Improving the Assesment of Advanced Planning Systems by Including Optimization Experts' Knowledge

Melina Vidoni, Jorge Marcelo Montagna, Aldo Vecchietti

Abstract

Advanced Planning Systems (APS) are core for many production companies that require the optimization of its operations using applications and tools such as planning, scheduling, logistic, among others. Because of this, process optimization experts are required to develop those models and, therefore, are stakeholders for this system's domain. Since the core of the APSs are models to improve the company performance, the knowledge of this group of stakeholders can enhance the APS architecture evaluation. However, methods available for this task require participants with extensive Software Engineering (SE) understanding. This article proposes a modification to ATAM (Architecture Trade-off Analysis Method) to include process optimization experts during the evaluation. The purpose is to create an evaluation methodology centred on what these stakeholders value the most in an APS, to capitalize their expertise on the area and obtain valuable information and assessment regarding the APS, models and solvers interoperability.

References

  1. Angelov, S., Grefen, P. & Greefhorst, D., 2012. A framework for analysis and design of software reference architectures. Information and Software Technology, 54(4), pp.417-31.
  2. Angelov, S., Trienekens, J.J.M. & Grefen, P., 2008. Towards a Method for the Evaluation of Reference Architectures: Experiences from a Case. In Morrison, R., Balasubramaniam, D. & Falkner, K., eds. Proceedings of the Second European Conference, ECSA 2008. Paphos, Cyprus, 2008. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  3. Bachmann, F. et al., 2003. Chapter 9. Documenting Software Architectures. In Bass, L., Clements, P. & Kazman, R. Software Architecture in Practice. 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley. Ch. 9th.
  4. Bass, L., Clements, P. & Kazman, R., 2013. Chapter 21. Architecture Evaluation. In Software Architecture in Practice. 3rd ed. Pittsburg, USA: Addison-Wesley. pp.397-418.
  5. Bosch, J. et al., 2002. Variability Issues in Software Product Lines. In F. van der Linden, ed. Software Product-Family Engineering. 1st ed. Bilbao, Spain: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp.13-21. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-47833-7_3.
  6. Breivold, H.P., Breivold, I. & Breivold, M., 2012. A systematic review of software architecture evolution research. Information and Software Technology, 54(1), pp.16-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.06.002.
  7. Cloutier, R. et al., 2010. The Concept of Reference Architectures. System Engineering, 13(1), pp.14-27.
  8. Diniz, C., Menezes, J. & Gusmão, C., 2015. Proposal of Utility Tree for Health Education Systems Based on Virtual Scenarios: A Case Study of SABER Comunidades. Procedia Computer Science, 64, pp.1010-17.
  9. Dobrica, L. & Niemela, E., 2002. A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7), pp.638-53.
  10. Fleischmann, B. & Meyr, H., 2003. Planning Hierarchy, Modeling and Advanced Planning Systems. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 11, pp.455-523.
  11. Fleischmann, B., Meyr, H. & Wagner, M., 2015. Advanced Planning. In H. Stadtler, C. Kilger & H. Meyr, eds. Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning. Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp.71-95.
  12. Framinan, J.M. & Ruiz, R., 2010. Architecture of manufacturing scheduling systems: Literature review and an integrated proposal. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(2), pp.237-46.
  13. Gayialis, S.P. & Tatsiopoulos, I.P., 2004. Design of an ITdriven decision support system for vehicle routing and scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(2), pp.382-98.
  14. Heikkilä, L. et al., 2011. Analysis of the new architecture proposal for the CMM control system. Fusion Engineering and Design, 86(9-11), pp.2071-74.
  15. Henning, G.P., 2009. Production Scheduling in the Process Industries: Current Trends, Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 27, pp.23-28.
  16. Ionita, M.T., Hammer, D.K. & Obbink, H., 2002. Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods: An Overview. In Workshop on Methods and Techniques for Software Architecture Review and Assessment at the International Conference on Software Engineering. Orlando, Florida, USA, 2002.
  17. Ionita, M.T., Hammer, D.K. & Obbink, H., 2002. Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods: An Overview. In Workshop on Methods and Techniques for Software Architecture Review and Assessment at the International Conference on Software Engineering. Orlando, Florida, USA., 2002.
  18. Kallestrup, K.B., Lynge, L.H., Akkerman, R. & Oddsdottir, T.A., 2014. Decision support in hierarchical planning systems: The case of procurement planning in oil refining industries. Decision Support Systems, 68, pp.49-63.
  19. Kazman, R., In., H.P. & Chen, H.-M., 2005. From requirements negotiation to software architecture decisions. Information and Software Technology, 47(8), pp.511-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2004.10.001.
  20. Kazman, R., Klein, M. & Clements, P., 2000. No. CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004 ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. Final Report. Pittsburgh, USA: Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.
  21. Martínez Fernández, S.J. et al., 2013. A framework for software reference architecture analysis and review. In Experimental Software Engineering Latin American Workshop, ESELAW 2013. Montevideo, Uruguay, 2013.
  22. Northrop, L., 2003. Chapter 2. What Is Software Architecture? In Software Architecture in Practice. 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley. Ch. 2.
  23. Shanmugapriya, P. & Suresh, R.M., 2012. Software Architecture Evaluation Methods - A survey. International Journal of Computer Applications, 49(16), pp.19-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5120/7711- 1107.
  24. Sharafi, S.M., 2012. SHADD: A scenario-based approach to software architectural defects detection. Advances in Engineering Software, 45(1), pp.341-48.
  25. Shaw, M. & Clements, P., 2006. The Golden Age of Software Architecture. IEEE Software, 23(2), pp.31- 39.
  26. Stadtler, H., 2005. Supply chain management and advanced planning--basics, overview and challenges. European Journal of Operational Research, 163(3), pp.575-88.
  27. Stuart, I. et al., 2002. Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), pp.419-33.
  28. Vidoni, M. & Vecchietti, A., 2015. A systemic approach to define and characterize Advanced Planning Systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 90, pp.326-38.
  29. Vidoni, M. & Vecchietti, A., 2016. Towards a Reference Architecture for Advanced Planning Systems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2016). Rome, Italy, 2016. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Lda.
  30. Weinreich, R. & Buchgeher, G., 2012. Towards supporting the software architecture life cycle. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), pp.546-61.
  31. Wu, X., Murray, A., Storey, M.-A. & Lintern, R., 2004. A reverse engineering approach to support software maintenance: version control knowledge extraction. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering. Victoria, BC, Canada, 2004. IEEE.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Vidoni M., Montagna J. and Vecchietti A. (2017). Improving the Assesment of Advanced Planning Systems by Including Optimization Experts' Knowledge . In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-248-6, pages 510-517. DOI: 10.5220/0006362005100517


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis17,
author={Melina Vidoni and Jorge Marcelo Montagna and Aldo Vecchietti},
title={Improving the Assesment of Advanced Planning Systems by Including Optimization Experts' Knowledge},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},
year={2017},
pages={510-517},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006362005100517},
isbn={978-989-758-248-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - Improving the Assesment of Advanced Planning Systems by Including Optimization Experts' Knowledge
SN - 978-989-758-248-6
AU - Vidoni M.
AU - Montagna J.
AU - Vecchietti A.
PY - 2017
SP - 510
EP - 517
DO - 10.5220/0006362005100517