Simulation with 3DEXPERIENCE Evaluation of software for production flow simulation in manufacturing industry Master’s thesis in Production Engineering Erik Bernérus Marc Karlsson Department of Product and Production Development CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2016 Master’s thesis 2016 Simulation with 3DEXPERIENCE Evaluation of software for production flow simulation in manufacturing industry ERIK BERNÉRUS MARC KARLSSON Department of Product and Production Development Production Systems Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden 2016 Simulation with 3DEXPERIENCE Evaluation of software for production flow simulation in manufacturing industry ERIK BERNÉRUS MARC KARLSSON © ERIK BERNÉRUS & MARC KARLSSON, 2016. Supervisor: Henrik Kihlman, PhD, & Michael Westergren, Prodtex Examiner: Prof. Björn Johansson, Department of Product and Production Development Master’s Thesis 2016 Department of Product and Production Development Division of Production Systems Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Telephone +46 31 772 1000 Cover: 3DEXPERIENCE compass, see subsection 1.1.2. Typeset in LATEX Printed by Chalmers Reproservice Gothenburg, Sweden 2016 iv Simulation with 3DEXPERIENCE Evaluation of software for production flow simulation in manufacturing industry ERIK BERNÉRUS MARC KARLSSON Department of Product and production development Chalmers University of Technology Abstract This thesis treats the production flow simulation capabilities of the software 3DEX- PERIENCE by Dassault Systèmes, which is a holistic Product Lifecycle Manage- ment system. The software 3DEXPERIENCE’s Industrial Engineer and Manufac- turing Engineer roles have been thoroughly tested and evaluated. The evaluation method used has been revised to better fit today’s standards and demands on pro- duction simulation software, as seen by a large enterprise. After comprehensive research and learning of the software, a simulation model was constructed, which lent aid for the evaluation of the software. The simulation model depicts a part of the production line of a large enterprise, Toyota Material Handling; a company which has served as a reference company for large enterprises in this thesis. The simulation model showcases the possibilities that 3DEXPERIENCE offers in terms of produc- tion simulation. The outcome of the evaluation was that 3DEXPERIENCE excels in evaluation categories such as visual aspects, efficiency, modelling assistance and user support, but clearly lacks in categories such as financial and technical features, statistical features and most notably, environmental consciousness. Furthermore, the thesis contain instructional guides explaining how the different apps within the aforementioned roles operate in reference to one another. The thesis work has been carried out in cooperation with Swedish consultancy firm Prodtex, as it was in their interest to attain a broader knowledge base regarding production flow simulation within 3DEXPERIENCE. Keywords: Production Flow Simulation, 3DEXPERIENCE, DELMIA, Dassault Systèmes, Discrete Event Simulation, DES, Evaluation of simulation software v Acknowledgements Our greatest thanks go to our examiner Prof. Björn Johansson, supervisors Henrik Kihlman, PhD, and Michael Westergren at Prodtex. We wish to express our sincere thanks to Frida Bohman for critically reviewing and opposing our thesis. Furthermore, we would like to thank Dan Li, MSc, for sharing his knowledge with us and helping us throughout the thesis project. Finally, we would like to direct our gratitude to everybody at the Department of Product and Production Development for making us feel welcome at the department. Erik Bernérus & Marc Karlsson, Gothenburg, June 2016 vii Table of Contents List of Figures xi List of Tables xiii List of Abbreviations xv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.1 QUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.2 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.3 Toyota Material Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Frame of Reference 7 2.1 Production flow simulation terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1 Plant Layout Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.2 Equipment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.3 Factory Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.4 Process Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.5 Manufactured Item Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.6 Process Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.7 Equipment Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.8 Planning Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.9 Additional apps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.3 Evaluation of simulation software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3.1 Evaluation framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.1 Economical sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.2 Social sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.3 Environmental sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 Methods 17 3.1 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1.1 Instructional guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ix Table of Contents 3.1.2 Recreating factory flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Simulation in 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.4 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4 Results 21 4.1 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2 Revision of evaluation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2.1 Omissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.2.2 Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.3 Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2.4 Revised evaluation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.4 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.4.1 Creating a Factory Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.4.2 Creating a Process Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.4.3 Creating a Factory Flow Simulation using Process Planning data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4.4 Simulation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4.5 Process Flow Simulation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5 Discussion 35 5.1 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.1.1 Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.1.2 Encountered issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.1.3 Toyota Material Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.1.4 Development of 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.1 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3 Methods and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3.1 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3.2 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6 Conclusion 41 6.1 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.2 Simulation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.3 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.4 Future research opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Bibliography 43 A Revised evaluation method I x List of Figures 1.1 The 3DEXPERIENCE compass tool used in navigating the interface 2 1.2 The concept of the 3DEXPERIENCE platform . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 BT’s hydraulic pallet truck from 1948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Prodtex’s logotype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.5 Toyota Material Handling’s logotype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Example of Process Flow Simulation layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Example of a Manufactured Item layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3 The three pillars of sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4 Life cycle thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1 Layout of the coffee factory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1 The importance of general criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE per category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3 Work-flows for creating a Process Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.4 Work-flows for creating a Factory Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.5 Example of Process Flow Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.6 CAD model of robot-cell at Toyota Material Handling . . . . . . . . . 30 4.7 Pallet trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.8 The Manufactured Item for first welding station . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.9 Define Operations for source system, Process Flow Simulation . . . . 31 4.10 General system with loading operations in Process Flow Simulation . 32 4.11 Production Demand Definition manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.12 Production Supply Definition manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.13 Work-flow for creating the Process Flow Simulation model . . . . . . 33 5.1 Example of missing options in context menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.2 Example of context menu with the options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 xi List of Figures xii List of Tables 2.1 Resource categorization chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 Omissions, on the grounds of having Obsolete criteria . . . . . . . . . 22 4.2 Omissions, on the grounds of having Subjective criteria . . . . . . . . 22 4.3 Omissions, on the grounds of having Standardized criteria . . . . . . 23 4.4 Omissions, on the grounds of having Irrelevant criteria . . . . . . . . 23 A.1 General features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I A.2 General features, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II A.3 Visual aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III A.4 Visual aspects, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV A.5 Coding aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V A.6 Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI A.7 Efficiency, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII A.8 Modelling assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII A.9 Testability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX A.10 Testability, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X A.11 Software compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X A.12 Input/Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI A.13 Input/Output, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII A.14 Experimentation facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII A.15 Statistical facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII A.16 User support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV A.17 Financial and technical features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV A.18 Pedigree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI A.19 Environmental consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII A.20 Presentation material generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII xiii List of Tables xiv List of Abbreviations 2D - Two dimensional 3D - Three dimensional AHP - Analytic Hierarchy Process BCL - Batch Control Language BT - BT Products AB CAD - Computer Aided Design CAM - Computer Aided Manufacturing CPU - Central Processing Unit DES - Discrete event simulation DHM - Digital human models FAHP - Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process GPU - Graphics Processing Unit IEN - Industrial Engineer, role in 3DEXPERIENCE LCA - Life Cycle Assessment MBOM - Manufacturing Bill Of Materials MCDM - Multi-Criteria Decision Making MEN - Manufacturing Engineer, role in 3DEXPERIENCE MTBF - Mean Time Between Failures MTTR - Mean Time To Repair NC machine - Numerical control machine OS - Operating system PDM - Product Data Management PLM - Product Lifecycle Management PSI - Preference Selection Index SCL - Simulation Control Language TMH - Toyota Material Handling TMHG - Toyota Material Handling Group TOPSIS - Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution app - application, a distinct part of the 3DEXPERIENCE platform e.g. - exempli gratia (for the sake of example) et al. - et alii (and others) etc. - et cetera (and so forth) i.e. - id est (that is) xv List of Abbreviations xvi 1 Introduction This chapter serves to provide an overview of the importance of simulation software and the use of such software. 