ISO 15704:2000/Amd 1:2005

Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies - Amendment 1: Additional views for user concerns

Systèmes d'automatisation industrielle — Prescriptions pour architectures de référence entreprise et méthodologies — Amendement 1: Vues additionnelles pour les intérêts de l'usager

General Information

• Status: Withdrawn
• Publication Date: 17-Aug-2005
• Withdrawal Date: 17-Aug-2005
• ICS: 25.040.01 - Industrial automation systems in general
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 184/SC 5 - Interoperability, integration, and architectures for enterprise systems and automation applications
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 184/SC 5 - Interoperability, integration, and architectures for enterprise systems and automation applications
• Current Stage: 9599 - Withdrawal of International Standard
• Start Date: 17-Dec-2019
• Completion Date: 13-Dec-2025

Relations

• Amends: ISO 15704:2000 - Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies
• Effective Date: 06-Jun-2022
• Revised: ISO 15704:2019 - Enterprise modelling and architecture - Requirements for enterprise-referencing architectures and methodologies
• Effective Date: 09-Jul-2016
• Child: ISO 15704:2000 - Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies
• Effective Date: 15-Apr-2008

Standards Content (Sample)

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 15704
First edition
2000-06-01
AMENDMENT 1
2005-08-15
Industrial automation systems —
Requirements for enterprise-reference
architectures and methodologies —
AMENDMENT 1: Additional views for user
concerns
Systèmes d'automatisation industrielle — Prescriptions pour
architectures de référence entreprise et méthodologies —
AMENDEMENT 1: Vues additionnelles pour les intérêts de l'usager

Reference number
ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
©
ISO 2005
ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.

©  ISO 2005
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail [e-mail]
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies
(ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Amendment 1 to International Standard ISO 15704:2000 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 184,
Industrial automation systems and integration, Subcommittee SC 5, Architecture, communications and
integration frameworks. In preparing this amendment, substantive contributions were received from groups
involved with enterprise-reference architectures such as the Purdue Enterprise-Reference Architecture
(PERA), the Graphes et Résultats et Activités Interreliés GRAI Integrated Methodology (GRAI GIM), the
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open System Architecture (CIMOSA), and the Generalised Enterprise-
Reference Architecture and Methodology (GERAM).

ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
Industrial automation systems — Requirements for enterprise-
reference architectures and methodologies —
AMENDMENT 1: Additional views for user concerns
Page vi, Foreword
Replace the last paragraph with the following:

"Annexes A, B, C, and D are informative. Annex A is based on version 1.6.2 of GERAM developed by the
IFIP/IFAC Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration who granted permission for its inclusion
in ISO 15704. Annex B is based on the economic view found in A Stair-Like CIM System Architecture of
Chen and Tseng. Annex C is based upon the decisional view found in CEN/TS14818 Technical
Specification – Enterprise Integration – Decisional Reference Model."
Page 1, subclause 3.2
Replace (a) in the note with the following:

"a) system architectures (sometimes referred to as "type 1" architectures) that deal with the design of a system, e.g.
the computer control system part of an overall enterprise integration system;"

Page 5, subclause 4.2.6
Replace with the following:
"Enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies shall exhibit the capability to represent any
process and its constituent activities for the accomplishment of the management and control in support of
the established mission of the enterprise according to the criteria established by enterprise management."

Page 6, subclause 4.2.10
Add the following paragraph after the last paragraph:

"Model developers may generate additional views for particular user concerns, and these can then be
used by any concerned stakeholder. Examples of additional views are found in annexes B and C."

Page 41, annex B
Add the following two annexes before the existing Annex B and renumber the existing Annex B and its
subclauses accordingly.
ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
Annex B
(informative)
Economic View in CIM system architecture
B.1 General
B.1.1 Introduction
For entrepreneurs and business managers, confidence in advanced CIM technology depends upon the
realization of a return on investment projected from design phase activities of both new system
implementations and system up-grades and re-organizations/integrations. Since both tangible and intangible
benefits must be considered, evaluating the return is a difficult problem. An essential aspect of any
mechanism to resolve the problem is the ability to evaluate different alternatives using models of existing and
proposed system architectures in a manner that connects functionality with economic consequence so that
design trade-off decisions are possible. In particular, the evaluation of intangible benefits is often a barrier to
Computer Integrated Manufacturing investments.

