9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and

9th
9th IFAC
IFAC Conference
Conference on
on Manufacturing
Manufacturing Modelling,
Modelling, Management
Management and
and
Control
Control
9th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management and
Control
Berlin,
9th IFACGermany, August
Conference 28-30, 2019
on Manufacturing Modelling,
Available Management
online at and
www.sciencedirect.com
Berlin,
Control
9th IFAC
Berlin, Germany, August
Conference
Germany, 28-30, 2019
on Manufacturing
August 28-30, 2019 Modelling, Management and
Control
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Control
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 1254–1259
A
A Survey of Model-Based System Engineering Methods to Analyse Complex
A Survey
Survey of
of Model-Based
Model-Based System
System Engineering
Engineering Methods
Methods to
to Analyse
Analyse Complex
Complex
A
A Survey
Survey of
Supply
of
SupplyModel-Based
Chains: A
Model-Based
Chains: A System
Case
System
Case Engineering
Study in
Engineering
Study in Methods
Semiconductor
Methods
Semiconductor to
to Analyse
Supply Chain
Analyse
Supply ChainComplex
Complex
Supply
A Survey of Chains: A Case
Model-Based Study
System in Semiconductor
Engineering Methods Supply
to Chain
Analyse Complex
Supply
Supply Chains:
Chains: A
A Case
Case Study
Study in
in Semiconductor
Semiconductor Supply
Supply Chain
Chain
Supply Chains: A Case Study in Semiconductor Supply Chain
Behrouz Alizadeh Mousavi*. Radhia Azzouz**
Behrouz
Behrouz Alizadeh
Alizadeh Mousavi*.
Mousavi*. Radhia
Radhia Azzouz**
Azzouz**
Behrouz Cathal
CathalAlizadeh Heavey***.
Mousavi*.
Heavey***. Hans
Hans Ehm****
Radhia
Ehm**** Azzouz**
Behrouz CathalAlizadeh Heavey***.
Mousavi*. Hans Ehm****
Radhia Azzouz**
Behrouz CathalAlizadeh Mousavi*.
Heavey***. Hans Radhia
Ehm**** Azzouz**
Cathal Heavey***. Hans Ehm****
*Enterprise Cathal Heavey***.
Research Centre, Hans Ehm****
University of Limerick, Limerick
*Enterprise
*EnterpriseIreland Research
Research Centre,
Centre, University
University of of Limerick,
Limerick, Limerick
Limerick
*Enterprise Research
Ireland (e-mail:
Centre,
(e-mail: Behrouz.Mousavi@ul.ie)
University of
Behrouz.Mousavi@ul.ie) Limerick, Limerick
*Enterprise
** Enterprise Ireland
Research
Research (e-mail:
Centre, Behrouz.Mousavi@ul.ie)
Centre, University
University of Limerick, Limerick
*Enterprise
** Enterprise Research
Ireland
Research Centre,
(e-mail: University ofof
Behrouz.Mousavi@ul.ie)
Centre, University of Limerick,
Limerick,
Limerick, Limerick
Limerick
Limerick
** Enterprise Research
Ireland
Ireland Centre,
(e-mail:
(e-mail: University of
Behrouz.Mousavi@ul.ie)
Radhia.Azzouz@ul.ie) Limerick, Limerick
** Enterprise Ireland
Research
Ireland (e-mail:
(e-mail: Behrouz.Mousavi@ul.ie)
Centre, University of
Radhia.Azzouz@ul.ie) Limerick, Limerick
**
*** Enterprise
Enterprise Ireland
Research
Research (e-mail:
Centre,
Centre, Radhia.Azzouz@ul.ie)
University
University ofofLimerick,
Limerick, Limerick
Limerick
** Enterprise
*** Enterprise Research
Ireland
Research Centre,
(e-mail:
Centre, University of
Radhia.Azzouz@ul.ie)
University ofLimerick,
Limerick, Limerick
Limerick
*** Enterprise Research
Ireland
Ireland Centre,
(e-mail:
(e-mail: University
Radhia.Azzouz@ul.ie)
Cathal.Heavey@ul.ie) of Limerick, Limerick
*** Enterprise Ireland
Research (e-mail:
Centre, Radhia.Azzouz@ul.ie)
University of
*******Infineon
Enterprise Ireland
Research (e-mail:
Technologies Centre,Cathal.Heavey@ul.ie)
Cathal.Heavey@ul.ie)
AG University of Limerick, Limerick
Limerick,
(Hans.Ehm@infineon.com) Limerick
*******Infineon
Enterprise Research
Ireland Centre,
(e-mail: AGUniversity of Limerick, Limerick
****Infineon (e-mail: Cathal.Heavey@ul.ie)
Technologies
Technologies
Ireland AG (Hans.Ehm@infineon.com)
(Hans.Ehm@infineon.com)
Cathal.Heavey@ul.ie)
****Infineon Ireland (e-mail: Cathal.Heavey@ul.ie)
****Infineon Technologies
Technologies AG AG (Hans.Ehm@infineon.com)
(Hans.Ehm@infineon.com)
Abstract: Model-Based ****Infineon
System Technologies
Engineering (MBSE) AGis(Hans.Ehm@infineon.com)
an increasingly important methodology to support
Abstract:
Abstract: Model-Based
Model-Based System
System Engineering
Engineering (MBSE)
(MBSE) is
is an
an increasingly
increasingly important methodology
importantsimulation
methodology to
to support
support
system
Abstract:
system engineering
Model-Based
engineering and
and has
System
has attained
attained a
Engineering high
aa high level
(MBSE)
level of
of attentiveness
is an increasingly
attentiveness in
in business
important
business methodology
simulation practices
to
practices as
support
as a
system
Abstract:
conceptual engineering
Model-Based
modelling and has
System
approach. attained
Engineering
In this high
paper, level
(MBSE)
we of attentiveness
is an
present increasingly
our results in business
important
related to simulation
themethodology practices
application to
of as aa
support
MBSE
Abstract:
system Model-Based
engineering and System
has Engineering
attained aa high (MBSE)
level of is an our
increasingly important methodology to support
conceptual
conceptual
system
approaches
modelling
modelling
engineering
in complex andapproach.
