Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403

49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016)

A Model based Visualization Framework for Cross Discipline

Collaboration in Industry 4.0 Scenarios
Johannes Hertera*, Jivka Ovtcharovab
a
UNITY AG, Wankelstrasse 3, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
b
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Information Management in Engineering, Zirkel 2, Bldg. 2020, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: "+49 162 88 255 36" ; fax: +49 711 686 890 59. E-mail address: johannes.herter@unity.de

Abstract

The Industry 4.0 initiative fosters close collaboration between various disciplines in product development. Collaborative aspects are addressed
by several research activities, namely Systems Engineering and more precisely by Model Based Systems Engineering. This work contributes a
new method for interdisciplinary communication by an integrated visualization of conceptual models. The method describes an environment for
direct communication between experts in related disciplines. Common application scenarios are business process management workshops in
which process experts have to achieve commitment with experts from other disciplines like computer science, logistics or engineering. Especially
in Industry 4.0 scenarios, mutual understanding between experts from several domains is crucial for a successful process setup, planning and
preparation of production scenarios. The method comprises a theoretical framework for establishing inter-model relationships and their
visualization. For establishing links between models, an ontology based approach is applied. The Bunge-Wand-Weber Ontology for information
systems provides a generic and yet applicable basis for establishing consistent inter-model relationships. For supporting communication processes
the integrated models should be displayed. To provide an understandable visualization a three-dimensional environment is proposed, in which
the linked models are arranged and displayed. The scientific basis is given by applying the concept of visual variables described in the scientific
discipline of information visualization. The depth of space extends the set of visual variables. Applied to the semantic concept of integrated
models a discriminable visualization of integrated models is achieved.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: Industry 4.0; Collaboration; Information Visualization

1. Introduction A common practice for problem solving in technical

Recent development in industrial production scenarios are
dominated by a rising complexity of product technologies and
manufacturing techniques. Principals of the Industry 4.0
initiative postulate a close integration of physical components
and IT systems for developing and applying cyber-physical
technical systems in product manufacturing scenarios. The
technical components of cyber-physical systems are
increasingly sophisticated. This demands deep knowledge of
domain experts who participate in the product development
process. The results of participating domains have to be
integrated to establish a sound and usable technical product.
domains is to follow a model-based approach. Experts apply
domain specific conceptual models to formalize their
understanding. Thereby the complexity of real world scenarios
is reduced, as models comprise of a selection of relevant
elements. (De-facto) Standardized conceptual model grammars
prevail most technical domains. Model grammars describe
constructs and relationships, which are relevant for problem
solving in their native domain. Some grammars define a visual
notation for a graphic representation of the semantic model.
Established modelling grammars like BPMN (Business
Process Modelling and Notation), UML (Unified Modelling
Language) or SysML (Systems Modelling Language) can
achieve the status of a common language or shared mental