An Economic View presents model content relative to economic decisions. It draws upon existing model
content and established analytical methods to inform decision makers. The view is most critical early in the life
cycle when the majority of economic commitments are encountered and late in the life cycle when economic
performance is measured.
B.1.2 Support for enterprise managers
As guidance for enterprise managers, the Economic View can help them to:

a) predict the influences of system integration on the enterprise,
b) evaluate necessary investment and possible benefits,
c) make decisions and improve their correctness, and
d) monitor the implementation process and application of the integrated system.
B.1.3 Support for enterprise model developers and analyzers
As guidance for model developers and analyzers, the Economic View helps them to:
a) describe the economic elements,
b) understand relationships between these elements and other components in an integrated system,
c) describe economic relationships among enterprise strategic targets, the framework of the integrated
system and its components, and
d) identify economic benefits of enterprise re-organization.
2 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
B.1.4 Support for system developers
As guidance for the system developers, the Economic View provides:
a) methods to evaluate economic consequences of system function modifications during the system
development, and
b) scoping of software tool use for economic modeling and analysis.
B.2 Framework for Economic View
In system implementation/integration projects, the goals and corresponding demands of the project target are
reflected in the demands of the economic characteristics. Their economic implications/influences on the
system are realized through the integration strategy and the technology project. The Economic View
establishes the relations between the economic target and the engineering project. It describes economic
elements, influence factors and scalar indices manifested in the integrated system and their relationships that
allow the determination of their impacts on the economic targets in the system integration project. These
indices, factors, and elements are constructs and their properties taken from or derived from the four
mandatory model-content views (4.2.10)

In an integrated system, the Economic View consists of a grouping of models, which is used to describe
economic components and their relationships. Many methods, e.g., graphical, mathematical, and even
descriptive ones, may describe economic components. In order to improve the compatibility and assure the
successful operation of an enterprise, a three-layer framework is constructed, expressed in graphic form,
based on enterprise modeling methods and reference models in the general enterprise reference architecture,
as shown in Figure B1.
The three layers in the Framework for Economic View (Indices, Factors, Elements) possess different economic
attributes and the relationships among layers have different attributes as well. The framework establishes the
relationships between layers of detail from the top level strategic targets of an enterprise to the bottom basic
economic elements with intervening indices and factors. To correctly establish the relationships among
different layers, both clustering and classification methods should be used to gather information from the
generic and partial model pool for the applicable life cycle phases and then classify the information to
establish the particular trees and relationships.

Early in the life-cycle, economic targets (ET) and constraints are established, e.g., return on investment, and
pricing levels. Relative to this domain identification and concept definition, sets of economic indices (I )
j
bearing on the targets and constraints are arranged and analytic methods are chosen with increasing levels of
detail exposed as the life cycle progresses. At the factors layer, process related cost factors are derived from
the decomposition of process models into activities (ƒ ). At this layer other economic factors result from the
P
analytical breakdown of expected value that can be both tangible and intangible (ƒ ). All of the indices have
A
both tangible and intangible factors. Even the most tangible indices, cost (I ) and time (I ) may have intangible
C T
factor influences that need to be taken into consideration. The explicit intangible factors, service (I ) and
S
environment (I ) may have tangible factors as well, e.g., response time, pollution rate, etc. Tangible factors
E
have diverse forms and representation. They can be expressed in mathematical equations (ƒ ), matrices,
E
tables (ƒ ), boxes in graphical models, etc. In Figure B.1, the design phase is shown with greater elaboration
T
using a tree of decomposed indices, process factors (ƒ ) depicted as a process model fragment, analytical
P
factors (ƒ ) depicted as hierarchy models, equation factors (ƒ ) depicted as a formula, and table factors (ƒ )
A E T
depicted as a data table.
For factors, the element layer identifies the basic economic elements that comprise the variables in the
mathematical equations (є ), the entries in the matrices and tables (є ), the activities (such as an activity box,
E T
e.g., in the lowest level IDEF3 model, (є )), etc., from which the factor cost or value are derived. These
A
elements are usually simple attribute values characterized as indivisible, and can be used to measure,
monitor, or control the related factors. In general the elements are properties of resources used to value and
cost an activity.
Economic indices, factors, and elements can be of generic types collected as a pool of constructs for use at
the various layers. These generic types can be formed into partial models of indices and factors to be used as
an aide for populating a particular economic view through specialization.
ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
Analysis methods vary by layer with, for example, tree hierarchy analysis techniques appropriate at the
Indices layer, and process structure model simulation, hierarchy analysis, physics formulas, fit and
interpolation methods at the Factor layer. These analysis methods collect data and support the decision
optimization of the enterprise. Optimization results can be imposed on attributes to realize the enterprise
strategy and improve its competitive ability. Two iterations of optimization and control exist - the target
decomposition from the top down at Requirements, followed by system analysis from the bottom up at Design
occurs early in the life cycle and then the system implementation from the top down at Implementation
and the system monitor and control from the bottom up at Operation occurs later in the life cycle. The first
iteration results in the roll-up of economic valuations for comparison against the targets and constraints. The
second iteration provides measures of economic performance.

