequences is a competitive skill of the person in charge ofthe production line. On the other hand, machine tool manufacturers could
cooperate one another for supporting tool users by providing the models of theirown tool models for the users to examine the optimum operating conditions
also using publicly available information. A mechanism for evaluating whether
the conditions are optimum with the machining results may need thestandardization of machine tool interfaces. Such a mechanism can belong to
the technology in the cooperation area.
Cooperation among machine tool manufacturers is essential for developing
standardized machine tool interfaces. Therefore, the attempt to achieve9interface standardization by obtaining the cooperation of machine tool
manufacturers while incorporating the requests of machine tool users issuitable as the mission of the Industrial Machinery Steering Committee.
(4) In relation to international standard development for smart manufacturing
To implement smart manufacturing by using every piece of information basedon the manufacturing system as a cyber-physical system, a mechanism thatassociates these information pieces and integrates the information as a modelis essential. To do so, recently, many proposals for international (e.g., ISO, IEC)
standards for smart manufacturing have been discussed. Many of the
proposals focus on the abstract framework of manufacturing systems fromvarious scopes (from the device level to the enterprise level). To allow machine
tools and their interfaces to play an active role as the core component of smart
manufacturing, it is desirable to first focus on nowadays movement of thedevelopment of the standards, which are gradually refined. Then manufacturers
provide the interface that can communicate with other components ofmanufacturing systems considering the movement so as to finally demonstrate
the full set of the functions of machine tools. For instance, an Industry 4.0
component consists of an object of manufacturing systems and thecorresponding Management Shell. Its main function is to connect machine tools
and other objects with different interfaces as a means of interface abstraction. It
stores the features specific to the corresponding object such as a facility profile.
Standardization of machine tool interfaces may result in standardization of theirfacility profiles, thereby reducing the cost for machine tools to become Industry
4.0 components. Furthermore, there is a possibility for a machine tool toretrieve the information of the surrounding components (processing
environment, statuses and alarms of other machine tools, and production plan)via its corresponding Management Shell. By doing so, the machine tool may beable to enhance its performance using wider range of information, and provide
the information that assists the judgments of on-site operators.
Application of the existing standard is desirable for the installation of machine
tool interfaces such as a communication protocol. For instance, OPC UA isused in the information layer and MTConnect is used in the field layer. As theinterface standardization approach relating to "meaning of information" such as
10

data item, a neutral stance is taken for the interface installation options.
Analysis of the interfaces to be standardized and the examination of themethodology towards standardization that were promoted in the activities of thisCommittee truly play an essential role for implementing the attempt at the site ineach country, and it is meaningful for each manufacturer of the machine toolindustry in Japan to unite and discuss these issues.

113. Cyber-physical manufacturing system model that visualizes interfaces(1) Model-based analysis of the cyber-physical manufacturing system
configurations
To clarify the configuration requirements of the cyber-physical manufacturingsystem with collective knowledge, which consists of a variety of components
such as workers and machine tools, it is essential to clarify the flow of material
and information among these components as well as the consequence of their
execution and adjustments. Currently, ERP and various production simulators
gather various information on the production plan, material procurement plan,and facility layout into the in-house network. However, the information stored insuch systems is not a complete description of the real system: for example,
real-time status of the production process progress, adjustment result of themachining process by on-site workers, inventory-level of work-in-progress,
exact locations of jigs and tools are often only partially recognized by thecomputers. Such information should be simultaneoutly accumulated in the
cyber space as developed. Rather, on-site workers and administrators aremaking various production decisions by checking the actual items. In otherwords, the cyber-physical manufacturing system that helps various decision
makings by collecting various information of the actual manufacturing system
and uploading them to its representative model in the cyber space in real time
has not been realized today. Such a system must be designed and examinedwhile overseeing the future technical evolution.
This report analyzes various aspect of such a future “cyber-physicalmanufacturing system” by model-based and information-based analysis. We
analyze both future requirements for configuration of real-side production
systems and future usage of the cyber-side information to achieve robust,
flexible, efficient, and value-added production system.
The information model of the cyber-physical manufacturing system describes aseries of various actions and judgments that are made in the operation of the
production system as the flow of materials and information between the
production system components in each use case (for instance, production
implementation according to the schedule, maintenance work carried out due toabnormality detection, and adjustment of work contents due to the detection of
12

quality defect). In this model, in principle, a corresponding component in the
cyber space is introduced for every physical entity in the manufacturing process.
It makes possible to clarify the sequence and frequency of information that is to
be exchanged within the production elements in the physical and cyber spaces
to improve the efficiency and add high values to the production activities in thephysical world by using the cyber space.
(2) Model description rules
The cyber-physical manufacturing system model clearly indicates thecomponents (objects) that form the manufacturing system and the relationship,in particular, of the people, material, and energy (physical operation) among thecomponents, and the flow of related information based on the object-oriented
concept, by associating the physical space and the cyber space. Here, thefollowing components in the physical space are specified based on the analysisof the use case explained in Chapter 4. Among these components, which are
identified by names, the people and the material in the physical space havecharacteristics that are classified into work (or workpiece) (rectangle withchipped corners), devices such as machine tools (hexagon), a person or group(ellipse). Re-examination is necessary for this classification method in thecourse of considering other types of components in the future.

13

Table 3.1 Example of the components of the cyber-physical manufacturingsystem model
Name

Basic roleWork

Target of machining/transportation/quality checking

Shape

Machine Tool Machine with the work machining function
Material
Handling
MachineMachine with the work transportation function

SensorElement for measuring/checking work status

Operator

Person who processes work by using a machine
tool

Floor

Group consisting of a production line comprisingmultiple machine tools and transportation devices
and person who controls them. It is not shown in
the physical space of the model, because it
resembles Production Control regarding its role.

Production
Control

Person or group in charge of operation control ofthe production line

Quality
Control

Person or group in charge of quality control of thework after machining

Maintenance

Person in charge of maintenance/repair of machine
tools

Next, by describing, as elements, the entire information base relating to thematerial statuses of all the components in the physical space in the computersand electronic devices in the cyber space as the mirror image of the informationin the physical space, the flow of information and judgment is visualized inchronological order between the cyber space and the physical space. By
prefixing “D-” (Digital) for the components in the cyber space corresponding to
the components in the physical space, the mutual correspondence is clarified.
Figure 3.1 shows the correspondence between both spaces in the use case inthis report.