1.1 Background Continuous improvement is vital in order to stay ahead of the competition and retain a high efficiency [1, p. 282]. In manufacturing, shutting down an entire production line in order to carry out potential improvements is a risky thing to do. Not only does the proposed improvement cost money to implement, but while implementing the change there will also be a loss of potential profit that the production line would generate if it was still in use, not to mention the loss of capital in the long run if the implemented improvement does not work as expected. These are some of the reasons why being able to simulate a production line has been of such great importance the last decade, and will most likely continue to be so [2, p. 23]. With simulation, it is possible to mirror the behaviour of a production line and see the improvement potential of a proposed change without interfering with the daily production [3]. Simulation can also be used to design and validate a new production system [4, p. 123-124]. This reduces the need of physical testing and programming thus shortening the lead time from design to running system. While simulating in production is nowadays a wide-spread and ordinary undertaking, companies may find it valuable to keep their software up-to-date. The current mature production flow simulation software available on the market by Dassault Systèmes is called QUEST, which in turn is a part of the DELMIA platform. As DELMIA was released in 2000 [5], the software is considered dated which is one of the reasons why Dassault Systèmes has developed a new software which consists of a number of apps distributed onto roles such as Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer , which in turn are parts of a platform of software tools known as 3DEXPERIENCE. While switching the simulation software used in a company can certainly yield sev- eral benefits, it is also a costly and risky endeavour. 1.1.1 QUEST One of the predecessors to 3DEXPERIENCE is called QUEST. It was originally developed by Deneb Robotics, a company which was acquired by Dassault Systèmes in the year of 1997 and re-branded as DELMIA [6]. 1 1. Introduction The idea behind QUEST is to provide a tool for Discrete Event Simulation (DES)1 where the user can switch between a conceptual 2D view and a more thorough 3D view [7]. In QUEST, the user is able to either select geometries one wishes to use in their simulation, or create their own. It is possible to describe each geometry’s own behaviour to then execute the simulation which will render the user an output in several different parameters for each element in the simulation. The user can specify changes and improvements to review the possibility of changing their actual production system. QUEST is, in a way, semi-open source. The user can manually write new or modify the behaviour of the elements that are being used, using the built-in Simulation Control Language (SCL). In the same way, the user can modify the simulation runs by specifying the behaviour of multiple series of runs using Batch Control Language (BCL). QUEST can be used as a single software to simulate a virtual production system, but it can also be used in cooperation with other software such as UltraArc, ERGO, Envision, among others [7]. 1.1.2 3DEXPERIENCE Dassault Systèmes describes 3DEXPERIENCE as a "Business Experience Platform" [8] that can be "available on premise and in public or private cloud"[8]. This means that 3DEXPERIENCE has a unified interface that serves the different applications and give access to the data needed for the different roles in a company. It hosts applications relevant to 3D modelling, simulation, collaboration and information intelligence, as seen in Figure 1.1. As shown in Figure 1.2, the 3DEXPERIENCE platform exceed a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system by providing a holistic view with the customer in centre, instead of the product. By doing this, 3DEXPERIENCE provides a deeper understanding of the customer and the func- tions of their product for the user of 3DEXPERIENCE. Figure 1.1: The 3DEXPERIENCE compass tool for navigating the interface. Figure reproduced with permission of Dassault Systèmes AB. (Source: Dassault Systèmes [9]) 1DES is event based simulation where events update the state of the system. 2 1. Introduction Figure 1.2: The concept of the 3DEXPERIENCE platform. Figure reproduced with permission of Dassault Systèmes AB. (Source: Dassault Systèmes [10]) 1.1.2.1 Data-driven 3DEXPERIENCE is a data-driven software. This means that there is no traditional file system in place, all product related information is stored as data on a central location. Authorized users who are in need of utilizing the data can continuously stream the data to their workstation while working with it. Traditional Product Data Management (PDM)2 systems require the user to check- out the file they want to work with and by doing so prohibiting others to work on it at the same time [11, p. 237]. A problem that could occur is when there are several users that check-out different files under the same parent. If the first user check- in their edited file and update the parent, the next user who is going to check-in their edited file will have a problem with the parent file having been updated and the change that was made may not be compatible with that of the new parent file. 3DEXPERIENCE solves this problem by letting the users stream the data they need directly to the work station and as soon as they update the data it is streamed back and updated centrally. As 3DEXPERIENCE is data-driven, the parent only has links to the data of the children and therefore is directly updated with no file version clashes. 1.1.2.2 Collaborative work The 3DEXPERIENCE platform is designed for collaboration. Several users, ranging from one and up, can in real-time access and manage the data they need at the same time. For example, an employee can check how a part fits in an assembly while the supplier changes the dimensions of the part. If anything clashes, both parties will receive a message on their work-screen with information about the clash. 3DEXPERIENCE has also made it easier to convey clashes to the relevant parties. The user who finds a clash in an assembly can review the clash, mark the problem and send it to the relevant party. When the user receive an updated version of the part that clashed, the user can overlay it with the old part to review the changes and then import it into the assembly and confirm that the clash is resolved. 2PDM, a function within PLM to manage product data. 3 1. Introduction 3DEXPERIENCE incorporates a project management application that their users can use to follow the progress of a project. They can, in real-time, see what is needed to be done to complete different parts of the project. It is also possible to send and receive messages from other collaborators on the project. 1.1.3 Toyota Material Handling In order to validate 3DEXPERIENCE from a real-word scenario a part of Toyota Material Handling’s factory in Mjölby was to be simulated. Toyota Material Handling (TMH) also served as a representative of large enterprises involved in production flow simulation. 1.1.3.1 Mjölby factory The factory in Mjölby, originally called BT Products AB (BT), is nowadays referred to as Toyota Material Handling Sweden. Toyota purchased BT Products AB in the year of 2000 and they are now part of Toyota Material Handling Group (TMHG) [12], although they still use the BT brand on their hand pallet trucks. BT was founded in 1946 and produced their first hand pallet truck in 1948, see Figure 1.3 [12]. In 1949, BT in collaboration with Statens Järnvägar (SJ) developed the EUR-pallet, which has become the standard pallet in Europe [12]. BT estab- lished the factory in Mjölby in 1968 [12]. In the years 1988 and 1997, BT acquired subsidiary companies in North America and in 1999 another factory in Italy [12]. The factory in Mjölby consist of three divisions: Powered Warehouse Trucks, Hand Pallet Trucks and Spare Parts [13]. The factory is spread-out over 76 000 m2 and employs 1 850 workers [13]. Figure 1.3: BT’s hydraulic pallet truck with a swivelling steering column from 1948. 1.1.3.2 Usage of simulation software During the execution of this thesis, the simulation engineers at the factory in Mjölby utilize QUEST in order to simulate parts of the production line while consider- ing future investments, interviewee Hoa Hai Gieng, simulation engineer at Toyota 4 1. Introduction Material Handling, states. While investigating, in order to gain support for a deci- sion, capacity, bottlenecks, buffer sizes etc. are examined. Hoa Hai Gieng further states that QUEST can be a very powerful tool for such a purpose, especially in the matters of programmability and visual representation. However, as QUEST is a software which requires extensive lines of coding, it may be time consuming for the employees at Toyota Material Handling as there is a lack of predefined features as well as QUEST’s 3D platform being incompatible with the platform used by the construction department. 1.2 Problem formulation As one of Prodtex’s3 business areas is being a retailer of CAM software, 3DEXPE- RIENCE may or may not become a valuable software for them to sell in the future. But in order to do so, and to come off as a serious contender in the industry, it is important that they, as a retailer, has sufficient knowledge and experience of the software to be able to tell with confidence whether a customer would have use of the software or not. Selling a software without sufficient knowledge can have serious repercussions for the company, as they put their reputation at stake. If they would proceed to sell the software, only to later find out that the customer has no use of it, it is unlikely that said customer would approach the company for further business in the future. On the other hand, if they would hesitate to sell the software to the customer, even though the customer could make proper use of it, they would lose out on a considerable sale while also risking that the customer ties connections to one of their competitors. Figure 1.4: Prodtex’s logotype. Figure 1.5: Toyota Material Handling’s logotype. 1.2.1 Purpose In order to mitigate the risks of the scenarios previously mentioned in section 1.1 and 1.2, the sound solution is to investigate the software to be able to confidently tell if the customer, depending on its needs, will have use of the software or not. The knowledge that the company will gain also has an effect on their ability to cater to the needs of future customers who also may show interest in the software. Therefore, there exists an interest from their part to evaluate the capabilities of the software 3DEXPERIENCE, which is currently in development. More precisely for this thesis, the capability of production flow simulation within the 3DEXPERIENCE platform will be examined. 3Prodtex is a consultancy firm that has a partnership agreement with Dassault Systèmes to sell and market DELMIA products in Sweden, Denmark and Norway [14]. 5 1. Introduction 1.2.1.1 Research questions The project aims to answer the following questions: 1. Is it possible to evaluate 3DEXPERIENCE using a scientific method and if so, how would 3DEXPERIENCE fare in such an evaluation? 2. Is 3DEXPERIENCE suitable for large enterprises? 3. Does the sustainability features of 3DEXPERIENCE match the demand on such features at large enterprises? 1.2.1.2 Additional targets The thesis work should also include: • A factory flow simulation based upon parts of the production flow from a kitting station prior to welding, to a buffer station prior to painting at the Toyota Material Handling factory. • An investigation of whether it is possible to perform any kind of user defined programming in 3DEXPERIENCE. • An investigation of the 3DEXPERIENCE’s environmental impact capabilities. 