Jennifer A Macdonald
email: jennifer.macdonald@uts.edu.au

Marko Granroth

Multidisciplinary AEC Education Utilising BIM / PLIM Tools and Processes

Keywords: Building Information Modelling, BIM, PLIM, construction education, collaborative working, BIM education and training, Framework

The construction industry worldwide is moving towards more collaborative working practices, aided by building information modelling (BIM) tools and processes. BIM could be more accurately described as Project Lifecycle Information Management (PLIM). Many firms are claiming to be 'doing BIM', but are just scraping the surface in terms of the benefits that can be leveraged from true integrated, collaborative design and construction. New graduates, trained in collaboration and PLIM techniques will be the best people to drive positive change, but current educational models do not tend to provide these skills. This paper describes current worldwide educational trends in collaborative multidisciplinary education, and a proposed framework to assist academics in implementing changes to AEC curricula.

Introduction

Faculties of the Built Environment (including architecture, engineering and construction management) are currently facing enormous changes due to disruptive technologies and processes emerging in both the higher education sector and the wider construction industry. Governments are demanding that Universities prove their worth as education providers and research generators in order to secure further public funding. At the same time, Universities in general are also facing pressure from the "Google Generation": the rise of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other free or low-cost courses provided over the internet means that students have more choice in their courses and may be less willing to pay high fees for traditional chalk-and-talk transmission-style classes in Universities.

Faculties are also under pressure from a construction industry that is facing disruptive changes itself, due to the ongoing global financial crisis and the introduction of new technologies and processes heralded by the "BIM revolution." The current shortage of building design professionals trained in BIM remains a barrier to universal adoption of collaborative working practices in the industry. Just as industry must undergo a paradigm shift from its old combative culture to one of integration and information sharing, so must academia. The need for a framework to support adoption of collaborative design and BIM education by Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) schools has been stated previously [START_REF] Macdonald | The Potential of BIM to Facilitate Collaborative AEC Education[END_REF]. A framework (called the "IMAC Framework"), to support academics in adapting their curricula to include collaborative learning and working techniques, has been developed with the aid of an OLT (Australian Office of Learning and Teaching) grant. This paper discusses current trends in multidisciplinary AEC education and the progress of the IMAC trial in three Australian partner institutions.

Innovation is necessary for survival in Industry and Education

The global financial crisis has driven many businesses to the wall and many of the survivors have realised they need to innovate to win further work, and to be more efficient in the way they work in order to survive. Interestingly, this trend seems most apparent in countries whose economies, and construction industries, have been hardest hit (in the US and UK in particular) and less so in better-off economies such as Australia's [START_REF] Consulting | Productivity in the buildings network: assessing the impacts of Building Information Models, report to the Built Environment Innovation and Industry Council[END_REF]. This effect is illustrated by Teicholz' graph [START_REF] Teicholz | Labor-Productivity Declines in the Construction Industry: Causes and Remedies (Another Look)[END_REF] (Fig. 1), which shows a moderate increase in real value added per US construction employee in the years after the 2007 downturn. However, the graph also illustrates the poor performance of construction compared to the manufacturing industry over the same period (the upper line indicates manufacturing). Even without factoring in the effects of the downturn, construction productivity has declined over the past 30 years [START_REF] Teicholz | Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies[END_REF]. The construction industry is extremely fragmented and lacking integration [START_REF]Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry[END_REF], [START_REF] Wolstenholme | Never Waste a Good Crisis: A Review of Progress since Rethinking Construction and Thoughts for Our Future, Constructing Excellence[END_REF]. Additionally, reports show that the quality of project documentation has declined over the past 20 years and that poor documentation is contributing an additional 10 to 15% to project costs. 60-90% of all variations are due to poor design and documentation [START_REF]Getting it Right First Time[END_REF]. It is worth noting, here, that the introduction of computer aided drafting (CAD) tools, far from improving the quality of documentation, has actually coincided with its decline.

In an attempt to achieve greater efficiencies, and echoing earlier changes adopted by the car and manufacturing industries, the construction industry worldwide is moving towards more collaborative working practices, aided by building information modelling (BIM) tools and processes. Collaboration between multidisciplinary, transglobal AEC teams is becoming commonplace [START_REF] O'brien | Collaborative Design Proceses: An Activeand Reflective-Learning Course in Multidisciplinary Collaboration[END_REF]. Globalisation means that consultants can work from almost anywhere in the world and building elements can be prefabricated offshore and simply assembled on site. In the future, construction workers are likely to become assembly workers as prefabrication takes over. The increasing complexity of our buildings also means that our construction professionals must collaborate at earlier stages on jobs to produce the best result for clients. However, for the industry to move wholesale into integrated, collaborative practices, a seismic change is required in its culture. The culture of the construction industry has traditionally been very pugilistic, with minimal trust between parties on projects, aided by an atmosphere of litigation and punitive contracts. This lack of trust does not encourage information sharing and collaboration. Industry needs to move from the current culture of fragmentation, litigation, mistrust and withholding of information to one of open-ness, collaboration, teamwork and trust if it really wants to maximise the potential of BIM and improve overall productivity.

The current models for teaching students of the AEC disciplines do not support the new demands from both academia and industry. However, there is also a great opportunity to rethink the way AEC courses are developed and to become more efficient in delivering them. Holland [START_REF] Holland | Integrated Design Courses Using BIM as the Technology Platform[END_REF] describes the need for "T-shaped people" in the construction teams of the future; that is to say people who have deep knowledge of their own professional discipline, but who also have broad knowledge of the other disciplines in the team.

Defining BIM and PLIM

The uptake of BIM has snowballed in recent years but at the same time "BIM" has become a fashionable marketing term, promoted by software vendors. Unfortunately, these vendors have led some professionals to think that to "do BIM" they simply have to purchase a 3D-rendering software package. Some industry figures have coined the term "BIMwash" to describe the phenomenon whereby many firms are claiming to be "doing BIM" but very few are using it to its full potential and integrating with all the other construction disciplines [START_REF] Miller | The BIM Mirage or BIMwashing[END_REF].

Despite the glossy marketing materials produced by various software manufacturers, there is still no universally accepted definition for BIM. BIM is not a software product, but an approach to creating and managing information about projects. Various sources suggest that the acronym originated in the US around 2002 [START_REF] Eastman | BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers[END_REF], though, as stated previously, the tools and processes and ideas have been evolving since at least the 1970s and many of the processes mimic those adopted by the car industry decades ago, such as just-in-time manufacturing (JIT). . BIM can be a noun (the building information model) or a verb (the modelling process). Additionally, the individual words making up the acronym can mean different things to different professionals:

(B) Building can apply to a single building envelope or the wider built environment; (I) Information is really the most important part of the acronym, as the concept is all about creating and sharing quality information about a project and not losing or recreating information when moving between phases; (M) M originally stood for Modelling or Model but current literature tends towards the more appropriate definition of Management (e.g. Race, [START_REF] Race | BIM Demystified: An Architect's guide to Building Information Modelling/Management (BIM)[END_REF]).

The major problem with the term "building information modelling" is that it is inadequate for describing the complexity involved in creating and managing information over the lifecycle of construction projects, whatever their scale. Race [START_REF] Race | BIM Demystified: An Architect's guide to Building Information Modelling/Management (BIM)[END_REF] proposes borrowing from the acronym PLM (product lifecycle management) and replacing BIM with PLIM (Project Lifecycle Information Management), as this is a more accurate indication of the intent to create a comprehensive package of information representing the life of a facility.

Overcoming the Status Quo

"Many academic programs still produce students who expect they will spend their careers working as heroic, solitary designers. But integrated practice is sure to stimulate a rethinking of that notion. Pedagogy must focus on teaching not only how to design and detail, but also how to engage with and lead others, and how to collaborate with the professionals they are likely to work with later." Pressman [START_REF] Pressman | Integrated Practice in Perspective: A New Model for the Architectural Profession[END_REF], (p3)

Since engineering and architecture emerged as separate professional disciplines, AEC students have been educated in isolation from each other. Starzyk and McDonald [START_REF] Starzyk | The Collaborative Dance: Only Three Steps[END_REF] note that the focus of architectural education in the past was on developing individual skills such as being able to draw. Now, they state, "the importance of personal skill is yielding to the primacy of collective knowledge".

The complexity of modern building projects and technologies means that nobody can be a master of all anymore. Often the professions do not have a deep understanding of the information that each requires at different stages of a project. Time is thus wasted stripping out and even rebuilding models, when the models could have been set up more efficiently from the start of the process and unnecessary detail excluded prior to model exchange. If students are educated to work collaboratively and to learn the requirements of the other disciplines before they graduate, this level of misunderstanding is likely to be removed in future and trust improved. However, In order to bridge the disciplinary silos in industry, we need to start by breaking down the silos that exist in academia.