14

Figure 3.1 Components of the cyber physical manufacturing system modelA state that is considered to be ultimately ideal by the concept of “digital twin” isthat the components in the cyber space hold the entire information of thecomponents in the physical space and that all the physical states can be
reproduced. However, in the real world, the information of the components inthe physical space that can be expressed in the cyber space is limited and themirror image of the physical space that is produced in the cyber space cannot
be a perfect reproduction of the physical world. This gap is essential for thismodel as long as the physical space cannot be completely predictable.
At the next step, the relationship of interactions between components is
extracted in the model and are expressed by arrows in the model diagram. In
this model, the inter-component relationships are classified into four categories,
information provision/acquisition (for instance, an operator checks the machine15

condition from the monitor of the machine tool), judgment (for instance, a
processor judges the quality of machining work based on the condition of themachine tool), direction (for instance, a production management division directs
a machining procedure to the operator), and physical action (for instance, amachine tool processes a work and change the shape of the work).
Elements in the cyber space have three relationships except Action since theycannot directly interfere with the physical world. In particular, the arrow from acomponent (i.e., source) in the cyber space to another component (i.e., target)
indicates that new information on the target component can be acquired byanalyzing the information on the component on the source side. For instance,
the size of the work after machining can be assumed based on the distance of
the axis movement of the machine tool.
The direction of the arrow indicates the flow of information and the direction of
the instruction and the number in the figures in the report corresponds to thenumber in the description in the text.
These inter-component relationships do not clearly indicate the primary
information conversion component (that is, the component that converted theinformation) and the owner of the information. For instance, the entity of thejudgment relating to the state of a machine tool can be a server in the cloud or acontroller in the machine tool. By applying such a description method, themodel can be analyzed by focusing on the contents of the information itself, notthe implementation of the information processing.
(3) Model description processThis section shows a simple example that is described in the model mentioned
above together with the description process.
For instance, a series of processes of machining work by an operator by using
a machine tool are expressed by describing three components, Operator, Work,and Machine Tool, and the relationships sequentially as shown in Figure 3.2.
••

Operator operates Machine Tool. (①)
Machine Tool processes Work. (②)•

Operator observe the change of the shape of Work. (③)
16Figure 3.2 Status of machining Work by Operator by using Machine Tool
As described above, ideal components corresponding to Operator, Work, andMachine Tool are instantiated in the cyber space. These components in the
cyber space have all the information of the corresponding components, forinstance, in case of Work, the shape, surface roughness, material properties,
position, and posture, and the conditions change according to the change of theconditions of the corresponding component belong to the attributes of Work.
Then, let us examine a specific process for achieving high efficiency and highvalue-added in the production process. Initially, based on the assumption that
there are ideal components with the characteristics mentioned above in the
cyber space, an action, information flow, direction, and judgment that form the
proposed process are described. For instance, Figure 3.3 shows the process
for adjusting the behaviors of Machine Tool (for minimization of energy
consumption, giving consideration to the habits and material properties) basedon the information on Operator (operation habits) and Work (material
properties) in the condition shown in Figure 3.2. In Figure 3.2, the information
about Operator, Work, and Machine tool in the physical space is transferred toeach component in the cyber space (④), parameters of Machine Tool suitable
for Work and Operator are specified (⑤), and the parameters are fed back to
the operation of Machine Tool (⑥). This reduces the adjustments of Machine
Tool required by Operator and enables fine adjustments according to thematerial property of Work, which Operator was not previously aware of. This
contributes to the improvement of quality and yield, and more flexible and quickmachining process for various types of works.
17Figure 3.3 Behavior adjustments of a machine tool in the ideal condition
Figure 3.3 shows the result of the discussion based on the assumption that theentire information on components of the physical production system is copied
on to the corresponding components in the cyber space without delay.
However, this does not always happen in the real world. For instance, somework carries just an extrinsic function (e.g., to fasten parts) or it is amass-produced part in lot units. Thus, it is not realistic to assume that theindividual work is identifiable and possess its own state (e.g., being processes)
in the real space, and the information is reflected in the corresponding elementsin the cyber space. In reality, rather, it is natural for the state of the work to bemeasured by an external testing device. It is not easy to acquire the informationsuch as the position of the operator, work contents, health condition, andintention (what the operator intends to do next) and position judgment byphotographing with a wide-area camera, patterning of work history of theoperator, and retrieval of the operation history from the machine tool arenecessary. Figure 3.4 shows an example of automatic adjustment of Machine
Tool in the ideal condition shown in Figure 3.3 based on the realistic means for
information acquisition and transfer. Specifically, information on Work andOperator can be assumed from the flow of information such as acquisition of
own information from Machine Tool (⑦), analogical reasoning of the information
on Operator and Work from the information of Machine Tool (⑧, ⑨), andacquisition of the information of Work by using Sensor (⑩).

18

Figure 3.4 Automatic adjustments of Machine Tool in a realistic condition(4) Features of the model
The cyber-physical manufacturing system model was developed based on theassumption that components corresponding to those in the physical space exist
in the cyber space. The features of the model that is derived from thisassumption are classified based on the three aspects, similarity, time evolution,and feedback, and these features do not depend on specific use cases.
Similarity of the manufacturing systems in the physical space and the cyber
space: The manufacturing system in the cyber space has the information that
expresses the ideal state “to be” when unmistakably viewed as information
processing-based. On the other hand, the manufacturing system in the physicalspace comprises the elements of production activity implementation and theelements that bear production activities such as facilities of the system that
constructs the current state (“as is”) of the production site and the measuring
equipment for acquiring and maintaining the state. The state “to be” isconstructed by abstracting the functions of information processing from the
manufacturing system in the physical space and it is modelled with theassumption that all the elements that exist in the physical space also exist in the
cyber space. Since, in general, the conditions relating to information transfer
and processing differ between the cyber space and the physical space, thecomponent configuration in the cyber space does not necessarily match thecomponent configuration in the physical space. For instance, it is notnecessarily reasonable to express, in the physical space, the action of pressing
a button of a machine tool by an operator in the physical space with two
separate components such as an operator and a machine tool. Similarity is19required for the cyber space and the physical space only to construct a primarymodel to abstract the functions of the manufacturing system in the physicalspace and, after considering the characteristics distinctive to the cyber space,
the component configuration in the cyber space is changed to the component
configuration different from that in the physical space as required.
Time evolution of the manufacturing system in the physical space and in the
cyber space: The time evolution of the manufacturing system in the cyber
space that is constructed corresponding to the system in the physical space iscalculated and predicted as required by using a simulator. The state of thesystem in the physical space is controlled so that the it matches the state of thesystem in the cyber space. When the operating status of the production line
assumed in the cyber space does not match the on-site status any longer, ameasurement is taken, that is, either changing the model in the cyber space orchanging the status at the site. In the former case, the precision of the
production model in the cyber space is enhanced and in the latter case,improvements are made so that the operating status more closely resembles
the production plan.
Feedback of the information relating to the manufacturing system from thecyber space to the physical space (i.e., real world): If the state of the
manufacturing system in the cyber space differs from that of real world, an
alarm is issued in the real world and various instructions are sent to the system
to modify the state of the real world (feedback). The levels of this feedback vary.
For instance, in some case, the machine tool operator detects the abnormalityof the machine (e.g., strange noise) and adjusts the behavior of the machine
tool (e.g., override). In other case, due to the inoperative state of the machine
tool, a critical alarm is issued, forcing the modification of the production plan
and a machining instruction is issued to other machine tools through MES. In
general, as the degree of diversion of the states of the production system ofboth worlds increase, the feedback loop that is required for modification
expands, thereby increasing the time required for the modification.