2212-8271 © 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.069
 Johannes Herter and Jivka Ovtcharova / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403
model as they are widely known and applied. This is a great
benefit for collaboration within the domain, however there is
little benefit for inter-domain collaboration.
Specific conceptual models are not necessarily known
outside their native domain and they cannot be used as a
common language. However, interdisciplinary communication
requires users to achieve common ground for mutual
understanding [1]. A method to support knowledge exchange
between domains based on visually linked conceptual models
could enhance mutual understanding. Still, experts can stick to
their familiar mental model and notation. Statements like: “…
that’s what I meant to say” should be made earlier with suitable
communication support based on a good visualization.
1.1. Objectives
This work contributes to the body of knowledge a method
to support model-based communication in interdisciplinary
collaboration scenarios. Domain experts should be able to use
their native conceptual models and notation. The relationships
between conceptual models should be transparent and
intuitively understandable. This should be achieved by visual
means. The method should cover the following:
x An approach for selecting and linking elements of several
conceptual models based on semantics.
x A method to provide a sound and intuitive visual
representation for inter-model relationships.
Both aspects should be based on scientific theories.
The work introduced here is developed in scope of a
doctoral thesis, which is published in 2016 at Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology. This paper gives an overview of
fundamentals and implementation of a conceptual framework
published earlier [2,3]. The concept for a visual representation
of inter-model relationships in the third dimension was
addressed in [4].
This paper focusses on the ontology-based approach for
model integration and gives insights about the implementation
and evaluation of the conceptual framework.
1.2. Structure and Scope
This paper is structured as follows: Initially the issue of
cross-domain collaboration is put in the context of Industry 4.0.
This is followed by introducing the fundamentals of semantic
model integration. On this basis the concept for establishing
inter-model relationships is described. The fourth section
introduces the essentials of information visualization with
focusing on concepts for graphic representation of conceptual
models. Both approaches for model integration and
visualization are integrated in section five which briefly
introduces the prototypical implementation. The final section
gives an overview about the results of empirical and theoretical
evaluation. The conclusion then focusses on future application
scenarios in the context of Industry 4.0.
1.3. Application Scenario
The Industry 4.0 (I4.0) initiative fosters the interconnection
of domains and technologies. Despite of current and past
399
perspectives in product engineering, I4.0 scenarios define the
organizational scope vaster. I4.0 scenarios furthermore
consider value networks as the organizational framework for
developing smart products on the basis of integrated production
technologies and methods. This poses new demands for
collaboration between organizations, hierarchies and technical
domains. In 2014 a reference architecture titled RAMI was
introduced [5] to describe an architecture as basis for deriving
use-cases and further discussions. It describes multiple layers
and domains which collaborate closely for successful product
development.
Most of the addressed domains apply conceptual models for
performing their daily tasks, throughout the product lifecycle
as well as in organizational hierarchies. This shows a
significant demand for a method to support communication and
collaboration between stakeholders.
2. Conceptual model integration
Conceptual models are common structures for capturing and
communicating knowledge of a domain. Definitions describe
some fundamental characteristics of conceptual models which
are comprehensively noted in General Model Theory [6]:
x Mapping: A conceptual model is a reproduction of an
original. The original might be a real world scenario or
another model [6].
x Reduction: The conceptual model consists of a subset of
elements contained in the original. Only relevant entities
are adopted in the model [6].
x Pragmatism: The selection of artefacts in the model is
driven by the purpose of the model and the information
demand of the modeler. The pragmatism determines the
level of reduction and the structure of the model [6]
The reduction and pragmatism indicate the difficulties of
domain-specific conceptual models in cross-discipline
collaboration scenarios: the understanding and information
demand inside a domain determines the pragmatism.
Domain-specific conceptual models most likely define
varying entities as the models are developed with specific
pragmatisms.
This results in heterogeneous conceptual models. Efforts for
information integration become necessary to support
information exchange between models.
2.1. Integrating conceptual models for a common
visualization
The challenge to resolve heterogeneity between conceptual
models seems to be a general issue in various domains. The
heterogeneity is caused by different data formats and
structures, as well as varying semantics of elements in models
[7]. Efforts were conducted for integrating conceptual models.
Two general approaches seem to give promising results:
x Applying singular models which cover concepts from
several domains, e.g. MBSE (system level) [8], STEP [9],
internal models of ERP Systems
400 Johannes Herter and Jivka Ovtcharova / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403

x Mechanisms for model integration by mapping and

translation ([10,11]).

