Experience feedback in product lifecycle management

OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse

researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible

Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent

to the repository administrator:

[email protected]

This is an author’s version published in: http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/21336

To cite this version:

Clermont, Philippe

and Kamsu-Foguem, Bernard

Experience

feedback in product lifecycle management. (2018) Computers in

Industry, 95. 1-14. ISSN 0166-3615

Experience

feedback

in

product

lifecycle

management

Philippe

Clermont,

Bernard

Kamsu-Foguem

*

UniversitédeToulouse,LaboratoiredeGéniedeProduction(LGP),EA1905,47Avenued’Azereix,BP1629,65016TarbesCedex,France

Keywords: Problemsolving PLM Knowledgemanagement Information Businessprocess Riskassessment ABSTRACT

Giventhepopularityof industrialenterprisesforProduct LifecycleManagement(PLM)information systemscapableofsupportingtheentireproductdevelopmentprocess,weseetheemergenceofnew needsandnewresearchdirectionsintheoperationofthesedynamiccomplexenvironments.Reference standardsareapplicabletotheservicesandindustrieswhichbringinnovationandtechnologiestoa fast-growinganddemandingmarket.Toobtainperfectcontrolofbusinessrisksandperformanceandto ensure“zerodefect”,standardsspecifictothefieldsoftransport,emergency(IRISIN9100 ...)and genericstandards (ISO9001 ...)are morerestrictive.Theyinvolvefulltransparencyand rigorin flawlessqualitymanagementprocessesandmonitoringproducts.Inthisfield,knowledgemanagement isparamount;ithelpsimproveoverallperformanceofindustrialsystemsbystructuringtheinformation assetsacquiredbythecompanystakeholders.Inaway,itisthesubstantivedevelopmentofourresearch. WedetailedtheapproachadoptedtoimplementtheExperienceFeedback(EF)systemdedicatedtothe productinthePLMbusiness.Wepresentedafirstactionwiththeobjectiveofformalizingtheimplicit experiencesgeneratedfollowingtheresponsetoatriggeringevent.Inthiswork,wemainlyconsidered negativeeventsforwhichtheinformationtobecollectedareclearlyidentified.Weproposeanapproach combiningProblemSolvingandEFadaptingthelevelofcommitmenttothecriticalityorimportanceof theproblemaddressed.ToinstantiatethisapproachinPLM,wehavechosentorelyontheChange ManagementProcess(CMP)because,firstly,itinvolveschangesinproductdataand,secondly,itusually concernsdrivingdevelopmentsforcorrectionorimprovementofthetechnicalspecificationsrelatedto theproductionprocess.

1.Introduction

The consideration of Experience Feedback (EF) to different levels of the company's activities is one of the safest ways to increasethequalityofitsproductsandservices.Manycompanies wishing to capitalizeor enhance their intellectual capital have adoptedEFprocessesintheircontinuousimprovementplan.Ifthe generalprincipleofEFintheenterpriseisreadilyacceptedbyall, theimplementationandconductindailylifeofanEFsystemis muchhardertoensure.Indeed,despitetheaccessionoftheactors totheprinciplesofApplicationofEF,manybarriersappearintheir implementation, mortgaging, often dramatically, the successof this approach. We are interestedin theseproblems and try to de_fineanactionstrategyfortheeffectiveimplementationofPLM (ProductLifecycleManagement)inthecompany.Manycompanies whichleadreflectiononthecontinuousimprovementofprocesses and product performance have adopted or are deploying PLM

solutions tosupport their process development. Based onthis observation,theproposedworktriestoensuretheproperuseof functionalities and implementationof activitiesassociatedwith the exploitation of the PLM tool and, above all, structured framework of its application to develop and implement an EF system.

ThepresentedworkfocusesonthedeploymentofanEFSystem inamanufacturingcompanythroughcapabilitiesofPLMsoftware. The paper is organized as follows. We start by defining the experiencefeedbacksystems.Then,wepresentcurrentpractices andbusinessbarriersandhighlightsomeindustrialneeds.Then wedescribetheprinciplesofthesolutionthatweimplement.The conclusion presents the findings of the study with some indicationsofthepossibleactionprospects.

2. Experiencefeedbacksystems 2.1.Presentation

Tobecompetitive,companiesneedtodevelopthebesteconomic and technical conditions, top-quality products that meet the

* Correspondingauthor.

requirements of customers, and which comply with applicable regulations.Botharecustomer-specificandthereforeexternaland internal to the company. To achieve this challenge, product development cycle management is paramount and reuse of knowledgeandknow-howisadeterminingfactorinthe effective-nessofperformance.Anintermediarychallengetoenterprisesisto beabletocapitalizeonexperiencescarriedoutduringtheproduct developmenttocreateknowledgeandtomakethemavailablein ordertohelpthedifferentstakeholdersinvolvedinthedevelopment processesofnewachievements.ThemanagementofEFsystemsis oneofthekeyissuesrelatedtoknowledgeengineeringtoachieve thisambitious,butconsiderablysigni_ficant,goal.

EFisaninitiativeengagedtoenhancethevalueofexperience gainedwhenprocessingaproveneventoraprevioussituationto drawlessonsfordevelopmentsorfutureactions[1].Amongthe knowledge management approaches, the EF is part of the “Continuous Knowledge memorization” that focuses on the structuring and accessibility of collected experiences. Indeed, theEFisaspontaneousapproachandisrootedineffortstoachieve acomprehensiveanddurableactions,andtheregistrationprocess ofexperiencesisperformedintherelevantcontext.

EFemergedaboutthirtyyearsago,toaddresstheproblemsof “lossesoftechnicalmemories,choices,expertiseorpractices”[2]. We can cite, for example, the case of transport companies (automobile, aeronautic or shipping industries), where the retirement of human resources working in the methods and qualityserviceshasconsiderableimpactonthebusiness'soverall fundamentalknowledge[3].Today,thisthemebringstogethera broad scientific industrial community,including a comparative analysisofapproaches as proposed in [4,5]. Fromtheseworks, therearefourmaintypesofEF:

- For statistical processing: system focused on collection and formalizationofevents,

- A cycle of Knowledge Discovery from Data (KDD): Data is collectedand analysed todevelop knowledgein the formof decisionrules,

- Throughknowledgemanagementprocess:methodwhichaims toclarifyand enhancethebusiness knowledgeandtechnical expertise,

- Bycase-basedreasoning:systembasedonknowledgebuilding fromoperatingexperiencesfromproblemsolvingprocesses.

Eveniftheyhavespecificcharacteristics,thesefourtypesofEFs canfitintoaglobalmodel.Indeed,thedifferencesmainlylieinthe phasesofdevelopment constitutingtheprecision ofthe Experi-enceFeedbackapproach.EFmodelsusedinthispaperintegrate

these four types. It consists of three phases, described more specificallyinthefollowingparagraphs.

2.2.Definition

Amongst the various definitions available in the subject literature,weselectedtheoneproposedby[6]:“TheExperience Feedback is a structured approach to capitalization and using information from the analysis of positive and/or negative events. Thisapproachimplementsasetofhumanandtechnologicalresources which mustbemanaged for the assistanceof reducingerrors and promoting some rehearsalsgood practices."Thus, theExperience Feedbackisbasedonthedevelopmentofmechanisms,processes and specific software tools to locate, capitalize, store, create, formalize and distributeexperienceand knowledge inorder to improvebusinessprocessesandeliminatepreviouserrors[7].