20

4. The use cases for improving smart factory productivity in multiple phases
This section provides use case analysis using a cyber-physical manufacturingsystem model described in the previous chapter. We regard “improving
productivity of manufacturing systems” as the main theme of use cases,
considering suggestions of the members of the Committee who have been
involved in management planning for the overall production system andproduction lines and on-site improvement activities (“Kaizen”) and also theopinions of users of their machine tools. This chapter introduces three use
cases: “operation tracking and global optimization”, ”quality control”, and "repair,preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance", which lead to improvementof productivity.
This use case analysis covers not only capability of current machine tools but
also next generation machine tools, peripherals, robots, and production control
systems that are likely to be implemented by 2025. With this framework, roles of
the current and next generation machine tools and peripheral components forthe use case purposes in the cyber-physical production systems are analyzed,
where manufacturing system workers' decision is utilized. The model describedin the previous chapter is used to analyze actions, the flow of instructions, andassessment of situation between machine tools and peripherals(1) Operation tracking and global optimization (use case 1)
Understanding the operating progress of production lines by using real-time
operating data is effective for reviewing production/maintenance plans andfacilitating use of idle equipment. For example, it is possible to make a plan tolevel loads on machine tools based on the acquired load data for the entire
plant. To improve the accuracy of production line operation tracking, various
data regarding machine tools, peripherals such as transport devices and robots,and data from production line workers are essential.
Poduction plan is scheduled normally a weekly or monthly basis, but it should
be reviewed as required if it is urgent. Only experienced on-site workers canadjust the plan, because it is required to analyze on-site phenomena and makejudgments by themselves to adjust the processing speed or change the order ofprocessing depending on the quantity of workpieces to be processed. This21

adjustment may not be reflected in the production history and not lead to global
optimization because measurements are dependent on skills and experience ofon-site workers. For example, if there is enough time before transport, workers
do not need to accelerate on-site work but rather need to prioritize other tasks
while waiting for the next workpiece. However, on-site workers are usuallyassigned only a task of executing a part of the entire production plan, and it may
not be expected or allowed for the workers to do the above adjustment
influencing on the entire production plan.
To improve productivity in a cyber space while preventing local optimization
dependent on on-site workers' judgments and detecting deviation from the plan,
the following technical development is necessary.
More frequent monitoring of production line operating status
Formalizing knowledge and judgment regarding production line operatingprocedures
Methods to record on-site judgment without increasing burdens on
workersa. Current status of production line operation monitoring and control (Figure
4.1)

Currently, progress of operations is controlled through comparison andmodification between work plans and work results. Figure 4.1 shows thecurrent status of operation monitoring and control using a model suggested in
Chapter 3. The numbers from ① to ⑥ below correspond to the numbers in
Figure 4.1.
First, Production Control creates an instruction (D-Floor) for the floor (i.e., aproduction line)(①). This information is then directed to Operator and Material
Handling Machine (②). Material Handling Machine delivers Work to Machine
Tool (③), and Operator uses Machine Tool to process Work. The results ofmachining process on Work are updated via Machine Tool (④). This informationis compared and analyzed with the plan on Production Control (⑤). A skilledworker, if present, will go and get Work (i.e., a workpiece) if it cannot bedelivered due to a problem with Material Handling Machine (⑥). As such,on-site workers can make adjustment to a certain degree.
22

Table 4.1 shows the information that Machine Tool should provide to the cyber
space at step ④ . Machine Tool currently does not have Work position
information, and thus it needs to retrieve it from Material Handling Machine orOperator needs to read it manually with, e.g., a bar-code reader.
The problem here is that on-site adjustment inevitably leads to localized
optimization, and the progress will be delayed because variance between theplan and result needs to be addressed.

Figure 4.1 Current status of production line operation monitoring and control

Table 4.1 Information for production line operation tracking (current status)
23

Component nameMachineItem
Machining result

MachineOperating result

MachineAlarm information

MachineMachineEquipment
information
Program number

Material Handling
MachinePosition,
workpiece number

Remarks
Variance between the plan and result ismeasured every second.
Basic information to determine the production
line status (processing/stopped/alarm) ismeasured every second.
This information details an issued alarm. It iscreated when an alarm is issued.
This profile is used to analyze alarms andmachine status.
Data indicated by numbers on the chart ismeasured every second to determine theprocessing status.
This data (station number, transit point, etc. ) ismeasured every second to track the workpiece
position.

b. Future image of production line operation monitoring and control (Figure
4.2)
By 2025, the Japanese manufacturing industry will have accumulated
knowledge of measures created and applied on-site by skilled workers to thelevel of “production plan model changer” in the cyber space, and this enables
integration of various patterns of local optimization to enhance their knowledge.
(The detail of “production plan model changer” will be described later in thissection.) This model changer can support sharing of local optimization patterns
with every site or plant, and then it will be utilized in the entire industry to enableglobal optimization.
The following describes the processes of global optimization using the"production plan model changer". Figure 4.2 shows the flow of operation
monitoring and control using a model described in Chapter 3. The numbers
from ① to ⑮ below correspond to the numbers in Figure 4.2.
1)

Creating a production plan: The initial state of production plan (D-Floor) is
created in the cyber space based on the order information, capacity
information of the plant or affiliated plant (①), converted to instructions on
Work and notified to Material Handling Machine and Operator (②). The
same information is sent to Machine Tool and Work is machined as
instructed when it is delivered to Machine Tool (mainly processed2)

automatically but handled by Operator as needed) (③).
Aggregation of production result and detection/visualization of faults:
24

Machine Tool uploads the result of machining to the cyber space (④). The
machining result on the floor along with information retained in Material
Handling Machine are aggregated (⑤). Nonstandard operations done byOperator by self judgment are detected (⑥), which can be extracted fromvideo images integrated with the production result ( ⑦ ). With thismechanism, on-site activities done by Operator such as quick resolving of3)

waste of overproduction can be reflected in the cyber space (⑧).
Automated correction of variance between the plan and result: The
production plan and result are compared (⑪), and the plan is corrected by
Scheduler to eliminate the variance (⑫), and the corrected plan is applied(⑬). If the variance is too large and the model (e.g., operational flow type)needs to be changed for the plan (⑭), a simulator or similar equipment isused to predict future problems from production result and correct themodel (⑮).

