China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
General introduction
Published in Adedeji B. Badiru, Handbook of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2013
IDEF is a suite of modeling languages developed in the 1970s from the US Air Force Integrated Computer-Aided Manufacturing program that leveraged computer technology to increase manufacturing productivity (Menzel and Meyer, 2006). IDEF uses a hierarchical decomposition approach to systematically break higher-level activities into manageable functions. Each function can be represented using one or more inputs, controls (constraints under which the function operates), outputs, and mechanisms (resources that are available for the function). IDEF has been used to model a blood transfusion process (Staccini et al., 2001), simulation of patient safety hazards (Jin et al., 2006), mapping a radiotherapy process (Mutic et al., 2010), community health service information (Yang et al., 2012), care processes within a hospital (Staccini et al., 2005), and emergency department performance improvement (Ismail et al., 2010).
Audit Planning and Preparation
Published in Rajkumar Banoth, Narsimha Gugulothu, Aruna Kranthi Godishala, A Comprehensive Guide to Information Security Management and Audit, 2023
Rajkumar Banoth, Narsimha Gugulothu, Aruna Kranthi Godishala
There are other palatable modeling techniques. The class has information about what is called the IDEF3 Process Flow and Objective State Description Capture Method Overview. IDEF stands for Integrated DEFinition. The IDEF methodology may be used to model a wide variety of automated and non-automated “systems” or subject areas, including any combination of hardware, software, machines, processes, or people. The IDEF modeling techniques can be used to model very complex systems and processes. This model uses the term mechanisms to describe the people and machines that do the transformation work.
Internet-Based Microelectronic Design Automation Framework
Published in Wai-Kai Chen, Computer Aided Design and Design Automation, 2018
To define a workflow, we must specify the tasks involved in the workflow, data, and their relationship. A set of workflows defined by methodology developers enforces the user to follow the flows imposed by the company or group. Flows may also serve to guide users in developing their own flows. Designers would retrieve the cataloged flows, modify them, and use them for their own purposes based on the guidelines imposed by the developer. It is necessary to generate legal flows. A blackboard approach was used in (Lander et al., 1996) to generate a particular flow suitable for a given task. In Nelsis (ten Bosch et al., 1991), branches of a flow are explicitly represented using “or” nodes and “merge” nodes. A task can be accomplished in various ways. It is necessary to represent alternative methodologies for the task succinctly so that designers can access alternative methodologies and select the best one based on what-if analysis. IDEF3.X (IDEF) is used to graphically model workflow in RASSP environment. Figure 10.2 shows an example of workflow using IDEF3.X. A node denotes a task. It has inputs, outputs, mechanisms, and conditions. IDEF definition has been around for 20 years mainly to capture flat modeling such as a shop floor process. IDEF specification, however, requires complete information such as control mechanisms and scheduling at the specification time, making the captured process difficult to understand. In IDEF, “or” nodes are used to represent the alternative paths. It does not have an explicit mechanism to represent alternative workflow. IDEF is ideal only for documenting the current practice and not suitable for executing iterative process which is determined during the execution of the process. Perhaps, the most important aspect missing from most process management systems is the abstraction mechanism (Schlenoff et al., 1996).
Reconciling engineer-to-order uncertainty by supporting front-end decision-making
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2019
Iain Reid, David Bamford, Hossam Ismail
An established modelling technique, Integration Definition for Function Modelling (IDEF), is a compound acronym (Icam DEFinition for Function Modelling), where ‘ICAM’ is an acronym for Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing, a well-tested language, and comprehensive systems modelling technique (Chin et al. 2006; Waissi et al. 2015). The IDEF modelling technique is designed and developed to facilitate understanding, as an instrument for business process reengineering (Soung-Hie and Ki-Jin 2002). It is considered one of the strongest modelling approaches for the support of complex systems (Yigit and Allahverdi 2010) and is therefore suitable for representing process flow descriptions of the complex and intricate processes in an ETO supply chain. IDEF adopts a probing approach for capturing the process characteristics in a qualitative format and provides the platform for identifying the resources, in terms of inputs, controls, outputs and methods (ICOMs) through a connecting network that ties the processes together (Ismail et al. 2007). It presents a clear description about input information, output information, and resources of a process concerned in a hierarchical and systematic way. Furthermore, IDEF employs a top-down method that starts from general activities and moves into more specific process issues, providing a means to capture the ‘as-is’ model shown in Figure 2.
Using cloud computing integrated architecture to improve delivery committed rate in smart manufacturing
Published in Enterprise Information Systems, 2021
Ting Xia, Wei Zhang, W.S. Chiu, Changqiang Jing
IDEF is the abbreviation of ‘ICAM DEFinition method’. It is a kind of system design and analysis method based on the foundation of structural analysis and design method using ICAM of the American air force. The method is used as a regiment method to analyse a company, capturing ‘as-is’ process models, and for modelling activities in a company. So, a company can develop a base for process improvement planning and defined requirements (Presley and Liles 2013; Tatsiopoulos, Panayiotou, and Ponis 2002; Hayes 2008).
Production planning and project scheduling for engineer-to-order systems- case study for engineered wood production
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2021
Marzieh Ghiyasinasab, Nadia Lehoux, Sylvain Ménard, Caroline Cloutier
Current literature widely agrees that the level of uncertainty is higher in ETO than in MTS and MTO systems. Hence, the existing decision-making models needed to be adapted to be successfully applied in ETO systems (Grabenstetter and Usher 2014; Braglia et al. 2019; Markworth Johnsen and Hvam 2019; Reid, Bamford, and Ismail 2019). Thus, the authors considered the adaptation of operation management tools and models to best fit the features and the requirements of ETO environments. Grabenstetter and Usher (2014) investigated due dates in ETO systems, claiming that the engineering process is the largest consumer of lead time in ETO firms, using one-half of the total lead time. They therefore introduced a method to determine due dates for the engineering phase which considered seven factors in order to evaluate the complexity of the design phase and then combined the complexity level and historical data to determine a due date. They defined the factors based on the survey of five companies and did not consider the variations in levels of customisation in different ETO systems. Markworth Johnsen and Hvam (2019) worked on defining complexity indexes to analyse the impacts of different levels of customisation in ETO systems. They emphasised that different ETO companies should apply different levels of standardisation, based on the categorisation of ETO companies proposed by Willner et al. (2016) which considers the engineering complexity and the number of units sold: complex ETO, basic ETO, repeatable ETO and non-competitive ETO. They argued that an ETO company can operate within the range of engineering dimension categories such as configure-to-order (CTO), MTO or ETO. They proposed a regression model to understand the impact of levels of customisation on project profitability. Braglia et al. (2019) tackled the challenges of implementing a lean approach in ETO systems. They focused on a lean tool named manufacturing cost deployment, which is a procedure to clarify the costs associated with various production wastes, and adapted it for ETO systems. They showed that the proposed tool could improve both the resiliency and the performance of manufacturing processes in the case of a company assembling train wagons. Reid, Bamford, and Ismail (2019) focused on the practice of Integration Definition for Function Modelling (IDEF) in ETO companies. The IDEF modelling technique is suitable for representing process flow descriptions in a complex system. The paper describes and defines how an ETO manufacturer utilised the presented model in order to manage project uncertainties within the tendering process. The aforementioned articles attempt to understand and classify complexity or develop models and tools to manage the complexity and uncertainty for the ETO environment. These works provide a better understanding of the characteristics of ETO systems and how to address different aspects of uncertainties. Additionally, most presume that ETO systems are project-based production environments which confirms the suitability of using a project scheduling approach for its production planning.