CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 477–480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology

jou rnal homep age : ht t p: // ees .e lse vi er . com /ci r p/ def a ult . asp

Benefit quantification of interoperability in coordinate metrology

E. Savio (2)a,*, S. Carmignato (2)b, L. De Chiffre (1)c
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua, via Venezia 1, 35131 Padova, Italy
b
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Stradella S. Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the factors contributing to limited reproducibility of coordinate measurements is the use of different
Manufacturing
inspection software. Time-consuming efforts for translation of part programmes are sometimes needed, and
Economics
interoperability of inspection equipment has the potential to reduce these inefficiencies. The paper presents
Coordinate metrology
a methodology for an economic evaluation of interoperability benefits with respect to the verification of
geometrical product specifications. It requires input data from testing and inspection activities, as well as
information on training of personnel and licensing of software. The model is illustrated using an automotive
case study and the related assessment of an investment in interoperability.
ß 2014 CIRP.

1. Introduction for debugging and validation. This time-consuming activity is not

Modern manufacturing is characterised by globalised produc-
tion of parts and subsystems, assembled into final products. The
role of metrology in manufacturing is fundamental, as demon-
strated e.g. by the large number of coordinate measuring machines
(CMMs) available at automotive production facilities as well as in
energy, aerospace and other relevant industries [1].
Quality control efforts are today often distributed in different
plants and locations, and the durable inspection equipment available
at these manufacturing facilities may be diverse, due to a number of
reasons. Inspection equipment from a specific manufacturer is, in
some cases, justified by metrological reasons e.g. very specialised
measurements, patented measuring solutions, ultraprecision mea-
surements. However, in many cases, equipment from different
manufacturers may be regarded as equivalent in terms of capabilities
andmetrologicalperformances.Inthelattercase,varietyofinspection
equipment within production facilities is the consequence of several
and sometimes concomitant reasons: lack of specific corporate
standardisation guidelines, different previous production focus,
different previous owner of the plant, procurement policy, local effort
in sales and support by equipment vendors, and others. As a
consequence, when production of a specific part is moved from one
location to another (e.g. from prototype to series production, or from
one country to another), there might be inefficiencies due to limited
reproducibility of measurements, resulting in wrong acceptance/
rejection decisions. One of the most important factors contributing to
limited reproducibility of measurements is the use of different
inspection software, preventing the use of the same part programme;
this may results in different implementations of the measuring
strategy and data evaluation. To ensure good reproducibility, careful
re-codingofthemeasuringprogrammeisneededwithassociatedtime
* Corresponding author.
adding value, and therefore should be avoided.
The need of interoperability as well as its expected benefits
have been addressed by various authors, with focus on the
exchange of technical product data in computer-aided design and
engineering in the automotive industry, and potential savings of
billions of USD have been reported [2,3]. The STEP standardisation
project [4] and related application protocols (APs) development
efforts are the best known example towards general interopera-
bility at industrial level.
The lack of true interoperability due to limited or no compatibility
of measuring programmes, interfaces and control systems is still a
peculiarity of the inspection equipment industry. By comparison,
machine tools feature an higher level of interoperability: users have
more degrees of freedom for independent selection of machine tool,
control system and CAM software while CMM users are more limited
in independent selection of measuring equipment and software.
As a matter of fact, the need for true interoperability within a
specific company may force single-supplier solutions, especially in
small-medium enterprises, the selection of new inspection
equipment being restricted to a specific vendor. This is somewhat
conflicting with the requirements of large organisations in the
automotive industry, whose procurement policy may refuse a
single-supplier solution to preserve independency, flexibility and
cost reduction potential for future investment needs, as well as to
reduce the risk of potential discontinuation of maintenance
services and associated production stops.
Well known efforts towards interoperability of CMMs are the
Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard (DMIS) that defines a
neutral language for communication between information sys-
tems and dimensional measurement equipment [5], and the I++
DME initiative supported by seven European automobile manu-
facturers [6], that allows running a dimensional inspection part
programme in a supported CMM software on different brands of
measuring machines.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.037
0007-8506/ß 2014 CIRP.
478 E. Savio et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 477–480
The actual implementation of an interoperability project within
a specific company is therefore possible using one or more of the
mentioned tools, however the related decision-making process
requires the quantification of the economic benefits and associated
costs. While costs are relatively easy to identify, benefit
quantification related to metrological activities is more complex
[7,8] since it requires mapping of redundant work in programming
CMMs as well as understanding of other potential savings. Benefit
quantification is even more challenging when interoperability is
required among CMMs implemented at different steps of the
product development process, e.g. between a CMM for prototype
testing in a R&D department and a CMM in a manufacturing plant.
In the following, a methodology for the quantification of
benefits of interoperability in coordinate metrology is presented
and illustrated using an industrial case study.
2. Model for the assessment of an investment for CMM
interoperability
The general model for the assessment of an investment in