2.2. Semantic integration

A common technique to resolving semantic heterogeneity is

applying ontologies for formalizing knowledge in conceptual
models [10]. The ontology is a method for semantic based
translation between conceptual models. The ontology
comprises of concepts, attributes and relationships, which
express the general architecture of a conceptual model. The
ontology in this case has the role of a meta-model, a structure
which describes the semantics of entities inside a conceptual
Fig. 1 BWW-Properties and model attributes
model [12].
An established ontology for analyzing information systems
ontology is applied to an information-system comprising of
is the Bunge Wand Weber (BWW) ontology [13]. Although it
several related conceptual models.
has also been criticized [14], it is widely applied to verify the
The ontology based approach for establishing inter-model
quality of conceptual models especially in the domain of
relationships is quite generic, however it provides a profound
industrial engineering [12,15–17].
scientific basis for explaining the selection of entities which are
The formal BWW-ontology defines generic constructs and
linkable.
connections of elements, which are commonly used in
The occurrence of inter-model relationships based on shared
technical information systems. They are not bound to any
BWW-Properties requires annotation in the visualization as
specific domain. An overview including a brief explanation of
they are not an integral part of any model. Therefore a type is
the core concepts is summarized by Green and Rosemann [18].
assigned to the shared property which is displayed to users (see
The application scenario to identify links between domain
section 6.2.).
specific conceptual models uses the following ontological
constructs of the BWW Ontology:
3. Information visualization
x Things: Any physical or identifiable element in an
information system
The Information Visualization discipline conducts methods
x Property: A characteristic of a thing, which has not
and techniques for graphic representations of abstract data [19].
necessarily to be part of a model.
An established theory in this field is the visual variable theory.
x Attribute: A Property, which is captured in a model
Originally described by Bertin in context of cartography [20],
x Transformation: A change of status of a thing, this element
this theory defines a set of visual variables, which are used to
is applied for describing processes
represent a conceptual model graphically. The set of visual
variables is comprises of constructs, which can be used to
2.3. Approach for establishing inter-model relationships
picture semantic constructs on a two-dimensional plane of
projection, e.g. shape, orientation, size or color.
The BWW Ontology is rather generic, yet the constructs and
A principle for achieving high quality visualization is to
definitions provide a theoretical framework for selecting and
create a distinct mapping between semantic concepts and visual
establishing relationships between concepts in different
variable. This principle is referred to as semiotic clarity [21]. If
models.
not fulfilled, a semantic construct is represented by several
Key element are the different characteristics of BWW-
visual variables or in opposite, a graphic symbol represents
Properties and BWW-Attributes. BWW-Properties are related
several semantic constructs [21]. As a result users might get
to the real world. They are not necessarily captured in any
confused about the graphic representation. The requirement of
model implementing the ontology. As long as the property can
a distinct mapping of semantic construct and graphic element
be identified in the original, the definition of the property is
demands introducing an unassigned visual variable for the
fulfilled. Properties can depend on the relationship between
semantic construct of inter-model relationships, respectively
things. In this case, they express shared characteristics. BWW-
the common visualization of several models within one
Properties are not necessarily represented in the conceptual
environment.
models, which relate to the original scenario and are formalized
in the models.
4. Visualization of connected conceptual models
In consequence inter-model relationships can be defined on
the existence of shared properties. If concepts of the original
The inter-model relationships have fundamentally different
scenery have shared properties, then an inter-model
characteristics than internal model relationships. Internal
relationship can be established. Inter-model relationships can
relationships link entities within a model and therefore they are
be introduced to the scenario of conceptual models, even
an integral component of the model.
though they are not part of any model. The given rules and
Inter-model relationships are established on the basis of the
definitions of BWW-Ontology are not altered. Basically, the
introduced concept of shared BWW-Properties and are not
 Johannes Herter and Jivka Ovtcharova / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403
defined in any model-grammar. As a consequence there is no
predefined notation.
It is necessary to choose a discriminative notation for
internal and inter-model relationships to fulfill the demand for
a dedicated mapping between semantic construct and visual
notation. However, a common visual representation for
relationships between entities are lines [19,22].
For fulfilling the design principle to “speak the user’s
language”[23] and to use a unique mapping of visual variable
to semantic constructs, an additional visual variable is required.
4.1. Depth as visual variable
To achieve a distinct graphic representation for inter-model
relationships we introduce “depth of space” as a visual variable
to a multi-model visualization. The depth of space extends the
classic two-dimensional set originally proposed in [20]. This
results in distinct means of design for the special characteristics
of a multi-model visualization [4]. Models are arranged in the
visualization space, which makes them easily distinguishable.
Fig. 2 Spatial arranged models
Users can navigate in the spatial scene and focus on
individual models by zooming and altering their point of view.
In collaborative scenarios users do not have to change windows
or switch screens between models which reduces orientation
