Advertisement

Ontological Information as Part of Continuous Monitoring Software for Production Fault Detection

  • Marek KrótkiewiczEmail author
  • Krystian Wojtkiewicz
  • Marcin Jodłowiec
  • Jan Skowroński
  • Maciej Zaręba
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11432)

Abstract

The monitoring of manufacturing processes is an important issue in nowadays ERP systems. One of the most important issues is to identify and analyze appropriate data for each of the production units taking part in the process. In the paper authors introduce a new approach towards modelling the relation between production units, signals and factors possible to obtain from the production system. The main idea for the system is based on the ontology of production units. The design of the system using advanced knowledge engineering is elaborated. Since, the implementation of proposed system was one of key assumptions, the relational model is presented that ensures possibility to deploy the system in the future.

Keywords

Manufacturing operation management OWL Ontology implementation Ontology modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been created based on the results of the project Production Unit Performance Management Tool (PUPMT) co-financed by the European Union under the European Regional Development Fund, based on a contract between DSR S.A. and The National Centre for Research and Development in Poland. Project No. POIR.01.01.01-00-0687/17.

References

  1. 1.
    De Ron, A., Rooda, J.: OEE and equipment effectiveness: an evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44(23), 4987–5003 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iannone, R., Nenni, M.E.: Managing OEE to optimize factory performance. In: Operations Management. InTech (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO: International Standard ISO 22400–1. Automation Systems and Integration - Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Manufacturing Operations Management - Part 1: Overview, Concepts and Terminology. Standard, International Standard Organization (ISO), Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO: International Standard ISO 22400–2. Automation Systems and Integration - Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Manufacturing Operations Management - Part 2: Definitions and Descriptions. Technical report, International Standard Organization (ISO), Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones, M.C.: Tacit knowledge sharing during ERP implementation: a multi-site case study. Inf. Res. Manag. J. (IRMJ) 18(2), 1–23 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang, N., Zhao, C., Li, J., Horst, J.: A hierarchical structure of key performance indicators for operation management and continuous improvement in production systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54(21), 6333–6350 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krótkiewicz, M.: Association-oriented database model - n-ary associations. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 27(02), 281–320 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194017500103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markus, M.L., Tanis, C., Van Fenema, P.C.: Enterprise resource planning: multisite ERP implementations. Commun. ACM 43(4), 42–46 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L.: Performance measurement using overall equipment effectiveness (OEE): literature review and practical application discussion. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(13), 3517–3535 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakajima, S.: Introduction to TPM: total productive maintenance (preventative maintenance series). Hardcover. ISBN 0-91529-923-2 (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newell, S., Huang, J.C., Galliers, R.D., Pan, S.L.: Implementing enterprise resource planning and knowledge management systems in tandem: fostering efficiency and innovation complementarity. Inf. Organ. 13(1), 25–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramesh, C., Manickam, C., Prasanna, S.: Lean six sigma approach to improve overall equipment effectiveness performance: a case study in the indian small manufacturing firm. Asian J. Res. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 6(12), 1063–1072 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robey, D., Ross, J.W., Boudreau, M.C.: Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 17–46 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Selic, B., et al.: OMG unified modeling language (version 2.5). Technical report, ODMG, March 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma, A.K., Shudhanshu, A.B.: Manufacturing performance and evolution of TPM. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 4(03), 854–866 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vandaie, R.: The role of organizational knowledge management in successful ERP implementation projects. Knowl. Based Syst. 21(8), 920–926 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W3C: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, Dean, M., Schreiber, G. (eds.) w3c recommendation, 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/tr/2004/rec-owl-ref-20040210/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/tr/owl-ref/. Technical report, W3C (2004)
  18. 18.
    Krótkiewicz, M., Wojtkiewicz, K., Jodłowiec, M.: Towards semantic knowledge base definition. In: Hunek, W.P., Paszkiel, S. (eds.) BCI 2018. AISC, vol. 720, pp. 218–239. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75025-5_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and ManagementWrocław University of Science and TechnologyWrocławPoland
  2. 2.DSR S.A.WrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations