Enterprise Modelling support to Knowledge Management

1Date Title 1 Bucharest 130320 CHT workshop

The International Virtual Laboratory for Enterprise Interoperability

Enterprise Modelling support to Knowledge Management

Professor Guy DoumeingtsProfessor Emeritus University Bordeaux 1

General Manager INTEROP-VLab

2Title 2 Bucharest 130320 CHT Workshop


Plan

• INTEROP-Vlab• Enterprise Modelling• A case Study : how to improve the performance of a

manufacturing system ?• Conclusions



INTEROP-VLab



Enterprise Interoperability definition

“The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged” (IEEE, 1990)

“Capability of a system or a product to interact with other systems or products without specific effort from the user” (INTEROP-NoE definition May 2004)

“ the ability of an enterprise system or application to interact with others at a low cost in a flexible approach (INTEROP-VLab definition, April 2007)”



I-VLab: the result of several years of EI development

• Created in March 2007, www.interop-vlab.eu

• From the Network of Excellence INTEROP-NoE (Interoperability Research for Networked Enterprise Applications and Software, FP6 508011, 42 months, 50 partners, 12 M€ Budget, 6,5 M€ EC funds)

• INTEROP-VLab is a non-profit international association under the Belgian Law (aisbl)

• Grouping 9 regional poles, bringing together leading academics, research centers, industrial stakeholders, SMEs, from 11 European countries and from China, 56 partners and more than 300 researchers



Missions

To maintain and develop the defragmentation of the ERA (European Research Area) in cooperation with other regions of the world, in order:

• To support the development of the research, education, innovation, standard in Enterprise Interoperability and associated domains as Enterprise Systems and Applications (ESA) and Application of Future Internet (AFI)

• To be an Excellence Centre in the domain of Enterprise Interoperability and the associated domains at the world wide level



INTEROP-VLab China Pole, Harbin (Cn), a SIG*, represented by HIT, 15 partners

DFI e. V. Pole, Berlin (G), a German association, (Deutsches Forum für Interoperabilität), 8 partners

INTEROP North Pole (Sweden, Norway, Finland), Helsinki (FI), a SIG*, repr. by University of Helsinki, 8 partners

INTEROP-VLab.IT Pole, Roma (IT), an Italian non-profit making scientific association, 7 partners

INTERVAL Pole, Valencia (S), a Spanish non-profit association, 8 partners

Portuguese Pole, Lisbon (PT), a SIG*, repr. by UNINOVA, 4 partners

GSO Pole (Grand Sud-Ouest), Bordeaux (F), a SIG*, repr. by Univ. Bordeaux 1, 17 partners

INTEROP-VLab UK Pole, Coventry (UK), a Limited without shares organization, repr. by TANet, 3 partners

Pole Grande Region (Lorraine, Belgium, Luxembourg), Nancy (FR), a SIG*, repr. by University Nancy Poincare, 4 partners

The INTEROP-VLab Member Poles



GRAI Methodology



What is Enterprise Modelling?

• The representation of activities of the enterprise according to different points of view :o Fonctions, Decisions, Processes, Information ..., o Technical, Economical, Social, Human, ...,

• Under two interconnected views :o Global view : Concepts of system : objectives, structure,

functionalities, evolution (dynamic), linked with the environment,o Local view : detailed description according to the concepts of

activities and processes.



Developpement of Enterprise Modelling• Creation in States in 1980: ICAM Definition_ ICAM (Integrated Computer

Aided Manufacturing) project (US AIR FORCE_DARPA)_ SADT_• Three initial Methodologies:

o IDEF0_IDEF 1_IDEF2 (ICAM Definition) now (Integrated Definition) o GRAI (1980) Graph with Results and Activities Interrelated)o PERA (1980) Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture)

• GERAM (1993) Generic Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodologies: Result of a task Force: IFIP_IFAC

• CIMOSA (1995) (Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open System Architecture) Result of European Project

• BPM: Business Process Modeling (1995): ARIS• Our Conclusion: to model an Enterprise:

o Concepts of System,o Formalisms: Function, Process, Information, Decision (Governance),