ThepurposeofEF is tobuildknowledgefromthegeneralization of oneorseveralexperiences.Experiencecanbedefinedasthesetof elementsthatpermitustoconstructandimplementtheresponseto theoccurrenceandthetreatmentofapositiveornegativeevent.EF processconsistsofthreemainphases(SeeFig.1):

- Thecapitalizationphase,tolocateandstore(experiencesbase) therelevantdatatocharacterizeanexperience,

- Thetreatmentphaseisintendedtotransformtheseexperiences intorulesandknowledgeusablebyactors(managers, techni-ciansand/oroperators)inbusinessprocesses,

- Theoperationalphase,tofacilitateandpromoteemploymentof documentedexperienceandknowledge,inbusinessprocesses inordertoimproveperformances.

Dependingonrequirements,anEFsystemcanbeengagedto identifyanddevelop:

- Goodpractices:positiveEF, - Errorsfound:negativeEF.

Similarly,itmaybedesignedtobeappliedlocallyorglobally. Locally,theinformationisusedbytheactivityorprocesstriggering capitalization. This is called source activity/process. In total, capitalized information is used by other activities or business processes.The sourceactivitiesand theinformation-consuming activitiesarethen different.Theshared experientialknowledge can be incorporated in lessons-learned processes and systems deployedinmilitary,governmentandcommercialorganizations. In the following paragraphs, we summarize the essential characteristicsofExperienceFeedback.Formoreinformationon

thismethodofcontinuousimprovement,thereadercanreferfor instancetoWeberetal.[8].

2.3.Capitalisationphase

Thisphasecorrespondstothelocationandcollectionof non-intrusivedatathatcharacterizetheexperiencerelatedtotheevent thatledtothecommitmentofactivitiesandresources(seeFig.2). This“Trigger”eventmayconcerntheverificationof compliance withthespecifications(positiveEF)andtheappearanceofamajor nonconformityneedingactionstoeradicateit(negativeEF).The locationistoidentifythebusinessprocessesorthesourceactivity, the relevant data that are necessary and sufficient for the elaborationof knowledgeexploitablelocallyand/or globally.As wepreviouslyreported,thisinformationwillhelpcharacterizean experience.Dependingonrequirements,thedatamayaffectthe triggeringevent(descriptionofthecontext),actorsengagedwith their competencies, envisaged solutions, selection criteria, the action plan to deploy the adopted solutions and the achieved results[9].Alltherelevantdatawillthenbegatheredtoconstitute “thevectoroftheexperience.”

2.4.Treatmentphase

Theacquisitionistoselecttheresultsrecordedbytheactors: - Orwhencarryingouttheirbusinessactivity,

- Orwhensolvingaproblem,

The localized data are relevant to the constitution of an experiencevector. In storage, it is necessary tousea common databasededicatedtoEFwiththeestablishmentofsecurityand access management activities. Moreover, it is important to homogenisetheterminologiesusedinordertoproperlyorganize thevolumeofinformationcapitalized andmostimportantly,to ease exploitation. This last point is essential because if the documentedexperiencesarenoteasilyidentifiable,theywillnot beusedbyactorstosupporttheirdecision-makingprocessesand, therefore,alleffortstocapitalizetheassociatedinformationwillbe useless.

ThisfirstphaseofEFaimstocharacterizeeachexperiencebya data vector: context of occurrence, trigger events, solutions designed,deploymentplansand results[5].It isthefoundation of EF [10]: if capitalized information is insufficient and/or irrelevant it will be impossible to generate useful knowledge. Thelocationofthedatatobecollectedisthereforeamajoraction. ThetreatmentprocessisthesecondphaseofEF.Itsroleisto generalize someof the experiences recorded; that is tosay to transform sparse vector data into actionable knowledge of activitiesand/orconsuming process.Thetreatmentprocessis a formalprocessinwhichkeytasksaretheanalysis,interpretation,

synthesis of information and formalization of knowledge. It requires the involvement of different experts able, firstly, to understandthequality,relevanceandcompleteness ofthedata vectorsand,secondly,tolocallyandgloballyassesstherelevance andthescopeofuseofknowledgegenerated.

Oncecreated,thisknowledgemustbeformalizedinaspecific form adapted to working methods of actors involved in the businesses affected. Indeed, the goal is not only to create understandable rules by experts but to record knowledge generated at therealization of a process or a problem-solving exerciseinmodelsassimilatedbybusinessstakeholders,bethey managers,techniciansoroperators.Theformalizationtechniques arealsothesubjectofmanyresearchworks.Wefindespecially conventional processes:the prescriptive(or normative)models anddescriptive(orcognitive)models[11]thatinvolvereasoning applied to easily interpretable information. The ontology approaches allow the production of conceptualmodels shared byadefinedcommunity[12].

OthermoreformalmethodssuchasMethodologyfor Knowl-edgeSystemManagement(MKSM)orMethodforanalysingand Structuring Knowledge(MASK) [13] aredescriptive analyses to define a framework for the formalization of the company's knowledge.Finally,theknowledgemustbe“versioned”tomonitor developments.Manyworksdealwith“versioning”,accordingto variouscriteria suchas conservationof datalogging,coherence analysis,thecomplexityofdevelopingoutofwhichananalysisis proposed[14].Thus,thetreatmentphaseaimstogeneralizeoneor several experiences todevelop new knowledgeor updatesuch knowledgeasmustbeuseddirectlybytargetedbusinessactors.It is important to specify that in EF systems, the generation of knowledge is not automatic. This transformation requires the establishmentofspecificprocessesandtheinputoftheexpertise ofprofessionals.

We illustrate the principles of the treatment phase in the diagramofFig.3.

2.5.Exploitationphase

This phase should enable actors to access to knowledge, experiences andotherdata appropriatetotheirjobin orderto makereliabledecisionsandtoavoidpreviousmistakes.Forthis,it is necessary tofilter theinformation available in thecommon database(EFbase)andmake availableonlythatrelevanttothe currentcase.AlthoughthepurposeofEFistoallowactorstouse theinformationcapitalized,thisphaseisstilloftennotproperly taken into account and/or is performed poorly in businesses: information does not reach the people concerned and its exploitationisdifficult[15].

Thus, to properly carry out this exploitation phase, the information requirements of stakeholders must be precisely defined, inordertolimitthevolumeaccessible,andtoprovide

easyaccesswhilecontrollingrights.Itisalsoimportanttoallow actorstosearchforothertypesofinformation,inparticularfor comparingpreviousexperiences.Thesolutionsimplementedfor this operational phase have made use of the essential and practicalEF base. There are two operating modes. The “push” mode provides information directly to the actor during the information processing of a particular event. Information is broadcastinsupportofdecision-makingprocesses.Thismodeof operationrequiresnoresearcheffortbecausetheinformationis directlyavailableandeasilyaccessible.However,itisnecessaryto havedefinedexactlythecurrentneedinordernottoomituseful informationortoavoidpollutingthedecision-makingprocesses. The“Pull”modecorrespondstoinformationretrievalinEFbase. Thismodeallowstheactor torefertothecompletebasefrom which it can extract all information that is deemed to be interesting.Thisapproachrequiresinvolvementoftheactorand thestructuringof appropriateinformation for ef_ficientstorage andeasysearching.Finally,wemustensurethesecurityoftheEF basewiththe establishmentof an access managementsystem allocatingspeci_ficaccessrightstousers.Toimproveinformation researchintheEFbase,therearealsospecifictoolssuchasCase Based Reasoning (CBR) [16] which allows identification by similarity, calculating previous experiences that are close to thecasebeingtreated.Thesereasoningsystems,whileproviding someeffectivesolutionsonthecomputationalaspects,arelittle usedbybusinessactors.