inspection equipment is based on the quantification of both costs
and benefits. Investment costs are relatively easy to quantify:
depending on the existing equipment and target interoperability
level,theymayincludecostsforretrofitting(i.e.newhardware,control
system, software) or replacement of CMMs, new or upgrade of
measuringsoftware, initialtrainingofprogrammersand operatorson
the new system, redesign of databases and management procedures,
as well as costs for metrological validation of the new system, i.e.
intercomparisons of measurements on relevant case studies. These
one-off costs can be estimated, in the framework of a feasibility study,
onthebasis ofoffersfromvendorsofCMMequipment and software as
well as using common internal accounting procedures.
Benefits are more evasive in nature and may require significant
efforts for quantification, e.g. detailed analysis of company records
on past programming activities, as well as consensus on the
approach for the actual computation. The following main savings
can be identified:
(a) reduction of CMM programming costs, as a result of elimina-
tion or reduction of redundant programming efforts;
(b) reduction of operating costs e.g. periodic training of personnel,
software licensing and maintenance, or outsourcing due to
overload of internal programmers;
(c) reduction of unproductive time related to delay and inefficien-
cy of CMM programming activities.
Section 3 illustrates how these savings can be quantified
according to the proposed methodology.
Other benefits in interoperability can be summarised as follows:
(d) reduced dependency from a single vendor of measuring equip-
ment, flexibility and cost reduction potential for future invest-
ments, reduced risk of discontinuation of maintenance services;
(e) time compression in product development, reduced time-to-
market, reduced work in progress and inventory.
Accurate quantification of benefits d–e is complex and beyond
the scope of the work here presented. Some authors [2] investigated
analogous benefits of interoperability in data exchange for
computer-aided design and engineering; they assessed their extent
on the basis of interviews of key industry executives.
Once benefits are quantified, common managerial procedures
for the evaluation of investments can be used to calculate relevant
quantities and indicators, such as the calculation of the net present
value (NPV) over N years:
X
N
CF h
NPV ¼ CF 0 þ h
(1)
h¼1 ð1 þ rÞ
where CF0 is the initial investment cost, CFh is the annual cash flow
and r is the interest rate. CFh can be calculated as total value of
annual savings made possible by interoperability investments,
including taxation effects and excluding the initial investment
cost. Other useful indicators are the internal rate of return (IRR)
and the payback period [9].
3. Assessment of benefits of interoperability
The methodology is illustrated with reference to CMM based
inspection of prismatic parts, to be later assembled in automotive
products. Due to high part variety, to reduce complexity, modelling
of benefits is performed at part family level. Therefore, parts are
grouped into families using group technology, i.e. based on
similarity of function, geometry and production step.
Benefits a–c as identified above can be computed as differential
costs between two scenarios: AS-IS (no interoperability) and TO-BE
(interoperability). For better clarity, interoperability is here
intended between two measuring systems: CMM-A and CMM-B;
it is expected that CMM-B will take the benefit from interopera-
bility, i.e. part programmes of CMM-A might be reused to run
CMM-B. It is also assumed that metrological performances,
measuring strategy and evaluation of measurands using a CMM-
B are equivalent in both scenarios; this means that costs of the AS-
IS scenario include all efforts to develop part programmes for
CMM-B fully equivalent to those available for CMM-A.
3.1. Savings from reduction of programming costs
The approach for quantification of programming costs is based
on the assumption that in both scenarios these costs should be
minimised, using the available resources (i.e. programmers and
CMM) in optimal manner. Therefore, modelling of their activity is
required, as well as information on the demand. For a realistic
assessment, the procedure is using as input information the
foreseen demand of programming tasks for CMM-B, including their
maintenance over a period of time.
Programming costs are related to time and resources need by
the following tasks: programming (online or offline), debugging,
documentation of measuring instructions, testing using a real part,
and other minor tasks. The time taken by most of these activities is
usually linearly depending on the number of characteristics to be
inspected, as well as to programmer experience and part family.
In the AS-IS scenario, the total time spent by programmer i for a
programming task related to part family j can be expressed as:
tibj ¼ tipj þ tidj þ tii j þ t cj þ tiaj (2)
where tipj ; tidj ; tii j ; t cj ; tiaj indicate the times respectively spent in
programming, programme debugging, documentation of measur-
ing instructions, testing on a real part and other minor tasks.
In the TO-BE scenario, programmers of CMM-B may partially or
totally reuse a part programme previously developed for CMM-A. The
amount of reuse of existing code depends on a number of reasons,
including, e.g. measuring technology, type of interfaces, programming
language, software, as well as availability of existing code for the given
programming task. This amount must be investigated through a
feasibility study encompassing representative examples for each part
family. It is worth mentioning that in case CMM-A is used to measure
the same part for different purposes (e.g. prototype testing instead of
process validation or incoming parts inspection), the number of
actually measured characteristics is different, therefore the amount of
reuse could be limited. It is here assumed that the number of
characteristics to be considered when programming CMM-B is higher
than those inspected on CMM-A, that being the worst-case situation
when evaluating interoperability benefits.
It is therefore expected that the times required for program-
ming and debugging tirjp and tirdj are linearly depending on the
number of nj added characteristics:
tirjp ¼ mip n j þ qip ; tirdj ¼ mdi n j þ qdi (3)
Parameters mip , qip , mdi
and qdi are to be calculated as well through
a feasibility study, encompassing representative examples for each
 E. Savio et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 477–480 479

