|Publication number||USRE41476 E1|
|Application number||US 10/421,080|
|Publication date||3 Aug 2010|
|Filing date||23 Apr 2003|
|Priority date||21 Aug 1998|
|Also published as||CA2338630A1, CA2338630C, EP1105822A1, EP1231552A1, US6223094, USRE44450, WO2000011579A1|
|Publication number||10421080, 421080, US RE41476 E1, US RE41476E1, US-E1-RE41476, USRE41476 E1, USRE41476E1|
|Inventors||Peter Muehleck, Adam Polly|
|Original Assignee||Sap Aktiengesellschaft|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (48), Non-Patent Citations (20), Referenced by (11), Classifications (16), Legal Events (2)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This invention relates to a computer based system and method for displaying component and process structures for configurable product classes stored in a data structure.
Many industries offer highly variant products to their customers, a prime example being the automotive industry. Automobile manufacturers typically offer several models to their customers, who can often choose among numerous options for a selected model. As a result, it becomes necessary for a manufacturer to keep track of hundreds of products and their corresponding component structures and related production processes. Manufacturing companies offering a high variance of products and wishing to maintain reasonable costs depend on an efficient information system for products and their associated components and processes.
Existing database systems for product structures tend to be redundant. For example, a database may contain component lists for hundreds of different products, the result being that the same component would be listed separately for each product with which it is associated. While such a system may be useful for manufacturing products, it is impractical from a design perspective. A designer cannot readily view, for example, the extent of specific products or product classes affected by a change to a particular component. Nor could he easily obtain a clear picture of which components are common to certain product classes, and which are specific only to a particular product within a class. Nor could he see the routing a particular product and its components through its production processes. These are important features from a cost perspective, since they enable a designer to make decisions as to whether or not to include, or to change, particular components based on the number of products or product classes that are affected. An accurate view of the components and processes associated with product classes is vital for efficient design and manufacturing.
A system for depicting products and their associated components was described at a presentation given by Volkswagen at the CIMData European Conference in 1997. The system includes a data structure with a tree-like representation of the various components and subcomponents for a single model of a car. Each component is represented by a node and is associated with specific variants, such as “leather” and “vinyl” for the component “seat”. The structure is limited to a single product class, however. Since there is no product hierarchy, components are mapped to at most one product class. Therefore, the system does not enable alternative viewing of components associated with broad product classes and components associated with particular products, as would be desirable both from design and production perspectives, respectively.
Another example of a system for depicting a similar structure is the STEP Protocol ISO 10303-214. Although this system can depict the processes as well as components for a particular product class, it does not distinguish between the actual production steps required for a general process, and those steps required for specific processes. Accordingly, the system cannot accurately maintain or display the actual production steps required for production of a particular product variant. Furthermore, STEP does not enable viewing of components and processes associated with different product classes, nor does it allow for more than one possible decomposition of a particular component.
It would be desirable to have a computer based system containing a hierarchy of product classes, whereby individual product components are mapped to all product classes with which the component is related, and all components of a particular product class can be displayed in a graphical format. Specific component variants, representing the concrete item used for a particular product variant, would also be associated with each component. Similarly, the processes required to assemble components would be mapped to those components, and specific variants of those processes, or the actual production steps associated with particular component variants, associated with each process. The computer based system would enable viewing of all of the components and processes associated with any product class within the product class hierarchy on a display.
It is accordingly an object of the invention to provide a computer based system having a data structure stored in memory, whereby products in the data structure are grouped hierarchically by classes and subclasses.
It is a further object of the invention to provide within the data structure component nodes and process nodes representing individual components and processes used within each of those product classes and subclasses in the data structure.
It is a further object of the invention to map those component and process nodes to each of their associated product classes and subclasses within the data structure.
It is a further object of the invention to provide within the data structure component variants for individual component nodes, representing the range of concrete items used for that component and their quantities.
It is a further object of the invention to provide within the data structure process variants for each process node, representing the range of production steps used for that process.
It is a further object of the invention to provide within the data structure a selection condition that specifies the particular component variant and process variant to be used for a particular product variant according to the specific product characteristics of the product variant.
It is a further object of the invention to support more than one possible decomposition for a particular component within the data structure.
It is a further object of the invention to enable graphical viewing on a visual display of all components associated with a product class specified through a user interface.
It is a further object of the invention to enable graphical viewing on a visual display all processes associated with components within a product class specified through a user interface.
It is a further object of the invention to enable graphical viewing on a visual display all components for a specific product variant, which is the bill of materials for that product variant.
In accordance with these and other objects, a computer based system is provided with a memory containing a product variant data structure with products grouped hierarchically by classes. Components are mapped to all individual product classes with which they are associated. Processes are mapped to all individual components with which they are associated. Component variants and process variants, which are the actual concrete items and production steps used to make a particular product, are associated with each component and process, respectively. Product classes and sub-classes can be displayed graphically on a visual display in a tree-like format with their associated components, component variants, processes and/or process variants.
Components, which are abstractions of concrete items used in the product, are represented by component nodes. Each component node is associated with a certain product class and with one or more component variants, representing the range of concrete items used in the product for that component. For example, the component “wheel” includes components “tire” and “rim”. Specific component variants for “rim” may include aluminum rim, steel rim type A, and steel rim type B. Component variants have a selection condition which selects the appropriate component variants for a specific product, or “product variant”, within the related product class. The set of all selected component variants forms the bill of materials for that particular product variant.
Processes, which are abstractions of actual steps used in the production process, are represented by process nodes. Each process node is generally associated with at least one component and with one or more process variants, which are the actual production steps that are employed for particular variants of the affected component or components. For example, the generalized process “mount door” may include a first process variant representing the actual production steps necessary to mount a regular door, and a second process variant representing the different production steps necessary to mount a door equipped, for example, with an automatic lift mechanism.
The product variant data structure 1 of the computer based system is divided into four layers, as shown in FIG. 1: the Product Layer 2, the Application View Layer 3, the Node Structure Layer 4, and the Variant Layer 5. The top layer is the Product Layer 2, which consists of a description of products and product families, each with particular characteristics. This layer may be hierarchically structured to show the relationship between product families. For example, the product class “Compact Car” may consist of sub-classes “Model A” and “Model B”, as shown.
The next layer, the Application View Layer 3, enables the viewing of a particular product class in various ways, depending on departmental requirements. Engineering, for example, may need to sec all top-level component nodes associated with a generic product class.
The Application View Layer 2 preferably stores different views for departments across the company. Upon specification through the user interface of the desired application view node, the central processor of the computer based system converts the application view into a graphical representation for visual display on the display of the computer based system.
The Node Structure Layer 4 represents the functional decomposition of the product into components and processes. The primary elements of the Node Structure Layer 4 are nodes 101, which include component nodes and process nodes. Component nodes are abstractions of the concrete items that are used in the product. For example, a car may have a separate component node for “engine”, but not for a particular type of engine. Instead, the actual items that are used to produce the product are specified by component variants associated with the component nodes. Component variants are discussed in greater detail below in the context of the Variant Layer 5. Process nodes are linked to component nodes and are abstractions of the actual steps used to manipulate the component in the production process. For example, the component “door” may have a separate process node for “mount door”, but not for mounting a particular type of door, which may require different production steps. Instead, the actual production steps that are used to manipulate the component in the production process are specified by process variants associated with process nodes. Process variants are discussed in greater detail below in the context of the Variant Layer. The Node Structure Layer 4 consists of all component nodes and process nodes for a particular product class. It has a multi-layer structure to portray components, their subordinate components, and related processes.
The lowest-level layer of the Product Variant Structure 1 is the Variant Layer 5, which consists of variants 102 that are related to nodes 101, including component variants that are related to component nodes, and process variants that are related to process nodes. Component variants are concrete items that are used as part of the final product. When a particular product is built, the component node is replaced by one of its related component variants. Since more than one component variant may be related to a component node, there is a selection condition associated with each component node that specifies the product characteristic for which each component variant is used. Accordingly, given a particular product with specific characteristics, or a product variant, the variant layer can supply its bill of materials. The bill of materials for a particular product variant can be obtained by specifying the desired product variant through the user interface of the computer-based system, whereupon the central processor will apply the selection conditions to determine the bill of materials for the specified product variant, and display the specific component variants that are used in the product variant.