1.3 Delimitations The software and corresponding version that was used for simulation in this master thesis was 3DEXPERIENCE Release 2015x On Premise and 3DEXPERIENCE Re- lease 2016x On Premise and On Cloud. The thesis will evaluate applications which are directly related to the Industrial Engineer (IEN) and Manufacturing Engineer (MEN) roles, within production flow simulation. Product and machine modelling will not be performed, as such is not within the interest of the thesis questions. CAD models will instead be provided by Toyota Material Handling and Prodtex. 6 2 Frame of Reference In this chapter, apps and concepts specific to 3DEXPERIENCE are explained, as well as the method of choice for evaluation, and theory relevant to production flow simulation. 2.1 Production flow simulation terminology The following terms are used throughout the thesis. The terms’ explanation serves to avoid reader misunderstandings. • Source - An operation where the production flow is initiated. The source operation can for example refer to the material arriving at the factory. • Sink - An operation where the production flow is finalized and the product is consumed. • Load - A load operation refers to the task of preparing a material, or product, for use. The load operation can refer to an operator initiating a machine by loading it with material. • Buffer - A buffer is a term referring to a space where products can be stored, to a certain extent. In a factory, a buffer is likely a rack or a shelf where parts are stored while waiting to be used. • Push flow - A production flow where the operation begin once the required material is available at the station, regardless if the next station has the ca- pacity to make use of the outcome of the first station or not. • Pull flow - A production flow where the last station in the flow places an order at the preceding station, and that station places an order at the station before it, and so on. In this manner, work stations will only produce if the next station can make use of the outcome. • Takt time - The time between the outputs of a system. The takt time should be equal to the customer demand. • Cycle time - The time it takes to complete one full cycle of an operation. • Capacity - The number of products/part that can be in a process at the same time. • MBOM - Manufacturing Bill Of Materials is the description of the required parts of a product, and the assembly sequences of those parts. 7 2. Frame of Reference 2.2 3DEXPERIENCE In 3DEXPERIENCE, the different functionalities offered are separated into apps, and in turn, the apps are distributed onto different roles. These roles include, for example, Systems Architecture, NC Machining, Industrial Engineer and Manufac- turing Engineer. This thesis focus on the roles Industrial Engineer (IEN) and Man- ufacturing Engineer (MEN) and their respective associated apps. The apps within these roles, which were utilized for creating a functional production flow simulation, are described in detail, whereas the remaining apps within the roles, which are not directly associated with production flow simulation, are listed in subsection 2.2.9. Subsection 4.4.1 through subsection 4.4.3 describes the different apps’ relationship to one another, in terms of functionality. 2.2.1 Plant Layout Design Plant Layout Design is an app available in the Industrial Engineer role. It is used primarily to establish a static design of a factory, equipped with geometries of re- sources such as machinery, products or workers. The Plant Layout Design app contains features for transferring details between a 2D blueprint and a 3D represen- tation [15]. This transfer can go both ways as the app contain means for placing 3D geometries and snapping them to the underlying 2D blueprint, as well as creating a footprint of 3D geometries into the 2D blueprint. As this app is focused upon cre- ating a visual representation of a factory, the user do not create geometries in this app but rather place them in the factory, aligning them in regards to the blueprint or other geometries or creating patterns of the same geometry. It is possible to fix geometries to one another, such as a tool to onto a machine or a conveyor to a bin. This is done by assigning ports at set points in the resources’ geometries. There are different kind of ports for different purposes, such as work piece mount ports, base ports, connector ports. In order to organize factory resources, resources can be assigned to a variety of categories, such as manufacturing cells, robots, workers, transports, conveyors, NC machines etc. These categories stem from the resource’s different traits, such as its internal logic; whether it exists in the resource and if it can be programmed; what kind of resources that are aggregated by the resource, as well the kind of reference links available to the resource. 2.2.1.1 Resource definitions Each type of resource are structured into three different types; organizational, work- ing and non-working resources. Furthermore, the traits of the resources determine whether or not the resource can have internal logic, what type of link that can ref- erence it, what type of resources that is aggregated by it, and what type of resource it aggregates itself. These traits are depicted in Table 2.1. 8 2. Frame of Reference Table 2.1: Resource categorization chart. Figure reproduced with permission of Dassault Systèmes AB. (Source: Dassault Systèmes [16]) 2.2.2 Equipment Design Equipment Design is an app available in the Industrial Engineer role. The app is used for the creation of mechanical logic and kinematics for resources such as robots, NC machines, conveyors etc. Regarding conveyors, the user can define the type of conveyor, speed, friction, guides, conveyor networks etc. With these param- eters defined, the simulation will be more accurate and physical properties is applied 9 2. Frame of Reference to the simulation. A motion controller is created on a resource reference (Robot, Tool Equipment) or on a resource instance (Robot, Control Device) to control po- sitions, travel limits, safety zones, jog mechanism, tools, speeds, accelerations etc. If several resources are to be programmed within the context of an organizational resource, e.g. a station, a Control Device must be created and then each resource’s motion controller is linked to the Control Device. After having set up resources in a proper way, the resources can be used for 3D simulation purposes in Factory Flow Simulation. 2.2.3 Factory Flow Simulation Factory Flow Simulation is an app available in the Industrial Engineer role. In the Factory Flow Simulation app, it is rendered possible for the user to create a product flow, which in turn can be simulated and the output data analysed. By specifying actions, referred to as activities, to resources the product can be either created, dispatched, buffered, transferred or transformed. For the different resources interacting with the factory flow, data can be manipulated in order to set machine durations, time distributions, delays, quantities, buffer sizes, set product types, behaviours etc. With Factory Flow Simulation, one can generate a Manufactured Item as well as import data from a planning structure in order to automatically generate a fully functional factory flow. In order to do so, the flow has to be correctly defined with systems and operations in the Process Planning app, see subsection 2.2.6. The Factory Flow Simulation app contains three variants of visual simulation [15]. These variants are listed in subsection 2.2.3.1 to 2.2.3.3. 2.2.3.1 Discrete Event Simulation Discrete Event Simulation allows for products to move from one point in the process to another, without having any other resources nor physical conditions taking part. Worker resources are exempted from this, and are animated in this simulation vari- ant. The Discrete Event Simulation variant is used to perform a rough simulation of the system. 2.2.3.2 Dynamic Level 1 The first level of dynamic simulation allows for, besides the functionality mentioned in 2.2.3.1 Discrete Event Simulation, all resources to be animated. In Dynamic simulation, products may be affected by the physics of other products, or resources such as conveyors. This allows for a more accurate depiction as the products risk falling off a conveyor if its incline is too steep or overcrowded by products etc. 2.2.3.3 Dynamic Level 2 With the second level of Dynamic simulation, animations and movements are more sophisticated than in the first level. Resources with programs connected to them will simulate these actions. 10 2. Frame of Reference 2.2.4 Process Flow Simulation Process Flow Simulation is an app available in the Industrial Engineer role. In the Process Flow Simulation it is possible to "analyze complex production system with uncertainty and time variability" [15] with DES. The simulated system is struc- tured in a flowchart manner, see Figure 2.1, with representations for general system, transfer system, source system, sink system and buffer system. Within the different system, one can either define corresponding operations, or subsystems. The user defines how the product flows between the different systems, from the raw material in the source to the dispatch of finished products in the sink. The Process Flow Simulation app use statistical distributed parameters to handle the variability that exist in the reality. The simulation can be run over multiple cycles with different scenarios to assess the design of the system. The different scenarios can be saved and compared to each other. The user can monitor the state of the system with different charts that are updated during the simulation, see Figure 4.5. Figure 2.1: Example of Process Flow Simulation layout. The flow originate in the source on the left, and flows toward the sink on the right. Figure 2.2: Example of a Manufactured Item (MBOM) layout, describing how a product should be assembled. 2.2.5 Manufactured Item Definition Manufactured Item Definition is an app available in the Manufacturing Engineer role. In order to connect a product to a process layout, a Manufactured Item is required. TheManufactured Item is created in the appManufactured Item Definition and consist of a flowchart depicting the procedure in which a product should be assembled (MBOM), see Figure 2.2. Each item in the flowchart is connected to parts or sub-assemblies in a product assembly. 2.2.6 Process Planning Process Planning is an app available in the Manufacturing Engineer role. The app provides tools for defining scope links between Manufactured Items and Process flows. The systems and operations of a product can be put in order through the use of the Product flow command, which is used to describe how the product flows between systems, and the Precedence link command, used to describe in which order 11 2. Frame of Reference operations within a system are allowed to be carried out. It can also be used for balancing Manufactured Item and operations between systems. 2.2.7 Equipment Allocation Equipment Allocation is an app available in the Manufacturing Engineer role. The app provides tools for balancing operations on resources, checking resource/system utilization, defining operations, and part positions within a resource. 2.2.8 Planning Structure Planning Structure is an app available in the Manufacturing Engineer role. The app provides tools authoring manufacturing assembly, manufacturing system, product and resource structures. Users can define scope links between manufactured items and products, systems and manufactured items, and resources and systems. 