Synchronous communication in PLM environments using annotated CAD models

Camba, Jorge D.; Contero, Manuel; Salvador-Herranz, Gustavo; Plumed, Raquel

doi:10.1007/s11518-016-5305-5

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Basically, the authors in [9] propose some methodological assistance to select the most appropriate PLM system for SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises). For this aim, they suggest an approach for a selection process based on determining the need, organizing the evaluation, identifying management, functional, technical and integration requirements, and evaluating a potential vendor partner.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we have also covered some related works to propose and implement our feature model. On the one hand, we consider Camba et al's paper [9] that explains the importance of synchronous communication in PLM environments because, despite significant advances in the area of PLM, most tools are used as separate services disconnected from existing development environments. The authors propose a solution based on annotated CAD (Computer Aided Design) models.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An approach to characterize and evaluate the quality of Product Lifecycle Management Software Systems

Enríquez

Sanchez-Begines

Mayo

et al. 2019

Computer Standards & Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) is an information management system that can integrate data, processes, business systems and staff in a company, in general. PLM allows managing efficiently and economically the information that all these elements generate from the initial idea to design, manufacture, maintenance and elimination phases of the product lifecycle. PLM has to include processes and tools to assure the quality of the final products. This way, it is difficult for PLM experts (from aeronautical or automation organizations, among others) to find an environment that suggests which is the best PLM solution that copes with their necessities. A number of PLM solutions are available for this purpose, but experts require a suitable mechanism to select the most appropriate one for the specific context of each organization. For this purpose, this paper presents a quality model, based on QuEF (Quality Evaluation Framework), that aims at helping organizations choose the most useful PLM solution for their particular environments. This model supports both static and dynamic aspects that may be customized for any kind of organization and taken as reference model. Particularly, our approach has been validated in the context of large enterprises in the aeronautical industry within a real R&D project carried out between our research group and Airbus.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approach to characterize and evaluate the quality of Product Lifecycle Management Software Systems

Enríquez

Sanchez-Begines

Mayo

et al. 2019

Computer Standards & Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Advancements in computer-aided design (CAD) technology provide potential for the device to be used to assess usability, but the software has limitations. Currently CAD models are used to assist with design review [14][15][16][17][18], create virtual replicas of the final product and associated inform design documentation [19,20], communicate design ideas [21,22], and perform simulations on device assembly [23][24][25]. These uses involve minimal to no interaction with the models by the potential users, therefore usability cannot be evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Low-Fidelity Virtual Replicas of Products for Usability Testing

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designers perform early-stage formative usability tests with low-fidelity prototypes to improve the design of new products. This low-tech prototype style reduces the manufacturing resources but limits the functions that can be assessed. Recent advances in technology enable designers to create low-fidelity 3D models for users to engage in a virtual environment. Three-dimensional models communicate design concepts and are not often used in formative usability testing. The proposed method discusses how to create a virtual replica of a product by assessing key human interaction steps and addresses the limitations of translating those steps into a virtual environment. In addition, the paper will provide a framework to evaluate the usability of a product in a virtual setting, with a specific emphasis on low-resource online testing in the user population. A study was performed to pilot the subject’s experience with the proposed approach and determine how the virtual online simulation impacted the performance. The study outcomes demonstrated that subjects were able to successfully interact with the virtual replica and found the simulation realistic. This method can be followed to perform formative usability tests earlier and incorporate subject feedback into future iterations of their design, which can improve safety and product efficacy.

show abstract

“…pointed out by Toepfer and Naumann (2017), whether there is a methodological silver bullet for handling complexity in product development, such as is often promised.Research suggests that successful development of complex systems is only possible by close collaboration between specialists (Peter Hehenberger, Howard, & Torry-Smith, 2016). Both in industry and research, collaboration originates when specialists from various disciplines work together to accomplish common goals, increase performance, and reduce development time and costs without compromising quality (Camba, Contero, Salvador-Herranz, & Plumed, 2016). Therefore, through collaboration it should be possible to overcome limitations of individuals and to obtain system development e ciencies, effectiveness, and innovation (Friedenthal, 2017;Grogan & de Weck, 2016).With regards to the design process, it is particularly important to emphasize collaboration in the early stages of the design process, when multi-disciplinary teams are working together and searching for concepts, because this is when most of the development cost is committed (…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research suggests that successful development of complex systems is only possible by close collaboration between specialists (Peter Hehenberger, Howard, & Torry-Smith, 2016). Both in industry and research, collaboration originates when specialists from various disciplines work together to accomplish common goals, increase performance, and reduce development time and costs without compromising quality (Camba, Contero, Salvador-Herranz, & Plumed, 2016). Therefore, through collaboration it should be possible to overcome limitations of individuals and to obtain system development e ciencies, effectiveness, and innovation (Friedenthal, 2017;Grogan & de Weck, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering Complexity beyond the surface: Discerning the viewpoints, the drivers, and the challenges

Morales

Nizamis

Bonnema

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complexity is often regarded as a “problem” to solve. Instead of yet again attempting to solve complexity, we follow systems engineering practices and switch back to the problem domain. A major obstacle in the problem domain is the impossibility to universally define complexity. As a workaround, we explored complexity characterization and identified shortcomings of the existing characterizations. The shortcomings include lack of standardization, inconsistent semantics, system-centricity, insufficiently transparent reasoning, and lack of validation. To address these shortcomings, we proposed a framework to characterize complexity by adapting three questions (who, why, what) from the Five Ws information-gathering method. The answer to the WHO-question proposed four complexity viewpoints; the answer to the WHY-question proposed a two-dimensional structure to identify complexity drivers; and the answer to the WHAT-question derived generalized complexity challenges. We used a systematic mapping study (SMS) to validate the framework. In general, our findings suggest that papers with complexity solutions do not frame their research within the complexity problem domain, hindering the contribution evaluation. Through the viewpoints, we identified general research gaps of six solution directions. From the drivers, we noted three observations in the discourse of complexity origins: 1) a system-driven tendency, 2) a preference for concreteness vs. abstraction, and 3) an unclear distinction between origins and effects. Through the challenges’ findings we supported two hypotheses: 1) a system-centric preference; and 2) a solution-oriented vision. This application of our framework exemplifies its potential to facilitate and structure future research, both in the problem and solution domains.

show abstract

Synchronous communication in PLM environments using annotated CAD models

Cited by 6 publications

References 51 publications

An approach to characterize and evaluate the quality of Product Lifecycle Management Software Systems

An approach to characterize and evaluate the quality of Product Lifecycle Management Software Systems

Development of Low-Fidelity Virtual Replicas of Products for Usability Testing

Engineering Complexity beyond the surface: Discerning the viewpoints, the drivers, and the challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About