Table 4.2 lists the items related to the state of production (colored, also listed inTable 4.1) and of Machine Tool (maintenance timing, etc.) which affects the
production plan. Such information needs to be regularly uploaded to the cyber
space. This kind of information may need to be handled explicitly by a simulator
or model of the production plan. In addition, it is suggested that workers'
know-how that was previously used only on-site should be shared. Such local
information should be explicitly represented in a production model to effectively
analyze which part of it can be utilized for global optimization.
This conceptual model has processes of providing feedback from on-site
improvement activities to the cyber space and improving the manufacturingsystem itself. In other words, “Kaizen” for production models in the cyber spaceis achieved through “Kaizen” on-site. As the model can detect the variance
between given rules and its actual behavior, if they are modeled in an
appropriate manner, it can also be used to decrease risks regarding thecompliance with these rules.

25

Figure 4.2 Future image of production line operation tracking and management
Table 4.2 Information exchanged for production line operation tracking
Component nameMachineItem
Machining result

MachineOperating result

MachineAlarm information

MachineEquipment
information
Program number

MachineMaterial Handling
MachinePosition

Operator

Position

Operator

Work memos,
pictures
Maintenanceforecast

MachineRemarks
Variance between the plan and result ismeasured every second.
Basic information to determine the production
line status (processing/stopped/alarm) ismeasured every second.
This information details an issued alarm. It iscreated when an alarm is issued.
This profile is used to analyze alarms andmachine status.
0 number. Data indicated by numbers on thechart is measured every second to determine
the processing status.
This data (station number, transit point, etc.) ismeasured every second to track the workpiece
position.
Track the operator's position every second to
detect any behavior that is irrelevant to theprocedure.
Record on-site solutions.
Notify of a date on which maintenance become
required.
26

(2) Quality control (use case 2)
In future quality control, possible incidents occurred to in plants, productionlines, machines, workpieces, and jigs/tools need to be predicted, and measuresagainst such incidents should be taken for stable and enhanced quality andproduction control. This section discusses information that should be retained ineach element of the model, the flow of actions, directions, and information
between elements based on the model for the cyber-physical production
system described in the previous chapter.
The model described in the previous chapter is used for analysis of an error
handling in machining. This model indicates processes of notifying the
production control of information regarding machining failure, proceeding withor termination of machining processes, handling defective products, andmodifying the production plan.
a. Current status (Figure 4.3)
Major decisions in Quality Control and Production Control such as regarding
how parts machining quality affect finished products, or at which phase aprocess of the line should be stopped are made by each operator after
discussing with related divisions (e.g., a quality control devision). Currently,
there is no such elements in the cyber space. Therefore, the current model ofthe cyber-physical manufacturing system only defines the flow of actions andinformation exchanged between components as shown in Figure 4.3.
Work after machining is measured by Sensor for evaluating quality (or testing
instrument) (①). Operator reads the inspection result shown on the sensor(②), and evaluate the quality (③). If Operator judges the quality to be
insufficient ( ④ ), Operator reports the result to Quality Control, in which
whether the quality problem is caused by the process itself or a purchased item
is evaluated (⑤). If the process is faulty, Quality Control influences thecontent of Production Control to make decision on termination or modification of
the process (⑥). When such a judgment based on the information about
Production Control is made (⑦), it directs Operator involved in the process andrelated processes to terminate or modify the process (⑧). Then the Operator
27

operates the Machine Tool as directed (⑨).
Table 4.3 organizes information referenced in this process.

Figure 4.3 Current status of the quality control process28

Table 4.3 Main information used by the current quality control process
Component nameSensorItem
Measured values

Machine Tool

Operator

Controller
information
Measured values,
machinestatus,machining status
Machine status

Operator

Machining status

Operator

Machineinformation

Quality Control

Alarm/warning

Production Control
Machine Tool

Alarm/warning
CommandWork

Tacit knowledge

Machine Tool

Tacit knowledge

Operator

Tacit knowledge

Quality Control

Tacit knowledge

Production Control

Tacit knowledge

Operator

Remarks
Quality-related information such as dimensions
and surface roughness acquired per work piece
Status, alarm, warning, etc.
Quality-related information for operators

Machine status inferred by the operator fromnoise or vibration. This status is not real-timedata since the operator takes time to determine
the status.
Machining status inferred by the operator fromnoise, vibration, or colors. This status is not
real-time data since the operator takes time todetermine the status.
Information such as spindle load inferred by theoperator based on his knowledge. This status
is not real-time data since the operator takes
time to determine the status.
Information of occurrence or sign of defective
products
Information of abort or modification of work
Command information received by the machine
tool, such as input to the control board or NC
program change
Experienced operators' knowledge regarding
shape- or material-dependent behavior of theworkpiece being processed
Experienced operators' knowledge regarding
machine behavior related to machining
behavior and tool status
Experienced operators' knowledge regarding
setup and conditions to finish work.
Experienced quality controllers' knowledge
regarding quality tracking, process tracking,and trends found in the tracking.
Experienced production controllers' knowledge
regarding process relation, inventory of goods
in process, lead time history, delivery dates,and productivity.