Process variants represent concrete operations used in the production process for concrete component variants. Process variants are related to process nodes and are selected by a selection condition based upon the desired product variant (and hence the particular component variant). Accordingly, given a particular product with specific component variants, the variant layer can supply its concrete routing through actual production steps.
Component variants are selected and final products are produced by specifying characteristics of a particular product class. As shown in
Component nodes and process nodes are the primary elements of the product variant structure 1 of the computer based system. The component node 101 “Engine” in a car, may have the concrete item “2.4 1 6 cyl.” as one of its associated component variants. As shown in
Nodes 101 are related to each other in three ways. In a car, for example, the component node “wheel” is connected to component nodes “rim” and “tire”. This is called a “decomposition type” node relationship. A process node may also be decomposed into several process nodes, so the decomposition type node relationship may be of the type “CC” or “P-P”. The “connection relationship” establishes the production process flow between component nodes and process nodes. Since processes may also connect to each other without an intervening component, the connection relationship can be of the type “C-P”, “P-C” and “P-P”.
As shown in
While there have been shown and described and pointed out fundamental novel features of the invention as applied to embodiments thereof, it will be understood that various omissions and substitutions and changes in the form and details of the invention, as herein disclosed, may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit of the invention. It is expressly intended that all combinations of those elements and/or method steps which perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same results are within the scope of the invention. It is the intention, therefore, to be limited only as indicated by the scope of the claims appended hereto.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US4835709 *||25 Nov 1987||30 May 1989||Bell Communications Research, Inc.||Assembly modeling process|
|US4847761||24 Sep 1987||11 Jul 1989||International Business Machines Corp.||Automated bill of material|
|US4862376 *||28 Oct 1987||29 Aug 1989||International Business Machines Corp.||Bill of material interface to CAD/CAM environment|
|US4958292||19 Apr 1988||18 Sep 1990||Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha||Production control system for mixed production line|
|US5109337 *||28 Oct 1987||28 Apr 1992||Ibm Corporation||Conceptual design tool|
|US5119307||22 Dec 1989||2 Jun 1992||General Electric Company||Method and system for automated bill-of-material generation|
|US5201046 *||22 Jun 1990||6 Apr 1993||Xidak, Inc.||Relational database management system and method for storing, retrieving and modifying directed graph data structures|
|US5216613 *||12 Aug 1992||1 Jun 1993||Texas Instruments Incorporated||Segmented asynchronous operation of an automated assembly line|
|US5307261||28 Jun 1991||26 Apr 1994||International Business Machines Corporation||Method and system for product configuration management in a computer based manufacturing system|
|US5311424||28 Jun 1991||10 May 1994||International Business Machines Corporation||Method and system for product configuration definition and tracking|
|US5436842||13 Jan 1994||25 Jul 1995||Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha||Method of and apparatus for indicating number of blanks to be introduced for products, and manufacturing system using the same|
|US5467285||30 Aug 1994||14 Nov 1995||International Business Machines Corporation||Method and system for optimizing material movement within a computer based manufacturing system|
|US5515269||8 Nov 1993||7 May 1996||Willis; Donald S.||Method of producing a bill of material for a configured product|
|US5523942 *||31 Mar 1994||4 Jun 1996||New England Mutual Life Insurance Company||Design grid for inputting insurance and investment product information in a computer system|
|US5675784 *||31 May 1995||7 Oct 1997||International Business Machnes Corporation||Data structure for a relational database system for collecting component and specification level data related to products|
