Representing Mechatronic Products in Interorganizational Information Systems

Abstract

Abstract. Representing mechatronic products in interorganizational information systems requires means for capturing characteristics of this type of products. This role is fulfilled by mechatronic product models which are subject of this paper. A mechatronic product consists of three components: software, electronics, and mechanics. The challenge is that diverse interrelations between their components and with other products exist; these interrelations need to be considered in respective models. The problem of current modeling approaches, however, is that they either do not provide the required richness for expressing interrelations or focus engineering tasks only by describing the product behavior. We view mechatronic product models from a logistic perspective which allows us answering two questions: What is the scope of a mechatronic product model for interorganizational information systems? Which information is required in this model (i.e., determined by the goal of logistics)? We design a mechatronic product model from this perspective. We validate our model by studying an interorganizational scenario in an automotive supply chain.

A survey of UML applications in mechatronic systems

“…Models in one layer are related to models in the other layers. In [13], the authors emphasize the importance of modeling the interrelationship between the parts forming a mechatronic system as well as the relationships between mechatronic systems. The authors define customized relationships between mechatronic parts using stereotyped relationships in class diagrams.…”

“…As can be observed in Table 2, the region of the world where almost all the papers were found is in Europe. G e r m a n y [3,4] I t a l y( 2 ) [6] G e r m a n y [7] Finland, Estonia [8] The Netherlands [10] G e r m a n y [11] G e r m a n y [12] G e r m a n y [13] G e r m a n y [17] T a i w a n U S A [18] D e n m a r k [21][22][23][24][25] Poland (5) [27] G e r m a n y [28] G e r m a n y [29] G e r m a n y [30] G e r m a n y [32] I t a l y [33,36] Greece (4) [37] New Zealand and Germany Table 3 shows the UML diagrams reported in the papers reviewed. In this table, only UML diagrams that were reported in three papers or more are included.…”