The Education vs. Training Debate

The concept of creating job-ready graduates brings to the fore the "training vs. educating" debate. Traditionally, Universities have focused on teaching theory, with many faculty members believing that it is industry's role to train incoming graduates in job-related skills. The authors have frequently heard the refrain "we're not teaching students to press buttons" being used among educators who believe that BIM is just another CAD tool. However, the uptake of BIM is facilitating process, technological, and cultural changes, and its benefits extend far beyond mere visualization: students cannot be expected to "teach themselves BIM" any more than they could be expected to "teach themselves structural engineering". BIM actually provides a great opportunity to engage students more effectively and to aid understanding of how buildings are constructed. Hardy, quoted in Deutsch [15], (p202) states:

"When I look at the logic of construction means and methods that BIM inherently teaches, I see the potential to educate…"

Any major change process is likely to encounter resistance. Some of the difficulties for academia in introducing BIM may include:

1. Questions about how to fit new topics into a crowded curriculum.

2. Reluctance to change teaching habits established over many years.

3. For those who may have developed their own niche or expertise, there may be resistance to take on a new subject, about which they are not an expert, or to retrain in an area they are not familiar with. 4. As the technologies supporting BIM evolve at a rapid pace, academics who have been out of industry for some time may feel overwhelmed trying to keep abreast of them. 5. The traditional silos of architecture, engineering and construction schools can be difficult to bridge. As in industry, mistrust of the other professions also exists in academia, and questions can arise as to who is responsible for (and who will pay for) cross-disciplinary courses. "The biggest hurdle is with true interdisciplinary efforts due to conflicting student/faculty schedules and lack of compensation for more than one faculty member involved in a course" (Architectural Engineering Lecturer quoted in Vogt [START_REF] Vogt | Relating Building Information Modeling & Architectural Engineering Curricula[END_REF], p26) 6. Size of classes. Particularly in Australia, many academics face class minimum class sizes of 80 students, and the resources and time required to convert large cohort standard lecture-based courses into smaller multidisciplinary teamworkbased courses may seem an insurmountable challenge.

Motivation may also play a factor in the success of developing integrated curricula.

The main motivation for industry to move towards collaborative working and the use of BIM has been pressure from major Clients and various governments, and the opportunity for improved profits and competitiveness. AEC educators are not generally subject to these same pressures. However, the construction industry has expressed a need for graduates skilled in collaborative building design and BIM. For example, BEIIC wrote to all the Deans of Australian Built Environment Faculties in June 2010 to enquire as "to what extent the universities are embracing new technologies such as BIM and equipping our future professionals with cutting edge experience." [17]. The Australian National BIM Initiative defines multi-disciplinary AEC education as one of six key areas needing support from both industry and government [START_REF]The National BIM Initiative, Report to DIISRTe[END_REF].

The AEC professional bodies are also beginning to apply pressure to academic institutions to develop integrated courses, through proposed changes to accreditation criteria. For example, the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA) and Consult Australia set up a joint BIM and IPD task force in 2012 [START_REF] Aia | Documents produced by the four working groups are[END_REF], including a dedicated BIM in Education Working Group (of which the first author is a member).

The CODE BIM project

The Australian Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) has funded a project to develop a framework to assist AEC academics in introducing collaborative courses utilising BIM tools and processes. The Australian partner institutions in this project are the University of Technology, Sydney, the University of South Australia, and the University of Newcastle.

The initial stages of the project involved benchmarking current practice in academic institutions worldwide. According to Barison and Santos [START_REF] Barison | BIM teaching strategies: an overview of the current approaches[END_REF], the majority of US institutions (excepting pioneers such as Georgia Tech) began to introduce BIM in their courses from 2002, and it is a rapidly developing field. For example, Morse [START_REF] Morse | An Online Case Study Resource For Building Information Modeling In College Education[END_REF] lists eight US Academic Institutions and records survey responses from them indicating that 82% were providing formal teaching in BIM. A current web search reveals that 100% of the institutions listed by Morse now teach BIM in some of their courses, at least 17 of the 18 (94%) ABET-accredited Architectural Engineering programs in the US now offer some level of BIM instruction, and at least 9 out of the 12 ABET accredited Construction Engineering institutions offer BIM courses (75%).

To explore further the current practice and understanding of BIM and collaborative AEC education amongst AEC faculty, interviews were conducted with senior AEC academics and researchers from four leading Universities in Australia, three in the UK, one in Sweden, two in the Netherlands, one in Canada and five in the USA, over a period of two years. Some results of this study were reported previously [START_REF] Macdonald | The Potential of BIM to Facilitate Collaborative AEC Education[END_REF]. In 2010, the first author was also involved in conducting a large on-line industry survey of AEC professionals and educators across Australia and New Zealand. The responses from the academic sector to this survey indicated that around 70% were using BIM at some level within their schools.

The most successful implementations of collaborative courses have been between Schools housed within the same financial unit (whether that is a faculty or department). For example, Penn State has implemented extremely successful capstone courses involving collaborative groups of students from its four architectural engineering disciplines, architecture and landscape architecture, as described by Solnosky et al. [START_REF] Solnosky | An IPD and BIM Focused Capstone Course Based on AEC Industry Needs and Involvement[END_REF]. It appears that academics around the world face the same issues in relation to overcoming bureaucratic hurdles, such as which school pays for teaching of another school's students. Some schools have found that it is easier to develop collaborative courses between institutions than across faculties within their own institution. A striking difference observed between the US schools visited and those in Australia was typical class size. Class sizes continue to grow in Australia, boosted by the removal of government caps on entry numbers. However, staff numbers have not increased proportionally and it appears that many institutions have embraced larger and larger lecture-format classes to cope. BIM requires multidisciplinary collaboration, but it is very difficult to foster collaborative, technology-intensive teamwork in a classroom format consisting of a 3-hour weekly lecture to over 90 students. The largest multi-disciplinary class observed in the US contained 25 students, and some had as few as six.

Lectures, both physical and online, involve a transmission style of teaching that tends to focus on the lower levels of the taxonomy of learning proposed by Bloom et al [START_REF] Bloom | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain[END_REF]. Where small group, collaborative, problem-based learning approaches excel is in promoting the higher levels of learning in the taxonomies. Saljo [START_REF] Säljö | Learning in the learner's perspective: 1. Some common-sense conceptions[END_REF] also defines deeper skills that students should develop, including making meaning and reinterpreting. The development of these types of skills is what Universities and other training providers should be focusing their efforts on. Transmission teaching just involves the broadcasting of data to a largely passive audience: knowledge cannot be transmitted into someone else's head.

The IMAC Framework

The development of the CODE BIM "IMAC" framework has been described in detail previously [START_REF] Macdonald | A framework for collaborative BIM education across the AEC disciplines[END_REF].

The framework comprises four key stages: Illustration, Manipulation, Application and Collaboration (IMAC). These stages do not necessarily always follow the years of a degree course, but can be viewed as building blocks of learning. The framework comprises two components: a benchmarking tool and a separate guide to implementation The stages have been mapped to various levels on the taxonomy of learning proposed by Bloom et al [START_REF] Bloom | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain[END_REF] and expanded by Krathwohl et al [START_REF] Krathwohl | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain[END_REF]. As the IMAC framework aims to assist development of both technical (I.T and discipline-specific) and interpersonal (collaborative and teamwork) skills, it straddles the cognitive and affective domains. [START_REF] Bloom | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain[END_REF], [START_REF] Krathwohl | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain[END_REF] The framework does not dictate in which academic year each stage should be introduced. Students from the different AEC disciplines study courses of varying lengths and some skills are introduced earlier in some courses than others. For example, students of architecture tend to be introduced to modelling tools from first year whereas students of structural engineering might only be introduced to them in third year. It may also be possible to progress between stages within one academic year. The framework also considers suitable delivery methods at each stage, aiming to achieve deeper levels of learning as students progress through their education.

The benchmarking component of the IMAC framework has been used to benchmark existing courses at the three institutions and to plot targets for future curriculum developments. The framework recognises that the different disciplines will not be aiming to achieve full collaboration in all courses or areas -for example, architecture graduates will be expected to be able to create full BIM models from scratch whereas engineers and construction managers would usually only be expected to be able to manipulate existing models for their own analysis purposes. The framework tool thus suggests different targets (shaded, refer Fig 4) for the different discipline areas, and it is expected that these will be mapped to professional accreditation criteria as these are developed. The project considers two separate aspects of collaboration: collaborative working and collaborative learning. Collaborative working involves student teams tackling project-based tasks that simulate the new collaborative industry working practices. In other words, they are collaborating to achieve a goal (e.g. the design of a building). By contrast, for collaborative learning it is the learning itself that is the goal. There is a large body of pedagogical research showing that students engage and learn much better through teamwork and team learning. The Stoic philosopher Seneca stated that, "by teaching we learn", and the theory that students learn more from teaching has been proven through research [START_REF] Annis | The process and effects of peer tutoring[END_REF], [START_REF] Mckeachie | Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature[END_REF]. The teacher acts more like a peer in the collaborative environment.

Conclusions and Some Proposals

In response to some of the questions raised earlier in this paper, integrating principles of collaboration and BIM technologies into existing classes throughout the curriculum should reduce the need to develop completely new courses. Bolt-on capstone courses, though useful as a first foray into collaborative courses, do not constitute curriculum renewal. In order to encourage true curriculum renewal, the professional bodies should update their accreditation criteria to reflect the industry need for graduates skilled in BIM and collaborative working. Accreditation criteria provide the greatest incentive for academic institutions to instigate changes to their curricula.

Ironically, the industry problem that is creating huge demand for BIM-related courses is also one that affects employers of academics: how to recruit (or train) and then retain teaching staff skilled in the areas of collaborative working and BIM technologies? This is a particularly difficult question given the high demand, and consequently high salaries, on offer in industry. Many universities are reliant on assistance from guest tutors from industry when introducing technical courses in BIM, but it would be wise for these institutions to develop strategies to capture this external knowledge and train faculty members in addition to their students. AEC education should perhaps take its cue from the construction industry by looking at ways to become more efficient and collaborative. Why, for example, should institutions not pool their resources for the teaching of lower level courses and use their valuable faculty to deliver more intensive courses at higher levels? For example, engineering mathematics and statistics classes tend to cover the same content all over the world. An excellent lecturer could be nominated from one institution to provide a definitive online course on one topic that students in all engineering courses are required to pass in their own time before progressing to more advanced in-class courses. This is not really too dissimilar to many institutions setting textbooks that have been written by academics in other universities.

The authors have attended many BIM workshops and conferences over the past few years and it seems that general questions from industry have moved on from "what is BIM and why should we adopt it?" to "we accept that we need to adopt BIM, now how do we go about doing so?" Although AEC academics (with notable exceptions) generally appear to be at the earlier stage of questioning, it is likely that they will also move towards the question of implementation, and the framework described should provide assistance in this. The future belongs to the integrators!

"I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done…" [Henry Ford]

The Benchmarking component of the IMAC tool is has been trialed at the three partner institutions in the CODE BIM project and observational studies of collaborative classes developed using the tool are being carried out over the 2013 study year. It is expected that the results of the trial and classroom studies will be published towards the end of the year, as will the final CODE BIM framework tools, via the project website (www.codebim.com).

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Value Added per US Employee in 2005 dollars. Source: Teicholz [3]

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. The four stages making up the IMAC framework

Fig. 3 :

 3 Fig. 3: Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning: Cognitive (L) and Affective (R) Domains[START_REF] Bloom | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain[END_REF],[START_REF] Krathwohl | The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain[END_REF]

Fig. 4 :

 4 Fig. 4: IMAC chart for an Engineering Course (suggested Target Levels shaded

  For example, the University of Southern California (USC) has run graduate-level courses with students from Virginia Tech and the University of Texas at Austin. Stanford University has collaborated with Twente University, Netherlands, to develop graduate-level courses in construction management with BIM support[START_REF] Peterson | Teaching construction project management with BIM support: Experience and lessons learned[END_REF]. Other institutions have found that collaboration is easier when creating Masters-level courses, such as the Master of Design-Build program run jointly between Auburn University's Schools of Architecture and Building Science, and Salford University's Master of BIM and Integrated Design. So far, no University appears to have implemented fully collaborative courses across the three separate AEC disciplines at undergraduate level.

Nantes, France, 6 th -10 th July 2013

Acknowledgments. The first author acknowledges the support provided by the Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) under OLT Priority Project Code PP10-1745, and by UTS through a Teaching Fellowship Award, which enabled research to be conducted in the overseas institutions described. Further details of the CODE BIM project can be viewed at www.codebim.com


Fernando Mas
email: fernando.mas@airbus.com.

José Luis Menéndez

Manuel Oliva

Alejandro Gómez

José Ríos
email: jose.rios@upm.es

Collaborative Engineering Paradigm Applied to the Aerospace Industry

Keywords: collaborative engineering, industrial Digital Mock-Up, PLM systems

de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

The design and the industrialization of aircrafts is a complex process. An aircraft like the Airbus A400M is composed of about 700.000 parts (excluding standard parts). The parts are assembled into aerostructures and major components, which are designed and manufactured in seven countries all over the world [1].

In the mid-nineties, PDM and CAD systems let Airbus to build a product Digital Mock-Up (DMU), mainly to check functional design interferences. Then the ACE (Airbus Concurrent Engineering) project [START_REF] Pardessus | Concurrent engineering development and practices for aircraft design at Airbus[END_REF] started to develop and deploy methods, processes and tools along all the functional design disciplines. A summary of the Airbus product DMU is presented in [START_REF] Garbade | DMU at Airbus -Evolution of the Digital Mock-up (DMU) at Airbus to the Centre of Aircraft Development[END_REF].

Since 1999, Airbus has successfully applied Concurrent Engineering to all the aircraft design programs: A380, C295, A400M, and A350. The gain is obtained mainly in the functional design area. The Industrial design activities make use of CAx tools in not fully integrated areas, causing interoperability issues and a lack of real influence on the functional design.

The development of computer based shared workspaces was the main aim in the early years of the Collaborative Engineering concept and product modeling, or product DMU, was the main focus [START_REF] Sriram | The MIT Dice Project[END_REF]. Currently, Collaborative Engineering promotes to integrate design teams, both functional and industrial, to generate a unique deliverable, named industrial DMU (iDMU), integrating: product, processes and resources. It also promotes the intensive use of PLM tools to perform virtual manufacturing and support the DMU as kernel of the collaborative work [START_REF] Lu | A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering[END_REF]. The downward link with the physical manufacturing is created by feeding work instructions (WIs) to the shop floor. Since the iDMU comprises the full definition of the manufacturing activities, it can be used to generate WIs [START_REF] Mas Morate | Aerospace Industrial Digital Mock-Up exploitation to generate assembly shop floor documentation[END_REF].

In this context, Airbus Military launched the CALIPSOneo pilot project to contribute to develop and deploy Collaborative Engineering processes and tools. The project focuses on the new A320neo Fan Cowls. The low complexity of such aerostructure, the manufacturing technologies involved and the company expertise on the design of fairings make it an excellent sample to conduct a pilot project.

Review of the traditional, concurrent and collaborative process

The evolution inside Airbus from Traditional Engineering to Collaborative Engineering through Concurrent Engineering is an ongoing process. The main triggers are: technological evolution of software tools, the need to short time-to-market, to reduce cost and to increase quality and the maturity of the development team.

Traditional Engineering

The Traditional Engineering approach, also known as sequential engineering, comprises the implementation of sequential tasks, often referred to as the 'overthe-wall' approach [START_REF] Prasad | Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals[END_REF]. Disadvantages of this approach are extensively mentioned in the literature: focus on product functionality and drawings, lack of industrial design, problems growing at the end of the lifecycle, different teams with lack of communication between them and long time-to-market.

Concurrent Engineering

In the last decades, methodological and technological advances have significantly influenced engineering activities. Concurrent Engineering has become widely accepted. About twenty years ago, with the introduction of the emergent PLM tools, a company-wide project, ACE (Airbus Concurrent Engineering) [START_REF] Pardessus | Concurrent engineering development and practices for aircraft design at Airbus[END_REF] was launched. Framed within the Airbus A340-500/600 development program, it aimed to develop and deploy concurrent engineering practices and the associated PLM tools. Currently, there are still pending issues, the wall described in Traditional Engineering still exits but it is not so high. The industrialization tasks are not as advanced as functional tasks in terms of PLM tools usage. The current deliverable is the product DMU, interoperability and working practice issues cause that compact disks or memory sticks flies over the wall instead of paper based drawings. Industrial design is not fully integrated with functional design, and it has little influence over the latter. They comprise two separate teams with dissimilar skills.

In fact, one of the most important reasons to have the wall is the certification process by the aeronautical authorities. Traditionally certification was made using the product definition, drawings, and marked the end of the aircraft design process. Concurrent Engineering still hold this idea and consider the aircraft design only as the functional design, enriched with manufacturing constrains and needs.

Collaborative Engineering

The iDMU is the key element of the Collaborative Engineering to tear down the wall between functional design and industrial design. The aim is a design process with a single team that creates a single deliverable. This approach needs new working procedures and new PLM tools. By applying virtual validation, using virtual manufacturing techniques, a further reduction of time-to-market is feasible.

Collaborative Engineering Airbus Military conceptual model

Both the functional and the industrial design areas shared the concept of Collaborative Engineering. It is seen as an answer to the current industrial challenges.

Analysis As-Is To-Be

Current or 'As Is' situation (Fig. 3) shows an optimized functional design area with a clear deliverable: the product DMU. The concurrent process closes the gap between functional design and industrial design, and feeds back functional design with manufacturing information to facilitate 'Design for Manufacturing' and 'Design for Assembly'. The functional design deliverable, the 'DMU as master', is a valuable item in the first stages of the lifecycle, but the value for the process decreases with time and most of the industrial design tasks are paper based. Future or 'To Be' situation shows an optimized functional and industrial design area with a clear deliverable: the iDMU [START_REF] Menendez | Virtual verification of an aircraft Final Assembly Line industrialization: an industrial case[END_REF]. The previous gap is eliminated by the collaborative way to build the iDMU and the virtual validation of it. The design (functional and industrial) deliverable, the 'iDMU for all', is a valuable item along the whole lifecycle. The information contained in the iDMU can now be exploited by Sustaining, to produce shopfloor documentation in a wide variety of formats.

Functional Model

Fig. 4 shows the main functions and information flow involved in the development and production of an aircraft. Management activities, box 'Manage', influence all the downstream functions.

Development activities, box 'Engineer', are controlled by the output from 'Manage', 'Customer requirements' and 'Industrial strategy'. Development activ-ities include 'Functional Design' and 'Industrial Design'. Both work together, as a single team, to develop product, processes and resources from the conceptual phase to the start of the serial production. The deliverable is an 'iDMU', a complete definition and verification of the virtual manufacturing of the product [START_REF] Menendez | Virtual verification of an aircraft Final Assembly Line industrialization: an industrial case[END_REF]. All the deviations coming from the shopfloor, in terms of 'Deviations (non conformances, concessions), are inputs to 'Engineer', included in the 'iDMU' and sent to 'Operation'. The final output is an 'As built' iDMU that fits with the real product launch by 'Operation'.

Production activities are represented by the box 'Operation', controlled by the output from 'Manage' and by the output from 'Engineer' 'iDMU'. Operation activities include 'Sustaining', which is in charge of exploit the iDMU, with the help of MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems), to launch 'Shopfloor Documents' to 'Serial production'. The 'Manufacturing Problems' that can be managed without modifying the iDMU, are managed by 'Sustaining'. Any other item affecting the iDMU is derived to 'Engineer' as deviation. The output from 'Operation' is the final physical product that fits 100% with the 'As built'.

Digital MockUp (DMU) and industrial Digital MockUp (iDMU)

Collaborative Engineering involves a lot of changes in terms of: organization, teams, relationships, skills, methods, procedures, standards, processes, tools and interfaces [START_REF] Sriram | The MIT Dice Project[END_REF]. It is a business transformation process [START_REF] Lu | A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering[END_REF]. One of the key changes is the engineering deliverable, it comprises evolving from the 'product DMU as master' to the 'iDMU for all' (Fig. 3).

'DMU as master' is a standard inside Airbus [START_REF] Garbade | DMU at Airbus -Evolution of the Digital Mock-up (DMU) at Airbus to the Centre of Aircraft Development[END_REF]. All the information related to the functional aspects of the product is included in the product DMU, e.g. aspects like 'design in context' and clashes-free product are fully deployed. The DMU is the reference for the product functional definition, and it is built in concurrent engineering taken into account manufacturing constraints.

The 'iDMU for all' is a new concept. It is the main enabler of the Collaborative Engineering approach and provides a common virtual environment for all the aircraft development stakeholders. Functional design and industrial design are part of a single design process where they progress together and influence each other.

The iDMU collects the information related to functional design plus all the information related to industrial design: manufacturing and assembly process, associated resources, industrial means and human resources [START_REF] Menendez | Virtual verification of an aircraft Final Assembly Line industrialization: an industrial case[END_REF]. All is defined in an integrated environment, where complete and partial simulations are done continuously, and at the end of the design phase, they guarantee a validated solution. Fig. 5 shows an example of a 3D view of an iDMU. CALIPSOneo makes use of the newest PLM tools. It aims implementing new methods and processes needed to support a collaborative way of designing. It takes as input developments from previous projects, related to digital manufacturing techniques implementation [START_REF] Mas Morate | Aerospace Industrial Digital Mock-Up exploitation to generate assembly shop floor documentation[END_REF][START_REF] Menendez | Virtual verification of an aircraft Final Assembly Line industrialization: an industrial case[END_REF] and aircraft conceptual design modeling [START_REF] Mas Morate | A process-oriented approach to modeling the conceptual design of aircraft assembly lines[END_REF]. Similarly to other initiatives reported in literature [START_REF] Butterfield | Optimization of aircraft fuselage assembly process using digital manufacturing[END_REF][START_REF] Van Wijk | Integrated Design and PLM Applications in Aeronautics Product Development[END_REF][START_REF] Rouchon | V6 deployment in new business Jet. Top 5 PLM breakthroughs[END_REF], the main results will be definition and modeling of collaborative working procedures, and their implementation into collaborative software tools. The project aims to demonstrate:

Collaborative Engineering concepts applied to aircraft design and manufacture. Capability to generate an iDMU and virtual validation by using it. Configuration based on individual specimen. To assess the benefits of the iDMU concept when compared to the usual practices for the industrial design. Availability of PLM tools to develop and deploy new capabilities. Capability to exploit the iDMU to produce advanced shopfloor documentation. Fig. 6 shows the business model framework where the project is developed. It comprises the frame and conceptual model for all the project activities.

Methodology

The project aims to change the current product design business process to the collaborative paradigm. To achieve it, it is proposed the use of the latest PLM tools to support the new design paradigm. As a consequence, the project required a balanced multiskilled team and a sound methodology to succeed. For that reason, a multi organization project team was created, where Dassault Systèmes, commercial PLM software provider, is the technical advisor, two university research groups are in charge of the research work and the methodological support, and two industrial partners are in charge of the development work.

For the systems development methodology, the NDT (Navigational Development Techniques) methodology was selected. NDT was developed by the IWT2 research group (University of Seville) [START_REF] García | NDT-Suite: A Model-Based Suite for the Application of NDT[END_REF] The project was planned in two main phases, a first phase of analysis and definition and a second phase of implementation and testing of the defined solution.

The NDT methodology uses UML as the documentation technique. In the first phase, requirements defined by suitable use cases and the system data model are defined using a UML based CASE tool (Enterprise Architect). Fig. 7 illustrates a sample of the UML Use cases and data model diagrams. A different software application was needed to manage the project documentation and to provide a collaborative environment, for this purpose a web based tool was selected: Alfresco. Alfresco provides a web environment, where all the participants can share all the documents created during the project and it also provides collaborative utilities. Alfresco allows customizing a folder structure for documents, defining review and approving workflows, establishing discussion forums for specific topics and managing the project tasks. In this way, all the documentation and task management were supported by a single tool.

Results and conclusions

Collaborative Engineering is a broader approach derived from the previous Concurrent Engineering experiences. The availability of new technologies and the maturity of the teams are the key elements in the success of its industrial implementation. During the execution of the CALIPSOneo project, which is still running, several barriers were identified and have to be overcome to implement the Collaborative Engineering approach.

The first issue is the application of the Collaborative Engineering functional model from an organizational and social perspective. It demands the harmonization of the functional design area and the industrial design area, when both are assigned to different departments that are headed by different people. In addition to the organizational issue, the concept of a unique team doing all the design functions has a large set of human relationships implications. Company top management implication is a key factor. CALIPSOneo is helping to make explicit some of the benefits of the collaborative approach in the context of the Company. Extensive literature shows the expected benefits of the collaborative engineering approach, but due to the high impact of the specific organizational and social environment of each company, results must be shown in the company specific context.

The second issue is the complexity of managing a real pilot case in parallel with the development and deployment of the associated PLM tools. The PLM tools are the key enabler in creating and managing the industrial DMU (iDMU). The interoperability between the different commercial software applications and modules used in an industrial project is still an issue. Without the proper integration, the iDMU cannot be created to enable the collaborative approach. For this issue, the adopted solution was to set up a multidisciplinary working team model, where engineers, experts on the industrial design tasks, and PLM experts work altogether conducting industrial and CALIPSOneo R+D+i tasks. Engineers were trained in understanding how PLM tools could help in the industrialization design process. PLM experts were focused on developing specific utilities to facilitate the collaborative work, on customizing the PLM tools and on creating working procedures to create the iDMU.

Next steps

The next step is consolidating the collaborative process, methods and the associated engineering teams and disseminating the collaborative culture inside Airbus Military and the Extended Enterprise as a standard.

Launch a new R+D+i project, as an extension to the CALIPSOneo project, to identify possible additional issues that may arise and to cover further developments associated to the complexity of larger aerostructures.

Finally, the last step would be the introduction of the collaborative process in a light or medium military transport aircraft, where the Services area will be also considered. The inclusion of MRO design in the iDMU will help to consolidate the collaborative engineering methods, processes and tools along the Company.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Traditional view vs. Concurrent view

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Concurrent view vs. Collaborative view

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Analysis 'As Is -To Be'

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Collaborative functional model

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Fan Cowl industrial Digital MockUp (iDMU) (Not a real iDMU due to confidentiality)

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. CALIPSOneo functional diagram

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 7. Use Case & iDMU structure

Acknowledgements: Authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to colleagues from Airbus Military, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidad de Sevilla and partners of CALIPSOneo project for their collaboration and contribution to the project.


Frédéric Chambolle
email: frederic.chambolle@mpsa.com

The Usage of the Standards into the Long Term Archiving and Retrieval, and the Exchange of Engineering Design Data

Keywords: Archival, Exchange, Standards, Automotive, STEP, OAIS, CAD, PLM, SASIG

Standards have been developed to provide means of exchange and archival of engineering design data within automotive industry. In most cases, the simple use of these standards is not enough. Indeed, the usage of such standards requires the development of recommendations and methodologies providing specific rules and processes that will guide the user on how the standard is to be used in a given context. This paper will present examples of data exchange problems with some examples of methodologies developed to solve them, and -automotive recommendations developed in several domains such as PDM data exchange, Product Data Quality, Long Term Arching and Retrieval, etc. how they are used within the industrial processes.

Introduction

The engineering development of complex products such as automotive products is made in an extended enterprise context with suppliers, but also with other car manufacturers in case of partnership projects related to the development of cars, engines, gear boxes, etc. Extended enterprise requires collaboration within a heterogeneous environment involving different actors using complex IT environments, implementing different business processes, etc.

In this context, data interoperability is a major issue. Data exchange standards are then key elements since they provide a software independent exchange solution.

Nevertheless, due to the complexity of their definition and implementation, the single usage of such standards cannot systematically lead to a successful data exchange. Software editors and automotive companies have decided to define recommendations in order to improve the technical and functional quality of data exchange. These recommendations mainly concern the domains of Computer Aided Design, Product Data Management, and Long Term Arching and Retrieval. They provide explicit and shared rules of implementation to allow a better use data exchange standards, or define processes to be applied upstream and downstream of the data exchange.

Then, these recommendations are intended to be used and combined with the data exchange standard for a better control of the data exchange processes.

The data exchange standards

A data exchange standard provides a means to exchange information between different IT software, in a given application context (ex : Computer Aided Design, Digital Mockup, etc.). It proposes a content that can be interpreted/decoded by any software of the concerned domain through a translation function that enables to establish a data mapping between the standard and their internal data model. A data exchange standard is also known as "neutral format".

In the engineering domain, different types of standards are used :

• Official standard : it is published by a standardization organization (AFNOR, ANSI, ISO), • Defacto standard : it is defined by a "commercial" organization, but considered as a reference in its domain. Thus, it is used by wide population of actors of this domain, Usually, for reasons of strategy and efficiency, neutral formats are opposed to native formats. The usage of native formats for data exchange has an evident interest if both partners use the same software. If not, the data exchange based on native formats requires the usage of direct translators that translate a data in an original format into the target format. A famous comparison between direct and neutral translators is presented in Fig. 1. The most important figure concerns the number of translators, n versus n*(n-1)/2, that must be implemented to enable exchange between each software.

The usage of a direct translation constraints the user to upgrade its translators every time both original and target formats evolve (see Fig. 2). This has an impact on IT maintenance costs, and the stability of the translation processes.

CAD data exchange

CAD domain is the most experienced domain in terms of data exchange. Indeed, many standards were developed since 70's in this domain (see Fig. 3). The richness of the content of the standard regularly increases. This evolution is driven by the CAD functionalities increasingly advanced (Construction history, parametric design, feature based modeling, etc.).

CAD translators have now reached a good level of quality. Several reasons enabled to reach that level of maturity :

• Lessons learnt from past experiences,

• Better standards,

• Implementor Forums. For the development of STEP related translators, the CAx Implementor Forum [START_REF]CAx Implementor Forum[END_REF] was created in 1995 with the support of PDES Inc. and ProSTEP iViP. The objective of the forum is to accelerate CAx translator development and ensure that users' requirements are satisfied. Thus, this forum enables software editors to :

• Organize cross testing sessions (CAD Round Table ),

• Synchronize functionality implementation with the user needs,

• Identify the functionalities expected for "tomorrow",

• Establish agreement through the development of Recommended Practices : define clear use cases of the STEP standards (ex : Geometric and Assembly Validation Properties, Model styling and Organization, …).

Nevertheless, even if CAD translators have reached a significant level of quality, data exchange rules needs to be implemented. This is the case in the automotive industry where each car manufacturer has developed its own CAD Data Exchange policy to be used into the data exchange processes with its suppliers. Such a policy defines CAD design rules and methodologies specific to a company, like file formats to be used, CAD model organization rules, accuracy, allowed types of entity, etc. These rules aim to optimize the integration of CAD design with processes downstream and upstream (meshing, release process, …). The CAD Data Exchange policy is a contractual document that applies in the OEM-suppliers relationship.

Most of the rules contained in this document are implemented in CAD data quality checker that is used to verify whether the CAD design rules are satisfied at any stage of the design process. This process is mainly implemented to avoid any kind of problem in the downstream processes due to a poor quality of CAD data [START_REF] Horwood | CAD data quality[END_REF].

The international automotive industry, through the international consortium SASIG [START_REF] Sasig | Strategic Automotive product data Standards Industry Group[END_REF], has decided in 2000, to develop a recommendation related to CAD data quality (PDQ). The "SASIG-PDQ" recommendation, published in 2002, defines a set of PDQ criteria used in the automotive industry. Thereafter, most of the CAD PDQ checker editors have implemented this set of criteria, and the recommendation was submitted to the ISO organization.

In terms of CAD data exchange format policy, 2 scenario need to be considered :

• OEM-Supplier relationship : in this case, as detailed previously, the CAD Data Exchange Policy applies. It specifies that the OEM native format (same release/version/service pack) must be used to minimize the impact of the data exchange on the data contents • OEM-OEM partnership : in this case, the CAD Data Exchange Policy doesn't apply. Neutral formats are used to exchange between different CAD systems, or different releases of the same CAD system (downward compatibility no ensured). Such a scenario implies a design master to consumer relationship.

PDM data exchange

PDM domain is less mature than the CAD domain in terms of data exchange. The exchange context is then much more complex than for the CAD data. Indeed, Each company implements their own PDM/PLM system customization, often complex, that is characterized by :

• Data model : add/modify attributes or objects,

• Rules and mechanisms applicable to attribute naming and codifications,

• Reference Breakdowns (functions, components) and classifications,

• Workflows and processes,

• Terminology/Vocabulary/Language,

• Integration with other systems : Manufacturing, Planning, … An illustration of PDM data exchange context is shown in Fig. 4 where both companies apply their own product data management rules. The usage of standards is the main way to exchange PDM data. Even if standards exist and are exhaustive, they cover a (too) wide perimeter, and their implementation remains complex. Nevertheless, data exchange solutions exist. They must be based on explicit use cases that define data exchange rules and processes, and the corresponding standard subset to be implemented.

Company B

Identifier

In terms of standards, STEP provides a set of application protocols that enable to exchange PDM data (structured data). For the engineering product development, STEP AP214 [6] is the relevant standard within the automotive industry. This standard covers a very wide scope, and is on way to be replaced by the standard STEP AP242, currently under development, nevertheless a fully compatible with STEP AP214. STEP AP214 covers a wide scope [START_REF] Chambolle | Un modèle produit piloté par les processus d'élaboration : Application au secteur automobile dans l'environnement STEP[END_REF] including in particular product management data (item, version, approval, security, effectivity, date/organization/person), item definition structure (explicit assembly), item properties, work management (project activity, change management), classification, description of products with a large number of variants (diversity description, configuration), product breakdown (components, functions), reference mechanism to external documents, and process plan (process operations). Currently, only a very limited subset for STEP AP214 is widely implemented in commercial softwares. This scope covers mainly 3D geometric representation, PMI (Product Manufacturing Information or GD&T) presentation, representation of explicit assemblies. It is estimated that it represents about 20% of the global scope of STEP AP214. SASIG, consortium initially created to lead and support the development of the STEP AP214, has decided to develop a recommendation related to the exchange of PDM assemblies. The "SASIG-PDM Assembly Data Exchange" recommendation, published in 2003, defines how to exchange PDM assemblies with STEP AP214, with a proposal of process and STEP AP214 subset. Such a recommendation is destined to allowing assembly data exchange between PDM systems with an enriched content. In terms of implementation, the capability to exchange with any partner is one of the success keys, whatever the used software. Indeed, a partner may have a PDM system or not, with a data exchange interface or not, but will always use a CAD system that enables to exchange 3D geometric representations and explicit assemblies in STEP format.

STEP file content

Thus, if we consider the export process, the experience shows that being able to export PDM data toward another PDM or CAD system enables to communicate with most of partners.

Then, if we consider the import process, generally the most complex, we need to consider 2 major cases that should enable to import any PDM data, whatever its contents :

• The partner uses the codification rules of my company. The import process should then be able to use all the attributes values provided in the exchanged package. • The partner does not use the codification rules of my company. The import process should then create automatic values for the reference attributes (Unique identifier, Version), and the other attributes may be used as provided (see example in Fig. 5).

Once imported, depending on the business requirements, it is usually necessary to process those data in order to finalize their integration in the company IT environment (assign legacy reference, integration with other data, etc.).

Long Term Archival and Retrieval

For many years, the archival of engineering data has been reduced to the simple archival of drawings in the form of aperture cards or digital images. More globally, during the 2 last decades, the transition from the paper to the digital was observed within most of domains of management of product definition data. The automotive industry is now confronted with a situation, where product definition data covers a large diversity, and are managed by complex IT data structures, often with a strong adherence with solutions and their proprietary format [START_REF] Heutelbeck | Motivations and Challenges for Digital Preservation in Design and Engineering[END_REF]. In addition, we can observe that the required lifecycle of product definition data (more than 30 years) and the lifecycle of the used technologies (see Fig. 6) are not aligned. The international automotive industry, following the aerospace industry [3] [8], has considered that those conditions cannot guarantee a consistent archival of its product definition data along its products lifecycle. In 2010, SASIG consortium decided to develop a set of recommendations that will guide companies to effective and efficient archival and retrieval practices. These recommendations, currently under development will include :

• A classification model of what data should be archived,

• A retention period recommendation,

• A quality assurance recommendation,

• A format recommendation,

• A LTAR process recommendation.