part family. The total time spent by programmer i for a programming xbijk ; xri jk ; xm
i jk 2 N 0
task related to part family j in the TO-BE scenario is therefore

tirj ¼ tirjp þ tirdj þ tii j þ t cj þ tiaj (4)

W i j 2 f0; 1g; i 2 f1; . . . ; Ig; j 2 f1; . . . ; Jg
Maintenance of part programmes must also be accounted for in
where xbijk , xri jk and xm
i jk are the programming tasks, Aik is the amount
both scenarios, for a proper computation of total programming
of time available to programmers, Fjk and Rjk are respectively the
costs and related optimisation. This activity is required by, e.g.
demand for new part programmes and the availability of reusable
minor changes of part geometry, tolerances, inspection plan, to
part programmes, Mjk is the demand for maintenance of part
adapt the part programme accordingly. Eq. (2) can be adapted as
programmes and Wij is expressing the ability of programmer i to
follows:
develop part programmes for part family j.
timj ¼ P i j ðtipj þ tidj þ tii j Þ þ t cj þ tiaj (5) Reduction of programming cost Bkp can then be computed as

Bkp ¼ ðSk ÞASIS  ðSk ÞTOBE (7)

where Pij is the fraction of time required in average for
modifications by programmer i and part family j with reference
3.2. Savings from reduction of operating costs
to corresponding activities.
Programming costs calculations should then take into account
The presence of multiple programming systems in the AS-IS
the needed resources, as summarised in Table 1 where cip is the
scenario regularly requires costly efforts to keep personnel trained
hourly cost of programmer i and cc is the hourly CMM cost.
and updated on those different systems. Moreover they require
Table 1 support and maintenance from a number of vendors, as well as
Programming costs summary. multiple upgrading costs. Therefore operating costs are
Activity Online programming Offline programming COk ¼ training costs þ maintenance costs þ upgrading costs (8)
New part programmes cibj ¼ ðtipj þ tidj þ t cj Þ cibj ¼ ðtidj þ t cj Þðcip þ cc Þ
(AS-IS) ðcip þ cc Þ þ ðtii j þ tiaj Þcip þðtipj þ tii j þ tiaj Þcip
and the related savings due to interoperability
cirj ¼ ðtirjp þ tirdj þ t cj Þ cirj ¼ ðtirdj þ t cj Þðcip þ cc Þ BCOk ¼ ðCOk ÞASIS  ðCOk ÞTOBE (9)
Reuse of existing part
ðcip þ cc Þ þ ðtii j þ tiaj Þcip þðtirjp þ tii j þ tiaj Þcip
programmes (TO-BE)
cimj ¼ ðP i j ðtipj þ tidj Þ þ t cj Þ cimj ¼ ðP i j tidj þ t cj Þðcip þ cc Þ
Maintenance of part 3.3. Savings from reduction of unproductive time
ðcip þ cc Þ þ ðP i j tii j þ tiaj Þcip þðP i j tipj þ P i j tii j þ tiaj Þcip
programmes