efforts when focusing on individual models [24].
Inter-model relationships have a depth component, as they
link elements of several models arranged in space. Therefore
they are easily distinguishable to internal relationships which
stick to the model plane.
Fig. 3 Inter-Model Relationship
401
5. Implementation and empirical insights
The prototypical implementation is based on a virtual reality
framework developed at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
PolyVR is an extensible visualization framework which
provides a straightforward scripting environment for creating
and displaying 3D scenes in various hardware environments
[25].
To build up a scene, graphical models are imported via the
.svg (Scalable Vector Graphics) file format. The PolyVR
implementation renders and displays the models. Inter-model
relationships are read from text files and are added dynamically
to the scene. PolyVR uses the texture coordinates of the
graphical symbols in .svg files to identify the origin and target
of the inter-model relationships. As most authoring systems for
graphic modelling support the .svg file format and the layout of
exported models should be familiar to users. All examples
shown in this paper were drawn in Microsoft Visio and
exported to .svg via internal functionality.
5.1. Model visualization in a common space
For evaluation purposes, model scenes with two and three
models have been implemented. Both conceptual framework
and the current implementation allow arbitrary placement of
models. The parallel and triangular placements were chosen as
the angle between inter-model relationships and model planes
is maximized. This makes the introduced depth component as
a visual language particularly visible.
Depending on the user’s point of view, the front model
Fig. 4 Spatial arrangement of integrated models
covers parts of the model behind (see fig. 2, 3). The spatial
visible effect is nullified. This effect is overcome by a
transparent background of the models. If the models are placed
in appropriate distance and transparency set to an intermediate
level, the text and graphics of the front model are readable, yet
the structure of models behind is visible.
Users can freely navigate within the information space
containing the models to either gain an overview from distance
or analyze sections of singular models in detail.
5.2. Display of Relationships
Inter-model relationships are drawn as straight lines
between the model planes. The line symbol is chosen as it is
the common graphic representation for interconnecting
elements. This supports a guideline for graphic notation
referred to as to “speak the user’s language” [23]. The spatial
402 Johannes Herter and Jivka Ovtcharova / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403
component as visual variable indicates the inter-model
characteristic of the relationship. The coloring of the lines are
additive means for displaying the inter-model relationships.
Fig. 5 Display of inter-model relationship type
Users reported during evaluation, that the spatial component of
the inter-model relationship is the dominant visual clue for
discriminating the lines within and between the models.
The relationships are added to the integrated models on basis
of mutual BWW-Properties, which are not integral part of any
model. Therefore it is necessary to indicate the type of
relationship, as described in section 3.3. The type of
relationship is displayed in the space between the models. The
relationship type is visible, when the user follows an inter-
model relationship and enters the space between models.
6. Visual Complexity
The visual complexity is a measure to evaluate the
understandability of graphic notation [26]. The complexity
arises of the number of graphic elements and relationships
which are displayed together. The visual complexity rises when
several models, including inter-model relationships, are
displayed as shown in fig.5. Depending on the use-case, the
display of all relationships can support users in problem solving
(overview). Fig. 5 shows an IT-landscape on the left and a
BPMN [27] Process model on the right hand side. The
overview gives an impression on first sight about the
significant model entities for integration aspects by the number
of inter-model relationships pointing to them.
However this representation is not suitable for analysis
tasks which require a detailed view. To support analysis tasks
the implementation provides mechanisms for filtering inter-
model relationships. By clicking on any of the linked entities
Fig. 6 Filter mechanisms to overcome visual complexity
in a model, only the entities are displayed which have their
origin or target on the clicked artefact. This feature implements
the widely accepted “mantra” for graphic visualization
“overview first – filter–details on demand” [28].
7. Evaluation
The evaluation of this concept was conducted with
experienced business consultants during a workshop and
several individual discussions.
The evaluation process was conducted as follows: Initially
a real world scenario is described in which users should derive
requirements from a business process. Thereby they should
evaluate, if the derived requirement is realizable in the given
system environment. This task requires switching continuously
between the model diagrams. After performing the evaluation
tasks, users were interviewed in a structured query about
personal impression, additional requirements and potential
application scenarios.
All users mentioned the benefit to have all diagrams in a
common environment and not having to switch between
windows or charts. The visible links between the diagrams
were appreciated for analysis and communication purposes.
Ideas for improvement focused on interaction paradigms and
visual cues during navigation. One significant issue identified
is the issue that a model getting out of the field of vision when
entering the space between models. The model formally in the
front is virtually behind the user and therefore not visible
anymore. This impedes detail analysis, as users have to
remember where they came from when entering the space
between models. This could be overcome by implementing a
visual hint (e.g. picture-in-picture) indicating the origin of the
analyzed inter-model relationships.
During the discussion a number of potential use-cases were