Data exchange standards are key elements to be considered in such recommendations. Thus, they provide a means to separate the data from their authoring and they have the biggest durability which is another important aspect in the LTAR domain [START_REF] Kheddouci | L'archivage à long terme de la maquette numérique 3D annotée[END_REF].

At the moment, different major standards were identified by the SASIG-LTAR working group are :

• OAIS (ISO 14721 [START_REF]Space data and information transfer systems -Open archival information system Reference model. ISO, International Organization for Standardization[END_REF]) : The Open Archival Information System standard defines an open framework for the design and function of preservation repositories. This definition contains a reference model that defines the function, organization, and interaction of content within preservation repositories. OAIS should be considered as the basis of any archival system (see Fig. 7). • STEP Application Protocols (ISO 10303) : during the period between the archival and the retrieval, it is evident that a company will update or change its softwares. If we consider an archived data, it should be readable at any time along its lifecyle, independently of the software used at this moment. Therefore, it is the typical case of an exchange where the software used to create the data is not the same than the target one. The term of "Long Term Data Exchange" can then be used. In this context, data exchange standards are the most appropriate formats, taking into account the wide scope that they address. • CAx-IF Recommended Practices and SASIG Recommendations that provide additional processes (CAD data quality) and mechanisms (Geometric and Assembly Validation Properties, etc.) very useful in that context.

Preservation planning

Administration

The development activities of the recommendations are going on. The Format recommendation will be published by the end of 2013, and the complete set of recommendations by end of 2014. In between, a LTAR test pilot will be developed as proof of concept, promotion support.

Conclusion

Standards exist but due to their complexity, they are not controlled enough. The experience shows that guidelines, such as recommended practices and recommendations, are necessary for an appropriate usage of the standards. Thus, they provide clear use cases of the standard, completed with rules and proposal of process, aligned with the user requirements, and contribute to a better understanding and usage of the standards.

Nevertheless, even if the existing guidelines deployment is successful, guidelines and implementations are still missing in many domains such as configuration management (diversity dictionary, design use cases, etc.), product data management, requirements management, engineering change management, electrical harness design, etc. The corresponding deliverables should provide important inputs in the engineering data exchange and archival domains.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Comparison amongst translators to implement in case of a direct or neutral translation strategy.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Frequency of upgrades for direct translators.

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. History of CAD standards.

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Example of heterogeneous context for PDM data exchange.

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Import of PDM data that are not compliant to my company codification rules.

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. Lifecycle of technologies used in the management of product definition data.

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 7. OAIS Architecture.

name : CAR Corp date_time : 2013.07.09 Part once imported in VPM REFERENCE : AA12345680 DESIGNATION : BREAK-PEDAL EXPLICATION : EXT:CAR Corp PART:47110-0X060 VERSION:00A / approved FRENCH MODEL

	item.id	: 47110-0X060
	item.name	: BREAK-PEDAL
	item.description : FRENCH MODEL
	item_version.id	: 00A
	approval_status	: approved
	organization.VERSION	: 000
	MATURITE	: EN_COURS
	ORGANIZATION	: PSA
	LAST_MOD	: 2013.07.09


Kamal Cheballah
email: kcheballah@audros.fr

Aurélie Bissay
email: abissay@greenlight-it.fr

Change Management and PLM Implementation

Keywords: Change management, PLM implementation, AudrosBox, Collaborative features

Introduction

Companies operate in an environment where it is necessary to be as competitive as possible. This race towards competitiveness can be conducted in different ways, through company strategy, its internal resources, its organization, etc. Our research focuses particularly on the organizational aspects of the company particularly through the information system. Companies' expertise Is an essential element in competitiveness. The focus is on the management of its documents, data, information, and knowledge. This management is the key point in increasing the enterprise productivity. The use of all the tools needed by the fact we need to manage these information have as a consequence a modification if working methods for the users. We contribute through our research by introducing new tools which gives a more progressive way to manage all these information, avoiding the risk of rejecting the system by users 2 Information system and change management

1 Problematic

The current situation no longer allows some companies whatever their size to manage their individual expertise. Information, data, knowledge are all principal elements of the company that need to be preserved.

The entire expertise is often capitalized individually wick renders it impractical for the company. Furthermore its organization and its scalability is directly related to the wishes of those who want to capitalize. This leads to a bottleneck in the execution process of work done in the company. Some players are no longer able to respond to the number of inquiries needed for the execution process. Document management systems and, PLM, responds to these needs. They aim to organize and manage information and documents within an organization. These systems implement procurement methods, Indexing, classification, management and storage, access and retrieval of data and documents. They therefore contribute to the collaborative work processes, capitalization and the exchange of information.

Management expertise leads to gains and a rapid return on investment for organizations. In this collaborative approach around a software system, it is the effective implementation of the methodology which is the source of success and not just the product which serves only to support this method. To be carried out well, this type of project requires that we dedicate a support, for implementation and training. Despite these challenges and productivity gains, the process of implementation of a PLM solution requires time and effort to adapt the product. This ability to adapt is needed due to the fact that the expertise of every company is what makes this company unique. Capitalizing on the enterprise expertise essentially implies a unique system that comes from the adaptation of a generic PLM system.

Many PLM projects fail to achieve their goals, especially for non-technical reasons. The employees of an organization share common values, corporate culture and social benefits that can be challenged by changing the organization of the company or the introduction of a new IT tool. Change management must take into account these values and and put in place a permanent means of monitoring and identifying group apprehensions in order to, where appropriate, communicate on the stability of the values and current achievements. [START_REF] Bissay | Du deployment d'un système PLM vers une integration des connaissances[END_REF] The results of a study [START_REF] Kadiri | Current situation of PLM systems in SME/SMI: Survey's results and analysis[END_REF] show that there are either difficulties or rejection in 45% of cases where PLM systems have been implemented. [START_REF] Kadiri | Management des processus collaboratifs dans les systèmes PLM[END_REF] Beside the expense of resistance to change, one aspect to consider is the maturity of the company when putting in place and using a PLM system. Indeed, in addition to an expensive investment, companies must have users willing to use the system. To do this results in an extremely heavy user support to make it adhere to the system, this is what is referred to hereinafter as the management of change

2 Change management

Change management is a set of processes employed to ensure that significant changes are implemented in an orderly, controlled and systematic fashion to effect organizational change. It reduces failures and encourages appropriation [START_REF] Gélinier | Stratégies de l'entreprise et motivation des hommes[END_REF] of new procedures [START_REF] Savall | Ingénierie Stratégique du Roseau[END_REF]. Approaches to managing change are generally based on following items: participation, communication, and training.

According to Martin [START_REF] Martin | La Conduite du Changement[END_REF], change can be seen as a curve including the following steps: doubt, current situation, trigger, project, action plan.

According to Prochaska and Velicier [START_REF] Prochaska | The transtheoretical model of health behavior change[END_REF], change is a process operating in cycles, with each cycle comprised of six stages of behavioural change: the pre-intention, intent, preparation, action, maintenance, resolution.

The effectiveness of the implementation of change depends on the quality of the learning process [START_REF] Argyris | On Organizational learning[END_REF] introduced at both individual and team level, as well as on the interaction of both.

Finally, resistance to change is significant. Too often the weight given to the implementation of the technical objective (the software) is disproportionate compared to the effort used in deploying the methodologies of change management when available.

In fact the successfulness of the PLM implementation depends essentially on the way we conduct Change Management.

The PEGASE project (Serious Game Platform Backing and monitoring of change in SMEs / SMIs) [START_REF] Bissay | PEGASE: a platform tool to help change management support during the implementation of a PLM system in an industrial company[END_REF] defines an environment of support for change management in industrial enterprises with an approach around the Serious Games. The purpose of this project is to develop a real Serious Game platform to help companies to effectively support their staff in adapting to the changes brought about by redesigning their information systems. Some initial actions in this platform game are driven through the integration of real scenarios in industrial processes.

Figure 1

Screen shot PEGASE: player interacts with its environment This project was a success by showing that we can improve change management by using a Serious Game. However, the construction of a Serious Game is very expensive, it does not fit the limited funding of a small and medium sized company.

Approach to change management 3.1 Bottom up approach to change management

With our state of the art analysis, we find that the methods used for change management use a "top-down" approach, in the sense that they take as a starting point, the targeted system to propose methods for supporting the users. Our research introduces a « Bottom up » approach to facilitate the conduct of change. It is therefore necessary to search for elements that are widely known and accepted by the user to support this process.

Today, what we identify as a common utility in all businesses is Windows Explorer and the simple text search box.

Our initiative is thus to work on progressive methods while considering that the success of a PLM project is first and foremost a matter of the Human Machine Interface. The foundations of our approach is a common Human machine interface, simple and therefore natural for most users.