|US5708798 *||7 Jun 1995||13 Jan 1998||Trilogy Development Group||Method and apparatus for configuring systems|
|US5740425 *||26 Sep 1995||14 Apr 1998||Povilus; David S.||Data structure and method for publishing electronic and printed product catalogs|
|US5764519||7 Mar 1996||9 Jun 1998||Hitachi, Inc.||Method and device for computing material requirements|
|US5777877||2 Nov 1995||7 Jul 1998||Fujitsu Limited||Processing device and method for making arrangements for parts used in products|
|US5815395 *||29 Jun 1995||29 Sep 1998||Interface Definition Systems, Inc.||Diagnostic method and apparatus for configuration errors|
|US5825651 *||3 Sep 1996||20 Oct 1998||Trilogy Development Group, Inc.||Method and apparatus for maintaining and configuring systems|
|US5980096 *||17 Jan 1995||9 Nov 1999||Intertech Ventures, Ltd.||Computer-based system, methods and graphical interface for information storage, modeling and stimulation of complex systems|
|US6040834 *||31 Dec 1996||21 Mar 2000||Cisco Technology, Inc.||Customizable user interface for network navigation and management|
|US6112181 *||6 Nov 1997||29 Aug 2000||Intertrust Technologies Corporation||Systems and methods for matching, selecting, narrowcasting, and/or classifying based on rights management and/or other information|
|US6141598||6 Apr 1998||31 Oct 2000||Hyundai Motor Company||Vehicle assembly line control system and method|
|DE3911465C2||6 Apr 1989||28 Mar 1996||Licentia Gmbh||Verfahren zur automatischen Konfiguration technischer Systeme aus Komponenten|
|DE4400984C2||17 Jan 1994||21 Mar 1996||Mitsubishi Electric Corp||Verfahren für einen Fertigungsprozeß sowie Einrichtung zur Durchführung des Verfahrens und Verwendung der Einrichtung|
|DE19614789C1||6 Apr 1996||25 Sep 1997||Daimler Benz Ag||Verfahren zur automatischen Konfigurierung eines technischen Systems unter Berücksichtigung unterschiedlicher Qualitäten von Komponenten-Außenwirkungen|
|DE19714627A1||9 Apr 1997||30 Oct 1997||Volkswagen Ag||Parametric selection of individual objects or groups of objects|
|DE19815619A1||7 Apr 1998||14 Oct 1999||Hyundai Motor Co Ltd||Vehicle assembly line control method for line production of vehicles|
|DE196147789C1||Title not available|
|EP0457706A2||9 Apr 1991||21 Nov 1991||International Business Machines Corporation||Method and system for processing bill of material and project network data|
|EP0481907A2||6 Sep 1991||22 Apr 1992||International Business Machines Corporation||Method and system for processing a multilevel bill of material|
|EP0488246A2||27 Nov 1991||3 Jun 1992||Hitachi, Ltd.||Manufacturing planning system|
|EP639815A2||Title not available|
|EP760506A2||Title not available|
|EP838773A1||Title not available|
|EP0838773B1||8 Sep 1997||11 Feb 2004||Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft||Method and apparatus for handling the serial numbers of multiple components of a product|
|EP992868A2||Title not available|
|GB2289963A||Title not available|
|GB2325066A||Title not available|
|JPS6491203A *||Title not available|
|WO1994023372A1||21 Mar 1994||13 Oct 1994||Trilogy Development Group||Method and apparatus for configuring systems|
|WO1995001610A1||27 Jun 1994||12 Jan 1995||Electronic Data Systems Corporation||Product structure management|
|WO1996028784A1||13 Mar 1996||19 Sep 1996||Trilogy Development Group||Flash configuration cache|
|WO1998008177A1||20 Aug 1997||26 Feb 1998||I2 Technologies, Inc.||System and method for extended enterprise planning across a supply chain|
|WO1998010360A1||27 Aug 1997||12 Mar 1998||Trilogy Development Group, Inc.||Method and apparatus for maintaining and configuring systems|
|WO1998033104A2||8 Jan 1998||30 Jul 1998||Trilogy Development Group, Inc.||Method and apparatus for attribute selection|
|1||A.E. Robinson, "Current ideas in knowledge-base management systems", Information and Software Technology, vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 266-273 (May, 1990).|
|2||Australian Patent application No. 60792/99, Australian Patent Office Action dated Jul. 19, 2002.|
|3||EP Application No. 02008116.2, European Patent Office Action dated Jun. 28. 2002.|
|4||*||Erens, F. et al: "Product Modelling Using Multiple Levels of Abstraction Instances as Types" Computers in Industry, NL., Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. Bd. 24, Nr. 1, 1994, Seite 17-28.|
|5||*||Gu, P. et al: "Product modeling using step", Computer Aided Design, GB, Elsevier Publishers, BV., Barking Bd. 27, Nr. 3, 1995, Seite 163-179.|