approach.
has In
In this
attained
semiconductor this paper,
paper,
high we
level
manufacturing of attentiveness
we present
present our results
attentiveness
supply results
chain
in business
inrelated
related
business
planning to simulation
to the
the practices
application
application
simulation
systems.
of
of MBSE
practices
We MBSE
investigate
as
as aa
system
conceptual
approaches engineering
modelling
in complex and has
approach. attained
In
semiconductor this a high
paper, level
we
manufacturing of attentiveness
present our
supply results
chain inrelated
business
planning to simulation
the practices
application
systems. We of MBSE
investigate as a
approaches
conceptual
System in complex
modelling
Modeling Language semiconductor
approach. In thisWeb
(SysML), manufacturing
paper, we present
Ontology supply
Language chain
our results
(OWL) planning
related
and to systems.
the
Business We investigate
application
Process of MBSE
Modeling
conceptual
approaches
System modelling
in
Modeling complex approach.
Language In thisWeb
semiconductor
(SysML), paper, we present
manufacturing
Ontology our results
supply
Language chain
(OWL) related
planning
and to the application
systems.
Business We
Process of MBSE
investigate
Modeling
System Modeling
approaches
Notation in complex
(BPMN) Language
as different (SysML),
semiconductor
approaches Web andOntology
manufacturing
languages Language
supply
for MBSE.(OWL)
chain andapproaches
planning
These Business
systems. Process
areWe Modeling
investigate
surveyed and
approaches
System
Notation in complex
Modeling
(BPMN) Language
as semiconductor
different (SysML),
approaches manufacturing
Web andOntology
languages supply
Language
for chain
MBSE.(OWL) planning
Theseand systems.
Business
approaches We
Process
are investigate
Modeling
surveyed and
Notation
System
used to (BPMN)
Modeling
develop as different
Language
conceptual approaches
(SysML),
models for Web
the and languages
Ontology
simulation of for
Language
the MBSE.
order (OWL) These
managementand approaches
Business
process are surveyed
Process
inside Modeling
the and
supply
System
Notation
used to Modeling
(BPMN)
develop Language
as different
conceptual (SysML),
approaches
models for Web
the andOntology
languages
simulation Language
of for
the MBSE.
order (OWL) These
managementand Business
approaches
process Process
are Modeling
surveyed
inside the and
supply
used
Notation
chain to develop
(BPMN)
management. conceptual
as different models for
approaches the simulation
and languages of the
for order
MBSE. management
These process
approaches inside
are the
surveyed supply
and
Notation
used
chain to (BPMN)
develop
management. asThis
conceptual
This study
different aims
models
study aims to
approaches
for
to survey
the and and
simulation
survey and offer
languages of
offer aathe
number
for MBSE.
order
number of implications
These approaches
management
of implications for
process
for MBSE
are
inside
MBSE practice
surveyed
the
practice and
and
supply
chain
used
seeks tomanagement.
to develop
stimulate andThis
conceptual study
guide aims
models
further to
for
research survey
the and
simulation
in this offer
of
area. a number
the order
Copyright of implications
management
© 2019 IFAC for
process MBSE
insidepractice
the and
supply
used
chain
seeks to develop
management. conceptual
This models
study aims for
to the simulation
survey and of
offer athe order
number management
of implications process
for inside
MBSE the
practice supply
and
chain to
seeks to stimulate
stimulate and
management. andThis guide
guide
studyfurther
aimsresearch
further to surveyin
research this
inand area.
area.aCopyright
thisoffer number of©
Copyright 2019
2019 IFAC
©implications
IFAC for MBSE practice and
chain
seeks
© 2019,
Keywords: management.
to stimulate
IFAC andThis
(International
Model-Based study
guide aimsEngineering,
further
Federation
system to of
research survey inand
Automaticthis offer
area. aCopyright
Control)
Conceptual number
Hosting of©by
modelling, implications
2019 IFAC
Elsevier Ltd.
Simulation, forAll
MBSE
rights practice
SysML, reserved.
Ontology, and
seeks
Keywords:
Keywords: to Model-Based
stimulate
Model-Based and guide system
further
system Engineering,
research
Engineering, in Conceptual
this area.
Conceptual modelling,
Copyright
modelling,© 2019Simulation,
IFAC
Simulation, SysML,
SysML, Ontology,
Ontology,
seeks
BPMN,
Keywords: to stimulate
Supply and
chain
Model-Based guide
planning. further research
system Engineering, in this
Engineering, Conceptual area. Copyright
Conceptual modelling, © 2019 IFAC
modelling, Simulation,
Simulation, SysML,SysML, Ontology,
Ontology,
BPMN,
BPMN, Supply
Keywords: Supply chain
chain planning.
Model-Based planning.
system
Keywords:
BPMN, SupplyModel-Based
chain system Engineering, Conceptual modelling, Simulation, SysML, Ontology,
planning.
BPMN, Supply chain planning.
BPMN, Supply chain planning.
1.