2.2.9 Additional apps 3DEXPERIENCE features additional apps for the Industrial Engineer and Manu- facturing Engineer roles to those explained in section 2.2 and its subsections. These have been excluded as they do not contain any features relevant to the project of production flow simulation at Toyota Material Handling, and has thus not been examined to greater detail. These apps are: • Industrial Engineer – Simulation Experience • Manufacturing Engineer – Fastened Item Definition – Fastener Planning – Tool Analysis – Work Instructions – Time-Motion – Assembly Evaluation – Assembly Path Optimization – Heavy Industry Manufacturing – Heavy Industry Process Planning – Heavy Industry Structure Fabrication – Assembly Definition – Assembly Experience – Planning Review 12 2. Frame of Reference 2.3 Evaluation of simulation software There are several different production flow simulation software available on the mar- ket. If the appropriate software is chosen, it can then result in improved productivity and reduced manufacturing cost [17]. But if an inadequate software is chosen, it can result in increased cost because of faulty simulation that leads to manufacturing in- terruptions, among other issues. Therefore there is a need for evaluating a simulation software before purchasing the software. To provide an objective evaluation and selection of a simulation software, compared to other software or on its own, a structured methodology for the evaluation is re- quired. The selection of a simulation software is also often costly and time consuming and a structured approach should result in a more efficient selection [17]. One com- mon methodology for evaluation is to use a comprehensive list of criteria and use it as a check list to confirm that the software meets the specified requirements [18]. The different criteria can be weighed in accordance to their importance, in aspect to the intended purpose of the software, to be able to provide the software with a final score [19]. If time allows, additional software features could be evaluated, even if they are not currently required as they could be in the future. Alomair et al. [20] presents a brief overview of eight different evaluation methods ortechniques that can be found in literature. These are; "Evaluation criteria, Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods including Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Fuzzy An- alytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Preference Selection Index (PSI), Hierarchical frame- work, SimSelect, Smart Sim Selector, Scenario, Two-phase evaluation and selection methodology, and Guidelines which can be applied to evaluate simulation tools." [20]. Some of the methods, such as MCDM, requires that several simulation software are compared to one another, which did not suit this project as it evaluates a single software. Alomair et al. [20] concludes that a list of criteria was the basis for most evaluation methods. 2.3.1 Evaluation framework Based on the knowledge gained from Alomair et al. [20], the choice was made to adapt the evaluation method developed by Hlupic et al. [18], as it was the most comprehensive method among the methods assessed, while also being applicable to the evaluation of a single software without the need of comparison to other soft- ware. The authors of the method, Hlupic et al., has divided the evaluation method into thirteen different categories; General features, Visual aspects, Coding aspects, Efficiency, Modelling assistance, Testability, Software compatibility, Input/output, Experimentation facilities, Statistical facilities, User support, Financial and tech- nical features and Pedigree. Each category includes a comprehensive list with a criteria and classification relation to the subject. Though Hlupic et al. evaluation framework is dated and lack some essential features of more modern simulation software, it is a good frame of reference to build on. An updated version of Hlupic et al. evaluation framework would suit the project’s needs for evaluation of the simulation program. 13 2. Frame of Reference 2.4 Sustainability This section aims to provide an overview of production flow simulations effect on the sustainability of a production system. It has been divided into the three sub- categories; Social, Environmental, Economic, often referred to as The three pillars of sustainability, see Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: The three pillars of sustainability. 2.4.1 Economical sustainability There are numerous financial advantages with production flow simulation, some which have already been mentioned in this thesis, see section 1.1. One of the most significant advantage is the possibility to, through simulation, test if an investment will be economically sustainable before implementing the investment. Production flow simulation is often used to optimize a system or process to increase the produc- tivity. Simulation can prevent or reduce several of the seven waste activities, Muda, described in the Toyota Production System (TPS) [21, Chapter 3]. The increase in productivity and reduction of waste activity leads, not only to the reduction of man- ufacturing cost per product, but also to a lower environmental impact per product, if the same resources are used. 2.4.2 Social sustainability Simulation can help with verifying the ergonomic sustainability for workers in a man- ufacturing context. With simulation software, tasks that are going to be performed by humans can be tested by having a Digital human model (DHM) perform the task [22]. The DHM’s properties can be changed to represent the different workers e.g. it can be changed to represent the tallest and the shortest worker, respectively, to verify that both are able to reach everything they need in their work. It can also be used to verify that the working position is ergonomically correct. The software can also calculate the different stresses and loads on the DHM while performing the simulated task. This helps the work task designer to design and choose the right tools for the work task and develop a correct standard procedure to minimise the risk of work related injuries, which improves the social sustainability in the work 14 2. Frame of Reference place. Simulation software can also verify that workers have enough time to per- form the assigned tasks and balance the workload between different workers and workstations. 2.4.3 Environmental sustainability According to a survey by Kiron et al. [23], 67 % of managers believe that sustainabil- ity is critical to being competitive in today’s marketplace, and 22 % said "No, but it will in the future" [23]. Another survey by Cone Communications [24] concludes that 71 % of Americans consider the environment when they purchase goods and 85 % want companies to educate them on how to properly use and dispose of products. This indicate that the environmental aspect is and will be an important concern for companies to be successful in marketing products. A combination between Life Cy- cle Assessment (LCA) and Discrete Event Simulation (DES) can provide companies with a more extensive and detailed environmental assessment, which includes dy- namic aspects in the system [25], see Figure 2.4 for an image depicting the life cycle thinking. The assessment can be used to eco-label [26] products to show customers that the company’s products are environmental friendly, or to show regulators that said products pass the set environmental requirements. A drawback with using sim- ulation for LCA is that it requires extensive data, complex simulation, often long implementation time, verification etc. [27]. Figure 2.4: Life cycle thinking (Source: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [28]). 15 2. Frame of Reference 16 3 Methods This chapter describes how the observations of 3DEXPERIENCE and necessary preparations was carried out. 3.1 Observations In the interest of carrying out a proper evaluation of the 3DEXPERIENCE roles Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer , it was vital to thoroughly learn the software in general and the associated apps in particular. 3.1.1 Instructional guides To familiarize oneself with 3DEXPERIENCE, digital instructional guides (compan- ions) by Dassault Systèmes were utilized. These guides partly served as a gateway to 3DEXPERIENCE where the idea and the structure of the platform was explained, and partly to explain the interface of the specific apps included in the roles Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer . 3.1.2 Recreating factory flows As a sub-task towards the goal of evaluating the Industrial Engineer and Manufac- turing Engineer roles of 3DEXPERIENCE was to simulate parts of the factory flow at Toyota Material Handling, there was a definite requisite of preparing for such a task. One method to attain necessary knowledge for such a task was to construct and simulate other factory flows. 3.1.2.1 Coffee factory The coffee factory was a factory model previously designed in 3DEXPERIENCE by Dassault Systèmes. The model utilized conveyors, NC machines and manual labour in order to manage the production of three different products, which, at certain points, shared conveyors with one another. Each conveyor contained logic enabling movement in one direction along with guides which are used to define borders. The layout of the factory can be seen in Figure 3.1. 17 3. Methods Figure 3.1: Layout of the coffee factory. Figure reproduced with permission of Dassault Systèmes AB. 3.1.2.2 Cup factory In order to better learn the apps Plant Layout Design, Factory Flow Simulation, Equipment Design, and Process Flow Simulation, the production flow of a factory producing Thermos travel mugs was designed and simulated. The task was reused from the course Simulation of Production Systems given at Chalmers University of Technology during the fall semester of 2014, where the factory was simulated using AutoMod®. The specific purpose of the exercise was to attain knowledge in the transition between aforementioned apps; such as to find the requirements that Factory Flow Simulation puts on the layout which thus has to be designed in Plant Layout Design; as well as generating a functional production flow mimicking the cup factory layout. 3.1.2.3 Toyota Material Handling The final task of simulating a part of the Toyota Material Handling factory in Mjölby was initialized through a meeting with representatives at Toyota Material Handling. A plan was drafted in consensus which provided a guideline for the continuous thesis work. The outcome of this plan can be found in subsubsection 1.2.1.2. 3.2 Simulation in 3DEXPERIENCE When working with 3DEXPERIENCE, the main working method consisted of set- ting up a simulation question or scenario, making a plan how to answer the question or create the scenario, checking which prerequisites were needed and which apps should be used, empirically testing the hypothesis, checking if the outcome was con- sistent with the original question/scenario, if not go back and redo. In each new app, a scenario of simplistic nature was set-up to test and ensure that the app per- formed as expected. When this was confirmed, more advance scenarios were tested. Based upon these experiments, it was rendered possible to generate a general work flow for making the different production flow simulations in 3DEXPERIENCE, see subsection 4.4.1 through 4.4.3. 18 3. Methods 3.3 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE To evaluate the production flow simulation capabilities of 3DEXPERIENCE, the method described in section 2.3 has been used as a reference point. The method has been updated to suit a more modern production flow simulation software. This update includes both features which were requested of production flow simulation today, but also what can be expected to be included in a production flow simulation software in the near future. Certain criteria included in the framework presented by Hlupic et al. [18] were considered outdated in terms of today’s standards in regards of computer software, and were thus omitted. The criteria which were omitted were selected by having the authors of this thesis independently weigh each criteria in order of relevance. 3.4 Data collection In order to gather the data required to carry out a proper evaluation of 3DEX- PERIENCE, regarding to the needs of a large enterprise such as Toyota Material Handling, both written and oral interviews with people at Toyota Material Handling whom the thesis subject concern were carried out. The focus was on performing qualitative data gathering since Toyota Material Handling employs a limited work- force within the subject of production flow simulation. A survey was also carried out where desired simulation software functionalities were rated depending on each other. The survey was carried out with Google Forms1, as this made it possible for the respondents to answer the questions in their own time and it was possi- ble to have additional explanatory text to the questions. A drawback with digital questionnaires is that it is difficult to provide additional explanation to a questions, if needed, so it is of utmost importance that the questions are clear and easy to interpret. Much of the data concerning 3DEXPERIENCE were gathered from the 3DEXPERIENCE’s User Assistance [15]. The data was then confirmed empirically with help of the 3DEXPERIENCE software. 