29

b. Future quality control (Figure 4.4)
This section describes a quality control model in the future following the
cyber-physical system modeling described in Chapter 3. The followings are tips
for creating a cyber-physical manufacturing model for quality control.
(1) Components in the cyber space should correspond to those in the physicalspace.
(2) Skills in workplace should be represented in this cyber-physicalmanufacturing model. In particular, transcribe physical-space components
and workers to the cyber space, clarify foundation or reasoning for
determination/decision and other information, and properly abstract andassociate them to components transcribed to the cyber space. As a result,knowledge of on-site workers and quality controllers are transcribed to thecyber space.
(3) The manufacturing system model should consists of various cyber-spacecomponents/workers capable of making decision autonomously based onhighly accurate local information instead of using top-down approach.
Alarms and other information issued autonomously by components will
become a starting point of a series of quality control processes.
Components in both physical and cyber spaces should become the starting
points of a variety of alarms.
(4) Theoretically, all the components in the cyber space have a model(behavior model for itself) to predict the behavior of the corresponding
component in the physical space.
(5) Not only machine tools and other devices, but also workers and quality
controllers in the physical space are regarded as components in the cyber
space. Therefore, a mechanism enabling these components to learn
determination/decision making should be implemented.
Based on the above points, Figure 4.4 shows a cyber-physical manufacturingsystem model for quality control in the year 2025.
D-Machine Tool notifies D-Work of the necessary procedure for processing (①).
At the same time, D-Machine tool operates itself in the physical space (i.e.,
Machine Tool) to process Work (②). D-Work is notified of Work processing
30

status read by Sensor (or other testing instrument) (③). D-Work compares its
status estimated from the machining procedure at step ① with the status ofWork in the physical space at step ③, and evaluates its quality based on thevariance between them (④). If D-Work evaluates that the quality may beinsufficient, D-Work notifies D-Quality Control of this possibility (⑤). D-Quality
Control estimates the cause of insufficient quality (process itself or a purchaseditem) ( ⑥ ), and notifies D-Production Control of this estimation ( ⑦ ).
D-Production Control evaluates whether the process or related processes
should be terminated or modified (⑧). To do so, instructions are given to
relevant machine tools via D-Floor (⑨). As a result, D-Machine Tool directs
Machine Tool to terminate its operation or modify its processing procedure.
In this model, it is assumed that D-Machine Tool autonomously createsprocessing procedure, performs setup, and adjust processing parameters.
Therefore, note that Operator who makes decision on processing and process
designing in Figure 4.3 will be no longer liable for such decision making. The
knowledge of Operator regarding process designing and setup is formalized
and learned by D-Machine. This can be tacit knowledge. In this case, thechangeover order or timing and hidden intention of these actions can beinferred and leaned from operators' handling of workpieces and tracking ofoperators movements ( ⑪ ). The same applies to D-Quality Control and
D-Production Control, which correspond to quality control and production
control in the physical space. By learning decision making processes fromhighly experienced quality controllers and production controllers (⑫, ⑬), a
cyber-physical manufacturing model integrating workplace skills will be created.

31

Figure 4.4 Future quality control process32

Table 4.4 Main information used for future quality control process
Component nameD-WorkShape

D-WorkSetup status

D-WorkMachineinformation
Measured values

SensorItem

D-WorkVariance from thenormal state

D-Quality Control

Variance from thenormal state

D-Production
Control

Variance from thenormal state

D-Production

Emergency
decision
Emergency
decision

D-Machine

D-Sensor

Error

D-Operator

Formalized tacitknowledge
Formalized tacitknowledge

D-Quality Control

D-Production
ControlFormalized tacitknowledge

Remarks
Information regarding the original and finishedshapes of workpiece acquired when starting
processing.
Information regarding how the machine andperipherals (tools and jigs) are handled by theoperator (③)
Position information (①)
Various information such as dimensions andsurface roughness of the workpiece acquired
from sensors and testing instruments (③)
Information regarding variance from the normal
range predicted by a behavior model.
Possibility of defective products is considered.
Currently, recognition and decision depends on
Operator (⑤).
Information used to recognize variance fromthe specified quality. Currently, recognitionand decision depends on the Operator (⑥).
Information used to recognize the fact thatprocessing/assembly is not on the specified
production schedule. Currently, recognitionand decision depends on Operator (⑧).
Information used to modify the production planin emergency situations (⑨)
Information
regarding
instructions(e.g.
continue, stop, or redo steps of workpiece
processing) given to machine tools inemergency situations (⑬).
Error occurrence rate and reliability based on
the measurement principles (③)
Information that should be retrieved by anagent that handles the knowledge of Operator
Information that should be retrieved by anagent that handles the knowledge about Quality
Control
Information that should be retrieved by anagent that handles the knowledge about
Production Control(3) Repair, preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance (use case 3)
Machine tools in plants do not always operate without fault. A machine tool
normally stops due to failed processing, lack of consumables and supplies,
random failure and other reasons, and this significantly affects production plans
and results. To increase the overall productivity of the plant, not only improving
33the normal state throughput, but also minimization of the effect of such faults isimportant. Currently repair and maintenance tasks are performed in certain
fixed intervals mainly based on tacit knowledge of line operators in order tominimize possibility of random failure. However, to reduce the random failure
rate effectively, premature or precautious scheduling of the maintenance isrequired, which decreases the overall performance. In future, it would bepossible to prevent potential failure by detecting signs of equipment failure,changing production plans, decreasing the load on the to-be-failing equipment.
By taming occurrence of such potential failure, and by coordinate the planedscheduling of early maintenance coordinated with those of other equipments,
the operating rate and production rate of overall plant can be improved evenwith the same operating rate of each equipment.
This section analyzes necessary information at three phases i.e., normal
operation, deterioration (partial malfunction of equipments), and failure phases
to discuss methods to enable more efficient line operation.
a. Normal operating state (Figure 4.5)
In the normal operating state, D-Machine Tool collects information from various
data sources to evaluate its integrity. In addition to status information of theactual machine tools itself, the processing result of workpiece, caused byvarious phenomena of the machine tools such as rough grinding can also be
used to find to determine the machine integrity ( ① ). D-Machine Tool
continuously evaluates its integrity based on this kind of information (②).
Each equipment will have its own trends of deterioration specific to eachvarious local aspects such the target workpieces, production location, or the
manufacturer. Also, it may have trends which are unique to the set or lot ofmachine tools, not specific to a single manufacturer. To utilize such non-local
trends, the machine tool manufacturer may share information in the D-Machine
Tool (③) with each plant, and gather data from multiple machines of the samemodel from various locations to D-Machine Tool Model (④) for analysis. The
analysis result will be shared back to the plant to support decision making in theplant. There are possible several implementation methods for this model. One
example is to implement D-Machine Tool within the plant and to exchange theminimal trend data with the machine tool manufacturer. Alternatively, the tool34

manufacturer may provide all functions of the plant-side D-Machine Tool via acloud networking, and use trend analysis to assist decision making in the plant.
The possible method varies depending on the data quality, costs, andconfidentiality of the processing.