Resources,



The GRAI model

Control System / Controled System

EXTERNALINFORMATIONS

CONTROL SYSTEM

Objectives

FeedbackControlactions

CONTROLED SYSTEM

ProductsServices

CustomersSuppliersCustomers

PurchasingInformation{ {



The GRAI model

Control System

CUSTOMERSSUPPLIERS

DECISIONS = INFORMATIONS +

OBJECTIVESDECISION VARIABLES (DV)CRITERIA (FOR DV)CONSTRAINTS (ON DV){

DECISIONSYSTEM

INFORMATIONSYSTEM

PHYSICAL SYSTEM Controlled System

PURCHASINGINFORMATION

PRODUCTSSERVICES CUSTOMERS

ExternalInformation



GRAI® Structured approach

Process

to understand and evaluate

Physical

Decision

Information

Implementing improvements (ST, MT, LT)

Manage evolution

(indicators)

Design of New system

Information

Decision

Physical

Conceptual models of existing system

ST : Short TermMT : Medium TermLT : Long Term

Existing system

Future system

Conceptual models of future system

CONCEPTUAL LEVEL

REALISATIONAL LEVEL

Functions

Process

Functions

Objectives

Modeling



The actors

Project board

Interviewees(Supply of

Informations)

GRAI specialists and Analysts(Supports a study)

propose

Analysis &Validation

Supply of Informations

Validationworking groups

(Working for solutions)

Synthesis Group Main deciders(Realises a study)

proposeAnalysis &Validation

Define the objectives and the domain of the studyEvaluate and valid the results

Specialist



Example of Study Planning The actors

3/4 months maximum 3/4 months maximum

Double arrow = Framework

Synthesis Group

Interviews

Working Groups

Board Group

Modelling / Diagnosis Design



A real case Study : how to improve the performance of a manufacturing system?



Industrial context (1)

• Performance improvement of a Manufacturing S.M.E. belonging to a Groupo Lead time are not respectedo Financial situation very serious

• The context :o complete re-engineering of the groupo Difficult social situation o three studies of re-organisation in last three years : no

improvement

Objectives of the study



Industrial context (2)

• The products : moulds for casting, containers for electronic, punch/tool, dies and complex assembly

• The resources of production : 20 CNC machines, 60 conventional machines, CAD/CAM system, machine for the 3-dimensional control

• Production order: o lead time of order : 1 to 6 weeks (average 4 to 6 weeks)o number of orders : 40 to 60 / montho very small batch

• Existing functions : design, process, production, quality, commercial

The production



Modelling phase (AS IS) (2)PLANNING

PB

SG

IModelling phase diagnosis

phaseDesign phase

PB1 8/ 6

SG1 (15 / 6)SG2 28/6 SG3 18/7 SG4

24/8 a.m.

PB2 24/8 p.m.

SG5

Double arrow = communication

PB : Project BoardSG : Synthesis GroupI : Interviews

1 Meeting of Project Board3 Meeting of Synthesis group15 Interviews



Modelling phase (AS IS) (1)

• Elaboration of a planning• Elaboration of Models :

oFunctionaloPhysicaloDecisionaloPocesses

• By a succession of:oMeetings of synthesis groupo Interviews to collect Knowledge

• Elaboration of Information Model

Presentation




Functional view, Physical System• using the formalism ACTIGRAMME,• the Models A-0, A0 are performed by the synthesis group,• the further decompositions : A1, A2, ... A11, A23, .. A321, A422

are performed by INTERVIEWS.Important : to choose the interviewees with the synthesis group (safe of time).

Criteria to stop :• To define accurately the objectives of the modelling :

example : Functional view : to understand the global behaviour of the SME.• To stop the decomposition when we think to have sufficient

information to reach the objectives.

Elaboration of the Models




• Decisional system:

GRAI Grid : performed with the Synthesis group

GRAI Nets : performed by interviews

Remark : the acquisition of informations by the GRAI Nets allows to improve the Grid.

• Information System :

In the study, by lack of time, the Information was modelled after

Elaboration of the Models



Modelling phase (AS IS)(5)









Modelling phase (AS IS) (8)DECISIONAL SYSTEM : GRAI GRID V4

In fo . In t.

