• ACES: The Aftermarket Catalog Enhanced Standard is the industry standard for managing and exchanging automotive catalog and vehicle data. With ACES, suppliers can publish automotive data with standard coded designations for vehicle attributes, parts classifications, and qualifier statements. ACES provides a machine-readable format (XML) for trading partners to use in exchanging vast amounts of information. ACES is created and maintained by the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA).
• PIES: The Product Information Exchange Standard is a product of the AAIA’s Electronic Commerce Committee. The purpose of this effort was to develop a standard for exchanging product information between all the members in a supply chain from the manufacturer to the retailer/wholesaler and to the service retailer. Representatives of the automotive aftermarket industry including manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, and electronic catalog providers had a hand in developing this standard. It was designed to provide a facility to exchange data regarding products that’s more comprehensive than just price sheet data. In addition to price and price sheet information, the standard provides the facility to exchange information regarding such diverse elements as:

Figure 3 illustrates the type of information PIES supports.

P2B Interoperability Standards
The second most important integration effort is Plant-to-Business (P2B) interactions. These interactions are complex. To keep manufacturing producing products, there are site-autonomous requirements that we should consider. To factor these requirements into interoperability and integration, you need to understand the different points-of-view between the business systems and the manufacturing systems. Table 1 highlights the different points-of-view between the two:

There are a number of standards that contribute to P2B interoperability such as ISA-95, WBF, and OAGi. The deliverables of these standards overlap. So manufacturers are faced with the complex decision of choosing a standard that will define their business progress, the standard’s support community, and the integration elements they’ll use and maintain for years. These standards are described below:

• ISA95: Known internationally as IEC/ISO 62264, ISA95 provides a formal model for exchanging data between business and manufacturing systems. The models define Manufacturing Operations Management, the activities on the shop floor that need production schedules and do the actual work of making products, and provide visibility into production. It has five parts:

• WBF: WBF is the Forum for Automation and Manufacturing Professionals, a non-profit that promotes the exchange of information related to the management, operation, and automation of batch process manufacturing. ISA and WBF work together to specify everything from models and terminologies to XML-based implementation elements, such as B2MML schemas, a set of XML schemas written using the World Wide Web Consortium’s XML Schema language (XSD), which implements the data models in the ISA-95 standard.
• OAGi: The Open Applications Group is the non-profit organization that develops and maintains OAGIS, which includes both B2B and P2B elements. OAGIS standardizes the information exchanged between business and production systems. OAGi defines implementation elements without explicitly standardizing models and terminology.

The question is which standards should you use for the P2B interoperability. The answer always depends on your objectives. If you need standard models, ISA- 95 is your only choice and then you should use B2MML too. If you only want to standardize implementation elements, then you should evaluate both OAGi and WBF deliverables.

Current Manufacturing Interoperability Efforts
We’ve seen some collaboration effort in the standards communities to resolve overlaps and consolidate the differences between the different standards in this space. For example, a Manufacturing Interoperability Framework (MIF) has been defined to organize the standards into complementary sets and identify gaps. Multiple frameworks may be organized using a scaled maturity model that can also be used to assess the interoperability of existing systems in planning systems improvements.

MIF’s first task is to highlight P2B interoperability requirements. The framework consists of:

• Processes
• Documents
• Messages
• Interfaces

A high level of interoperability can only be achieved when all the elements of the framework are standardized. Figure 4 shows one possible high-level framework. In this example, there are no standard processes for P2B, leaving this for suppliers and end users to define; ISA and World Batch Forum specifications are identified for two MIF elements; and Web services will be used to exchange the messages. This MIF indicates that a services registry is optional. Ideally, each element in the framework references a specification from a standards body. Otherwise, end users must develop specifications as part of an internal standardization processes to fill in the gaps.

Conclusion
Each approach to interoperability requires that a set of implementation standards be selected, implemented by multiple software suppliers and then supported by the manufacturing infrastructure. A single standard seldom covers all needs – from terminology to physical transport – forcing businesses, industry groups, and suppliers to choose complementary standards and creatively fill in the gaps not covered by any standard. Standards selection is the first step in creating a semantic interoperability framework. Semantic interoperability is the foundation for the SOA adaptation. Without semantics, data has no meaning and is just a binary. Without semantic interoperability, service consumers and providers could easily misinterpret and corrupt data, ultimately bringing undesirable effects to a SOA and the business.

Sometimes the value of interoperability standards can be overlooked. Although it’s never a single factor for manufacturing to adapt SOA to create flexible production capabilities and remain competitive globally, having interoperability standards is vital to its overall success. It’s not an option, it’s a necessity.

References

• Scholten, B. (2007). The Road to Integration: A Guide to Applying the ISA-95 Standard in Manufacturing. ISA.
• Doumeingts, G.; Müller, J.; Morel, G.; and Vallespir, B. (2007). Enterprise Interoperability: New Challenges and Approaches. Springer.