1. INTRODUCTION study and we present how some of the presented approaches
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION study
study
could
and
and
be
we
we present
used present
within
how some
some of
howcontext.
this
the
ofThe presented
thestudied
presented approaches
approaches
approaches are
The main objective 1.
of
1. INTRODUCTION
Productive4.0
INTRODUCTION is to achieve significant study
could
could and
be
be we
used
used present
within
within how
this
this some
context.
context. of the
The
The presented
studied
studied approaches
approaches
approaches are
are
The main objective of Productive4.0 is to achieve significant study
discussedand we
in present
Section 4 how
where some
we of the
highlight presented
the approaches
advantages and
The main
improvement objectivein of
1. Productive4.0
INTRODUCTION
digitalizing European is to achieve
industry. significant
Systems study
could
discussedand
be we
used
in present
within
Section 4 how
this some
context.
where we of the
The presented
studied
highlight the approaches
approaches
advantages are
and
The main
improvement objectivein of Productive4.0
digitalizing European is to achieve
industry. significant
Systems discussed
could be
shortcomings in
used Section
within
of each4 where
this
one of we
context. highlight
them.The studiedthe advantages
approaches and
are
improvement
The main objective
engineering is ainholistic
digitalizing
of Productive4.0
approach European
for industry.
is to achieve
developing Systems
significant
solutions for could
discussed be used
shortcomings in within
Section
of each4this context.
where
one of we TheSection
studied
highlight
them. Section the 5
5 concludes
approaches
advantages
concludes the
are
and
the
The main objective
improvement
engineering is ain of Productive4.0
digitalizing
holistic approach European
for is to achieve
industry.
developing significant
Systems
solutions for shortcomings
discussed
paper. in of
Sectioneach4 one
where of them.
we Section
highlight the 5 concludes
advantages the
and
engineering
improvement
complex is ain
engineering holistic approach
digitalizing
problems. for
European
To developing
supportindustry. solutions
thesolutions Systems
continuous for discussed
shortcomings
paper. in Section
of each4 where
one of we highlight
them. Section the 5advantages
concludes and
the
improvement
engineering is in digitalizing European industry. Systems paper.
shortcomings of each one of them. Section 5 concludes the
complex
complex
engineering
increase in is aa holistic
engineering
engineering
system holistic approach
problems.
problems.
approachthis
complexity,
for
To
To developing
support
support the
for paradigm
developing the continuous
continuous
solutions
requires
for
for shortcomings
more paper. of each one of them. Section 5 concludes the
engineering
complex
increase in is a holistic
engineering
system approachthis
problems.
complexity, for paradigm
To developing
support the solutions
requirescontinuous for paper.
more
increase
complex
rigorous in system
engineering
processes complexity,
and problems.
practices this
To paradigm
support
(Micouin, requires
the more
continuous paper.
complex
increase engineering
in system problems.
complexity, To
this support 2014).
paradigm the
requires In
continuousfact,
rigorous
rigorous
increase processes
processes
in system and
and practices
practices
complexity, this(Micouin,
paradigm2014).
(Micouin, 2014).
requires In more
In fact,
fact,
more 2.
2. RELATED WORKS
traditional
increase
rigorous
traditional in systems
system
processes
systems and engineering
complexity,
practices
engineering this approaches
paradigm
(Micouin,
approaches have
requires
2014). have In been
more
fact,
been 2. RELATED
RELATED WORKS WORKS
traditional
rigorous
dominated bysystems
processespaper and engineering
documentspractices or approaches
(Micouin,
paper 2014).
equivalent have In been
fact,
electronic 2. RELATED WORKS
rigorous
traditional
dominated processes
systems
bysystems and
paper documents
documentspractices
engineering (Micouin,
or paperapproaches
paper 2014).
equivalenthave have In fact,
been
electronic 2.1 Model-Based 2. RELATED
System Engineering WORKS
dominated
traditional
files. Such by paper
documents engineering
are or
read-only by equivalent
approaches
human electronic
beings, been
who 2.1 Model-Based 2. RELATED
System
2.1 Model-Based System Engineering Engineering WORKS
traditional
dominated
files. Such bysystems
paper
documents engineering
documents
are or
read-only approaches
paperby equivalent
human have been
electronic
beings, who
files. Such by
dominated
comprehend documents
paper
the are read-only
documents
document and or paper
takeby further
human action.
equivalent beings, who 2.1 Model-Based System Engineering
electronic
This
dominated
files. Such by paper documents
documents are read-onlyor paper equivalent electronic 2.1 Model-Based
According to System
the Engineering Council of Systems
International
comprehend
comprehend
files. Such the
the document
documents document aaare
and
and take
read-only takeby
by human
further
further
human beings,
action.
action.
beings, who
This
whoa 2.1
This Model-Based
According to System
the Engineering Council
International of
ofon Systems
practice
files. Such
comprehend
practice is
is undergoing
documents
the
undergoing document fundamental
are read-only
and
fundamental take change
by human
further
change moving
moving beings,
action. fromwhoa According
This
from Engineering
According
Engineering
to
to
the
(INCOSE)
the
(INCOSE)
International
(“International
International
(“International
Council
Council
Council
Council of
on
Systems
Systems
Systems
practice
comprehend is
document-centric undergoing
the document
approach a fundamental
to and
a take change
model-centric furthermoving action.
approach from
This
based a Engineering
According (INCOSE)
to the (“International
International Council
Council on
of Systems
comprehend
practice is
document-centric the approach
undergoing document a and
fundamental
to a takechange
model-centric furtherapproach
moving action.from Thisa According
based Engineering Website,”
to the n.d.),
International MBSE is
Council a methodology
of Systems
document-centric
practice is undergoing approach tothat
a model-centric
a fundamental change approach
moving based
from a Engineering (INCOSE)
Website,”
Website,” (“International
n.d.),
n.d.), MBSE Council
MBSE is
ismethods, on
aa methodology
methodology
on
on information
practice is undergoing
document-centric
information from
from models
approach a fundamental
models tothat can
can be
be read
change
aa model-centric read by
moving machines
approach
by machines from
based a Engineering
(in
(in characterized
Engineering
characterized
(INCOSE)
by
(INCOSE)
Website,”
by
(“International
aa collection of processes,
(“International
collectionn.d.),
of MBSE
processes,
Council
Council
is a
methods,
on and
on and
Systems
tools
Systems
methodologytools
on information
document-centric
addition to being from models
approach
read by tothat
humans). can be
model-centric read
Machine by machines
approach
(and human) (in
based characterized
Engineering by a collection
Website,” of
n.d.), processes,
MBSE ismethods,
a and
methodologytools
document-centric
on information
addition to being fromapproach
models
read by to a
that model-centric
humans). can be read
Machine approach
by machines
(and based
human) (in used to
Engineering
characterized
used to support
support systems
Website,”
by a collection
systems engineering
n.d.),
of MBSE
processes,
engineering design
is a
methods,
design in a “model-
methodology
in a and tools
“model-
addition
on
readability to
information being
is from
a read
models by
prerequisite humans).