2.6.Synthesis

EFisanapproachbasedonthecapitalizationandexploitationof informationrelatedtobusinessprocessestoenableenterprisesto record and enhance intangible capital important for their developmentandsustainability.

The essential points of the method are the location of information to capitalize, the non-intrusive collection, the knowledgecreation and exploitation in order to support deci-sion-making. In this part, we have focused on presenting the componentsofanEFsysteminordertobetterunderstandsome existingdifficultiesofimplementation.

3. Experiencefeedbackinamanufacturingcompany 3.1.Industrialcontext

Thetargetcompanyistheworldleaderinthedevelopmentand manufacture of high technology batteries. Today, it faces an industrial context that is increasingly complex, with amplified

competition, because of the globalization of markets, the emergence of highly reactive new industrial countries and the growingrequirementsofcustomers.

Toremaincompetitive,theconsideredcompanymust continu-allyseektoreducecostsanddelays,improvequalityandinnovate to develop newtechnological and commercial offers. Reducing costs and time requiresactions throughout thelifecycle of the product, from the design phase of the after-sale services. Maintainingthequalityofproductsobviouslyimpliescompliance with domain-specificstandards (International Railway Industry Standard(IRIS),certificationforqualityintheaeronautical/space/ defenceindustry(EN9100))andgenericnorms(ISO9001:2015– setsouttherequirementsofaqualitymanagementsystem),which becomemoreandmorerestrictive.Theexpansionofregulatory requirements reinforces the constraints of traceability and reliabilityofproducts.

Finally, innovation remains the key factor of progress that allowscompaniestokeepatechnologicaledgeovercompetitors.In response to changes in the industrial context, the considered companydecidedtenyearsagotopositionitselfinanewmarket forso-calledcomplexsystems.Thegroupthenincorporatednew elements to its batteries, such as thermal, electronic, and supervision systems in order to extend the functionalities available.Thecomplexityofproductsisinvolvedinthe introduc-tionofnewcompetenciesinthecompanyandtheproliferationof technologicaltoolsassociatedwitheachcompetency.Giventhis situation,theconsideredcompanyhasdecidedtostepupitsefforts toimprovetheperformanceofitsprocess,initiallybydecreasing costs and time-to-market and, subsequently, by improving the qualityandproductperformances.

Tomeettheseneeds,improvingproductiontoolsisnolonger sufficient and the target company has begun to work on the formalization,exploitationandsustainabilityofitsknowledgeand expertise. Among the differentapproaches of knowledge engi-neeringtoachievethisobjective,theconsideredcompanydecided toimplementacomprehensiveExperienceFeedbacksystem. 3.2.Situationalanalysis

Experience Feedbackis a long-standing practiceand actions andpointtoolshavealreadybeendevelopedinthecompany.An inventoryandanauditofproductdevelopmentserviceshavealso beenmadetoidentifythelimitationsandfrustrationsofcurrent practices[17].Thepurposeofthisfirstworkwasmultiple:

- Analysisoftheperceptionoftheactorsvis-à-vistheExperience Feedback,

- Identification of obstacles and strengths of the existing practices,

- Specification of user expectations for management of their intangibleheritage.

Theauditwasconductedona representativerangeof thirty people:eachprofessionalgroup(mechanics,electronics, thermo-dynamicsandchemistry)withvarioushierarchicallevels (techni-cian,managerandsupervisor)wasaudited.Therepresentativeness of responsibility levelsin the sample was equilibrated with11 departmentmanagers,10engineersand10technicians. Further-more,thelow_{“turnover”}withintheconsideredcompany(upto years seniority) allowed for reliable results based on strong internal expertise. The questionnaire included thirty questions with40% of open questions, theremaining 60% were multiple choice.Thequestionswereorganizedintofourparts:thecontext ofworkwiththetoolsused,thecurrentworkingmethods, the pointsforimprovementandexpectationsandaspirations. 3.3.Experiencefeedbackperception

Accordingtotheoccupationcategory,thevariousactorshave differentperceptionsorsensitivitylevelsofexpectationsforthe ExperienceFeedback.Servicemanagersandengineersdisplayeda willingnesstoshareandexpressaninterestinthedeploymentof an experience feedback solution (Fig. 4). The vertical axis represents theproportionof actorsin thesample interestedin the experience feedback. The horizontal axis represents some specific aspects of improvements associated with work or activities. To be effective, the considered Experience Feedback systemisexpectedtobeapplicabletothevarioustechnicaland managerial services involved in the industrial development of products.Theprocessgeneratedmustinduceagenericapproach adopted by all actors (purchaser, technician, engineer, drawer, workerandmanager).

Theirexpectations relateprimarily todevelopment projects, thecostsandthelifecycleoftheproduct.Moreover,theseactors are aware of the opportunities of such an approach, and the engendereddeploymentanduseissues.Fortechnicians, involve-mentislessandsimplyconcernsdesignmethodsandrecoveryof previous solutions. Their expectations concern the activity of productdesignwithoutintegratingcostconcepts.

Overall,allusershaveexpressedtheneedtocapturetechnical knowledgeonsustainableproductsaswell asthebasicrulesto standardizedesignandbusinessactivities.Managersseekmainly the sharing of information and knowledge acquired during

development tomake them easily usable and reusablein new projects. Engineers focus on the learning of working methods applicableindesignaswellasthecapitalizationofexperiencesto store notable facts. The vision of the technicians is less clear becausetheydonotprojectthemselvesintotheproductlifecycle levelandoftenperceiveExperienceFeedbackasacapitalization workthatitwouldbebeneficialforotherpeople.

Thus,theauditedactorsprofessedamoreorlesspronounced willingnessforthedeploymentofanExperienceFeedbacksystem tomainlyimprove:

- the product quality:technical performance and optimization design,

- the sustainability of knowledge: basic knowledge and rules basedontechnicalprofessions.

3.4.Toolsused

RegardingthecurrentpracticesintermsofEFwelistedadozen specific applicationsdedicated totechnologies and made them availabletotheactorsoftheconsideredcompany.Thesearethe applicationsdedicatedtothearchivingoftechnicalresultsandthe disseminationofinformationondataflowsbetweencooperative activities. They guide the realization activities and constitute specificandsharedstoragespacesforresultsandindications.

The information, stored in these specific applications,is an exploitable source in the creation of an EF process because information is created and directly used during industrial developments.Weidentifiedthreecategoriesoftools:

Thefirstconsistsoftoolsspecifictoatechnicalprofession.These toolsareuniquetoatypeofactorsandallowstorageofpositive resultsonly,withoutthedetailedactionsrelatedtofailuresand employedworkingmethods.

The second category is composed of tools dedicated to a transversal theme such as quality, or the management of developmentprojects.Thesetoolsareaccessibleontheinternal networkwhich is a sharedstoragespace that issecured and compartmentalizedperservicesintheconcernedcompany.This networkisthecoreofinformationsharing:eachactorhascertain rights of access and modification of files and directories are clearlyidentified.Theactorscanalsosavethedata,accordingto theassociatedprocedures,rulesandmodels.

Thefinalcategoryconsistsoforalorcomputercommunication tools.ThiscategoryisthemoreusedinternallyforEF.