1https://www.google.com/forms/about/ 19 https://www.google.com/forms/about/ 3. Methods 20 4 Results This chapter conveys the results of both the evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE and its revision, as well as the outcome of the simulation model. 4.1 Observations In order to find data of Toyota Material Handling’s demands of production flow simulation software, a survey was used where the respondent, Hoa Hai Gieng at Toyota Material Handling, ranked different general criteria based on their impor- tance in his field of work as a simulation engineer, see Figure 4.1. A higher score indicated a higher importance, with six being most important. The result of the survey shows that the ability to generate environmental data is of the utmost impor- tance for Toyota Material Handling whereas the software price, while still somewhat important, is the least important of the criteria. Figure 4.1: The importance of general criteria according to Hoa Hai Gieng. 4.2 Revision of evaluation method This sub-section presents the final form of the evaluation method and which cri- teria was omitted, altered or added from the evaluation method. The final eval- uation method and results when applied to 3DEXPERIENCE can be viewed in Appendix A. 21 4. Results 4.2.1 Omissions As certain criteria presented by Hlupic et al. [18] represent features that have either turned obsolete or became integrated into a standard in software, these criteria has been taken out in order to avoid redundancy. Other criteria has been taken out as their importance when selecting a simulation software appeared insignificant, based on the result of the weighing of criteria. The result of some criteria were to be considered subjective, thus such identified criteria were taken out of the evaluation method. The omitted criteria can be viewed in Table 4.1 through 4.4. Table 4.1: Omissions, on the grounds of having Obsolete criteria Criteria The length of entity name Conversion of numbers Entity name Printing help text Limitation on number of displayed icons Type of menu selection Number of icons stored in icon library Writing reports to plotter Icons with multiple colours Demo disks Exit to operating system within the package Availability of package on standard OS’s Case sensitivity Availability of package on standard hardware Table 4.2: Omissions, on the grounds of having Subjective criteria Criteria Ease of icon development Precision of added code Ease of using screen editor Comprehensiveness of added code Readability of added code Quality of on-line help Ease of conceptualisation of simulation logic Ease of learning Ease of using Readability of source code Ease of model editing Quality of prompting Quality of facility for documentation notes Quality of error messages Ease of debugging Quality of output reports Understandability of output reports Quality of experimental design facility Quality of data analysis facility Quality of documentation Quality of the support for programming con- cepts Quality of data storage, retrieval and manipu- lation facilities Ease of installation 22 4. Results Table 4.3: Omissions, on the grounds of having Standardized criteria Criteria Formal logic Virtual screen Run-time applications Undo/redo commands Specification of time units Use of mouse Specification of length measures On-line help Resizing of icons Search facilities within help Rotating of icons Number of different random number streams Switching between screens Antithetic sampling Print screen facility Virtual memory facility Table 4.4: Omissions, on the grounds of having Irrelevant criteria Criteria Types of icons Audible alarms Merging icon files Duration of training courses Change of icons during simulation Frequency of training courses Type of time variable User group meetings Length of the lines in coding editor Frequency of user group meetings Text editor as integral part of the package Installation costs 4.2.2 Alterations Certain criteria were changed in different ways. Some criteria were changed in order to have them better suit the current needs of the evaluation method, whereas other criteria were incorporated into other to avoid redundancy in an effort to reducing the size of the questionnaire without compromising the comprehensiveness of the method. The following criteria has been altered: • Versions of software for different operating systems - As operating system manufacturers nowadays, in general terms, provide free version updates of their operating system, the point of interest is not which version of the operating system which is supported by the software, but rather which type of system. The possible answers has therefore been changed accordingly. • Formal education in simulation required for software use - This criterion has been integrated with a more general criterion. • Changing the colour of the element status display - This criterion has been integrated with a more general criterion. • Writing reports to printer - The feature of printing is located in the operating system itself, not in the software. However, software may adjust the material which is to be printed, so that it fits the user’s needs in a better way. The criterion was therefore changed. • Custom tailored training course - Merged into an answer to another criterion. • Interaction - As the criterion was ambiguous, it was clarified to avoid misun- derstandings. 23 4. Results • Educational discount - Merged with quantity discount into a criterion handling all discounts. • Quantity discount - Merged with educational discount into a criterion handling all discounts. 4.2.3 Additions Based upon the input of representatives at Toyota Material Handling and the strive for operating responsibly in today’s society, the categories Presentation material generation and Environmental consciousness were added to the existing method developed by Hlupic et al. [18]. The criterion evaluating the possibility of point-cloud data mapping was added to the modelling assistance category, and the criterion for online dependency requirement was added to the financial and technical features category. 4.2.3.1 Presentation material generation The purpose of the Presentation material generation category is to evaluate whether or not the software provides means that allow for a quick and effortless transition be- tween the work object in the development model and how said model is presented. As mentioned by Toyota Material Handling simulation engineer and interviewee, Hoa Hai Gieng, a main purpose of simulation at Toyota Material Handling is to determine whether or not an investment should be carried out. While there are tools currently in use by Toyota Material Handling which to some extent satisfy their simulation needs, there is a potential to make the transition between working material and presentable material seamless. This would potentially enable the work- ing material to be able to be used as-is during presentation dedicated to personnel which has limited to no knowledge of traditional production flow simulation. The category includes evaluation criteria such as the level of graphics in the devel- opment model; high-quality graphics in the development model could allow for the same graphics to be used in the presentation model. It also evaluates the software’s ability to display comprehensible and high-quality data and graphs as well as the creation of videos for demonstration purposes. If these functions are integrated into the software in a satisfactory fashion, that would eliminate the need for third party software to achieve the same result. This in turn has the potential to save both time and money for the user. 4.2.3.2 Environmental consciousness In combination with the ever-increasing awareness of environmental issues in today’s society, both from the producer’s and the customer’s point of view, see subsec- tion 2.4.3, along with the lack of coverage of these issues in the evaluation method presented by Hlupic et al. [18], there was an imminent need to try to cover said issues. Allowing for environmental analysis capabilities of software to be factored into the evaluation may affect companies to gain a natural positive stance towards making decisions in their every-day routine based upon the environmental impact of the decisions, as these data can be easily accessible. These decisions in turn may 24 4. Results affect the customers’ and/or governments’ opinion of the company [29], which can give the company a competitive advantage. The category Environmental consciousness contain criteria which are used to eval- uate if the software has the capability to assist in the construction of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the product, and how comprehensive such an analysis would be. It also features criteria regarding with which units environmental impact is mea- sured and the customizability of the units. A criterion which is used to evaluate the possibility of converting the generated environmental data into comparable mone- tary data exists. Such a feature would most likely have great value for managers with low expertise regarding environmental impact of products and production. 4.2.4 Revised evaluation method The revised version of the original evaluation method, developed by Hlupic et al. [18], can be found in its entirety in Appendix A. It is divided into 15 categories with a varying number of criteria in each category. Each criterion has two or more possible responses to describe the evaluated criterion’s functionality. These are noted in the Classification column, whereas the criteria are found in the Criteria column. For the method itself, disregard that certain responses are found in bold text, see section 4.3 for further information. 4.3 Evaluation The outcome of the evaluation, that is, how 3DEXPERIENCE fared in each of the criteria, can be seen through the functionalities’ bold font in Appendix A. In order to make it easier to grasp the result of the evaluation, a real number between 0 and 1 was appointed to each criterion based on how well 3DEXPERIENCE fared, with a 0 being awarded in cases where 3DEXPERIENCE fared badly and 1 where it fared well. For criteria where 3DEXPERIENCE fared decently, an intermediate score was awarded. The score from each criterion in each category was then tallied and divided by the number of criteria in the corresponding category so that a radar chart could be utilized to showcase the outcome, see Figure 4.2. 3DEXPERIENCE excels in user support, visual aspects and modelling assistance, but also comes off very well in a number of categories. However, 3DEXPERIENCE lacks in statistical facilities, financial and technical features and, in particular, environmental consciousness. It should be noted though that as the each category had a varying amount of criteria, categories with fewer criteria has a higher impact per criterion on its category’s representation in Figure 4.2. 25 4. Results Figure 4.2: Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE per category. The more area filled, the better the corresponding category fared in the evaluation. 4.4 3DEXPERIENCE During the period of this thesis work, 3DEXPERIENCE demonstration severs has been used to store data. This means that it was impossible to export or transfer any data created on a demonstration server. The effect of this was that all models created in 3DEXPERIENCE 2015x could not be transferred to 3DEXPERIENCE 2016x, and vice versa, as these software versions were running on different demon- stration servers. This has led to that the main results from the experiments, see section 3.2, are the work flows described in subsection 4.4.1 through 4.4.3, and the ability to answer the different criteria questions in the evaluation. Different simula- tions’ process steps that are of interest has been documented through videos where Toyota Material Handling’s products, flows and layout were used. The purpose of these videos were to show the simulation possibilities of 3DEXPERIENCE with a production flow that Toyota Material Handling are already familiar with. 4.4.1 Creating a Factory Flow Simulation This subsection describes the general working procedure for creating a Factory Flow Simulation in 3DEXPERIENCE in a chronological list, to provide a better under- standing of the process. In Figure 4.4, the work-flow for creating a Factory Flow Simulation based on the viewpoint of app usage. 