II

F o n c tio n s

N iv e a u x

M is e à jo u r P S C

A ju s te r c h a rg e

V é rifie r a p p ro s

L a n c e r e n p re p a ra tio n

L a n c e r e n é tu d e

P ris e d e c d e s ,

R e la n c e s

P ro p o s itio n D e v is C lie n ts

P S C (P V 6 8 ,

T a b le 5 8 )

A ju s te r c a p a c ite s (G R 4 0 )

A n a ly s e re ta rd s / P la n n in g s e m a in e

E v a l. re s u lta ts

c o m .

R e to u r S /TM o d if. C lie n tR e c e p tio n

a p p ro v.

C a rn e t d e c d e s

P ro s p e c tio n s

R e p o rtin g C o m m e rc ia l (à P A R IS )

B u d g e t

S u iv i P ro d u c tio n

(P S C - A C C E P T )

R e s u lta ts / o b je c tifs q u a lite

C o m p a re r re s u lta ts /

b u d g e t

B u d g e tC A


E ffe c tifs

F a ire p ré v is io n s

c o m m e rc ia le s

B u d g e t (re p a rti

p a r s e c tio n )

H = 1 S e m a in e (s )

5 0 P = 1 J o u r(s )

H = 1 S e m a in e (s )

4 0 P = 1 S e m a in e (s )

H = 1 A n n é e (s )

3 0 P = 2 S e m a in e (s )

H = 1 M o is

2 0 P = 1 M o is

H = 1 A n n é e (s )

1 0 P = 1 A n n é e (s )

G e re r Q u a l.

G Q

G e re r R e s s .

G R

P la n ifie r

P L

G e re r P ro d .

G P

G e re r P re p a .

G P R

G e re r B E

G B E

G e re r C o m .

G C

In fo . e x t.

IE

F M1 8 /0 7 /9 44M O D E L IS A T IO NG rille d 'A n a ly s ed e m o f

A n a ly s teD a te d e C ré a tio nV e rs io nP h a s eN o m G rilleE tu d eIM A G IM

B u d g e t (re p a rti

p a r s e c tio n )

M is e à jo u r P S C

A ju s te r c h a rg e

V é rifie r a p p ro s

L a n c e r e n p re p a ra tio n

L a n c e r e n é tu d e

P ris e d e c d e s ,

R e la n c e s

P ro p o s itio n D e v is C lie n ts

P S C (P V 6 8 ,

T a b le 5 8 )

A ju s te r c a p a c ite s (G R 4 0 )

A n a ly s e re ta rd s / P la n n in g s e m a in e

E v a l. re s u lta ts

c o m .

R e to u r S /TM o d if. C lie n tR e c e p tio n

a p p ro v.


P ro s p e c tio n s

R e p o rtin g C o m m e rc ia l (à P A R IS )

B u d g e t

S u iv i P ro d u c tio n

(P S C - A C C E P T )

R e s u lta ts / o b je c tifs q u a lite

C o m p a re r re s u lta ts /

b u d g e t

B u d g e tC A


E ffe c tifs

F a ire p ré v is io n s

c o m m e rc ia le s



Modelling phase (AS IS)(9)DECISIONAL SYSTEM : GRAI NET




• The models were validated by the synthesis group at the meeting SG3.

• Functional (version 2 or version 3) : A-0, A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 + one level of decomposition.

• Physical system (version 2) : A-0, A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6.

• Decisional system :

o GRAI Grid : version 4o GRAI Net : 5 GRAI Nets

Conclusion



Diagnosis Phase (1)

Meeting of the Synthesis Group SG4 : evaluation of the diagnosis phase

• Listing of "points to improve" and strong points• Looking for solution tracks• Identification of Design constraints

Meeting of the Project Board PB2• validation of the diagnosis results evaluation• confirmation of design targets• validation of constraints

The meetings



Diagnosis Phase(2)

The diagnosis is performed from : • GRAI Rules for modelling

• The knowledge of analysts

• The knowledge of synthesis group members

Working Method



Diagnosis Phase (3)

Role of the function "Scheduling" : all the pieces are going through the function "Scheduling"

• Important manual work increases the global cycle (time of transfert, waiting time, important products in progress)