Indeed, the actors are business experts, specialized in the productdevelopmentsegment.Aswehavealreadyreported,the staff turnover is low and actors naturally capitalize on their activities.Thus,thefirstvectorofEFiscommunicationamongst expertsduringprojectreviewsoremailexchanges.

3.5.Barriersidentified

Onthebasisofthisaudit,wecouldlisttheworkingmethods used and identify bottlenecks to achieve an efficient EF. We classified all causes identified during interviews with the Ishikawa diagramshown in Fig.5. Interviews were conducted onthefeelingsoftheactorstowardsthetoolsofworkuseddaily. This study made it possible to highlight the brakes and motivations of the audited staff. Although only about thirty people were interviewed,the questioning of these actors was particularlyinterestingbecauseitwasarepresentativesampleof the different occupations involved in this issue facing the company. The main causes identified in these interviews are cross-checkedwithothersourcesofinformationfromprevious studiescarriedoutinsimilarcompaniestoensureconsistencyin theinformationproduced.

ThemainobstaclesidentifiedinthepracticeofEFare: - Material:inputdataenteredintheprocessaremasteredbyits

creatorbut arenotformalized(simplestatisticaldata)which generatesanoperatingdifficultyandidentificationof informa-tionand itsrelevance.In addition,descriptionsareoften too technicalandfocusedonhumanerrorswhichdoesnotallowfor enoughcontextualelementsforfutureanalysis,

- Machine:theprofessionaldedicatedtoolshavelowimpacton EF.Theyareindependentandprovideheterogeneoussupports, causingsignificanttimesincollectionandsearchinformation, - Methods: the setof usagerules and access rights are often ignored by the majority of users, limiting the sharing of information. Restitution model is insufficiently employed, whichleadstoincompletereviewsandanalysis.

- People:thepracticeofworkinginisolation(expert)anddistrust ofinformationsecuritygeneratesresistancetosharing. Capital-izationandinformationgatheringisoftenperformedfromthe positionofstaffworkingaloneandwithouttheuseofspecified tools.ThelackofindicatorstomeasureactionsrelatingtotheEF doesnotencourageactorstoinvestinthisdirection.Finally,the protagonistsarenotsufficientlyawareofthebenefitsoftheEF,

sincetheyoftenhavedifficultywritingreportsinanappropriate form, using the information recorded in a comprehensive manner,puttinginthenecessarytimeoreffortonExperience Feedback,

- Environment: the working environment consists of many independenttoolswithspecificfunctionalperimetersandthis engenders ignorance ofactualcapacity ofeach. Furthermore, without a bridge between the tools, information can be potentiallyoutdatedornecessitateredundantdataentry.

Identification of barriers, key points to move the company forward, enables us to highlight needs, identify pitfalls and communicateonourfutureactions.Insummarychartof Fig.5, theexpressionofuserbarriersreflects:

- AlackofavailabilityofactorstomakeEF, - Difficultyinthechoiceanduseoftools,

- Informationgatheringisfragmented asa resultof theuseof severaldifferenttools.

- Fearofthereliabilityandsecurityofavailableinformation, - Alackofmodelsforstructuringinformation,

- Informationrecordingtoooftenlimitedtostatisticaldata,which isnotcontextualized,

- Reluctance towritereportsfor previousactionsthat ledtoa success,

- Difficulties toeasily exploit information recorded in current tools,

- Thefeelingoflossofpowerfollowingthesettingofcommon methodsorprofessional‘tricks’,

- Reluctancetochangeexistingworkinghabits.

Thus,theauditofEFhelpedtoshowthelimitationsofcurrent approachesinknowledgemanagementtools.

3.6.Statementofrequirements

Basedontheneedsexpressedduringtheaudit,thewillingness ofactorstoimproveisprimarilydrivenby:

- Improvementoftheactivitiesinvolvedintheproductlifecycle: theproductistheheartofthecompany.Theaimbeingtomakea robust product in optimal conditions (cost, time, quality), compliantwithregulationsineachcountry,andwhichsatisfies thecustomer,

- Sustainabilityofknowledge: to progress,onemustbeableto captureknowledge,toaddvalue,forinternaldisseminationand reuseinordertobeabletokeepitsleadingposition.Furthermore, one mustimplementknowledge management (versioning) to ensurethattheinformationprovidedisstillvalid.

Tomeet thesetwoobjectives, it isnecessarytoestablishan efficientknowledgemanagementsystem,thatistosayoneableto handleexperienceandbusinessknowledgeandwhichallowsall actorsbusinessprocesseswitheasyaccesstorelevantandupdated information.

Theelementsthatshouldbeavailablefordomainactorsfallinto fourmainareas:

1) theprovision of a common information system architecture dedicatedtothe productand business information manage-ment: elements needed to secure the information, control accessandensureuniquenessandupdatingofinformation. 2) specificationforeachprofession,model(“template”)tobeused

to describe the events, experiences and knowledge: these specifiedelements,ontheonehand,toguaranteethecontents oftheEFbase,theheartofthesystemand,secondly,toachievea maturitystageonthefieldconcernedbyenforcingstructured thought, observation and explicit expression of elements manipulatedtoallusers[18].

3) thedefinitionofaprocessforknowledgecreationandupdate: onrecorded experiences,the domainexperts need a formal methodtodevelopinternalstandards,tokeeptheknowledge supportalive,andconsidermeanstotrackversionsavailable (versioning).

4) theprovisionofanoperatingsystemforthecontentoftheEF database: theinformation must beeasilyexploitable, traced andupdated,ontheonehand,toimproveproductandbusiness process performances,and onthe otherhand, tojustify the interestofeffortsmadebystakeholderstodeployandtomake alivetheentireexperiencefeedbacksystem.

4. Principlesofsolutions

Intheframeworkofcontinuousimprovement,theconsidered companyisengagedwithadeploymentprojectofPLM(Product Lifecycle Management). We propose to use this framework to implement anefficient EF system and respondtothe previous requirementsandbarriers.

4.1.Presentation

TherearemanyformsProductLifecycleManagementSystems (PLMS) that are implemented to create an integrated product information environment. PLMS provide a strategic approach whichappliesaconsistentsetofbusinesssolutionssupporting thecreation,management,disseminationandusetechnicaldata ofproductsacrosstheextendedenterprise,fromconcepttoend of life. PLM creates, controls, disseminates and uses this information throughout the product lifecycle. There is a complementarity of document management and product rela-tionaldatamanagementtomeetPLMissuesinmanySmalland Medium-size Enterprises [19].PLM is supported bya software packageaimedatcreatingacollaborativeworkenvironmentfor actors involvedin thedevelopment cycleof some products. It allowsthe_{“orchestration”}andsystematizationoftheconductof commonand formalbusinessprocesses(called“workflow”),in whichtheresponsibilities,accessrights,rolesandinformationto inputandoutputsareclearlydefined.Theinformationregistered

inthecommondatabaseofPLMarestructuredusingmetadata including individuals (objects), classes (sets of object types), attributes(characteristicsorpropertiesofobjects),relationships (links between objects) and events [20]. This set of various information is structured in a metadata repository l: each metadataissetinaformatdefinition:text,date,binary,scrolling list,etc.Theuseofacommonmetadatarepositoryprovidesthe homogeneityofthemetadataassociatedwithalldistinctobjects belongingtothisrepository.Thisallowsthesystematizationand standardizationofthereportingofresults.Theuseofaspecific wordforgenericinformationofmetadatarequiresactorsworking in a business process to speak with the same terms and abbreviations, which facilitates storage, search by keyword, understanding andexchanges. Thus; PLM tools help to collect and structure the information generated during development; whileorchestratingtheexecutionofactivitiesthatmakeupthis process.