that can
for beMachine
read by
automation (and
machineshuman)
and (in
the used to
characterized supportby asystems
collection engineering
of processes, design
methods,in a “model-
and tools
on information
addition
readability to being
is from
a models
read by
prerequisite that
humans). can
for be read
Machine by
automation machines
(and human)
and (in
the based”
characterized
used
based” to context
support
context by (Micouin,
a collection
systems
(Micouin, 2014).
of MBSE
processes,
engineering
2014). facilitates
methods,
design
MBSE in a and the
tools
“model-
facilitates the
readability
addition
digitalization isof industry,
to being a read
prerequisite
by humans).
which for Machine
improves automation
both the (and and
human)
quality the based”
and used to context
support (Micouin,
systems 2014).
engineering MBSE
design facilitates
in a thea
“model-
addition
readability
digitalizationto being
isof a read by
prerequisite
industry, humans).
which for
improves Machine
automation
both the (and human)
and
quality the
and requirements
used
based” to
requirements support
context gathering,
systems
(Micouin,
gathering, analysis, design,
engineering
2014).
analysis, and
design
MBSE
design, and verification
in a of
“model-
facilitates
verification the
of
digitalization
readability
speed of
readability
of
information
digitalization
speed of
industry,
is a prerequisite
isof industry,
information
which
processing.
a prerequisite which
processing.
improves both
for automation
improves both
the
the
quality
for automation and the based”
and and
quality
and requirements
the complex context
systemgathering,
(Micouin,
before analysis,
it 2014).
is design,
built MBSE
which and canverification
facilitates
help theaa
of
manage
based”
requirements context (Micouin,
gathering, 2014).
analysis, MBSE
design, and facilitates
verification the
of
speed of information
digitalization
speed of of
information industry,
processing.
digitalization of industry, which improves both the quality and requirements
which
processing. improves bothapproaches
the qualityon
complex
anda complex
complexity
system
system
and
before
gathering,
facilitate
it is
before analysis, built
it is built
maintenance
which
which
design,
and and can
can help
help manage
verification
evolution. of aa
manage
In this
speed
In this paper,
of we
information
paper, we investigate
processing.
investigate different
different MBSE
MBSE approaches on requirements
complex
complexity
aa complex system
andgathering,
before
facilitate analysis,
it is
maintenance design,
built which
and and canverification
help
evolution. of
manage a
In thisof
speed paper, we
information investigate
processing. different MBSE approaches on complexity and facilitate
system before maintenance
it is built which and evolution.
can help manage
semiconductor
In this paper, supply chain case study. These approaches are: complex
complexity
A number system
and
of before
facilitate
researchers it is built
maintenance
have which
and
documented can help
evolution.
the manage
benefits of
paper,a we
semiconductor
semiconductor
In this we investigate
supply
supply chain
chain
investigate different
case
case study.
study.
different MBSE
Theseapproaches
These
MBSE approacheson
approaches
approaches are:
are:
on aa complexity
A
A number
number
andresearchers
of
of
facilitate maintenance
researchers have
have
and evolution.
documented
documented the benefits
benefitsof of
the stages ofa
(1)
In
(1) SysML,
this paper,a we
semiconductor
SysML, modelling
investigate
supply
modelling chainlanguage
different
case
language for
study.
for system
MBSE
These
system engineering;
approaches
approaches
engineering; on(2)
are:
(2) a complexity
using
A
using MBSE
number
MBSE
andapproaches
of
facilitate maintenance
researchers
approaches to
have
to support and
the
documented
support the
evolution.
initial
the
initial benefits
stages of of
(1)
Web SysML,
semiconductor
Ontology
semiconductor
a modelling
supply
Language
supply chain
language
chain case with
case
for
study. system
protégé
study.
These
These asengineering;
approaches
a
approachesknowledge (2)
are: A
are: using MBSE
number
simulation of approaches
researchers to
havesupport the
documented initial
the stages
benefits of ofaa
(1)
Web SysML,
Ontology aa modelling
Language language
with for system
protégé asengineering;
aa knowledge (2) A
usingnumber
MBSE ofproject. The
researchers
approaches parallels
have
to documented
support thebetween simulation
the stages
initial benefits of of
Web
(1)
(1)
Web
Ontology
SysML,
management
SysML,
Ontology
management asystem
Language
modelling
modelling
system and
Language
and
with
language
ontological
language
with
ontological
protégé
for
for
system
engineering
protégé
engineering
as knowledge
engineering;
aatools;
systemasengineering; and
knowledge
tools; and
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
simulation
simulation
using
modelling MBSE and
project.
project.
approaches
software
The
The parallels
to parallels
supportare
development thebetween
between
discussed by of aa
simulation
simulation
initial stages (Arthur
management
Web Ontology system and
Language ontological
with engineering
protégé as tools; and
knowledge (3) using
simulation
modelling MBSE and approaches
project.
software The to parallels
supportare
development the initial stages
between
discussed by of a
simulation
(Arthur
BPMN
Web as aa standard
Ontology
management system for
Language business
with process
protégé modelling.
as atools; knowledge modelling
simulation
and Nance, andproject.
software
2007) whodevelopment
The parallelsarethe
investigate discussed
betweenuse of by (Arthur
simulation
software
BPMN
BPMN as
management system and
as a standard
standard for
and ontological
for business
business
ontological engineering
process
process modelling.
modelling.
engineering tools; and
and (3)(3) simulation
modelling
and
and Nance,
Nance,
modelling and
and
project.
software
2007)
2007)
software
The
who
who
parallelsarethe
development
investigate
investigate
development are
between
discussed
the use
use
discussed of
of
simulation
by
by (Arthur
software
software
(Arthur
management
BPMN
The as
remaining system
aa standard
part and
for
of ontological
business
this paper is engineering
process modelling.
organized as tools; and (3)
follows. In requirements
modelling
and Nance,
requirements and engineering
software
2007) who
engineering techniques
development
investigate
techniques in
are
in simulation
discussed
the use
simulation ofmodelling.
by (Arthur
software
modelling.