This approach focuses on users and their usual work environment, combining basic features necessary for collaboration: sharing, security, traceability, versioning, rights management.

Une approche évolutive

The approach implemented by our research is a comprehensive and evolutionary approach which is divided into 3 phases and smoothly brings the businesses towards better managing their capital expertise, without radically changing the work habits of the users. This methodological approach is progressive and based on what we call the « AudrosBox » approach.

The first phase, collaborative features, is a first level approach allowing for collaboration through Windows Explorer and the simple text search box. On top of these two user interface elements, we extend their functionalities by adding more sophisticated processing which offer powerful functionality for collaborative management. This approach that we call <<plug and play>> targets the fast track approach to collaborative functionalities with minimum training.

The second phase, EDM allows the user to move towards better managing the handling of such data. The use of the Audrosbox system and the habit of working in a collaborative mode induced by the first phase, usually derives from the users newely discovered and more complicated needs in terms of document management. For example when trying to figure out the percentage of copper used in the material specification document given, we will need to be able to manage attributes for each document.

The third phase, PLM-Product Lifecycle Management, allows users to integrate all of the components for these systems while maintaining a simplified Human Machine Interface. This final phase includes connectors with different CAD systems on the market, the automatic creation of documents, and the management of data dependencies (bill of material).

AudrosBox

Audrosbox answer to -the collaborative management of information, mobility and right management Audrosbox introduces four terminologies, Repository -it is a context where all the information belongs within this context and obeys the context right managements.

Information -illustrated in the first phase as a file, is created by using instinctively the standard tools of a company.

The engine -which has the function to drive the execution of the tasks needed to make the data compliant on their arrival to the repository.

The cloud or storage space -the information in this cloud space is elected from the repository.

Figure 4 Audrosbox

Functionnality

The system uses these methods for storing documents onto the repository.

The synchronization of the central system is done by binary comparison of the local repository regarding the same information that is on the remote repository.

The locking systems insure that no information will be updated simultaneously by different users.

The addition of attributes, the detailed business view, allows the user to benefit from the use of these attributes.

This engine allows for the atomization of tasks

Conclusion

These methods are very promising regarding the number of companies which decide to implement this process. In fact, due to the fast start process with minimum training, the successful introduction of the PLM system to the users can be insured.

We have discovered that we need to enhance our research by means of two topics:

 The simple text search needs to be more powerful and should not only deliver as an answer to the texts we find in the index of the documentation, but also the implementation of the semantic search should enhance this functionality. In the 3dr phase, PLM level, it is very important to retain the malleability of the model. This is why we have begun this research

Figure 2

 2 Figure 2 Screen shot PEGASE: player collects product data

Figure 3

 3 Figure 3 methodological approach in 3 phases


Sergej Bondar

Christoph Ruppert

Josip Stjepandic
email: josip.stjepandic@opendesc.com

Securing Data Quality along the Supply Chain

Keywords: CAD, Data Quality, Supply Chain, Engineering Collaboration, Migration

Concurrent engineering in distributed development environments like those in the automotive industry places enormous demands on the organization of collaboration between the companies and departments involved. Efficient data communication in all phases of the product development process is a prerequisite for lean and flexible collaboration processes. Automotive suppliers that develop system components for a number of different OEMs or tier-1 suppliers face the challenge of ensuring that they make the CAD data available in the format required by their customers along with a high level of reliability and, if data translation is involved, that they take into consideration the system configuration of the respective customer. The main obstacle in this process chain is the insufficient data quality. This paper describes the approaches conducted in cooperation between the supplier portal www.opendesc.com

Introduction

Nowadays modern manufacturing industries like the automotive are acting in the dynamic global marketplace that demands instant responses to customer requirements, short time-to-market and high flexibility in production. In the past decades the manufacturing industries were even more shifting to a distributed environment like an extended enterprise, with increasing agility. We set the customer's satisfaction on the first place in order to get the assignment against many competitors. This has caused the mass customization at high level and even more complex development, manufacturing as well as logistics processes along the manufacturing supply chain. Thus the upcoming outsourcing has derived a multi-tier supply network structure involving numerous enterprises around the globe. The product development as well takes place in global development partnerships. OEMs accomplish the development of new products at many locations in several countries across the world [START_REF] Stark | Global Product. Strategy, Product Lifecycle Management and the Billion Customer Question[END_REF]. Furthermore, a variable number of external service providers and suppliers take part in individual projects. The most relationships in this supply network are temporary, exceed by the end of project and today's project partner can well become tomorrow's harshest competitor (Figure 1).

The suppliers were involved in the product development as early as possible, because they mostly possess a greater depth of domain expertise for best product development. The OEM-supplier relationship is characterized by a sequential interaction, whereby the OEM gives clear product and production requirements to the supplier and the supplier delivers the product or service to the OEM. Supplier integration is a crucial method for incorporating a supplier's innovativeness in the product development process and reduces the costs and risk [START_REF] Dyer | Collaborative advantage: winning through extended enterprise supplier networks[END_REF]. It also creates synergy through mutually interacting deliverables and decisions between OEM and suppliers. Both sides take advantage of each other's capability to develop the product as well as to obtain feedback from the other party to improve the product development. Due to the complex development cycle, the OEM took the lead and has begun to adopt supplier integration into its product development process. To respond to this trend, the collaboration and partnership management between the OEM and suppliers need to be continuously improved to reduce costs and time. Regarding the depth of collaboration, the integration of suppliers into the OEM process chain can be defined in many ways, depending on corresponding work package and type of collaboration [START_REF] Tang | Collaborative Supplier Integration for Product Design and Development[END_REF]. To enable the success of supplier integration, this work describes how to improve the collaboration between the OEM and its suppliers, through ensuring the appropriate data quality.

Fig. 1. Virtual enterprise in automotive industry

In the context of concurrent and collaborative engineering, the validity and consistency of product information become important. However, it is difficult for the current computer-aided systems to check the information validity and consistency because the engineers' intent is not fully represented in a consistent product model. Due to the different approaches and IT systems in the automotive OEM industry, a unified solution is not possible at this time. In particular, automotive suppliers that develop system components for a number of different OEMs or tier-1 suppliers, face the challenge of ensuring that they make the CAD data available in the format required by their customers and with a high level of reliability and, if data translation is involved, that they take the system configuration of the respective customer into consideration. Special requirements like the flexibility for further changes in business relationships and the intellectual property protection are also taken into account.

Cooperation Models

As the outsourcing became standard business approach in the manufacturing industries, many industry associations like the German automotive manufacturers association (VDA) accomplished the basic development work to define and classify the typical collaboration models and corresponding processes [START_REF] Nee | VDA Empfehlung 4961/3, Abstimmung der Datenlogistik in SE-Projekten[END_REF] (Figure 2). There are 6 supplier types defined according to the criteria: production technical integration, process integration, functional integration, and geometrical (spatial) integration of the whole product (car). Beside of the prime contractor who can be defined as a clone of the OEM without the product management, sales and marketing function, all other types of suppliers (system supplier, module supplier, component supplier, part supplier, and engineering service provider) maintain a high level of independency in their corresponding processes. Taking the fact into account that a supplier supplies many customers, who have their own, various processes and infrastructures, this creates a strong need for a comprehensive integration approach based primarily on standards and serving the relationships to all the customers.

Fig. 2. Cooperation models in the automotive industry

The responsibility of suppliers to provide the suitable product documentation in each phase of product emerging process is self-evident for an OEM. Thus the supplier is forced to take the corresponding measures to adapt his data to OEM's requirements. The most important criterion is the CAD data quality as defined and required by OEM.

CAD Data Quality

In the product, various life-cycle quality requirements at the particular stages are defined and required. These include requirements such as the functional requirements of the product, the type of presentation form, the production requirements or the data quality in the data exchange.

Within the design and manufacturing process chains, there are different phases that shape up demands on the geometric and organizational data quality and the data size. A CAD model can both find multiple uses as well as require certain compatibility. The multiple use is mainly based on the modeling, while the compatibility refers more to the geometrical and topological characteristics. In downstream or subsequent applications, it may happen that the designer says, the CAD model would be good, while the downstream users of this CAD model in the process chain often described it as not so good or even unusable. The same situation can occur in the collaboration context.

Therefore CAD data should ensure the reusability in native CAD system, but also the derivation of the resulting geometry for downstream data processing. Although the level of detail can be low or high during a certain period, the requirements remain the same for geometry and topology.

A categorization of CAD data yields the matching of criteria and characteristics to reasonable and memorable sets of 3D CAD models. There are different approaches, such as the division into "components" or "resources" (for producing components), in various process chains (depending on the material or the manufacturing method) or in accordance with the stages of development (concept, coordination, approval, detailing, etc.). The working group of German Automotive Industry Association (VDA) recommends a two-dimensional matrix [START_REF]VDA-Empfehlung 4955 Umfang und Qualität von CAD/CAM-Daten[END_REF]. Meanwhile, these basic criteria are adopted by almost all OEMs.

