|
I
agree there is still an element of confusion on the boundary between design and
individual. There is also a risk that our DEXs may prove too big for many
simpler exchanges - this can of course be easily overcome by only partly
population them.
Thinking in business terms, the occasions when this DEX (or DEXs) might
be used include:
-
recording the configuration of a newly build product as
realized, including its relationship to the product assembly from which it
was build (hence the need for both part and serial number records);
Using DEX 1 and DEX 8 for this would only communicate the relationship at the
top of the tree - it would not enable each serial no to be linked to the
relevant part from which it derived, as it lacks the complete set of "realised
from" relationships.
-
communicating the current properties of a product as realized. This could
be done using serial id, but is more likely to use mix of serial and part
no's. Using part No in this way does not necessarily require use of the
assembly structure, but again, in practice probably will do, as the serial
numbers cannot always convey the complete structure. The ATA feedback
reports we looked at used the part/serial number pair for the item being
reported and also required recording of the same info for the next higher
assembly (where fitted));
- communicating
required configuration of an individual yet to be build (product_as_planned),
which could, in theory include a definition of some of the serialized parts
to be fitted (use engines no 36 and 43)
- communicating REQUIRED configuration to
be applied to an existing individual, from within a set of permitted
values (e.g. fit long range fuel tanks, not weapon pods). Please note this
does not involve any design change - simply a selection from previously
specified alternatives applicable to the individual in question. I suppose
this is also a use of product_as_planned;
I am
inclined to agree with Adrian that it would be useful to clearly distinguish
between the first two examples, reporting what it, and the last two examples,
both of which define what shall be. Whether we do this by two different
usages of the same DEX (how differentiated?) or by two DEXs is a moot
point. In either case their will be lots of common
elements.
Not sure if this fully answers Rob's
questions. On balance (to save work?) I think I'd go for a single
"representing product_as_individual" DEX and use the material within it to
identify and distinguish between as-realized and as-planned.
John Dunford,
Eurostep Limited,
25, Chaucer Road, BATH BA2 4QX,
UK
Tel: +44 1225 789347
Mobile: +44 0797 491 8202
Has
this discussion ever been resolved? It would appear not.
Current scope of Dex 8 includes
the
representation of a product as realized and the representation of a product as
planned. The capabilities so far developed give
short shrift to product as planned.
I'm not sure we
want to create 5 new capabilities. But something has to be done for Dex
8.
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.
|