BPMN
The as
remaining standard
part for
of business
this paper process
is modelling.
organized as follows. In requirements
and Nance, engineering
2007) who techniques
investigate in simulation
the use ofmodelling.
software
The remaining
BPMN
Section as
2 we part of
a standard
present afor this
literaturepaper
business is organized
process
review of as follows.
modelling.
model-based system In and These techniques
Nance,
requirements 2007) include
who
engineering for example
investigate
techniques in Petri
the use
simulation Nets;
of Activity
software
modelling.
The These techniques include for example Petri
Petri Nets; Activity
The remaining
Section
Section 22 we part
part of
present
we approaches.
remaining present of this
aa literature
literature
this paper
paper is
is organized
review
review of as
as follows.
ofwemodel-based
model-based
organized system
system
follows. In These
In requirements
Cycle techniques
Diagrams; include
engineering
Discrete for Event
example
techniques inSpecification
simulation Nets; Activity
modelling.
System
engineering
The
Sectionremaining
engineering 2 we part of
present
approaches. a In
this
literature
In Section
paper
Section 3,
is organized
review 3, of
we describe
as follows.
model-based
describe our
oursystem In requirements
case
case These
Cycle techniques
Diagrams;
Cycle techniques
engineering
include
Diagrams; include Discrete
Discrete
techniques
for
for Event
inSpecification
example
Event simulation
Petri
exampleSpecification
modelling.
Petri Nets; Activity
Nets; System
System
engineering
Section 2 we approaches.
present a literature In Sectionreview 3,ofwemodel-based
describe our case These
system These
Cycle techniques include for example Petri Nets;
Activity
Activity
Section
engineering
engineering
2 we approaches.
present a literature
approaches. In
In
review
Section
Section 3,
3,
ofwemodel-based
we describe
describe our
our
system
case
case Cycle Diagrams; Discrete Event Specification System
Diagrams; Discrete Event Specification System
Copyright
2405-8963 © 2019,
© 2019 IFAC
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic case1271
our Control) Cycle Diagrams; Discrete Event Specification System
engineering
Copyright © 2019
Copyright © 2019 IFAC
approaches.
IFAC In Section 3, we describe
1271 1271Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer review©under
Copyright 2019 responsibility
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
1271Control.
Copyright © 2019 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.370 1271
Copyright © 2019 IFAC 1271
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Behrouz Alizadeh Mousavi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 1254–1259
(DEVS); UML Activity diagrams; UML Statecharts;
ABCmod; Simulation Activity Diagrams; BPMN and SysML.
Among these methodologies, there are a number of standards
used, which are UML and BPMN. In fact, there are many
benefits for using a standard, as they are usually developed
through consensus by experts and interested parties within an
industry and not tied to a vendor. SysML reuses a subset of
UML and provides additional extensions needed to address
requirements in Systems Engineering. Therefore, SysML and
BPMN are briefly reviewed below. Moreover, ontologies are
presented as knowledge management tools. Ontologies are
formal specifications used to describe, define, and categorize
the concepts and their relationships, in a particular knowledge
domain.
2.2 SysML
SysML is an OMG standard that supports the specification,
analysis, design, verification and validation of a broad range
of systems and systems-of-systems. SysML helps creating
object-oriented models of systems that incorporate not only
software, but also people, material, facilities, and other
physical resources, while expressing both structure and
behaviour for such systems (Nikolaidou et al., 2015). While
SysML helps and facilitates requirement description, there are
also some works on requirement verification described using
SysML (Feldmann et al., 2014).
SysML is essentially a UML profile that represents a subset of
UML 2 with extensions (Friedenthal Sanford et al., 2014).
Although UML has also been used to represent non-software
systems it is not ideally suited to this purpose and requires non-
standardised use of model elements that can ultimately lead to
confusion and incorrect interpretation of diagrams. To adapt
UML for non-software systems, the developers of SysML
attempted to remove the software bias and added semantics for
model requirements and parametric constraints. The resulting
SysML standard is a general-purpose modelling language
capable of specifying complex systems that include non-
software components.
SysML also supports cross-cutting, which is a means of
linking between diagrams to represent associations between
different model elements. The benefit of cross-cutting is only
truly realized in software tools which support navigation
between and consistency checks across the various diagrams
of a SysML model.
As conceptual modelling requires a description of both the
structure and the behaviour of the studied system and in
accordance with UML, SysML divides the model into a
structural and a behaviour part. The structural part describes
the static structure of the system while the behaviour part
describes the dynamic behaviour between its elements. As
well, SysML presents two other pillars which are system
requirements and properties description.
2.3 BPMN
1272
1255
BPMN provides a visual notation that is readily
understandable, at the basic level, by all business users and IT
developers. It allows the development of requirements for
business processes with XML languages designed for the
execution of business processes, such as WSBPEL (Web
Services Business Process Execution Language). It has been
argued that BPMN notation includes a small set of visual
elements (Fig. 1) (“Modelio Open Source - UML and BPMN
free modelling tool,” 2018) that would allow a novice to
understand a reasonably complex process as shown in Fig. 3
to be understood. A formal description of the BPMN standard
is given in (Chinosi and Trombetta, 2012), which one would
be required to study to understand more complex processes
(Chinosi and Trombetta, 2012).
Fig. 1. Basic business process modelling notation.
BPSim (“BPSim.org,” 2018) is a Workflow Management
Coalition (WfMC) standard to facilitate simulation of BPMN
or XPD (“Welcome to XPDL.org,” 2018) models. More
specifically, it allows the exchange of parameters of process
analysis data facilitating structural and capacity analysis for
pre-execution and post-execution optimization of a process.