Figure 4.5 Normal operating stateb. Rescheduling the production plan due to functional deterioration andpreparing maintenance (Figure 4.6)

If D-Machine Tool determines that functional deterioration or failure is likely tooccur, the cycle of the information becomes larger than the normal state inorder to review the production plan and prepare maintenance considering theeffect on production.
If D-Machine Tool determines that it cannot or will not be able to provide
expected performance for the production plan sooner or later, the relevant
alarm is issued to D-Floor (③). D-Floor analyzes its impact to the current line
35

processing status, and if the status is faulty, it issues alarm to the upper-level
D-Production Control. At the same time, this information is shared with Machine
Tool Manufacturer (③-b). Machine Tool Manufacturer prepares information
required for planning of future repair, based on trends and other information
shared in the normal state (③-c).
D-Production Control also determines the impact of the trouble state to thecurrent production plan (⑤).

It also asks information from Machine Tool

Manufacturer for the delivery of repair parts etc ( ⑥ ). Based on theseinformation, D-Production Control and the real human Production Control
determines the best plan for contingency (⑦), such as changing processing
method for reduction of the load on the faulty machine, avoiding faulty
equipment by changing the production plan, or scheduling early maintenance ofother equipment to minimize the stop-time of the whole plant. When thedecision is made, D-Floor (⑧) and D-Machine Tool (⑨) are notified of the newplan, and reflected to the real production actions (e.g., reduction of processing
speed, avoiding faulty sections, etc.).

Figure 4.6 Production plan adjustment due to functional deterioration36

c. Handling failure (Figure 4.7)
If actual equipment is to be repaired after the above temporary measures areapplied, the production plan is adjusted and a maintenance instruction for
relevant equipment is issued from the Production Control and then
D-Production Control ( ① , ②). Based on this instruction, D-Machine Tool
directs the real Machine Tool to terminate its operation (③, ④). At the sametime, D-Maintenance is directed to start maintenance (⑤), and Machine Tool
Manufacturer is requested for supplying repair parts and for support for the
maintenance, based on the previously–shared information on Machine Tool(⑥).
The real-world Maintenance sections receives the information of the failurefrom the from the cyber space (⑦), and perform the real action to Machine Tool(⑧), possible with a support from the Machine Tool Manufacturer's support
team as needed (⑦-b).

Figure 4.7 Handling failure37

Table 4.5 Information used in the normal state, degraded state, and failure state
Component name
Item
Remarks
1. Monitoring in the normal operating state (Figure 4.5)
MachineOperating status
Running, stopped, etc.
MachineProcessing
NC program name, sequence number, etc.
information
MachinePhysical behavior
Information of each axis such as the current
information
position, speed, load, temperature, and power
MachineUnit information
Usage frequency of relays, switches, magnets,
capacitors, etc.
MachineFunctional
Servo axis information (current/deviation) [%,deteriorationmm], vibration of each unit, sound, temperature
information(motors, ball screws), tool wear level, etc.
D-WorkProcessing result
Workpiece dimensional accuracy, etc.
information
Real-time data will be available by 2025.
D-Machine
Diagnostic
Information sharing between the user andinformation
Machine Tool Manufacturer and trend data
sharing between devices (③, ④)
2. Degraded operation due to functional deterioration, adjustment of production plan, andpreparation of maintenance (Figure 4.6)
MachineAlarm information
Figure 4.6 ①
D-Machine
Fault information③
D-Machine
Determination result Result determined using thresholds that are(Operator)
manually set
D-Machine
Prediction of
Details of functional deterioration or time ofdeterioration
expected functional halt (③)
D-FloorPrediction ofPrediction of a production plan not to be
production delay
achieved (④)
D-ProductionControl
Adjustment ofDelivery date of repair parts, support schedule
D-Maintenancemaintenanceusing the information available on Machine Tool
schedule
Manufacturer side (⑥)
Machine Tool
MachineEquipment characteristics and maintenance
D-Machine/
characteristics
information available on the Machine Tool
D-Machine Model
Manufacturer side (③-c)
D-Production Control Rescheduling ofRescheduling of the production plan toproduction plan
minimize the effect on the delivery date (⑧)
D-FloorRescheduling ofRescheduling of the machining plan due to themachining planchange of production plan (⑨)
D-Machine Tool
Instruction for
Instruction to decrease the processing speed todegraded operation continue production (⑩)
3. Handling failure (Figure 4.7)
D-Production Control Instruction to
From ① to ④
terminate production
D-Production Control Instruction/request
Procurement of parts for maintenance,(or D-Floor)
to start maintenance arrangement for work (⑤, ⑥)
D-Machine
Fault information(via D-Production Control and D-Maintenancein Figure 4.6) Information sent when function
deterioration occurs needs to be shared toperform actual maintenance.
38

5. Analysis of the machine tool interface enhanced with collective knowledge
In Chapter 4, three use cases were presented for the cyber-physicalmanufacturing system enhanced with collective knowledge, so that the actionsof manufacturing system components, information flows between thecomponents, and directions and judgments influencing the state of components
and the corresponding models made clear. As various use cases have to betaken into account in design, operation and maintenance of manufacturingsystems, it will be useful to integrate models created through analysis ofmultiple use cases and to analyze the characteristics of those models.
Figure 5.1 shows a manufacturing system model created by integrating threeuse cases. The next paragraphs summarize the findings from the analysis of
the figure and the use cases.