1. Create or modify 3D-representations for all objects in the production system. 26 4. Results 3DEXPERIENCE has several 3D-modelling apps such as Part Design1. 2. Create the production system layout in the app Plant Layout Design. The lay- out can be created from an existing 2D-layout by putting the 3D-representations on the 2D-layout. 3. Define logic for resources in the app Equipment Design. 4. Define the flow of products in the system with the app Factory Flow Simula- tion. (Can be generated from Process Planning data. See subsection 4.4.3) 5. Simulate the system in Factory Flow Simulation. Verify that the system runs as intended, otherwise go back and revise. 6. Create different manufacturing scenarios to test the system. 4.4.2 Creating a Process Flow Simulation This subsection describes the general working sequence for creating a Process Flow Simulation in 3DEXPERIENCE in a chronological list, to provide a better under- standing of the process. 1. Create 3D-representations for all products. 3DEXPERIENCE has several 3D- modelling apps such as Part Design1. 2. CreateManufactured Item (MBOM) for the products in theManufactured Item Definition app. Scope the Manufactured Item to a Physical Product. Define the assembly order in Manufactured Item by drag and drop of components from the Physical Product. 3. Define the manufacturing scope in Process Planning. 4. Create a process flow in Process Planning with all the operations and connect the steps in the Manufactured Item to the corresponding operations, or drag and drop steps from theManufactured Item to create operations automatically. 5. Define cycle times, capacities, MTBF, MTTR, precedence links, shift model, production demand etc. 6. Simulate the process in Process Flow Simulation. Verify that the system runs as intended, otherwise go back and revise. 7. Create different simulation scenarios to test the system. Figure 4.3: Work-flows for creating a Process Flow Simulation from an app perspec- tive 1A CATIA app in 3DEXPERIENCE. 27 4. Results 4.4.3 Creating a Factory Flow Simulation using Process Planning data This subsection describes the general working sequence for creating a Factory Flow Simulation from Process Planning in 3DEXPERIENCE in a chronological list, to provide a better understanding of the process. Figure 4.4 depict the work-flow for creating a Factory Flow Simulation based on Process Planning, from the viewpoint of app usage. 1. Follow steps 1 to 5 in subsection 4.4.2. 2. Follow steps 2 to 3 in subsection 4.4.1. 3. Assign the Manufactured Item parts to the operations, and operations to the resources in the 3D layout with the Assignments Manager in the Planning Structure app. 4. Define the operation position within the resource in the Equipment Allocation app. 5. In the Factory Flow Simulation app, select Synchronize with Planning Data to generate a Manufacturing Product. Select Generate data model from process planning and a Factory Flow is generated. 6. Follow steps 5 to 6 in subsection 4.4.1. Figure 4.4: Two different work-flows for creating a Factory Flow Simulation from an app perspective. One based on subsection 4.4.1 and one based on subsection 4.4.3. 4.4.4 Simulation model Due to software shortcomings (see subsection 5.1.2, generating a more advanced flow in the Factory Flow Simulation app was, during the duration of the thesis project, impossible. This caused the main focus to shift to simulate the desired part of Toyota Material Handling’s production flow in Process Flow Simulation. The main problem in Factory Flow Simulation for Toyota Material Handling’s flow was that it was not possible to assign operations to robot resources. Robots could only be as- signed to perform transfer task or assigned to another resource. As the desired part of Toyota Material Handling’s flow consist mainly of different robot-cells, Factory Flow Simulation was not yet ideal for that part of the factory. It should be men- tioned though, that 3DEXPERIENCE’ Factory Flow Simulation worked splendidly for simulating assembly and machining operations with DHM’s. Thus if a simple visual flow was desired the, Factory Flow Simulation would be the simulation app 28 4. Results to utilize in the matter. The possibility of generating an automatic flow in Factory Flow Simulation from a Process Planning validates the work of making all the planning steps, see subsec- tion 4.4.3, before doing a Factory Flow Simulation. In the case of Toyota Material Handling’s flow where the Factory Flow Simulation app still is not ready for their advanced flow, the company would be able to perform all the planning steps and simulate what their desired output in the Process Flow Simulation app. At a later point in time, when the Factory Flow Simulation app is updated to handle all the features needed for Toyota Material Handling’s flow, the company can do a more advanced visual simulation in Factory Flow Simulation. Noteworthy is that the vi- sual simulation of robot-cells can be done in the Robot Simulation app under the Robotics Simulation Engineer role. However, when several robot-cells and other re- sources are combined and a production flow is desired, the Factory Flow Simulation app is required. 4.4.5 Process Flow Simulation model During the project, a detailed Process Flow Simulation of the first station in the desired flow at Toyota Material Handling was designed, in order to validate the ca- pabilities of Process Flow Simulation. The simulation model includes the creation of two different Manufactured Items, and a process flow constructed in Process Plan- ning. Simulation in Process Flow Simulation was performed, see Figure 4.5, as a simulation example to validate that the system performed as intended with different production modes, such as push or pull mode. Scenarios were tested where different demands and supply of the products and parts were used. Simulation validation of such scenarios were performed by comparing the expected output with the actual output, and the result was that 3DEXPERIENCE did perform as expected in this regard. Note that no actual production data from Toyota Material Handling, e.g. cycle times, distributions etc., has been used during the simulations. Figure 4.5: Example of Process Flow Simulation for Toyota Material Handling’s first welding station. The first welding station at Toyota Material Handling consisted of a storage where 29 4. Results parts were picked and kitted by an operator. The parts were placed in a manipulator with two fixtures, one on which two robots performed welding, and one that could be loaded during the welding of the first fixture. A 3D-model of the robot-cell is depicted in Figure 4.6. When the first two robots were finished, a third robot, the handling robot, picked up the part from the fixture and transferred it to the next pair of robots so that the robots could continue to weld the part while the handling robot held the part. This procedure is known as jig-less welding. After the handling robot had removed the part, the manipulator performed a swivel motion and exchanged the fixtures so that the loaded fixture went in to the robot cell and the empty one went out to be loaded once more. When the second pair of robots were finished with their welding, the handling robot placed the product on a conveyor belt which brought it out from the robot cell. Figure 4.6: CAD model of robot-cell at Toyota Material Handling. Based on experience and the knowledge of the Toyota Material Handling welding line, the Manufactured Item, representing the MBOM, was constructed to resemble the real assembly sequence as close as possible for the first welding station, see Figure 4.8. In the welding station, two different pallet trucks’ rear bumpers, see Figure 4.7, were to be assembled. As the objective of this thesis was to evaluate 3DEXPERIENCE, and not the Toyota Material Handling production line, there was no need to construct the Manufactured Item as an exact mirror image of the real MBOM. 30 4. Results Figure 4.7: Pallet trucks, the arrows highlight the bumpers assembled in the first station. Figure 4.8: The Manufactured Item for the first welding station. The source system used create activities for each different product needed, in or- der to create them. The supply of products were defined with Define operation manager. The inter-arrival time, proportion and lot size were set in the manager, see Figure 4.9. The supply was defined in Production Supply Definition manager when running simulations with the option "Enable Automatic Creation of Sources & Sinks", see Figure 4.12. Figure 4.9: Define Operations for source system, Process Flow Simulation. General systems were created to represent different processes in the station, e.g. loading, unloading, general operations etc. Within the general systems, correspond- 31 4. Results ing operations were created. For example, the manual loading of the fixture that holds the parts for the first pair of welding robots was represented with a general system with load operations for each part, see Figure 4.10. The general systems were then connected to a buffer system. Figure 4.10: General system with loading operations in Process Flow Simulation. The buffer had a capacity of 1 and a reordering point of 0. The buffer represented the loaded fixture and was allowed to send the loaded products to the welding sys- tem, a general system with general operations, when it was available. When the buffer was empty, it sent an order to the loading system that it was ready to receive more products. The sink system contained operations for each desired end-product. The system used pull strategy, which meant that the sink system placed the orders at previous systems, see section 2.1. This was done at set intervals to resemble a takt time. When running simulations with "Enable Automatic Creation of Sources & Sinks" the demand was set with the Production Demand Definition manager, see Figure 4.11. Figure 4.11: Production Demand Definition manager. Figure 4.12: Production Supply Definition manager. When developing the model for the welding station, some key tools and elements were observed. 3DEXPERIENCE has a set of functions called B.I. Essentials which are able to display relevant information and key figures in the different apps, e.g. link analysis, assignment status, utilization, revision status, system update status, operation placement status etc. These features were helpful when checking that 32 4. Results all parts were implemented correctly. When creating the flow, a key aspect was to check that each operation had the right input and output. This was performed with the Define operation manager, and with the Assignment manager, the correct Manufactured Items were assigned to their corresponding operations. Another useful tool was the Manufacturing System Gantt, accessed from the Process Planning app. With the Manufacturing System Gantt, the user could observe the precedence of the operations, the length of the operations, the takt time of the system etc. Figure 4.13: Work-flow for creating the Process Flow Simulation model of Toyota Material Handling’s welding cell. 33 4. Results 34 5 Discussion This chapter provides a discussion of 3DEXPERIENCE in general and its applica- bility at Toyota Material Handling, as well as of the evaluation and its method. 5.1 3DEXPERIENCE This section provides a critical approach to issues related to the software 3DEXPE- RIENCE, and its potential implementation at a large enterprise for the means of production flow simulation. 