Critical analysis on BPMN and BPSim standard (Laue and
Mueller, 2016) states that these standards are powerful to
create models for business processes and help to promote the
use of business process simulation and to build tools for
modelling simulation models independently from simulation
tools. However, BPMN and BPSim may have limited
technical capabilities in representing important features of
complex flows in a business process (Onggo et al., 2018).
2.4 Ontology
In a particular knowledge domain, ontologies are formal
specifications used to describe, define, and categorize the
concepts and their relationships. Studer, Benjamins and Fensel
(Studer et al., 1998) define ontology as ‘a formal, explicit
specification of a shared conceptualisation of a domain of
interest’. These formal and unambiguous semantics can be
processed by computers that can be used as communication
tools between human agents and softwares. For the sake of this
goal machine-processable languages (XML, RDF, and OWL)
are used to describe the entities and their logical relationships.
In modelling, to capture knowledge, ontologies have been
studied and used in the reusable form, in the modelling phases
(Gruber, 1993; Hofmann, 2013; Hofmann et al., 2011).
Zaletelj et al (Zaletelj et al., 2018) studied the improvement of
interoperability and composability of modelling and
simulation. The ontologies have been examined through two
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
1256 Behrouz Alizadeh Mousavi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 1254–1259
classes of ontologies, referential ontologies defined as pre-
image with strong epistemic nature to capture the reality by
means of semantic relationships based on representation of the
real world; and on the other side, methodological ontologies
with normative nature for further processing as formal
semantics (Hofmann, 2013; Zaletelj et al., 2018). As discussed
in (Zaletelj et al., 2018) ontology can receive attention from
different points of view such as modelling, information
sharing and data exchange, knowledge sharing, lifecycle
management, planning overview, etc.
In modelling and simulation, ontologies define the domain of
real systems concerning objects, classes, properties,
relationships, instances and entities. Ontologies are used to
translate the real system to conceptual model specifically using
OWL as a Semantic Web. Obviously, conceptual modelling
needs more than semantic web but the main benefits of
ontology as a language for sharing knowledge across the
simulation models and real system understanding has been
demonstrated in several studies (Fishwick and Miller, 2004;
Kernan and Sheahan, 2010; McGinnis et al., 2011)
3. CASE STUDY AND SYSTEM MODELING
Supply chain planning in the semiconductor manufacturing is
conducted by Advanced Planning Systems (APS). APS in
Semiconductor Supply Chain Planning have been organized
by different softwares, human interventions, strategic
regulations, and other relevant modules that each of them
cover a certain part of planning tasks. Within APS, the
planning processes that satisfy the customer demands are
called order management. Matching the available supply with
dynamic demands, promising reliable delivery dates to
customers, dealing with changes of customer orders, providing
data regarding the future demands, negotiation with
customers, allocation of shortage supplies to customers, etc.
are the main functions of order management (Seitz and
Grunow, 2017; Stadtler et al., 2015).
Different global suppliers, complex manufacturing process,
variant products, mass customization, production and logistics
strategies, and demand uncertainties increase the importance
of reliable and coordinated supply chain management. This
growing complexities, especially in high tech manufacturing
with global supply chain and variant order channels, engender
uncertainties in supply and demand (Seitz and Grunow, 2017).
Oracle and Capgemini (“From Customer Orders Through
Fulfilment,” 2013) disclosed the order management as main
challenges of high tech supply chain management.
Maintaining customer satisfaction, inaccurate order promise
date, escalating supply chain and IT costs around order
fulfilment are three main challenges in high tech industries.
The case study is a semiconductor manufacturer in Germany
and the objectives are the improvement of order management,
demand fulfilment and order promising. To tackle with
inaccurate promising date and improve the allocation of ATP
to customers, a simulation could be considered as proper
1273
means for analysing the system and experimenting with new
scenarios.
Simulation models of real-world system with high complexity
need a preliminary abstraction step called conceptual
modelling. Using the right conceptual model, simulation
model programming will be more straightforward and reusable
(Robinson, 2013). In addition, the conceptual model could be
used for knowledge sharing useful to future system studies
within the industry and machine readability of the model. In
this regard, we planned to evaluate different model-based
system engineering languages and relevant tools. SysML,
OWL, and BPMN are three languages we reviewed to deal
with supply chain planning system understanding, and
simulation with respect to our objectives.
System modelling with SysML consists of several types of
UML diagrams, like behavioural, structure, and requirement
diagrams, that could support the hierarchical representation of
the model. Although SysML is comprehensive in modelling
the details and parts of the system, it needs a long training
period which reduces its usability, time which would not be
available to manufacturing experts and supply chain managers.
This is why we did not apply it to our case study.
Ontology Web Language in comparison to SysML is much
easier to learn but it is mostly designed for knowledge
management and semantic web reasoning. To provide a
knowledge sharing baseline for our simulation model and
improve our understanding regarding the supply chain
planning, we develop an OWL with protégé, an open source
tool. Fig. 2 presents the OWL file for the ontology of
semiconductor supply chain planning. It contains classes used
to create different objects based on different property values,
relations and object properties. A relation works like a concept
which connects the classes while object properties are the
definition of relations equal to human language. For instance,
in the order management part of the supply chain, there is a
warning system called Early Warning. It is the result of
changes in the promised date to customers. In the red marked
part of the diagram, “Negative Early Warnings (nEWs)“, a
[class], is the result of, “order rescheduling”, another [class]
and “isResultOf“ is [object property]. With this small
expression of the model, it could be implied that ontology is
very good for system understanding and knowledge sharing. It
helps us to get the philosophy of the planning parts and their
relations to better create our abstraction of the studied system
that we modelled by BPMN.