4.2.Integrationofanexperiencefeedbacksystem Thetargetofourworkistofacilitatethe:

Capitalizationofrelevantinformationgeneratedduring develop-mentstocreatevectorsofexperiences,

Establishmentofaformalprocessofknowledgecreationwith modeltypes,

Reinjection of the gathered information in the form of experienceorknowledgevectorsinacontrolledandappropriate mannerthroughouttheproductlifecycle.

Forthis,wechosetoexploitthefunctionalitiesofferedbythe PLMtoolandinducedframeworktoimplementourEFsystem.The principleofthissolutionisillustratedinFig.6.

EFsystemwillbesuppliedwithcertaininformationrelatedto the development collected by PLM and centralized in its own commondatabase.Thus,alltheinformationwillberetrievedina single, consistent and reliable source. The documents and the natureofinformationmanipulatedinPLMarethetechnicaldataof businessmodels.Theycontaininformationrelatingtoresultsof operations,ensuringtherelevanceoftheircontentinusefortheEF. Inaddition,theuseofthePLMstructureoffersanadvantagefor information capitalization and exploitation. In fact, a first formalization by using metadata is obligatory. The use of a common referencewith the same management policies for all userspromotestheuniquenessandupdateofemployed informa-tionandfacilitatestheexchangeandcomprehension.

4.3.InterestofthelinkageEF-PLM

LookingagaintothefourpointsidentifiedforanefficientEF system(seex3.6),itappearsthattheuseofPLMenables:

- Toresponddirectlytopoints1,2and4, - Toprovideaformalframeworkforpoint3.

4.3.1.Point1

PLM is based on the use of a single, common database to centralizeandshareinformationwithinbusinessprocesses.This condition allows the eradication of problems relating to the existence of specific storage areas for each actor. Thus, the experiencesarerecordedinthesinglecommondatabaseforall businessprocessesforallservices,allowingthereductionofthe appearanceofduplicationsandthepromotionoftheuniquenessof information.PLMalsoincludesthefeaturesdefinitionandaccess

rightsmanagementtothedatabaseforallactors,whichallowsus todefineandmanagepossibleactionsofeach.

4.3.2.Point2

theuseofPLMrequiresthecompletionanduseofthemetadata availableinthetool.However,metadatausedtostructureonlythe shapeandcontentofinformation.ContentthatistheheartofEF system (creation of theexperiencevector) is not supportedby metadata. To meet this need, we have implemented standard reportingframes enabling actors todescribe experiences using scrollinglistsandkeyterms.Theseframesor“templates”directly associated with the PLM object help actors in the seizure operations while homogenizing information capture. Further-more, their employment facilitates the localization of some relevantinformation(havingmeaningfortheknowledgecreation) inthecontentsinordertofacilitatetheconstitutionofexperience vectors.

4.3.3.Point3

PLM is used to define formal processes and therefore orchestratetheimplementationofinterrelatedactivities.Inthese processesor“workflows”thesequenceofactivitiesandtasksto perform,theallocationofresponsibilitiesandrightsofaccess,the interventionofdifferentbusinessrolesinprocessandsupporting documents are to be used and described, formally. Thus, PLM provides a framework to implement the treatment phase to transform the experiences recorded into knowledge usable by businessactors.Finally,PLMhaveintheiroriginalfunctionalities, workflowsformanagingmaturitystagesofdocumentstoensure theprovisionofformallyvalidatedinformation.

4.3.4.Point4

usingtheregisteredinformationand extractionqueries,PLM allows for automatic establishment of EF sheets containing synthesis of experiences.Stored in thePLM database,these EF recordsareeasilyaccessibleandusablebytheactors.Furthermore, professionandskilllevelsbeingassignedtoeachactorthroughthe definition roles in workflows, it is possible to inform actors automaticallyofthecreationand/orupdateofspecificknowledge. Thus,thecoupling“Activity–Occupation–Actor“allowsafirst implementationoftheEFsysteminaPushmode.

In synthesis, couplingtoPLMwithEF processesis usefulto benefitfunctionalities “naturally”offeredbythistypeof toolto avoidmanyofthebarriersofEFexpressedbybusinessactors. 4.4.Computerapplicationsinindustryaspects

Somecomputerapplicationsinindustryaspectsareessential, sinceintheconcernedenterprisetheyareusefultosimplifythe procedures and reduce the time frame for the processing of experiences. These aspects include requirements definition, settingtheparametersofthedatamanagementandotherspecifics requiredforappropriateconfigurationanduserinformation.

Beyondtheimplementationworkwhichsupportedthecreation andthemajorconfigurationsofthecomputertool,wecarriedout anaccompanimentofthereflectiononthechoicesofdefinitionof the objects and the workflows. The principles of concrete applications are used to verify that the configuration of the computertool,themainsettingsandtheassociated documenta-tion correspond to the functional specifications issued by the company.Thisverificationiscarriedoutbyconfirmedactorsofthe company'sinternalprocessestoundertaketestscenariosonreal cases.Wetookadvantageofthistestingstagetotrainusersinthe newfunctionsofthetoolandtocollecttheirevaluationofthem. Therefore, we have specified the definitions of a meta-repository with the automated processes and the parameters necessary to obtain data management in line with internal processes.Similarly,wehavemanagedthedeployment,training and communication activities to ensure that we validate the establishedelementsandmaximizetheadoptionofthePLMtool byfutureusers.

Thetechnicaldocuments,richinknowledgeandbusiness know-how,havebeenintegratedintothePLMdatabaseandaretherefore managedasPLMobjects.Intheproposedsolution,thecomputerized mechanisms exploit theseelements ofknowledge supportsand workflowsofPLMevolutiontoinstantiatetheprocessingprocessof experiencefeedback.Thisprocessingprocessaimstotransformone ormoreexperimentsintobusinessknowledge.

5. Validationwithacasestudy

Thissectionisdevotedtothepresentationofproblem-solving onaconcretecaseofanestablisheddefaultinthetargetcompany.

Theproductonwhichtheanomalyisdetectedisabattery.At the PLM level, it is declared in the production phase and consequentlymanaged.Instigatedbyacustomercomplaint,the manifestation of the problem initiates the problem-solving experiencethatwepresentheretoshowtheapplicabilityofEF solutionsthatwehavedeveloped.

Thecomplaintconcernscertaintechnicalcharacteristicsofthe productand isthereforedirectlylinkedtothedefinitionof the product. The model of experience and knowledge will be generated, after the processing of modifications related to the consideredexperiences,bygeneratingEFrecordsfilledoutduring theprocess.

Wepresentthisexperiencephasefor:

1) validationoftheEFsolutionthatweproposedbyverifyingits applicabilityandthatitgeneratesre-exploitabledata(EFfilesin thePLMdatabase),

2) verificationthatthesolutionmeetsuserexpectationsandthatit canbeoperationalizedforanychangerequestinthePLM. Thiscasestudywillalsohighlight:

Thenecessaryprerequisitesforapplyingtheapproach,
Theimportanceoftheinvolvementandmotivationofpilotsto

leadtheprocessofstructuredresolutionsupportingthemethod,
Theeffectofchangesinworkhabitsthatmustbeaccompanied

internallytosensitizeuserstotheresultingbenefits.