When using the CMM for programming, debugging or testing

In the proposed approach, the underlying assumption is that in part programmes, no measurements can be performed and this
both scenarios costs should be minimised, using the available time can be considered as unproductive. The mean unproductive
resources (i.e. programmers and CMM) during a given period of time l jk can be written as:
time k (e.g. one specific month) in optimal manner. Therefore, a PI p b rp r
d b rd r c
linear optimisation problem [10] can be formulated for minimisa- i¼1 ðti j xi jk þ ti j xi jk þ ti j xi jk þ ti j xi jk Þ þ ðF jk þ R jk Þt j
l jk ¼ (10)
tion of programming costs Sk as follows: F jk þ R jk
2 3
XJ XI Note that tipj and tirjp should be zero if programmer i works
min 4 b b r r m m 5
ðci j xi jk þ ci j xi jk þ ci j xi jk Þ ¼ Sk (6) offline. Benefits from unproductive time reduction are then
j¼1 i¼1
2 J 3 J
X
X
b b r r m m
ðt x þ t1 j x1 jk þ t1 j x1 jk Þ 7 2 Btk ¼ ððl jk ÞASIS  ðl jk ÞTOBE Þcc (11)
6 3
6 j¼1 1 j 1 jk 7 A1k j¼1
6 7
6 .. 7 6 . 7 4. Case study
6 . 7  4 .. 5
6 7
6 X J 7 AIk
4 5
ðtIbj xbIjk þ tIr j xrI jk þ tImj xm
I jk Þ The feasibility study here presented refers to a CMM
j¼1 interoperability project within a main automotive supplier, with
2 3 application first at local level then at business line level.
XI
6 xbi1k 7 2 3 The first assessment refers to interoperability between two
6 7 F 1k
6 i¼1 7 CMMs: one located in a prototype testing lab (CMM1) and a second
6 .. 7 6 .. 7
6 . 7¼4 . 5 one placed in a quality control lab (CMM2) of the same plant in
6 7
6X I 7 F Jk Europe. Since newly developed products are first tested using
4 b 5
xiJk
CMM1, there is an opportunity to reuse part programmes on
i¼1
CMM2 that will later measure the same parts during production.
2 3 The approach to interoperability is here built on DMIS-based
XI
r
6 xi1k 7 2 3 software, currently not available on both CMMs; investments costs
6 7 R1k
6 i¼1 7 are related to software, control system, initial training and start-up
6 .. 7 6 . 7
6 . 7 ¼ 4 .. 5 activities, for a total amount of 50,500 s. Three CMM programmers
6 7
6X I 7 RJk are available on site, with partial overlap of competences (i.e. part
4 5
xriJk
families) and different productivity. The relationship between
i¼1
programming hours and number of characteristics, shown in Fig. 1,
2 3 was mapped during the feasibility study, using data mining on
XI
6 xmi1k 7 2 3 representative records of past activities.
6 7 M 1k
6 i¼1 7 An example of programming costs is shown in Fig. 2; for some
6 .. 7 6 .. 7
6 . 7¼4 . 5 part families (e.g. DN, EK, BD and FH) saving enabled by
6 7
6X I 7 M Jk interoperability are clear, while the benefit is reduced in case of
4 m 5
xiJk
others (e.g. DQ, AV, AJ) due to different focus of inspection on
i¼1
CMM1 (functional testing) with regard to CMM2 (quality control).
In such a situation, the economic justification of the investment is
not obvious since only a fraction of the programming costs is saved
xbijk þ xri jk þ xm
i jk > 0 ! W i j 6¼ 0 8 i; j for some part families.
480 E. Savio et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 477–480
Fig. 1. Example: correlation of programming and debugging hours with number of
characteristics to be inspected. Programmer with two years of CMM programming
experience.
The proposed methodology was applied using deterministic
historical data for the demand of part programmes and the
following main assumptions: scheduling on a monthly basis, tax
rate 40%, interest rate 5%, linear depreciation over 5 years. Benefits
are mostly related to savings in programming costs, with yearly
amounts in the range 24–45 ks, savings in operating costs
(6570 s) and savings in unproductive time (range 1–5 ks). The
investment assessment was then positive: net present value (NPV)
111,414 s, internal return rate (IRR) 47%, payback period 35
months.
Fig. 2. Average programming costs for measuring programmes developed by the
same programmer of Fig. 1 on CMM2: scenario TO-BE refers to reuse of part
programmes previously developed on CMM1.
The analysis was extended at production unit level and at
business line level, in order to assess the potential benefits of
interoperability for the entire organisation. Currently, 33 CMMs
are operated in 11 plants across the globe using 6 different
programming software. Within most plants, a situation similar to
the one described above is verified; therefore, the analysis was
applied using local hourly costs of resources (programmers and
CMMs). In Table 2 the main data and results of the analysis are