BPMN is much more similar to simulation languages. It could
be defined in different hierarchical levels of the planning
system and could create a connection between layers. A
BPMN model could be developed from the point that entities
come to existence. It presents and rules the role of databases,
events, relations, workflow, and different type of tasks that
happen during the running time of simulation model. Its
abstraction is similar to reality while very close to simulation
languages that a modeller needs to perceive. BPMN is similar
to a flowchart and how the model works in detailed levels is a
schematic and understandable version of reality in comparison
 Behrouz Alizadeh Mousavi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 1254–1259
Fig. 2. Web Ontology for semiconductor supply chain planning.
to simulation models. The capability of evaluating the
reasonability of relations between different paradigms is a
feature of BPMN that could increase its value in the
verification of conceptual models. For instance, we
conceptually modelled the Early Warning system of order
promising in semiconductor supply chain planning to simulate
the reality of the system and experience the reasons for wrong
warnings by a different hypothesis. In addition to the gained
knowledge from the OWL model, Fig. 3 represents the
conceptual model for the Early Warning Creation simulation.
From data transfer process point of view and workflow point
of view, this BPMN model matches the dynamic forecast
orders (Customer forecasts from their future demand with
fluctuation capability in defined boundaries by contract in time
horizon) to dynamic plan of future inventories (Available To
Promise).
Fig. 3. Early Warning creation BPMN.
1274
1257
Although the understanding of BPMN needs more knowledge
from APS, It is clear enough for experts to evaluate the
similarity of the conceptual model with reality.
4. DISCUSSION
Generally, simulation systems modelling using any modelling
language (SysML, BPMN, and Ontology) implies developing
a number of diagrams presenting a selection of fixed elements
and relations, each with predefined properties and behaviour
(Mertins and Rabe, 2000). This is the concept that is probably
closest to human intuition. However, there are two
fundamental problems for the modeller. For one, semantics
and syntax are often not sufficiently documented, existent or
unique. On the other hand, the user is strictly bound by the
required scope of elements, relations and their possible
properties and behaviour.
OWL is a standard mostly useable for referential
methodologies and knowledge sharing. In this paper, the tool
we investigate is Protege. In contrast for SysML and BPMN,
there is a wider set of tools available and these standards are
actively being used in industry today.
While the OWL is designed for semantic web reasoning, to
perceive the complexity of the system and share the knowledge
OWL can be developed across the steps of conceptual
modelling as a model-based language.
SysML provides a standard and comprehensive system
specification paradigm (Willard, 2007). This provides
consistency in terms of model syntax and semantics, together
with unambiguous graphical symbols, which can greatly
improve communication. As well, since its adoption, SysML
has enabled a large recognition and increased adoption of
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
1258 Behrouz Alizadeh Mousavi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 1254–1259
MBSE practices across the industry. The number of industrial
partners who have contributed to its development illustrates
practitioner recognition of the need for SysML and an
eagerness to make standardized graphical modelling notation
freely available. Disadvantages are, SysML is criticised for
providing too much freedom given to the modeller. This
allows important information to be represented in an obscure
manner in a SysML diagram (Herzog and Pandikow, 2005). A
further weakness of SysML is the associated learning effort
where it has been reported that it took 1.5 man months to train
project teams to an acceptable competency in SysML and a
SysML tool (Alexander, D., Sadeghian, S., Saltysiak, T., &
Sekhavat, S., 2007).
Contrarily to SysML, one of the advantages of BPMN is that
it is an easy tool to understand, requiring a low training level
for a basic level of understanding. As noted in (Onggo, 2013),
BPMN is easily understandable by different stakeholders as it
has been originally designed with business users in mind. As
well, a recent survey proposed by (Harmon, 2016) stated that
BPMN is becoming a widely used standard for modelling
business processes since the percentage of who are interested
in BPMN has largely increased from 22% in 2005 to 64% in
2015.
In terms of simulation support, there are some issues with the
use of BPMN. In fact, as stated in (OMG, 2011) operational
simulation is out of the scope of BPMN and this standard was
not specifically designed for simulation modelling. This may
explain the limited technical capability of BPMN and BPSim
to represent some important features of complex flows in a
business process which limits the usefulness of these standards
for complex simulation models. In (Onggo et al., 2018), the
authors identified resources, queues and KPIs as modelling
elements that are relevant to closing the gap between a BPMN
diagram and simulation. As well, it should be noted that
BPMN ambiguities may also raise the risk that different tools
adopt different interpretations of BPMN which may influence
the automatically generated executable simulation code
(Onggo et al., 2018).
In summary, based on this case study, we can state the
following facts:
- BPMN is closer to simulation language in comparison to
OWL which is mostly designed for knowledge management
and semantic web reasoning.
- BPMN is easy to learn in comparison to SysML as it requires
a low training level for a basic level of understanding.
- BPMN and BPSim suffer from limited technical capabilities
to represent some important features of complex flows.
Moreover, using BPMN for conceptual modelling of complex
supply chain systems as a preliminary step before developing
the simulation model has the following benefits:
 Address systems complexity.
 Use the available Reasoning engine of BPMN to
validate the process flow (i.e. model’s network).
1275
 Facilitate project stockholders communication and
exchange knowledge by support of graphical
representations and design.
 An initial stage and starting point for current and
future extended simulation models.
It is worth noting that the drawn facts and conclusions are
based not only on the presented case study but also on a
literature review work where we extracted advantages and
limitations of the use of the discussed MBSE tools.
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we evaluated the suitability of SysML, OWL and
BPMN as model-based system engineering for conceptual
modelling of business simulation. Within this study, we
conclude that BPMN is a de facto standard for modelling the
processes. BPMN is closer to simulation language in
comparison to OWL and it is easy to learn in comparison to
SysML. Using BPMN in practice can be used as reasoning for
the modelers and help them to master the complexity of the
real system. BPMN as an MBSE is hard to edit, update, and
share within the domain of the system. Thus, future research
could provide structure and principles for BPMN regarding the
improvement of its universality and integration. For example,
how to develop the BPMN when the complex system consists
of business rules and processes or how to connect different
BPMN models within a complex system.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project has received funding from the Electronic
Component Systems for European Leadership Joint
Undertaking under grant agreement No 737459. This Joint
Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and Germany,
Austria, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Belgium,
Spain, Greece, Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Hungary,
Portugal, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Turkey.