Itshouldbenotedthatthecasepresentedherecorrespondstoa complexproblem becauseittraces acomplete problem-solving processinvolving animportantwork ofanalysisand searchfor solutions.

Thisworkwas carriedout inparallelwiththeinternal non-computerized resolution processes used in the considered companyat thedate ofthe experience;theconfrontation with thedevelopmentsoftheapproachmadeitpossibletoensurethat thesolutionwascompleteandaccessibletoallusers.

Theexampleispresentedinchronologicalorderofevents.We present theactions, actorsand information committedas they participate in the process to highlight the contributions of structuring the problem-solving methodology and the anchors fortheelementsofEF.

5.1.Initialsituation:acustomercomplaintonbatteryhoses Thetriggeringeventoftheexampleisarealcase,reportedbya customer, concerninga setof similar componentslocated at a specificpointonseveralbatteries:thedeteriorationofhoseswith thedetectionof awhitedepositonthecomponent (aspectand sealing).

The complaint process is initiated by the customer at the company’sQualitySupportService.Anengineeroratechnicianof this service, declared with a “guest” role in the PLM product contexts,takeschargeofthiscomplaint:thisisthewitness.The witnessinitializesaproblemreport(PR).Hedeclarestheincident andtheactionstakentorespondtothecomplaintinPR.According totheinstructionsofthedescriptiontask,hemust:

inform theelements of thecontext and of theevent via the automaticfieldsofPLM,

link to the PR the descriptive documents (mails, photos, complaints ...)andtheobjectsassignedtothePLM.

The information provided by the complaint describes the context. This document formalized by the company contains informationon:

theidentificationoftheproductsconcerned:BatteryXXXand theinformationrelatingtoitsconfiguration,

the conditions of use of the batteries: maintenance reports, batteryusagetime,maintenanceconditions ...,

thedateofdetectionofthefaultanditsdescription:locationon thebattery(photo),

the first investigations carried out to identify the defect: chemical expertiseof thedeposits, technicalteststotest the insulationofthecomponent.

The creatorof the PR,(witness) declares and integrates the descriptionofthetechnicalproblemarisingfromthecomplaint process.Thecomplaintprocessis abusinessprocessin itsown rightthatwedonotdescribeintheexample.Itsoutputdataisthe inputdataoftheproblemreport.

Whenthedescriptionisconsideredclearandcomplete,thePR promotiontaskisvalidated.Theanalysisnotificationissenttothe ChangeAdministratorI(CA1).

Thetechnicalpersoninchargeofthisproduct(theactorwho guaranteestheconformityofthedefinitionofthebatterytothe production state) is the pilot and, in accordance with the instructions,hemust:

– readthedescriptionoftheproblem,

– makeageneralanalysisoftheproblemsupportedbythetool called“5W1H(Whathappened?Whoisinvolved?Wheredidit takeplace?Whendidittakeplace?Whydidthathappen?How did it happen?) – Is/Is not” according to the results of the chemicalanalysiscarriedoutduringthecomplaint,

– searchforsimilaropenPRsinproductcontextsandconsultEF, – confirmthattheproblemrequiresaresolutionprocessinvolving

modificationofoneormorecomponentsofthebattery. Problemmanagementisnecessarybecausethereisanimpact oncustomersatisfactionandnosolutionisobvious.Weillustrate thebehaviouroftheprocessinthediagraminFig.7,inwhichwe findalltheinformation,actionsandskillsimplemented.

TheextractofthetableattachedtoFig.7ispartofavalidation toolthatweusedforthiscasestudyandwhichmadeitpossibleto verify,bygradualfillingoftheproposedfields,theconsistencyof theprogressionbyconfrontationwiththecaseofexperience.We willfindthisvalidationelementinthefollowingFigs.8and9. 5.2.Determinationofcausesanddevelopmentofsolutions

ThetechnicalmanagerofthisproductcreatesaChangeRequest (CR)linkedtotheProblemReport(PR)andmanagestheprocess. He generates an instance of EF form which compiles the information fields with the elements of the PR and manually informsthefreefields.

Hemakesadiagnosisfollowingtheobservationoftheanalysis madeatthereceptionofthePR.Theproblemiscomplex:
ontheonehand, theproblemis recurrent(observedonfour

batteries)andimpactsthecustomerproductbymaterialdamage (deteriorationofthehose)

on the other hand, the solution is unknown, linked to the definitionof acomponent;it requirestheexpertiseofseveral businessareas(especiallytechnicalexpertise).

The selected workflow is the Full-Track process. The pilot selects a teamoftechnicalexperts, theTechnicalReviewBoard (TRB),includingamaterialsengineer,achemicalengineeranda mechanical engineerfromthelistproposedbytheCRtaskand declares theseexperts in the EF form. He plansworkshops to

analysecausesandimpacts;thisactivity,carriedoutoutsidethe PLMcontext,generatesanInternalTechnicalAnalysisReport.

TheTechnicalAnalysisReportdescribes:

thecontextofappearance(elementscompletedbythecomplaint form),

the presentation of the tests carried out on samples: the chemicalnatureandcharacteristicsofthedeposit,the character-isticsrelatingtotheinsulatingcapacitiesofthecomponent,

chemical,opticaland mechanicalmeasurementsand observa-tions(resistancetoinsulation),

conclusions.

This document is related to the CR and the relevant PLM components.FindingsarereportedmanuallyintheCRfields.They leadtothefollowingcauses:

thedepositisduetomisuseofthebattery(bythecustomer),

Fig.8.Problemanalysisandsolutionvalidation. Fig.7.Thecontextoftheconsideredproblem.

thefailureisduetoalackofresistanceandperformanceofthe material.

InaTRBmeeting,thegroupvalidatesthecauses.Althoughthe conditionsofusebythecustomerarethefirstparameterinvolved, theTRBproposestoimprovethedefinitionofthecomponentto avoidanyreoccurrenceoftheproblem.

TheTRBproposesand arguesforthepotentialsolutions.The technical manager of the product, the CA1, transcribes this informationintheappropriatetextfieldsoftheCR.Hedeclares theminEFform:

solution 1: change of material from the original supplier. Following an audit (ofwhich thereport is linked tothe CR) carried out under the Problem Solving Method (PSM), the supplierdoesnothaveamaterialthatmeetstherequirements;
solution2:completechangeofdefinitionandmaterial:requests

forqualificationofanewmaterialfromanewsupplier. TheProductManager ensuresthat theproposalis clearand completed in the CR and EF fields. He validates thedesign of solutions. He selects a team of decision-making experts in the Change Review Board (CRB) (responsible for technical service, qualitymanager,purchasingmanager)fromthelistproposedby theCRtaskanddeclaresthemintheEFform.Anotificationissent forvalidationtothemembersoftheCRB.

MembersoftheChangeReviewBoard(CRB)haveaccesstothe findingsoftheTechnicalReviewBoard(TRB)sinceChangeRequest (CR).Theypresent thesubjecttothemembersof Management Committee (CODIR) and select solution 2: complete change of definitionandmatter.Theagreementofeachmemberisnecessary

to validate the solution. The CRB sends this decision to the technicalmanageroftheproduct.TheProductManagerreturnsto the decision of the CODIR. He validates CR by including the responsemessage.HeshalldeclarethisinformationinEFSheet. ThisvalidationautomatesthecreationofaChangeNotice(CN)and anotificationissenttotheChangeAdministratorII(CA2),thehead ofthedesignoffice.