Figure 5.1 Integration of manufacturing system models for use cases
39

(1) Examinations of use case analysis results
Information about Work plays an important role in various use cases of themodel. In the use cases it was assumed that Work did not have an ability totransmit its own information (such as its ingredient characteristics and quality)
to the cyber space by itself (i.e., there are no lines directly connecting Work andD-Work). Despite that, information about Work obtained through various
components, including sensors, machine tools, material handling machines oroperators' actions, was supposed to be used at all levels of judgments anddirections in the operation management, quality control, maintenance and otherprocesses of the manufacturing system.
Information flows between components in the cyber space represent the
information dependence of each component. The left half of Figure 5.1 shows
D-Machine Tool is directly linked with D-Work, D-Operator and D-Floor,
resembling the operator environment at production lines of factories in the real
space. That indicates future use cases now being considered can basically bedeemed as an improved version of the current production environment.
Meanwhile, traditionally, production line administrators coordinate operations ofmachines and tools in factories. But as operations of various machines andtools are automated and far-sighted production control functions are introduced,
the line administrator is just required to manage each line separately and theadministrator role is absorbed into D-Production Control in the model. Thosechanges deviating from the conventional production environment could be
identified in the future as more dynamic structural changes in the information
flows if considering more innovative use cases.
In the use cases, alarms are regarded as information essential to startdecision-making and countermeasures when the behavior of manufacturingsystem components deviate from normal conditions. The information that starts
from the alarm of Machine Tool is processed through various decisions before
reaching D-Production Control, so new meanings will be added. This means
there are two types of alarms in terms of their meaning and significance: ones
that allow the starting point (primarily Machine Tool) to decide how to handle thesituation only based on its own information; and those for which40

countermeasures can be decided by D-Floor and D-Production Control only
after the production plan and other surrounding circumstances arecomprehensively examined. Those different types of alarms suggest thenecessity of categorizing signs of abnormalities that could occur at various
levels in integrated cyber-physical manufacturing systems based on whether
the abnormalities are serious or not, so that they can be transmitted to sections
that need them. If viewed from a different perspective, the model shows not
only information associated with D-Machine Tool but also part of information
belonging to D-Floor and D-Production Control or more specifically information
on surrounding circumstances, the production plan and quality requirements forprocessed goodsmay need to be provided to machine tools, so machine tools
will be able to quickly detect, judge and handle various abnormalities bythemselves alone in the near future.
(2) The retrieving process for the machine tool interface
In the model, decisions (circle arrows) are made in the cyber space inconnection with information on almost all of components in the cyber space.
Meanwhile, D-Operator is not given a judgment function, and there is an
information flow connecting Operator in the physical space with D-Work
through D-Operator. This does not mean judgments by Operator are notnecessary. It rather shows Operator in the physical space detects abnormalities
of machine tools and conditions of work, makes local decisions about the
production plan, quality control and other various topics, and gives specificdirections through operations of machine tools and work. (Model components
representing workers and work groups such as Operator and Quality Control,
which are circled in the physical space are assumed to make judgments tacitly
by themselves, and the corresponding arrows are omitted.) In the meantime, anext-generation machine tool that is essential for the cyber-physicalmanufacturing system enhanced with collective knowledge is required to beequipped with intelligence to complement the operator's judgments andknowledge from experience, so that more operator-friendly production will be
realized. Such a machine tool is also expected to have the interface to retrieve
information needed for that goal from the work environment.
Table 5.1 shows types of data on the interface of machine tools that can be41

collected through the analysis of use cases. Data categorized into the machine
tool in the physical space is information that should be obtained from machine
tools at factories (Machine Tool) to realize the use cases. Meanwhile, data
categorized into the machine tool in the cyber world (D-Machine Tool) is
information that should be owned by the internal model of the machine tool andreferred to in order to build models for other components. For purposes of those
types of data, see the table for each use case. As Table 5.1, of course, is notmade based on the results of analysis of all possible use cases, it does notcover the interface of all general machine tools. The table should be modified
when analyzing new use cases, and the data categorization method could befurther improved. However, analysis of the use cases based on the modeling of
the manufacturing system showed what type of information is provided to theinterface and how such data is transmitted can be clarified.
Table 5.1 Data on the analyzed machine tool interface
Component
nameMachineItem

Remarks

MachinePhysicalmovement data
Machining records

MachineMachineOperating status
Operating records

MachineUnit information

MachineAlarm information

MachineEquipment
information
Program number

Information such as current position, speed, location,load, temperature and electricity for each axis
Difference between planned and actual values
measured in seconds
Whether machines are working or suspended
Basic information measured in seconds to checkproduction line conditions (machining, being
suspended, setting off alarms)
How often relays, switches, magnets, condensers
and other units are used
Detailed information on set off alarms. Information
provided when alarms are set off.
Profile used to interpret alarm and machineconditions
0 number. Measured in seconds to checkmachining conditions.
Day maintenance becomes necessary is informed

MachineMachineD-Machine

Maintenanceforecasts
Machining
information
Equipment
degradation
information
Diagnosis data

D-Machine

Judgments

D-Machine

Degradation
forecasts

MachineMachineSuch as NC program names and sequence numbers
Servo axis information (electric current, deviation)[%, mm]; vibrations, sounds and temperatures ofparts (motors and ball screws); tool abrasion levels
Users' provision of information to manufacturers,
sharing of trends of multiple machines and tools
Machinery information judged by workers based on
threshold and other elements
Performance degradation and when machinery will
break down are forecast
42

D-Machine

Decision-making
in emergency

D-Machine

Degeneracy
movement
directions
Abnormality
information

D-Machine

Information on directions given to machine tools inemergency (such as steps to be continued orsuspended, work processing, and whether to redo
operations)
Directions such as ones to reduce machining speed
in order to continue production
Information sent to conduct maintenance when
performance degradation detected(3) Toward controlling accessibility to information on the interface
The results of analysis of the use cases in the previous chapter made clear
abstract information flows based on the purposes of each use case. When
hoping to clarify the characteristics and problems for certain cases in the stagesof putting smart manufacturing into practice (considering introducing a specificbusiness model), which relevant parties in and outside the factory should refer
to and update such information needs to be considered.
For example, a case where more than one worker is involved in a certain
operation is examined as follows. To consider problems associated withpersonal information and trade secrets exchanged between the related parties
in that instance, production facilities and information providers need to be
specified as extra categorization criteria so that whether certain information isaccessible (inaccessible) to appropriate (inappropriate) parties can beevaluated. Meanwhile, in order to consider issues related to the security (e.g.,
information leaks) and processing speed, both components in the cyber space(i.e., the internal model of components) and the mechanism to convert andprocess information between components need to be defined in connection
with specific components in the physical space (such as machine tools andremote servers). The mechanism of encapsulation of information, which makes
it possible to flexibly define accessibility to information depending on the typesof information and who access the information, is an important factor to put
smart manufacturing into practice. To design that mechanism for manufacturingsystems of various sizes from small-scale networks at factories of small andmidsize companies to large networks covering the whole value chain, theinternal model of components and the mechanism to convert and process
information need to be defined in connection with components in real space as
described above. Preconditions (e.g., the scale of factories, configuration of43

equipment and characteristics of networks), use cases (e.g., services to berealized), risks (e.g., phenomena that could occur during provision of services
and should be avoided), and other features are also necessary to individuallydesign the mechanism of encapsulation of information.