Such methods can assure the realization of the enterprise target, the fundamental information collection and
analysis, the rationalized target fulfillment and the system monitoring. Implementation of the framework should
be supported by correct methodology, rich engineering practices and advanced theories and methods of
system integration. Initiatives in concurrent engineering, cell technologies, and total quality management may
be coupled with capital and labor investment for economic benefit.

The analysis and evaluation of different implementation alternatives of CIMS can be performed using the
Economic View. The selection of the best alternative from many opportunities to implement system integration
and the improvement of the enterprise competency is achieved as a result of specific modeling methods.

Phase
Genericity
Requirements Design Implementation
Operation
Generic
Partial
Particular
Economic Target ET ET
ET
Indices
layer
I
j
I I I I I I I
j C T F S E Q
Detail
ƒ
P ƒ
P
ƒ P ƒƒ
PP
Factors
ƒ
A ƒ ƒ
A A
layer
ƒƒ
AA
• •
ƒ
E ƒ
E
• • • • • •
ƒƒ
EE
ƒ ƒ
• • • • • • E T
ƒ
T ƒ
T
ƒƒ
TT
• • • • • •
• • • •
є є є Economic
Ai є v Ay
I2 A
є є
• • 1 n
I I
є
1 є
A V3
є Elements
k
I є
є z
Iw I
layer
є
Vn є
є n
Vj є є 2 є A є є x
1 V 2 u V
V A V
construct & model
pool
Application and Implementation Methodology
Figure B.1 — Framework for Economic View

4 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
Table B.1 — Icons for Figure B.1
Economic Target
ET
Partial model
Indices (Cost, Time, Flexibility,
I
j
Service, Environment, Quality)
Index decomposition
Process factors
ƒ
P
Activity elements
є
Ay
Analysis factors
ƒ
A
Variable elements
є
Vx
Factors as equations
ƒ
E
Item elements
є
Iz
Factors as matrices
and tables
ƒ
T
B.3 Candidate modelling methods

B.3.1 Introduction
Two methods used at the Factor layer, depicted in Figure B.1 as ƒ and as hierarchy models, are presented
A
below and followed by illustrative examples.

B.3.2 Activity Based Costing
Activity Based Costing (ABC) is a method to measure the cost and performance of an organization based on
the activities, which the organization uses in producing its output. ABC differs from traditional cost accounting
techniques in that it accounts for all "fixed" and indirect costs as variables, without allocating costs based upon
a customer's unit volume, total days in production or percentage of indirect costs. Information gathered
through ABC should provide a cross-functional, integrated view of your organization, including its activities
and its business processes. [1]

B.3.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process/Analytic Network Process
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision making process to help set priorities and make decisions
when both qualitative and quantitative aspects of a decision need to be considered. By reducing complex
decisions to a series of one-to-one comparisons, then synthesizing the results, AHP helps decision makers
arrive at optimal decisions and provides a clear rationale for those decisions. The AHP engages decision
makers in breaking down a decision making procedure into smaller parts, proceeding from the goal to criteria
and sub-criteria from the Indices layer, down to the alternative courses of action. Decision makers then make
simple pair wise comparison judgments throughout the hierarchy to arrive at overall priorities for the
alternatives. The decision problem may involve social, political, technical, and economic factors. The AHP
method helps people cope with the intuitive, the rational and the irrational factors, and with risk and
uncertainty in complex settings. It can be used to: predict likely outcomes, plan projected and desired future,
facilitate group decision making, exercise control over changes in the decision making system, allocate
resources, select alternatives, do cost/benefit comparisons, evaluate employees and allocate wage increases.
[2]
ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
The Analytic Network Process (ANP) is a general theory of relative measurement for deriving composite
priority ratio scales from individual ratio scales that represent relative measurements of the influence of
attributes that interact with respect to control criteria. Through its super matrix, whose attributes are
themselves matrices of column priorities, the ANP captures the outcome of dependence and feedback within
and between clusters of attributes. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), with its dependence assumptions
on clusters and attributes, is a special case of the ANP. ANP augments the linear structures used in traditional
approaches and their inability to deal with feedback in order to choose alternatives. ANP offers decision
making according to attributes and criteria as well as according to both positive and negative
consequences.[3]
B.4 Applying Economic View in model development
B.4.1 Introduction
Using the candidate methods of B.3, a subset of an Economic View as an example is presented below. The
models chosen help decision makers align costs and value with targets and constraints.