5.1.1 Transition Depending on the earlier simulation software used, along with personal experience, the ease of transition into using 3DEXPERIENCE as the primary production flow simulation software can vary. Transitioning from a more traditional simulation software, where the user has to write the simulation program in a programming language, to 3DEXPERIENCE’s more graphical programming design where, to- day, most programming is done by mouse clicks and pre-defined functions can be a difficult transition. The main advantages of using 3DEXPERIENCE for produc- tion flow simulation are its PLM capabilities and good integration with other apps within 3DEXPERIENCE and other software from Dassault Systèmes. If the user is familiar to other Dassault Systèmes applications such as CATIA®, DELMIA®, SOLIDWORKS®, SIMULIA® etc., then many functions and basic working sequences will most likely appear familiar. It is also advantageous if the user already uses 3DEXPERIENCE for other purposes, such as CAD design, robot programming etc., as the user already know the basic concept of 3DEXPERIENCE and the user can easily utilize the objects created in other apps in 3DEXPERIENCE for simulation purposes. 5.1.2 Encountered issues A number of issues with the 3DEXPERIENCE software has been experienced dur- ing the thesis work. One of the issues was that the software was experienced as slow running, it took a long time to open files, save files, switching between apps in 3DEXPERIENCE etc. Another issue was that the software shut-down because it encountered an unidentified problem. This often occurred when the program had a high workload such as when multiple models were open, when opening a large model 35 5. Discussion etc. It is hard to say if it was the software’s fault that it was unstable or if it was the hardware which was to blame. There are some indication that the hardware used for the thesis work did not meet the requirements, such as the graphics card not being fully supported by 3DEXPERIENCE. Although, 3DEXPERIENCE never used the full capacity of neither CPU nor GPU when under high workload which contradict that it was the hardware that was the problem. Another possible explanation could be that the issues occur due to poor connectivity between the local workstation and the host server. However, regardless of reason, this problem reduced the overall user experience of 3DEXPERIENCE and required time that could have been used for value adding activities. Certain functions within the Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer roles were not functioning as intended. The ability to gen- erating a factory flow simulation based on process planning data, as described in subsection 4.4.3, had a tendency of failing without delivering a proper error mes- sage, describing the error. Furthermore, situations has occurred where generating a factory flow initially fails, after which 3DEXPERIENCE was restarted and the same function was then called upon with greater success, without any changes having been made. This indicates that the software was not deterministic in its output. Some of the apps’ functions, e.g. menus, buttons, and dialogue boxes, were not working as intended, due to the function being present in several apps, but were not imple- mented in each of these apps. E.g., in Process Flow Simulation the Context menu for the Manufactured Item had a Resulting Product function but lacked options, see Figure 5.1. However, in Manufactured Item Definition, the Resulting Product had options and functioned as intended, see Figure 5.2. Figure 5.1: Example of missing options for Resulting Product in context menu, Process Flow Simulation app. Figure 5.2: Example of the correct options for Resulting Product in con- text menu, Manufactured Item Definition app. 5.1.3 Toyota Material Handling One of the thesis’ research questions, see subsubsection 1.2.1.1, was "Is 3DEXPE- RIENCE suitable for large enterprises?". In this thesis, Toyota Material Handling served as representative of large enterprises. For further discussion of the matter, see subsubsection 5.3.2.1. As Toyota Material Handling uses several of Dassault Systèmes earlier standalone 36 5. Discussion software, CATIA®, DELMIA®, ABAQUS1 and they use 3DEXPERIENCE for Robot Arc Welding Programming, a migration to use the same apps in 3DEXPERIENCE would be favourable. By doing so, Toyota Material Handling could utilize the full extent of 3DEXPERIENCE’s PLM and collaboration capabilities. A reduction of the risk of doing the similar operations in different software for the same end, thus saving time and money, would be acquired. Although the migration from QUEST to production flow simulation in 3DEXPERIENCE will most likely be a cumbersome process, as there are large differences between the software. QUEST is a program- ming based software whereas 3DEXPERIENCE is graphical based. Therefore, a low amount of knowledge and data can be transferred from QUEST to 3DEXPE- RIENCE. 5.1.4 Development of 3DEXPERIENCE The thesis project has utilized both 3DEXPERIENCE 2015x On Premise, 3DEX- PERIENCE Release 2016x On Premise and On Cloud. Distinct changes between the versions has been detected, which has given the impression that Dassault Sys- tèmes are updating and improving the 3DEXPERIENCE software. With the On Cloud version of the software, it is possible for Dassault Systèmes to automatically install software updates which will ensure that the user always has the latest ver- sion. Overall it seems that Dassault Systèmes is aware of which functions that are lacking support in terms of production flow simulation, and has a plan of how and when to implement these functions. An indication of this is that Dassault Systèmes has yet to implement all necessary features required for advanced production flow simulation, but has rather implemented basic features and ensured their functional- ity. This allows for a solid foundation upon which more advanced functions can be based. 5.1.4.1 Factory Flow Simulation The Factory Flow Simulation app in 3DEXPERIENCE is excellent for visual dis- play and to test a factory flow. Although the app is missing some features for more advanced simulation, e.g. handling different products in the same machine, production demand, shift schedule, handling of AGVs/forklifts/monorails, collision avoidance, etc. Noteworthy is that with the 2016x release of 3DEXPERIENCE, the following features were added compared to the 2015x release: Power and Free conveyors, Load & Unload activities, Conveyor Decision Zones, Pull mode, Time distribution, Failure & Repair, Bottleneck analysis, among others. This progress confirms that the simulation apps are continuously updated, which is turn opens up for 3DEXPERIENCE to be further evaluated in the future. 5.2 Evaluation The evaluation method, originally developed by Hlupic et al. [18], which was the basis of the method used in this thesis, was certainly comprehensive and covered 1Acquired by Dassault Systèmes 2005 and since incorporated in SIMLIA [30] 37 5. Discussion many different areas and aspects which a simulation software is expected to include. However, it had left out certain areas, such as environmental consciousness, and instead went into meticulous detail in other areas. The absence of an environmen- tal consciousness category in the original method, while odd by today’s standards, probably has the explanation in the fact that the model dates back to 1999. While environmental consciousness was certainly an issue in 1999 as well, it is less likely that it had yet made the connection to simulation software just yet. This assump- tion is supported by the fact that 3DEXPERIENCE lacks such functionality as well. However, Toyota Material Handling’s interest in extracting environmental data from their simulations shows that there is a definite customer demand for it. 5.2.1 Sustainability As described in section 2.4, the three pillars of sustainability are the economic, the social and the environmental pillars. In the revised evaluation method, the envi- ronmental consciousness covers the third pillar, and the economic pillar is subtly covered throughout the entire evaluation, as the essence of production flow simula- tion is about finding a more sustainable production system by using a tool which does not put your actual system at risk. In the case of the social sustainability, while 3DEXPERIENCE do offer comprehensive evaluation of ergonomic work po- sitions, the apps used to perform such evaluations are not included in neither the Industrial Engineer nor Manufacturing Engineer roles. However, while there is no app or function within the scope of the thesis which is solely dedicated to social sus- tainability evaluation, Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer do offer the possibility of balancing work stations, which in turn can be manned by operators. Such features can be used to improve the work task distribution more evenly, which can lead to an increased satisfactory rate among the operators, and thus increased social sustainability in the work place. 5.3 Methods and results This section serves to convey a critical discussion of the methods used, and the outcomes, of this thesis. 5.3.1 Data collection The main source of data collected for the evaluation of the production flow simulation capabilities of 3DEXPERIENCE were based upon the thesis authors’ own experi- ences with the Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer roles. Therefore, certain criteria may have been evaluated erroneously. In the comparison between the evaluation’s outcome and the needs of Toyota Material Handling, one has to account for the fact that the importance of general criteria at Toyota Material Handling is based on the input of merely one person. While having a survey result based on a single input can certainly be interpreted as misrepresentative of the cause, one can also consider it as having a 100 % response rate of the people affected by the possible 38 5. Discussion software change, as the respondent is the sole engineer working with simulation at Toyota Material Handling. 5.3.2 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE In efforts of keeping the evaluation method as neutral and objective as possible, certain criteria were removed which were deemed to be too subjective. However, certain criteria which had a similar structure to the removed criteria were kept in the evaluation method, as omitting or changing them would cause more harm than benefit to the method. This rendered the revised method to have a slightly skewed representation in the effort of objectiveness. Furthermore, as 3DEXPERIENCE is the only production flow simulation software which has been evaluated in the thesis, there is a lack of frame of reference for the outcome of the evaluation, as it is not being compared. Comparing it to QUEST would have been an option, but doing so would have not fit the time frame put in place for the thesis, as yet another software would have had to be thoroughly learned in order to be evaluated. 5.3.2.1 Representativeness of Toyota Material Handling As the evaluation method has been revised based partly on industrial input from Toyota Material Handling, the matter of the representativeness of Toyota Material Handling as a reference for companies using simulation software is required to be discussed. While the base method, developed by Hlupic et al. [18], is intended to be applicable for both educational and industrial use, the same cannot be said with certainty for the revised version. This is due to the nature of the references upon which the revisions are based. Toyota Material Handling has 1 850 employees at their Mjölby factory [13] and is thus to be considered a large enterprise. Therefore, while it is possible that the revised method is indeed applicable by other user groups besides large enterprises, this has not been evaluated in this thesis. 39 5. Discussion 40 6 Conclusion In this chapter, the findings of the thesis are put into perspective in regard of research questions and methods used, and a stance of the outcome is presented. 