44

6. Conclusions
A model of the cyber-physical manufacturing system enhanced with collective
knowledge is a mechanism to realize future smart manufacturing, which will
fully use not only all types of information collected through manufacturingsystems but also workers' decision-making and other "kaizen" on-site
improvement activities. The report has shown three important use cases
based on the theme of productivity improvement, so that we can analyze thecharacteristics of the machine tool interface designed to retrieve the results ofplant workers' decision-making associated with productivity improvement.
The analysis results showed information collected through machine tools
includes a certain amount of information relating to on-site workers' advanced
decision-making. Because of that, next generation machine tools will be
required to be equipped with an interface to efficiently obtain such information.
This is a common issue facing the machine tool industry and all relevant parties
in the industry should work together to propose solutions to the issue. The
consideration results in this report have won broad support from Japan's
machine tool industry, and stakeholders involved in the lifecycle ofmanufacturing systems are currently working together to make preparations forbuilding a cyber-physical manufacturing system enhanced with collective
knowledge.
As a growing number of people in society come to see manufacturing systems
as a kind of cyber-physical systems, various decision-making processes inmanufacturing systems are expected to be automated, resulting in a drastic
improvement in productivity. Despite those benefits, if information and models
to be used in the cyber space are insufficiently prepared, results judged as"good" in the cyber space could not comply with the rules and common
knowledge in reality (the physical space), causing serious damage to the realworld. To prevent that from occurring, a cyber-physical system enhanced withcollective knowledge should also flexibly refer to on-site workers' decisions.
As the birthrate continues to decline and the population ages in Japan, theproduction worker population in the nation is expected to decline drastically inthe future. To realize a cyber-physical manufacturing system enhanced with45

collective knowledge, it will be necessary to optimize the balance between
automated decision-making processes based on all kinds of informationcollected through manufacturing systems (with artificial intelligence and othertechnologies) and decisions by on-site workers who have knowledge on thefacilities. Depending on the country and region, the working demographics, thework style, the proportion of lifetime of installed manufacturing systems, andother factors differ greatly. Nevertheless, the basic idea of cyber-physicalmanufacturing systems enhanced with collective knowledge will likely be able
to be put into practice even for manufacturing systems outside Japan, while
effectively using the characteristics of the country and region.
For realization of the vision of smart manufacturing as illustrated in Chapter 2,
the next step of our work includes application of the proposed information
modeling to visualization and evaluation of various important issues such as theintegration of supply chains and engineering chains and cyber security such as
information leakage with use cases.

46

Members of the Industrial Machinery Steering Committee,
WG for manufacturing business revolution through IoT(Chair)Waseda University

Akiyoshi Kabe

Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences(Vice-chair)
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Yutaka Oiwa

Leader,Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
Information Technology Research Institute[Alphabetical Order]

DMG Mori Co., Ltd. Makoto Fujishima

Senior Executive Officer
Manufacturing and Development Headquarters
in charge of Electrical circuit/control

FANUC Corp.

Shunsuke Matsubara
Member of the Board Executive Managing
Officer
General Manager, Research & Development
Administration Division

Fujitsu Ltd.

Hiroyuki Kumagai

Principal Consultant
Industry Business Development Unit

Hitachi, Ltd.

Akio Hamaoka

Chief Engineer
Production Engineering Promotion Department
MONOZUKURI Strategy Division

JTEKT Corp.

Masakazu Isaka

Member of the Board
Executive Vice-President

Shirou Nakano

Senior Fellow

Mitsubishi Electric Corp.
Koji Yasui

Senior Chief Engineer
Industrial Automation Machinery Marketing
Division
Factory Automation Systems Group47

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Shunsuke Kondoh

Senior Researcher
Mathematical Modelling and Design Group
Advanced Manufacturing Research Institute

Okuma Corp.

Atsushi Ieki

Executive Director
Division Manager, Technology Division

Yamazaki Mazak Corp.
Yasuhiko Ohno

Managing Officer
Deputy Officer of Production Headquarters

Isamu Inazuru

Corporate Officer
General Manager of BEST Promotion
Department(Supported by)
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Manufacturing Industries Policy Office, Manufacturing Industries Bureau
Shinji Tokumasu

Director for Manufacturing Industry Systems andDigitalization

Naoki Ando

Deputy Director

Hiromi Sakamoto

Assistant Director

Fusato Sakakibara

Assistant Director

Industrial Machinery Division, Manufacturing Industries Bureau
Ryuichi Kataoka

Director

Yuji Shiozaki

Deputy Director

Hitoshi Komoto

Assistant Director

Toshiya Marume

Assistant Director

48

Members of the Interface Consideration Group,
Industrial Machinery Steering Committee,
WG for manufacturing business revolution through IoT(Chair)Waseda University

Akiyoshi Kabe

Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences(Vice-chair)
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Yutaka Oiwa

Leader,Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
Information Technology Research Institute[Alphabetical Order]

DMG Mori B.U.G. Co., Ltd.
Masafumi Takahashi Group Manager
Network Development Group
Control Software Development Department
Machine Tool Control Development Division
FANUC Corp.

Norinaga Mutai

Manager, FA System Department
FA System Division
FA Business Division

Fujitsu Ltd.

Shusaku Nishiyama Manager, Innovation Promote Dept.
Production System Innovation Div.
Technology & MONOZUKURI Business Unit

Hitachi, Ltd.

Akio Hamaoka

Chief Engineer
Production Engineering Promotion Department
MONOZUKURI Strategy Division

JTEKT Corp.

Yoshitaro Ohsaki

Assistant Manager
Software Development Group
Control Unit Development Office
Mechatronics Control Engineering Dept.

49

Mitsubishi Electric Corp.
Yoshihiko Tsurumi

Manager
FA Systems Dept. 2

Kotaro Nagaoka

Senior Manager
NC System Planning Group
Numerical Control System Dept.

National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Shunsuke Kondoh

Senior Researcher
Mathematical Modelling and Design Group
Advanced Manufacturing Research Institute

Okuma Corp.

Norihito Eguchi

Manager
IT Plaza Development, FA R&D Department
FA Systems Division

Yamazaki Mazak Corp.
Osamu AoyamaGroup Leader
Solution Development
Engineering Headquarters

50

Series Toward Realization of Smart Manufacturing Systems
April 2016: Improvement of the Machining Process Productivity Based on the
Machine Tool Technology
March 2017: Cyber-Physical Manufacturing System Enhanced with Collective
Knowledge
51