been proposed. Examples covered:
x Process evolution: A common visualization of process
models in several stages could make the evolution of the
models transparent and communicable.
x Mapping of processes to layout: This use-case would
shows the location where processes and activities are
performed. This use-case is addressed by [3,29] in a
sophisticated way.
x Organization- process mapping: International
organizations might have different organizational
structures to implement standardized processes. The
displaying of responsibilities in organizations can support
restructuring projects.
x Implementation of a use-case for RAMI architecture for
industry 4.0 applications. The arrangement and
interconnection of models could implement the multi-
dimensional aspects of the reference architecture. The
method introduced here supports arranging and
interconnecting several conceptual models behind each
other. With this feature the multiple layers of a RAMI
implementation can be fully displayed. The visualization
of several layers should support understanding and
communication in a complex Industry 4.0 scenario.
 Johannes Herter and Jivka Ovtcharova / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 398 – 403
8. Conclusion
This paper describes a method to interconnect and visualize
conceptual models from different domains which formalize a
common problem set. This method supports collaborative
issues in industrial product development by making the
interrelation between the models visible and transparent. In
industry 4.0 scenarios the demand for collaboration between
experts from several domains is expected to increase, indicated
by the multidimensional RAMI architecture for I4.0 scenarios.
The method introduced provides a tool to ease collaboration
and accelerate decision making processes based on a spatial
visualization of linked conceptual models.
Future work focuses on evaluating the method introduced in
industrial application scenarios.
Furthermore we implement a multi-layer model
visualization to evaluate several models are arranged behind
each other for visualizing a multi-layer architecture of models.
This contributes to understanding and communicating
instances of the RAMI reference architecture in Industry 4.0
scenarios.
References
[1] H. Clark, S. Brennan, Grounding in communication, in: Perspect.
Soc. Shar. Cogn., American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C., USA, 1991: pp. 127–149.
[2] D. Eichhorn, J. Herter, A. Oberweis, An Approach for a Domain-
spanning Collaboration Platform for Decision Support Using
Immersive Visualization Techniques in Product Manufacturing, in:
A. Nolte, M. Prilla, S. Lukosch, G. Kolfschoten, T. Herrmann
(Eds.), 1st Int. Work. Collab. Usage Dev. Model. Vis. CollabViz,
Aarhus, Denmark, 2011.
[3] R. Brown, J. Herter, Virtual World Process Perspective
Visualization, in: Conf. Information, Process Konwledge Manag.,
Valencia, Spain, 2012.
[4] J. Herter, R. Brown, J. Ovtcharova, A Visual Language for the
Collaborative Visualization of Integrated Conceptual Models in
Product Development Scenarios, in: M. Abramovici, R. Stark
(Eds.), Smart Prod. Eng., Springer, 2013: pp. 805–814.
[5] J.H. Henning Kargermann, Wolfgang Wahlster,
Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0,
Acatech, 2013.
[6] H. Stachowiak, Allgemeine Modelltheroie, Springer Berlin /
Heidelberg, 1973.
[7] L. Obrst, Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems, Proc.
Twelfth Int. Conf. Inf. Knowl. Manag. - CIKM ’03. (2003) 366.
[8] M. Eigner, R. Daniil, R. Zafirov, Modellbasierte Virtuelle
Produktentwicklung, 2014.
403
[9] ISO/IEC, ISO 10303-214 DIS -Part 214 2nd Edition, ISO -
International Organisation for Standardization, 2003.
[10] V. Bittel, Semantische Informationsintegration − Konzeption eines
auf Beschreibungslogiken basierenden Integrationssystems für die
Produktentwicklung, KIT, 2014.
[11] M. Fowler, Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, Wiley,
2003.
[12] M. Rosemann, I. Vessey, R. Weber, B. Wyssusek, On the
applicability of the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology to enterprise
systems requirements, in: Australas. Conf. Inf. Syst., 2004.
[13] Y. Wand, R. Weber, An Ontological Model of an Information
System, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16 (1990) 1282–1292.
[14] B. Wyssusek, Ontological foundations of conceptual modelling
reconsidered: a response, Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 18 (2006) 139–152.
[15] J. Becker, P. Bergener, D. Breuker, M. Räckers, Evaluating the
expressiveness of domain specific modeling languages using the
Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology, Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst.
Sci. (2010).
[16] A. Gehlert, D. Pfeiffer, J. Becker, The BWW-Model as Method
Engineering Theory, Proc. 13th Am. Conf. Inf. Syst. (AMCIS
2007). (2007) 1–10.
[17] S. Nurcan, C. Salinesi, C. Souveyet, J. Ralyté, Intentional
Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.
[18] P. Green, M. Rosemann, Integrated process modeling: An
ontological evaluation, Inf. Syst. 25 (2000) 73–87.
[19] C. Ware, Information visualization: perception for design, Morgan
Kaufmann, 2004.
[20] J. Bertin, Semiology of Graphics, Esri Press, 2010.
[21] D. Moody, The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis
for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering, IEEE
Trans. Softw. Eng. 35 (2009) 756–779.
[22] E.R. Tufte, Envisioning Information, Graph. Press. 79 (1998) 346–
348.
[23] J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.
[24] S. Meyers, The Keyhole Problem, Sites J. 20Th Century Contemp.
French Stud. (2002) 1–25.
[25] V. Häfner, PolyVR - A Virtual Reality Authoring System, in: G.
Zachmann, J. Perret, A. Amditis (Eds.), Conf. Exhib. Eur. Assoc.
Virtual Augment. Real., The Eurographics Association, 2014.
[26] S. Harper, E. Michailidou, R. Stevens, Toward a definition of visual
complexity as an implicit measure of cognitive load, ACM Trans.
Appl. Percept. 6 (2009) 1–18.
[27] S.A. White, Introduction to BPMN, (2004) 2008–2029.
[28] B. Shneiderman, The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for
information visualizations, Proc. 1996 IEEE Symp. Vis. Lang.
(1996) 336–343.
[29] R. Brown, F. Cliquet, Communication of Business Process Models
via Virtual Environment Simulations, BPTrends. 12 (2008) 1–7.