Finally the term "CAD data quality" includes the fulfillment of a set of predefined criteria known as mathematical-technical and organizational. To the first set belongs the geometrical quality of CAD models and depends on fulfillment of basic accuracy criteria (coincidence, continuity), itself depending on accuracy setup of CAD system. The second set comprises the relevant rules for the structure of CAD models. Almost each large company has defined own CAD methods which include a set of prerequisites. The fulfillment of the rules is checked by special CAD checkers, which are controlled by profiles for each model purpose.

For the translation from the original into the target CAD format, direct or neutral interfaces are used. The advantage of direct interface is the higher translation speed. The neutral interfaces are more robust by using special healing algorithms for corrupt geometry and allow better logging by using neutral format like STEP and JT.

The main problem in the CAD translation is in the most cases the insufficient data quality after the translation. The requirement for the successful translation process can also be redefined as fulfillment of all relevant data quality requirements, independent of the source system and the stage of the product development process. In the context of collaboration, this requirement can be extended to a level at which the CAD conversion must successfully pass the examination with each CAD checker on the target site, independent from the source CAD system [START_REF] Bondar | Globalized OEM and Tier-1 Processes at SKF[END_REF].

Since the problem has been identified and analyzed, now a concept for ensuring data quality in CAD data exchange has to be developed. For this, only measures are recorded to ensure data quality, and then, finally, to apply the phase model for development of methods.

Measures to prevent loss of information can be taken by considering functional aspects, verification aspects and application aspects. The functional aspects include the division of the total amount of an element specification in compatible element subsets that are adopted in individual performance levels with their associated functional content. The verification of aspects includes procedures to verify and validate the performance of a specification.

The application aspects include specific requirements such as the implementation of a new interface. Due to the wealth and diversity of the internal data models of CAD systems a loss of information during the data exchange cannot be completely avoided. Therefore, specific agreements between data sender and receiver must contribute to minimize the loss of information in the data exchange. Appropriate checklists are required and the criteria can be derived for boundary conditions. These checklists should be created as a function of the gradual approach of the functional performance of the interface [START_REF] Fischer | Anwendungsorientierte Optimierung des neutralen CAD-Datenaustausches mit Schwerpunkt Genauigkeit und Toleranz[END_REF].

The methodological concept development can be understood as decision making process and consists of a sequence of iterative steps. These steps include extensive analytical and synthesizing activities and the appropriate documentation of the analysis and synthesis results. A methodical approach is necessary because all possible requirements have to be considered in a process. Analogous to the phases for the implementation of IT projects, the concept phase, the specification phase, and the implementation phase of development are to be introduced as part of the methodological concept development to ensure data quality,

The essential task in the concept phase is the creation of requirements profile, which includes the performance range. The requirements profile includes a checklist, or a sort of guide for meaningful modeling technique that could prevent problems in data exchange. Herein the pre-mentioned causes are considered. This checklist has been created after many investigations and has been continuously adapted to users.

Based on extensive experience, the necessary guidelines were defined similarly to the VDA recommendation 4955 [START_REF]VDA-Empfehlung 4955 Umfang und Qualität von CAD/CAM-Daten[END_REF]. Here best practices are set up or attempting to establish common guidelines that are either independent of the used CAD systems or specifically dependent on system pairing (e.g. CATIA (Creo) NX), processors and interface formats (e.g. STEP).

The implementation of design guidelines must be established by appropriate check tools. The application is done by native checking capabilities, following the progress of the design process, pointing mainly at the possible errors in data exchange, what is therefore very helpful. The final check can be done in the batch mode. The positive result is the prerequisite for the release of data exchange.

The check tools are modular. The runs by the user are executed individually or in any combination. Limits and other underlying assets for each run will be proposed through a configuration file and can be changed interactively. A selection or limitation of scope of testing is possible, but just a test of all the elements finally matters.

The logging of the test run, including indication of corrupt elements is in a log file. The respective defective items must be clearly identifiable.

Further, the display of certain entities (e.g. transferred and arrived surfaces) from the log file need to be written out after the data export to instantly identify potential losses (e.g. surface count). This required comparative studies to be made with respect to the different log files of the pertaining CAD systems and to the meaningfulness of the log files.

Finally, a figure is required, indicating the number of transferred data elements during the export of native data formats to the neutral file and potential losses as well. This is a comparison between the elements between the states "before" and "after".

The final concept is shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. Final concept for the test procedure

The validation phase is used to check and, if necessary, to improve the concept specification. It must be checked whether the developed method meets the requirements profile from the concept phase. To perform the test, it is necessary to establish criteria and procedures. Based on test criteria and methods, check tools can be developed that allow computer-aided validation. The result of the validation phase can eventually lead to the revision of the concept.

Validation

Validation methods target the proof of the validity of the specification and implementation. They use the methods for verification, confirming the completeness and correctness of a system with respect to a reference system, and the methods of falsification, which serve to demonstrate the faultiness of a system. For validation, test methods are used, which are employed to demonstrate conformity. For the detection of a stable behavior, one applies check methods, which are used for qualitative examination of behavior at different levels of complexity in accordance with predetermined criteria. Finally, measurement methods are used for the quantitative determination concerning the behavior of the basis of predetermined measurement criteria.

The use of validation methods is different in the different phases of the product development model. Depending on the degree of product specification model description, based on the reference model, the formal specification and the implementation, validation procedures can be used in an increasingly quantifying way. In our case, all methods have been incorporated into a fully automated workflow, which is based on the software OpenDXM from PROSTEP (Figure 4). Thus the highest level traceability is achieved [START_REF] Reim | CAD-Konvertierung: Motivation, Probleme, Lösungen[END_REF].

Use Case Daimler

Since Daimler has taken the decision to switch to CAD system NX of Siemens PLM instead of CATIA V5 of Dassault Systemes there is a huge change in the customer process of almost each supplier. The overall situation is shown in Figure 5. Each supplier has to serve simultaneously two target systems (CATIA for ongoing and NX for upcoming projects) with the same or similar content [START_REF] Wendenburg | Konvertierung als Dienstleistung[END_REF]. This procedure includes many CAD translation steps (scenarios 4 to 9) which are in principal not beneficial for good data quality. The challenge is in preserving such a level of data quality to ensure that all translating processes are successful. The data quality in CATIA is checked with QChecker again, in NX by using the newly deployed Heidelberg CAx Quality Manager (HQM).

Results

The procedure shown above was applied for different use cases, including different design content (powertrain, interior, electrics, chassis). Most of them were Creo data, modeled and prepared for translation to CATIA V5, as actually used in ongoing development projects at Daimler. Therefore, a good comparability between "old scenario" and "new scenario" is given.

The translators in CATIA and NX disclose the similar level of performance and robustness. The base system tolerance lies with 0,001 mm at the same level. Initially, all models can be transferred lossless without exception to CATIA and NX. However, it appears in some cases that automatic healing algorithms have slightly adjusted the geometry to satisfy the continuity condition. To what extent this would lead to further problems in further processing, could not be definitely predicted.

Further comparisons in the model properties like center of gravity, moments of inertia, as well as cloud of points were also within the allowed tolerances and showed no abnormalities.

Further investigations were accomplished with the models that once have already been converted, because that is the typical implication of complex scenario shown in Figure 5. Here occurred considerable problems and losses that had to be corrected manually. Such models generally reveal significant quality problems and should be avoided. The Heidelberg CAx Quality Manager (HQM) was very helpful to identify the problems and make a repair easier; a typical application is shown in Figure 6.

Conclusions and Outlook

In a dynamic collaborative environment like global automotive industry the working conditions are subject to a continuous change. Suppliers who work together with different OEMs and tier-1 suppliers have to constantly cope with new requirements relating to exchange partners, data formats, system environments to be supported, quality and security requirements, etc. If they take data communication with customers into their own hands, this means that they have to constantly adapt their data translation and exchange processes to the ever-changing requirements. This involves considerable administrative overhead in terms of time and money, which can occasionally have a negative impact on quality and adherence to deadlines. Collaboration with a competent service provider is therefore an interesting alternative, as it not only cuts costs, but also facilitates making the exchange processes uniform and ensures a higher level of reliability and traceability.

Good example for the long-term stability is the proposed approach to support the recent move of Daimler by replacing CATIA with NX. While many suppliers, which provide the data communication on their own, are forced to adapt their infrastructure, processes and methods to new environment at Daimler by spending a significant amount of money and time, the proposed solution allows to work again in the same environment by using predefined interface in the customer process like supplier portal www.opendesc.com. The check tool Heidelberg CAx Quality Manager (HQM) performs a significant contribution to successful data exchange.

The weakness of the proposed solution is the lack of solution for parametric data translation which still has to be developed.

The future development belongs the further automation of whole communication process and provision of "communication plugin" [START_REF] Mervyn | A 'Plug-and-Play' Computing Environment for an Extended Enterprise[END_REF] for each OEM, based on recent standards (STEP AP242 and JT), in order to avoid the expensive point-to-point connection.

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. CAD translation in www.opendesc.com

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. The change in collaboration between Daimler and suppliers

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. Typical results in Heidelberg CAx Quality Manager