The conductof this processis illustrated bythe diagram in Fig.8.

Theinformationcompiled inEFformtracesallthedecisions andactivitiesundertakentoarriveatthechosensolution.EFsheet includesalltheconclusionsdrawnfromthetechnicalexpertise activities and the identity of the actors who generated the information.

5.3.Implementationanddeploymentofthesolution

The head of the design office receives the request for completionoftheChangeNotice(CN).

– Ensuresthatinformationautomaticallysynchronizedwiththe ChangeRequest(CR)iscompliant.

– HeselectstheChangeImplementationBoard(CIB)team(inthis case, it is still: materials engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer) from the list proposed by task CR and declarestheminthesheetEF.

The chosen professions are the engineers of the disciplines concernedbytheimplementationofthesolutions.

ItplansameetingtosetupascheduleoftaskswheretheCIB plans:

aChangeActivity(CA)involvingthecreationandapprovalofthe qualificationsreport.Theassignedisthechemicalengineer,the personinchargeisthetechnicalmanager,

a Change Activity (CA) involving the evolution of the piece (changeofdefinitionandmaterial)andupdatingoftheplan.The headofthedesignoffice revisestheobject;Theassignedis a draftsman/designer,thepersoninchargeisthepersonincharge oftheproduct,

ChangeActivity(CA)involvingtheupdatingofalljoblistingsand relatedplans.TheresponsibleBEreviewsthenomenclature(via a system of selection of all cases of use); The assigned is a draftsman/designer,thepersoninchargeisthepersonincharge oftheproduct,

aChangeActivity(CA)involvingthedemandforthetechnical specificationofthecomponentviaaProblemReport(PR).The assigned is the material engineer declared in the NS library (Business Standards) Techniques, the person in charge is the personinchargeoftheproduct.

actionsdescribedinafile,supportedbyanadditionalcompany’s toolthatmanagesnon-PLMshares.Thisscheduleisattachedto theChangeNotice(CN).

TheChangeAdministratorII(CA2)declaresthelistofassigned objectsandthedetailedactionplanintheEFformandvalidates theimplementationtask.Validationworkflowsfor PLMobjects relatedtoChangeActivity(CA)arerunindependentlyinparallel. Whenthevalidationworkflowiscomplete,theobjectsarechanged and gotothe“Official” status, themanager passes theChange Activity(CA)tothe“Resolved”state.Hedeclaresthecompletionof theactionintheEFform.

AnautomaticnotificationofChangeNotice(CN)issenttothe ChangeAdministratorIII(CA3)whenallChangeActivity(CA)isin the “Resolved” state. The Technical Service Manager is then requiredtoauditthechangemanagementprocess.Inaccordance withtheinstructionsoftheaudittask,hemustensurethattheEF formisfullycompleted,inordertoactivatethevalidationprocess ofEFplugandconfirmtheChangeNotice(CN).

WeillustratetheapproachonthediagraminFig.9.

EFprocessiscompletedbypassingtheEFformtoan“Official” state.ThelatterisapprovedbythecompanypilotEF(continuous improvementmanager)afteraninterviewwiththeCA1,CA2and CA3toconfirmthecompletenessoftheinformation.EFManager movesthisEFcardtotheEFLibrarycontainerofPLM.

WepresentedanillustrationoftheprincipleoftheExperiment Feedback/PLMapproachappliedtoimplicitknowledge.Engagedin the problem-solving process taken as an experiment, this knowledgeintervenesintheresolutionactivitiesandparticipates inthecreationofeachexperiment.

TheprinciplesoftheExperimentFeedback/PLMcouplingalso offer opportunities for a similar demonstration for explicit knowledge by applying the approach to Quality documents

dedicatedtotheexploitationoftechnicalexpertise.Thecreation of these documents constitutes a particular activitybecause it transforms implicit knowledge held by experts into explicit knowledge formalized in a form that is appropriate to their professionandaccessibletoallactors.

6. Discussion

Theimplicitknowledgeoftheactorsofthebusinessprocesses forms a very important part of the intangible heritage of this process.Inthiswork,wehavebeenparticularlyinterestedinthis knowledgeinthecaseofproblem-solvingprocesses.Wechosethis type ofprocessbecauseproblem-solvingsituationsconstitutea privileged frameworkfortheexpressionof thisimplicit knowl-edge.

Wefirstconsideredtheproblem-solvingprocessitselfand,on thebasisofadetailedanalysisoftheinternal“mechanisms”ofthe company,weproposedanorganizationofthisprocesstoallowus to apprehend in an appropriate form the different levels of complexity that may be encountered. Using this process as a supportforexperiences,wehaveformalizedtheexperiencesthat involvealargeamountofimplicitknowledgeandweorganizedan EF system to capitalize the significant information of these experiences.

EF-PSM form that we have defined can be supported, in a conventionalway,byPLM.

Inthefinalphase,weextendedthecouplingbetweenthe EF-PSMprocessesandthePLMthroughtheModificationManagement processofthePLM(seeFig.10).

Theexampleproposedattheendofthisworkatteststothe applicabilityoftheproposals.Thepresentationsmadeitpossible toprovide:

A structured formalization of resolution process with the definitionoftherolesandpowersofthevariousactorsinvolved;
Anefficientcapitalizationoftheinformationgeneratedbythe experiences resulting from the PSM support process via a standard “template” common toall, in an assisted and non-intrusiveformfortheactor;

Aneasyintegrationofthisinformation,largelyderivedfromthe implicit knowledge of the actors involved, in the process of improvingtheperformanceoftheproductand perfectingthe structuringofprocesses;

A facility to exploit previous experiences, generated and recordedinthePLM.

Thesefirstresultsalreadyshowtheopportunitytoexploitthe functionalitiesofPLMtofacilitatetherealizationofthe mecha-nismsofExperienceFeedback.TheuseofPLMoffersa rangeof structuringtoolsandmaterialsthatpromotethecommitmentof processes and data. The _{“synchronization”} of the PLM and EF

modelsmakesitpossibletosimplifyandimprovetheEFapproach andtofacilitateitsappropriationbytheusers.

TheintegrationofaPLMsolutionisasensitiveprojectbecause itinvolvesmanyprocesseswithinthecompany.Itisalsoacomplex project because of the choice of the configurations to be implementedtomanagethelifecycleoftheproductandtheneed toaccompanychangebecauseitimpactsonworkmethods.

ThescopeofPLMextendstothefulllifecycleoftheproduct. Thisfieldisvastandimpactedthedeploymentofthesystemby confrontingdifferentdesignproblems(granularityoftheproduct models,evolutionintimeofthemodels,thelevelofdetailinthe work_flows,organizationtobeputinplace ...).

Thecompanyhasovercomethetechnicaldifficultiestodefine itsmodelbygraduallybuildingitonthreededicatedserversto supportthedevelopment:

– the development server for design instances and first test sessions,

– thereplicationserverofthedatabasetovalidatethenewsettings ondummydata,

– the official work server containing the actual production information.

Thisorganizationmadeitpossibletotestthefunctionalitiesand theparametersatthebaseofdevelopmenttosetupparametric modelsandtotestthemduringreception,withoutdisruptingthe development and the production of the batteries. After being declared compliant,these elementshave been switchedto the officialserverand,thus,formalized.

