Rob,
Regards your last question, I prefer the approach
which allows for a distinction between "representing_product_as_planned" and
"representing_product_as_realized" I'm not sure that we need the additional
complexity of "product_as_individual" as this blurs the distinction between
a product that can be observed/used/sold etc and a product which is
planned. However there are a few areas of commonality between
"representing_product_as_planned" and "representing_product_as_realized", for
example the "serial number" to identify an individual product, which is
perhaps why we ended up with both concepts together under the DEX8 name.
Perhaps we need three DEXs here, one for product designs the second for
expected individual products the third for existing individual
products.
I
remember JD was always very keen to make these
distinctions.
Regards
PS
thank goodness for spell checkers, I should have been thinking about
"prodcuts" not "products" anyway!
Adrian
Landline +44 (0) 117 979
5820
Mobile +44 (0) 788 0798
370
Hi
I have started on the capability
“representing_product_as_realized” and have made a first stab at the
introduction and business context.
Comments
welcome
Whilst doing this I took a look
at the introduction for the DEX “product_as_individual”
The first observation was that it
reads as if the DEX is encompassing the “design” of the product (i.e. the
CAD, specs, support breakdowns etc) as well as the actual
product.
Is that the case? If so I am a
bit surprised as I thought that the DEX was exclusively about the product as
individual – not the design. The design should be covered in DEX1. If you
need both the design and the individual then use both DEX1 and
DEX8
The second observation was
perhaps we have the names of the capabilities wrong.
The term product as individual
refers to an existing or potential future artefact whose properties can only
be known by observation or by derivation from observations. I.e the
product_as_planned and the product_as_realized.
Should the capability therefore
be called “representing_product_as_individual” and deal with the product as
planned as well as the product as realized?
Or should we have two
capabilities: “representing_product_as_realized” and
“representing_product_as_planned”
Regards
Rob
-------------------------------------------
Rob
Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email:
Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
Phone:
+44 (0)1454
270030
Mobile:
+44 (0)7796 176 401
Fax: +44 (0)1454 270031
The data contained in, or attached to, this e-mail,
may contain confidential information. If you have received it in error you
should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from
your system and contact +44(0)1332 242424 (the Rolls-Royce IT Security
Director) if you need assistance. Please do not copy it for any purpose, or
disclose its contents to any other person.
An e-mail response to this address may be subject
to interception or monitoring for operational reasons or for lawful business
practices.
(c) 2004 Rolls-Royce plc
Registered office: 65 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E
6AT
Company number: 1003142. Registered in
England.