B.4.2 ABC Method example
In order to accurately assess CIM technology benefits to enterprises, a costing technique that considers not
only production but also other processes is required. For this example the modeling formalism is based on the
IDEF0 method.[4] Since both ABC and IDEF0 focus on functional activities, the IDEF0 model is extended to
include activity based costing data. In this way we assure that no activity cost assignment will be missed
during the integration with an IDEF0 model. Here, a separate economic model that corresponds to the IDEF0
model of function view is constructed. There are four attributes in each model block: 1) node number, 2)
activity name, 3) cost driver and 4) cost value. The first two attributes are taken directly from an IDEF0 model,
whereas the latter two are to be defined by designers. As shown in Figure B2., the cost model forms a
hierarchy exactly like the IDEF0 model. Sub-processes are defined down to Element layer activities that are
the most basic.
Guidelines for constructing an ABC economic model include:

a) No attribute can be left empty;
b) Cost value of a parent process must be the sum of the cost values of all its lower-level sub-processes or
activities;
c) If there is a cost for coordinating activities of the same level, coordination should be modeled as an
activity of that level;
d) The model can be decomposed as a hierarchy equivalent to the IDEF0 hierarchy;
e) Assignment of cost values should be done in a bottom up manner, so that higher-level activity cost values
can be consolidated and assigned accordingly.
For example, as shown in Figure B.2, the cost drivers of the process ‘Delivery of Part As’, ‘Preparation of
raw material’, ‘Production of Part As’, ‘Purchasing material’, ‘Work order control for part delivery’, ‘Preparation
of NC program’, ‘Machine set-up’, and ‘Machining’, are defined. Then we assign cost values for ‘Preparation of
NC program’, ‘Machine set-up’ and ‘Machining’ (basic economic Elements). Hence, the cost value for
‘Production of Part As’ is calculated by summing the A2 cost values (A21 + A22 + A23). Similarly, the cost
values for ‘Preparation of raw material’, ‘Purchasing material’, and ‘Work order control for part delivery’, are
assigned. Finally the cost for ‘Delivery of Part As’ is determined. In order to deliver a product, processes like
production planning and shipping are necessary and thus the costs for these processes are added to
determine the total cost of a product. Note that the ABC modeling method can be applied to the existing
processes as well as estimating costs for new systems. The objective is to accurately capture or estimate the
project costs.
6 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

ISO 15704:2000/Amd.1:2005(E)
A0
Delivery of Part As
Production volume
$1435
A4
A1 A2 A3
Preparation of raw Production of Part Purchasing
Work order control
for part delivery
material
material As
Number of batches Number of
Production volume Man-hour
purchasing orders
$250 $535 $250 $400
............  ............
A21 A22 A23
Preparation of NC Machine set-up Machining
program
Number of 100 Number of set-up Piece number of
program lines parts completed
$60 $75 $400
Figure B.2 — Example of a cost hierarchy
B.4.3 AHP Method example
Since investing in CIM often is not for the sake of the technology itself, it is especially important that the
resulting business and manufacturing processes meet the target performance. Operational measures of
performance should be derived from company goals that align with corporate strategies at Indices layer. The
questions to resolve are: 1) whether the technology investment can effectively bring the business to the target,
and 2) is the investment economically sound. The Activity Based Costing technique discussed in the above
section (B.3.3) addresses the tangible aspect and deals with the second question. The first question is
addressed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method at the Factors layer.

For example, a manufacturing company is launching a technology advancement project in order to keep
company growth on target. Funds are reserved for the first stage of project effort. Due to a budget limit for the
first phase, a team of managers, analysts and engineers are asked to make an investment proposal. The AHP
method is employed by the team to decide which area of the project will receive initial funds allocation. A
hierarchy of the advancement investment problem is constructed as in Figure B.3.

During
...