Itshouldbenotedthatagreatdealofattentionhasbeenpaidto the recipe actions aimed at verifying the consistency of the instantiated parameterization in the database, by defining and carryingoutasetoftestscenariosrepresentativeoftheintended functioning.Wepersonallypilotedthesescenariosbyensuring:
Thewritingoftestsupports,

The realization of technical and functional tests with the businessactors,

The definition of corrective actions and the verification of correctionsestablishedbythePLMprovider.

Receptionwasofmajorimportancefortheprojectbecauseit conditionedthereceptionofthecomputertoolaccordingtothe definedfunctionalspecifications.

Thetechnicalserviceprofessionswerethemainactorsinvolved in the deployment of PLM.Since theirdaily activities and the majorityoftheirtoolsofworkrestitutionwereimpacted,itwas necessarytoinvolvethemintheconstructionand parameteriza-tionofthetool.Theyhaveofteninitiatedproposalsforfunctional improvementandpromotingthebenefitsofthesolutionputin place.Itshouldalsobenotedthatwehavedirectlyimplemented awareness-raising,trainingandsupportmeasuresforusers. 7. Conclusion

Inthispaper,wehavepresentedworkundertakenaspartofan industrialpartnership.Toimproveperformance ofproductsand processes, the company decided to take advantage of the implementationofPLMtodeployanExperienceFeedbacksystem. After having defined the mechanisms of an EF system, we presented some practical gaps in current EF systems and developedallpoints ofinterest intheintegration ofEF in PLM softwaretool.ThisoperatingsolutionusesfunctionalitiesofPLM frameworktoimplementanEFsystemwhichsignificantlyerases manybarriersencounteredduringtheinstallationandoperationof anEFsystem.Theexpectedresultistocapitalizeinformationina

non-intrusivemannerandthegeneratedexperiencesinbusiness processesandfacilitatetheintegrationofthisinformationinthe futuremodularphasesofproductdevelopmentsthroughEFsheets [21]. The work is ongoing, the adopted methodology provides concepts for a flexible deployment adaptationwith options to ensurethesustainabilityofPLM[22].

The resulting methodology contributes to the technological innovation, an effective way to keep ahead. To maintain its leadership and differentiate itself from its competitors, the consideredcompany invests inresearchand development.This company seeks to improve the existing solutions and the performance ofitsproducts.Wearealreadyabletoreportvery positivefeedbackfrombusinessactorsconcerningtherelevanceof this PLM-EFassociation.Thefocus isonlithium-ionbatteries,a properbatterystoragesystemforrenewableenergymarkets.The research is focused onthe evolution of the batteries that will constitutethenextgenerationstoincreasepowerandenergyand optimizetheservicelifeofthesystem.Thisevolutionofproducts tends towards a technical and technological complexity which multipliesthenecessarysynergiesbetweenbusinessexpertiseand enhancedtechnicalknowledge.

Furtherworkswillincludethecompleteimplementationofthis EFsystemthenensureoperationalization,including communica-tion campaigns and training. An important extension should concerncharacterizationofperformanceindicatorstoassessthe effectivenessofthedevelopedsolutionanditsintegrationinthe company'smanagementsystem.

References

[1]Kamsu-Foguem, et al., Knowledge formalization in experience feedback processes:anontology-basedapproach,Comput.Ind.59(7)(2008)694–710. [2]Françoise Barthelmé, Jean-Louis Ermine, Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux, An architectureforknowledgeevolutioninorganisations,Eur.J.Oper.Res.109 (September(2))(1998)414–427.

[3]J.LeDuigou,A.Bernard,N.Perry,J.C.Delplace,Globalapproachfortechnical datamanagement.Applicationtoshipequipmentpartfamilies,CIRPJ.Manuf. Sci.Technol.1(3)(2009)185–190.

[4]H.Jabrouni,B.KamsuFoguem,L.Geneste,C.Vaysse,Continuousimprovement throughknowledge-guidedanalysisinexperiencefeedback,Eng.Appl.Artif. Intell.(EAAI)24(8)(2011)1419–1431.

[5]B.Chebel-Morello,M.K.Haouchine,N.Zerhouni,Reutilizationofdiagnostic casesbyadaptationofknowledgemodels,Eng.Appl.Artif.Intell.26(10 November)(2013)2559–2573.

[6]H.Rakoto,P.Clermont,L.Geneste,Elaborationandexploitationoflessons learned,IFIP-Int.Fed.Inf.Process.93(2002)297–300.

[7]J.Meiling,F.Backlund,H.Johnsson,Managingforcontinuousimprovementin off-siteconstruction:evaluationofleanmanagementprinciples,Eng. Construct.Archit.Manage.19(2)(2017)141–158(19p.).

[8]R.Weber,D.W.Aha,I.Becerra-Fernandez,Intelligentlessonslearnedsystems, ExpertSyst.Appl.20(1January)(2001)17–34.

[9]S.Bekhti,N.Matta,C.Djaiz,Knowledgerepresentationforanefficientre-useof projectmemory,Appl.Comput.Inf.9(July(2))(2011)119–135.

[10]PaulaAndreaPotesRuiz,BernardKamsu-Foguem,DanielNoyes,Knowledge reuseintegratingthecollaborationfromexpertsinindustrialmaintenance management,Knowl.-BasedSyst.50(September)(2013)171–186. [11]Jean-christophe.LeCoze,Disastersandorganisations:fromlessonslearntto

theorising,Saf.Sci.46(1January)(2008)132–149.

[12]T.R.Gruber,Atranslationapproachtoportableontologyspecifications,Knowl. Acquisition5(2)(1993)199–220.

[13]RoseDieng-Kuntz,NadaMatta,KnowledgeManagementandOrganizational Memories,KluwerAcademicPublishers,NewYork(USA),2002(August),216 pages.

[14]Mario Mezzanzanica, Roberto Boselli, Mirko Cesarini, Fabio Mercorio, A model-basedevaluationofdataqualityactivitiesinKDD,Inf.Process.Manage. 51(2March)(2015)144–166.

[15]RosinaO.Weber,DavidW.Aha,Intelligentdeliveryofmilitarylessonslearned, Decis.SupportSyst.34(3February)(2003)287–304.

[16]A. Aamodt, E. Plaza, Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodologicalvariations,andsystemapproaches,Artif.Intell.Commun.7 (1) (1994)39–59.

[17]Paula Potes Ruiz, Bernard Kamsu Foguem, Bernard Grabot, Generating knowledgeinmaintenancefromExperienceFeedback,Knowl.-BasedSyst. 68(2014)4–20.

[18]P.Maret,J. Calmet,Agent-basedknowledgecommunities,international,J. Comput.Sci.Appl.6(2)(2009)1–18.

[19]MickaëlDavid,FrantzRowe,WhatdoesPLMS(productlifecyclemanagement systems)manage:dataordocuments?Complementarityandcontingencyfor SMEs,Comput.Ind.75(1January)(2016)140–150.

[20]YangXu,AlainBernard,NicolasPerry,JingXu,ShigeoSugimoto,Knowledge evaluationinproductlifecycledesignandsupport,Knowl.-BasedSyst.70 (November)(2014)256–267.

[21]HansPeterLomholt Bruun,Niels HenrikMortensen, UlfHarlou,Michael Wörösch,MikkelProschowsky,PLMsystemsupportformodularproduct development,Comput.Ind.67(February(1))(2015)11–97.

[22]KaryFrämling,JanHolmström,JuhaLoukkola,JanNyman,AndréKaustell, SustainablePLMthroughintelligentproducts,Eng.Appl.Artif.Intell.26(2 February)(2013)789–799.