shown, demonstrating that the total NPV of the interoperability
project at corporate level is approaching 1 Ms using a prudential
interest rate of 5%.
Table 2
Main data and economic assessment of interoperability for the entire business line.
Manufacturing location Europe USA China India Brazil
Number of CMMs 15 6 5 5 2
Net present value (NPV) s 544,165 210,633 95,061 95,485 45,584
Average NPV/CMM (s) 36,277 35,105 19,012 19,970 22,792
The uncertainty of input information was also investigated.
Main sources of variability were identified in programming
demand forecasting and programming and debugging time. These
time estimates are complex because depending on operator
competence and efficiency, which are changing over time: they
are improving due to individual learning curve effects, or may
rapidly decrease due to personnel turnover with introduction of
less experienced programmers. A Monte Carlo experiment was
partially implemented for the demand of part programmes as well
as for productivity of programmers. Results were analysed
focusing on NPV calculations, which exhibited deviations up to
30% depending on the input information. Since reliability of input
data is of paramount importance to obtain a sound decisional basis,
further modelling and simulation work is planned.
5. Conclusions
A methodology has been introduced for the quantification of
the economic benefits of interoperability, with reference to two
CMMs that are used at different steps of the product development
process. The approach for the evaluation of benefits is based on the
quantification of savings from reduction of programming costs,
operating costs as well as unproductive time.
Calculations are based on company-specific data, as well as on
assumptions related to the CMM programming processes. Input
data need to be investigated during a feasibility study and include:
mapping of programming demand, competence and productivity
of programmers, and quantification of reusable existing part
programmes. The accuracy of benefit quantification is clearly
depending on the availability and consistency of these data,
assumed to be correct in terms of times and costs.
In the proposed approach, the underlying assumption is that
costs should be minimised, using the available resources (i.e.
programmers and CMMs) in optimal manner. A linear optimisation
problem was then formulated and implemented using spreadsheet
software.
The developed methodology was illustrated using a practical
example from a global automotive supplier, both at local and
corporate level, with quantification of considerable benefits.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr. Claudio Lazzarotto for
comprehensive data analysis during his internship in an automo-
tive company and for practical implementation of the linear
optimisation problem. Disclaimer: for confidentiality reasons, the
company is not explicitly identified and data on costs and
productivity have been adapted.
References
[1] De Chiffre L (2007) The Role of Metrology in Modern Manufacturing, Keynote
Paper. in Gyenge Cs., (Ed.) 8th Int. MTeM Conference, 973-9087-83-31–6.
[2] Brunnermeier SB, Martin SA (1999) Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S.
Automotive Supply Chain, Final Report, Research Triangle Institute, USA.
[3] Horst J, Hartman N, Wong G (2010) Metrics for the Cost of Proprietary
Information Exchange Languages in Intelligent Systems. Proc. Performance
Metrics for Intelligent Systems (PerMIS) Workshop, Baltimore, MD, USA, Sep-
tember 28–30.
[4] ISO 10303 series, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Product
Data Representation and Exchange, International Organization for Standardi-
zation (ISO).
[5] ISO 22093 (2011) Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Physical
Device Control – Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard (DMIS), ISO.
[6] I++ DME (2008) Dimensional Measurement Equipment Interface, Version 1.7, I++
Working Group (Audi, BMW, Daimler, GM, Porsche, VW and Volvo).
[7] Kunzmann H, Pfeifer T, Schmitt R, Schwenke H, Weckenmann A (2005)
Productive Metrology – Adding Value to Manufacture. Annals of the CIRP
54/2:155–168.
[8] Savio E (2012) A Methodology for the Quantification of Value-Adding by
Manufacturing Metrology. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 61/
1:503–506.
[9] Sullivan WG, Wicks EM, Luxhoj J (2002) Engineering Economy, 13th ed. Prentice
Hall0131486497.
[10] Vanderbei RJ (2007) Linear Programming: Foundations and Extensions, Spring-
er978-0387743875.