Lee, G (2004) A new formal and analytical process to product modeling (PPM) method and its application to the precast concrete industry. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
The current standard product (data) modeling process relies on the experience and subjectivity of data modelers who use their experience to eliminate redundancies and identify omissions. As a result, product modeling becomes a social activity that involves iterative review processes of committees. This study aims to develop a new, formal method for deriving product models from data collected in process models of companies within an industry sector. The theoretical goals of this study are to provide a scientific foundation to bridge the requirements collection phase and the logical modeling phase of product modeling and to formalize the derivation and normalization of a product model from the processes it supports. To achieve these goals, a new and formal method, Georgia Tech Process to Product Modeling (GTPPM), has been proposed. GTPPM consists of two modules. The first module is called the Requirements Collection & Modeling (RCM) module. It provides semantics and a mechanism to define a process model, information items used by each activity, and information flow between activities. The logic to dynamically check the consistency of information flow within a process also has been developed. The second module is called the Logical Product Modeling (LPM) module. It integrates, decomposes, and normalizes information constructs collected from a process model into a preliminary product model. Nine design patterns are defined to resolve conflicts between information constructs (ICs) and to normalize the resultant model. These two modules have been implemented as a Microsoft Visio® add-on. The tool has been registered and is also called GTPPM ®. The method has been tested and evaluated in the precast concrete sector of the construction industry through several GTPPM modeling efforts. By using GTPPM, a complete set of information items required for product modeling for a medium or a large industry can be collected without generalizing each company's unique process into one unified high-level model. However, the use of GTPPM is not limited to product modeling. It can be deployed in several other areas including: (1) workflow management system or MIS (Management Information System) development; (2) software specification development; (3) business process re-engineering.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Eastman, C M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Georgia; bridge; business process re-engineering; conflicts; information system; management information system; precast concrete; specification; subjectivity; workflow |
| Index terms: | module, precast concrete, management information system, modelling, construction industry, semantics, precast concrete industry, information system, workflow, business process re-engineering, Georgia, industry sector, product model, specification, management system, subjectivity, redundancy, information flow |
| Subjects: | management, contractual condition, data management, industry analysis, information systems, business, building materials, modelling and simulation, architectural elements, Geography, human factors and perception, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Construction Materials, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here