6.1 Evaluation of 3DEXPERIENCE The result of the evaluation is equivocal. To one part, 3DEXPERIENCE is deemed exceptionally suitable for a large enterprise such as Toyota Material Handling as it performed well in the visual aspects, coding aspects and software compatibility; cat- egories which were all ranked as important by Toyota Material Handling. One of the cornerstones of 3DEXPERIENCE is its holistic take on PLM, which 3DEXPERI- ENCE executes well. This comes off in a great way both in function and in demand of Toyota Material Handling, as they valued the importance of compatibility with other in-house utilised software to five out of six. As 3DEXPERIENCE allows for such a variety in functionality, it is likely to fit most of the functions at the company. However, the most sought-after features in simulation software, environmental con- sciousness, received a zero in its evaluation. 3DEXPERIENCE’s ability to visualize statistical data is, in itself, at a basic level. While this may be sufficient, if it is not, then the data can easily be exported and later used in software more dedicated to statistical representation. Thus, 3DEXPERIENCE’s meagre performance in the statistical facilities category may be compensated in such a way, even though it is not an optimal solution and contradicts the essence of 3DEXPERIENCE. 6.2 Simulation model The thesis concludes that Process Flow Simulation in 3DEXPERIENCE is suitable for the simulation needs of a large enterprise such as Toyota Material Handling. However, the Factory Flow Simulation app does not yet have all the functionality Toyota Material Handling requires for simulation of their production flow on a more visual level. There are, however, apps in the 3DEXPERIENCE software that are able to display parts of the production process visually, e.g. the visualisation of robot-cells can be done in Robot Simulation. 41 6. Conclusion 6.3 Research questions This section contemplates the research questions stated in subsubsection 1.2.1.1. The first research question addressed the possibility of evaluating 3DEXPERIENCE. Due to set delimitations, only the Industrial Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer roles have been evaluated, and not 3DEXPERIENCE in its entirety. However, it was still possible to evaluate the software within the set boundaries. Previous re- search in the subject of production flow simulation software evaluation is scarce, which led to the utilization of an albeit comprehensive but aged evaluation method. The outcome of the evaluation method, after having been revised to better fit with the nowadays demands, was a thorough analysis of the mentioned roles and their functionalities, where 3DEXPERIENCE fares splendidly in categories such as visual aspects, user support and modelling assistance, but falls short in statistical facilities, financial and technical features and, in particular, environmental consciousness. In regards of the second research question, while 3DEXPERIENCE matches the current simulation needs of a large enterprise such as Toyota Material Handling to a broad extent, one needs to take into consideration if there are other production flow simulation software that matches such a demand just as well as 3DEXPERIENCE, but which fares better in environmental sustainability aspects, as environmental con- sciousness was ranked as the top priority of simulation software features by Toyota Material Handling. Concerning the third research question, as has been mentioned regarding the out- come of the evaluation, 3DEXPERIENCE does not currently support the demand of sustainability features in large enterprises such as Toyota Material Handling. 6.4 Future research opportunities Due to the scarce and aged research in the subject of production flow simulation software evaluation for single-software evaluation, there is a vast opportunity to continue the research carried out by Hlupic et al. [18] and continued by the efforts in this thesis. If so, it would be advisable to dedicate such research to that sole purpose, as this thesis has simultaneously involved learning the 3DEXPERIENCE software and applying the evaluation method onto it with regards of the demands of large enterprises such as Toyota Material Handling. 42 Bibliography [1] M. Bellgran and K. Säfsten. Production Development. Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2010. [2] G. S. Fishman. Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling, Programming, and Anal- ysis. Springer Science + Business Media New York, 2001. [3] Steffen Bangsow. Manufacturing simulation with Plant Simulation and Simtalk: usage and programming with examples and solutions. Springer, Berlin, 1. aufl. edition, 2010. ISBN 9783642050749; 3642050735; 9783642050732; 3642050743;. [4] Wilfried Sauer et al. Electronics process technology: production modelling, sim- ulation and optimisation. Springer, London, 1 edition, 2006; 2007;. ISBN 9781846283536; 1846283531; 1849965862; 9781849965866; 9781846283543; 184628354X. [5] Dassault Systèmes. Leveraging on DENEB, DELTA and SAFEWORK, DELMIA delivers collaborative solutions for Lean Manufacturing, 6 2000. URL http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes- creates-delmia-the-world-premier-e-manufacturing-brand-for-the- digital-enterprise/. Accessed: 2016-01-19. [6] Dassault Systèmes. Dassault Systemes Signs Definitive Agreement to Acquire Deneb, 12 1997. URL http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/ dassault-systemes-signs-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-deneb/. Accessed: 2016-02-04. [7] Martin R. Barnes. An introduction to QUEST. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, pages 619–623, 1997. [8] Dassault Systèmes. 3DEXPERIENCE Platform - Dassault Systèmes, . URL http://www.3ds.com/about-3ds/3dexperience-platform/. Accessed: 2016-02-10. [9] Dassault Systèmes. 3DEXPERIENCE Platform. URL http://www.3ds.com/ about-3ds/3dexperience-platform/. Accessed: 2016-05-25. [10] Dassault Systèmes. Gateway to the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform. Companion Learning Space, 2015. Accessed: 2016-02-26. [11] John Stark. Product Lifecycle Management (Volume 2). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3rd 2016. edition, 2016. ISBN 3319244345; 3319244361; 43 http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-creates-delmia-the-world-premier-e-manufacturing-brand-for-the-digital-enterprise/ http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-creates-delmia-the-world-premier-e-manufacturing-brand-for-the-digital-enterprise/ http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-creates-delmia-the-world-premier-e-manufacturing-brand-for-the-digital-enterprise/ http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-signs-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-deneb/ http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-signs-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-deneb/ http://www.3ds.com/about-3ds/3dexperience-platform/ http://www.3ds.com/about-3ds/3dexperience-platform/ http://www.3ds.com/about-3ds/3dexperience-platform/ Bibliography 9783319244365; 9783319244341. URL http://link.springer.com/book/10. 1007/978-3-319-24436-5. [12] Toyota Material Handling International. Company history of BT, 2016. URL http://www.bt-forklifts.com/En/company/Pages/History. aspx. Accessed: 2016-02-16. [13] Toyota Material Handling International. Warehouse and hand pallet truck production facilities Mjölby, 2016. URL http://www.bt-forklifts.com/En/ company/BTProduction/Pages/Mjolby.aspx. Accessed: 2016-02-16. [14] Prodtex. About us - Prodtex. URL http://www.prodtex.com/about-us/. Accessed: 2016-05-31. [15] Dassault Systèmes. R2015x User Assistance - User Assistance, 2016. URL https://help.3ds.com/2015x/English/DSDoc/FrontmatterMap/ DSDocHome.htm?ContextScope=onpremise. Accessed: 2016-03-04. [16] Dassault Systèmes. R2016x On Premises User Guide, 2016. URL https://help.3ds.com/2016x/English/DSDoc/PrrUserMap/pprauth-c- Resources.htm. Accessed: 2016-05-03. [17] V Hlupic and Ray J Paul. Methodological approach to manufacturing sim- ulation software selection. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 9 (1):49 – 55, 1996. ISSN 0951-5240. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951- 5240(95)00037-2. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0951524095000372. [18] V. Hlupic, Z. Irani, and RJ. Paul. Evaluation framework for simulation software. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 15(5):366– 382, 1999. [19] Tamrat W Tewoldeberhan, Alexander Verbraeck, Edwin Valentin, and Gilles Bardonnet. Software evaluation and selection: an evaluation and selection methodology for discrete-event simulation software. In Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation: exploring new frontiers, pages 67–75. Winter Simulation Conference, 2002. [20] Yasmeen Alomair, Iftikhar Ahmad, and Abdullah Alghamdi. A Review of Evaluation Methods and Techniques for Simulation Packages. Procedia Com- puter Science, 62:249 – 256, 2015. ISSN 1877-0509. URL http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091502582X. Proceed- ings of the 2015 International Conference on Soft Computing and Software Engineering (SCSE’15). [21] Jeffrey K. Liker and David Meier. The Toyota way fieldbook: a practical guide for implementing Toyota’s 4Ps. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006; 2013; 2011;. ISBN 9780071448932; 0071448934; 9780071502115; 0071502114;. [22] A. Nérot, W. Skalli, G. Beurier, and X. Wang. A preliminary study on the realism of digital human manikins used for ergonomics simulation. Computer 44 http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-24436-5 http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-24436-5 http://www.bt-forklifts.com/En/company/Pages/History.aspx http://www.bt-forklifts.com/En/company/Pages/History.aspx http://www.bt-forklifts.com/En/company/BTProduction/Pages/Mjolby.aspx http://www.bt-forklifts.com/En/company/BTProduction/Pages/Mjolby.aspx http://www.prodtex.com/about-us/ https://help.3ds.com/2015x/English/DSDoc/FrontmatterMap/DSDocHome.htm?ContextScope=onpremise https://help.3ds.com/2015x/English/DSDoc/FrontmatterMap/DSDocHome.htm?ContextScope=onpremise https://help.3ds.com/2016x/English/DSDoc/PrrUserMap/pprauth-c-Resources.htm https://help.3ds.com/2016x/English/DSDoc/PrrUserMap/pprauth-c-Resources.htm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0951524095000372 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0951524095000372 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091502582X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091502582X Bibliography Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 17(sup1):164–165, 2014. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2014.931627. [23] David Kiron, Nina Kruschwitz, Knut Haanaes, and Streng V. Von. Sustainabil- ity Nears a Tipping Point. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(2):69–74, Winter 2012. URL http://search.proquest.com/docview/914415957?accountid= 10041. [24] Cone Communications. 2013 cone communications green gap trend tracker, 2013. URL http://www.conecomm.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ a70891b83b6f1056074156e8b4646f42/files/2013_cone_communications_ green_gap_trend_tracker_press_release_and_fact_sheet.pdf. [25] Jon Andersson, Björn Johansson, Jonatan Berglund, and Anders Skoogh. Framework for Ecolabeling using Discrete Event Simulation. In Proceedings of the 2012 spring simulation multiconference, 2012. [26] International Organization for Standardization , ISO. Environmental labels and declarations – General principles. (ISO 14020:2000), 2000. [27] Jon Andersson. Environmental Impact Assessment using Production Flow Sim- ulation. Research series from Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Product and Production Development: report, no: 85. Institutionen för produkt- och produktionsutveckling, Produktionssystem, Chalmers tekniska högskola„ 2014. 79. [28] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Life cycle think- ing, 2011. URL http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/lifecycle/lifecycle.cfm. Accessed: 2016-06-09. [29] C-L. Huang and F-H. Kung. Environmental consciousness and intellectual cap- ital management. Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 9 pp. 1405 - 1425, 49(9): 1405–1425, 2011. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111173916. [30] Dassault Systèmes. Dassault Systèmes (DS) to Acquire ABAQUS Inc. to Create Next-Generation Solutions for 3D Realistic Simulation, . URL http://www.3ds.com/press-releases/single/dassault-systemes-ds- to-acquire-abaqus-inc-to-cre