This publication has emanated from research conducted with
the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)
under Grant Number SFI 16/RC/3918, co-funded by the
European Regional Development Fund.
REFERENCES
Alexander, D., Sadeghian, S., Saltysiak, T., & Sekhavat, S.,
2007. Quicklook Final Report.
Arthur, J.D., Nance, R.E., 2007. Investigating the use of
software requirements engineering techniques in
simulation modelling. J. Simul. 1, 159–174.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jos.4250021
BPSim.org [WWW Document], 2018. URL http://bpsim.org/
(accessed 4.6.18).
Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A., 2012. BPMN: An introduction to
the standard. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 34, 124–
Berlin, Germany, August 28-30, 2019
Behrouz Alizadeh Mousavi et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-13 (2019) 1254–1259
134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2011.06.002
Feldmann, S., Kernschmidt, K., Vogel-Heuser, B., 2014.
Combining a SysML-based Modeling Approach and
Semantic Technologies for Analyzing Change
Influences in Manufacturing Plant Models. Procedia
CIRP 17, 451–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.140
Fishwick, P.A., Miller, J.A., 2004. Ontologies for modeling
and simulation: issues and approaches, in:
Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation
Conference, 2004. Presented at the Proceedings of
the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004., p.
264. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2004.1371324
Friedenthal Sanford, Moore Alan, Steiner Rick, 2014. OMG
Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysMLTM)
Tutorial. INCOSE Int. Symp. 18, 1731–1862.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2008.tb00914.x
From Customer Orders Through Fulfilment: Challenges and
Opportunities, 2013. . Capgemini Worldw.
Gruber, T.R., 1993. A translation approach to portable
ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220.
https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008
Harmon, P., 2016. The State of Business Process
Management 2016.
Herzog, E., Pandikow, A., 2005. 2.3.1 SysML - an
Assessment. INCOSE Int. Symp. 15, 293–305.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2005.tb00670.x
Hofmann, M., 2013. Ontologies in Modeling and Simulation:
An Epistemological Perspective, in: Tolk, A. (Ed.),
Ontology, Epistemology, and Teleology for
Modeling and Simulation: Philosophical
Foundations for Intelligent M&S Applications,
Intelligent Systems Reference Library. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 59–87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31140-6_3
Hofmann, M., Palii, J., Mihelcic, G., 2011. Epistemic and
normative aspects of ontologies in modelling and
simulation. J. Simul. 5, 135–146.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2011.13
International Council on Systems Engineering Website
[WWW Document], n.d. URL
https://www.incose.org/ (accessed 4.6.18).
Kernan, B., Sheahan, C., 2010. Development and
construction of an ontology to represent simulation
data for a generic enterprise. Appl. Ontol. 5, 29–46.
https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2010-0073
Laue, R., Mueller, C., 2016. The Business Process
Simulation Standard (BPSIM): Chances And Limits.
ECMS, pp. 413–418. https://doi.org/10.7148/2016-
0413
McGinnis, L., Huang, E., Kwon, K.S., Ustun, V., 2011.
Ontologies and simulation: a practical approach. J.
Simul. 5, 190–201.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2011.3
Mertins, K., Rabe, M., 2000. The new simulation in
production and logistics: prospects, views and
attitudes: 9. ASIM-Fachtagung Simulation in
Produktion und Logistik ; Berlin, 8. - 9. März 2000.
1276
1259
IPK, Eigenverl, Berlin.
Micouin, P., 2014. Model Based Systems Engineering:
Fundamentals and Methods, 1 edition. ed. Wiley-
ISTE, Hoboken, NJ.
Modelio Open Source - UML and BPMN free modeling tool
[WWW Document], 2018. . Model. Open Source.
URL https://www.modelio.org/ (accessed 4.12.18).
Nikolaidou, M., Kapos, G.D., Tsadimas, A., Dalakas, V.,
Anagnostopoulos, D., 2015. Simulating SysML
models: Overview and challenges, in: 2015 10th
System of Systems Engineering Conference, SoSE
2015.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2015.7151961
OMG, 2011. Business Process Modeling and Notation
(BPMN) version 2.0.
Onggo, B.S.S., 2013. Agent-Based Simulation Model
Representation Using BPMN, in: Formal Languages
for Computer Simulation: Transdisciplinary Models
and Applications. IGI Global, Editors: Pau Fonseca i
Casas, pp. 378–400.
Onggo, B.S.S., Proudlove, N.C., D’Ambrogio, S.A.,
Calabrese, A., Bisogno, S., Ghiron, N.L., 2018. A
BPMN extension to support discrete-event
simulation for healthcare applications: an explicit
representation of queues, attributes and data-driven
decision points. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 69, 788–802.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0267-7
Robinson, S., 2013. Conceptual modeling for simulation, in:
2013 Winter Simulations Conference (WSC).
Presented at the 2013 Winter Simulations
Conference (WSC), pp. 377–388.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2013.6721435
Seitz, A., Grunow, M., 2017. Increasing accuracy and
robustness of order promises. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55,
656–670.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1195024
Stadtler, H., Kilger, C., Meyr, H. (Eds.), 2015. Supply Chain
Management and Advanced Planning: Concepts,
Models, Software, and Case Studies, 5th ed,
Springer Texts in Business and Economics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Studer, R., Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D., 1998. Knowledge
engineering: Principles and methods. Data Knowl.
Eng. 25, 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
023X(97)00056-6
Welcome to XPDL.org [WWW Document], 2018. URL
http://www.xpdl.org/ (accessed 4.10.18).
Willard, B., 2007. UML for systems engineering. Comput.
Stand. Interfaces, ADC Modelling and Testing 29,
69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2005.12.006
Zaletelj, V., Vrabič, R., Hozdić, E., Butala, P., 2018. A
foundational ontology for the modelling of
manufacturing systems. Adv. Eng. Inform. 38, 129–
141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.06.009