Function " Scheduling " : lot of activities of different nature (scheduling, logistic, maintenance…) difficult to improve together

Activity Bid - Preparation : not accurate evaluation of the lead time • difficulties to plan

Functional view



Diagnosis Phase (4)

All the parts have to go through the Scheduling

All the parts have to go through the control• increase the producting cycle and increase the costs • wrong circulation of the physical flow

Evaluation of some performance indicators :• Ratio of flow tension (Horizon of the production / Total

operative times for one unit of the finished products)• Number of the orders' delay• Distance of transportation of products• Rate of inventory turnover

Physical System



Diagnosis Phase (5)

Organisation in job-shop of production in comparison to an organisation by load centre

Strong points : • Excellent ability of operators• Quality products

Questions :• Reduction of products number regarding enterprise strategy ?• Relationships with commercial department (evaluation of lead

time)

Physical System



Diagnosis Phase (6)

Lack of planning at long term level :• no anticipation and no evaluation of the consequences on the

capacity and supply

• the management of the purchasing and of the subcontracting make is made at short term : no optimisation

• lack of information from commercial department and few follow up

• no integration between the functions of the system

Decisional System : global model



Diagnosis Phase (7)

Lack of planning at medium term level :• difficulties to adapt the capacity to the load

• no synchronisation with the other functions

o commercial : information on the situation to the load

o preparation : validation of lead time

o to manage products : to evaluate the implications of the delivery delays

o to manage resources : to anticipate the overloads or sub-loads

Decisional System : global model



Diagnosis Phase (8)

• Majority of event driven decisions : few anticipation

• Few action means at medium term (PL20 et PL40)

• Few criteria for the decision making (cost, lead time)

• Good capacity of adaptation and flexibility (short term)

Decisional System : detailed model (Nets)



Conclusions of the Diagnosis Phase(9)

Points to improve• Lack of decisions for anticipation at medium and long terms• Action Means and flexibility are bad used because of the short

term system troubles • Lack in the cost and lead time master• Concept of contract not enough used

Strong Points• High adaptation and reactivity• Good technical skills• High level of product quality



Design phase of target system (TO BE) (1)

1 - Study of physical flow.

2 - Reorganisation of service "Scheduling".

3 - Implementation of a system planning.

4 - Strategic and commercial actions.

5 - Definition of procedures for the Quality control .

6 - Methodological and supports software tool for the preparation

• 6 solutions tracks




PlanningPB

SG

WG

DESIGN PHASE

PB : Project BoardSG : Synthesis GroupWG : Working Group (6 groups)

SG5 (31/8) SG6 (22/9) SG7 (20/10)

PB3 (4/11)

SG8 (16/11)

Double arrows = decision frame




• Hierarchical planning system implementation



Design phase of target system (TO BE) (4)Decisional System



The action plan

• A set of concrete actions such as :



Choice and implementation of a software with GIMSOFT



CONCLUSIONS on the study

On the study• Exemplary study

o Top management involvemento Actors involvemento Action planning

On the performance• Turn over increase : 10%• Customer service level improvement• Number of firm orders / Number of quotation in increase



Questions on the interest of the approach

Enterprise Modelling is very complex and not efficient: is it true now?

The method could replace a consultant? How? In which condition? The collected knowledge could be reuse for the next evolution? The collected knowledge can be considered as a “MAP” to help to determine the continuous evolution of the enterprise ? This Knowledge is the equivalent of the knowledge concerning the

design of a part? This knowledge is inside the head of the people of the enterprise :

do we need a Knowledge Keeper and not a consultant?

Last comment: : the employees of the enterprise They know problems and have ideas for solutions: they need to be supported in a structured way



Conclusions

• Concrete example of use of Enterprise Modelling

• Possibility to combine with ECOGRAI (methodology to define and implement Performance Indicators ) (developped in cooperation with KAPLAN (Harvard), father of BSC( Balanced Score Card)

• Use of EM in Servitization (MSEE: Manufacturing SErvice Ecosystem) EC Project

• Use of EM for Supply Chain System(cooperation between Enterprises) or for ECOSYSTEM

Documents

Enterprise Modelling support to Knowledge Management