|6||H.M.H. Hegge et al., "Generic bill-of-material: a new product model", International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 23, pp. 117-128 (1991).|
|7||Hartmut Wedekind et al., "Stücklistenorganisation bei einer grobetaen Variantenanzahl*", Angewandte Informatik, Sep. 1981 pp. 377-383.|
|8||Hartmut Wedekind et al., "Stücklistenorganisation bei einer groβen Variantenanzahl*", Angewandte Informatik, Sep. 1981 pp. 377-383.|
|9||*||IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 33, issue 6B, p. #147-150, title: TFR Expert system Shell, Nov. 1990.|
|10||Japanese Patent application No. 2000-566767, Japanese Patent Office Action dated Feb. 13, 2004.|
|11||Japanese Patent application No. 2000-566767, Japanese Patent Office Action dated May 6, 2003.|
|12||Michael R. Blaha et al., "Relational Database Design Using an Object-Oriented Methodology", Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 414-427 (Apr. 1988).|
|13||PCT Application No. PCT/EP99/06087, PCT International Preliminary Examination Report dated Nov. 27, 2000.|
|14||PCT Application No. PCT/EP99/06087, PCT International Search Report dated Jan. 26, 2000.|
|15||*||Peters, H.D., "TI-Syncro-The New BoM Approach of Volkswagen, " presentation at CIMData PDM Europe Conference, Nov. 28-30, 1997, in Noordwijk, Netherlands.|
|16||*||Peters, H.D., "TI-Syncro—The New BoM Approach of Volkswagen, " presentation at CIMData PDM Europe Conference, Nov. 28-30, 1997, in Noordwijk, Netherlands.|
|17||*||STEP Application Protocol ISO 10303-214 Updated CDII Document (Sep. 30, 1997)-Core Data for Automotive Mechanical Design Processes, 1997, Technical University Darmstadt, Germany (Relevant sections enclosed).|
|18||*||STEP Application Protocol ISO 10303-214 Updated CDII Document (Sep. 30, 1997)—Core Data for Automotive Mechanical Design Processes, 1997, Technical University Darmstadt, Germany (Relevant sections enclosed).|
|19||*||Support of Multiple Manufacturing Product Definition; IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Sep. 1, 1992; vol. 35, Issue 4B, p. 316-319.|
|20||William M. Kerber, "Structuring and Managing the Bill of Material under Changing Company Conditions", Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference Proceedings of the American Production and Inventory Control Society, pp. 421-424 (Oct., 1991).|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8234619||20 Apr 2007||31 Jul 2012||Sap Ag||System, method, and software for facilitating business object development testing|
|US8571945 *||7 Dec 2011||29 Oct 2013||Jda Software Group, Inc.||Pre-qualifying sellers during the matching phase of an electronic commerce transaction|
|US8756116||26 Nov 2012||17 Jun 2014||Jda Software Group, Inc.||Pre-qualifying sellers during the matching phase of an electronic commerce transaction|
|US9053254 *||7 Sep 2012||9 Jun 2015||Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.||Massive model visualization in PDM systems|
|US9529507 *||4 May 2015||27 Dec 2016||Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.||Massive model visualization in PDM systems|
|US9727596||24 Apr 2014||8 Aug 2017||International Business Machines Corporation||Scalable visualization of a product and its variants|
|US20080263503 *||20 Apr 2007||23 Oct 2008||Sap Ag||System, method, and software for facilitating business object development testing|
|US20100153382 *||19 Feb 2010||17 Jun 2010||Nrx Global Corp.||Systems and methods for the matching of materials data to parts data|
|US20100318974 *||16 Jun 2009||16 Dec 2010||Sap Ag||Business object mockup architecture|
|US20130132432 *||7 Sep 2012||23 May 2013||Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.||Massive model visualization in pdm systems|
|US20150234560 *||4 May 2015||20 Aug 2015||Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.||Massive model visualization in pdm systems|
|U.S. Classification||700/107, 709/203, 700/110, 709/201, 700/95, 700/117, 700/108|
|International Classification||B62D65/18, G06F17/50, G06F19/00|
|Cooperative Classification||G06Q40/08, G06Q10/0875, G06F17/50|
|European Classification||G06Q10/0875, G06Q40/08, G06F17/50|
|4 Oct 2012||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 12
|26 Aug 2014||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: SAP SE, GERMANY
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:SAP AG;REEL/FRAME:033625/0334
Effective date: 20140707