Knowledge Management in Process Planning

1 2 1 2 2
B. Denkena (1), M. Shpitalni (1), P. Kowalski , G. Molcho , Y. Zipori
1
Institut fr Fertigungstechnik und Werkzeugmaschinen (IFW)
Produktionstechnisches Zentrum
Universitt Hannover
2
Laboratory for CAD and LCE, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
32000 Haifa, Israel

Abstract
Considerable research and development efforts have been devoted to Computer Aided Process Planning
(CAPP). Nevertheless, because the CAPP problem is complex and is characterized by many interdependent
technical and business parameters and variables, no viable off-the-shelf solution is yet available that can be
easily or widely implemented in industry. This paper presents an overview of the CAPP field and describes a
holistic component manufacturing process planning model based on an integrated approach combining
technological and business considerations. The model was derived based on available literature, an overview of
the state-of-the-art in Digital Manufacturing, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) and CAPP solution
providers, and a survey of Small Medium Enterprise (SME) manufacturers. This model will form the basis for
developing improved decision support and knowledge management capabilities to enhance available CAPP
solutions.
Keywords: CAPP, Abrasive processes, Knowledge management.

1 INTRODUCTION Hence, process planning has a major impact on

One of the most important steps in converting a design
concept into a manufactured product is process planning.
Such planning determines the manufacturing operations,
operation sequence and resources required to
manufacture a product based on an engineering drawing
or a CAD model. A process plan elaborates the machines,
setups, tool specifications, operation time estimates, etc.
required to convert raw material into a part [1].
Traditionally, process planning was performed manually
from scratch, hence requiring retrieval and manipulation of
a great deal of information from many sources, including
established standards, machinability data, machine
capabilities, tooling inventories, stock availability and
existing practice. Much research and development has
been devoted to developing a computerized solution for
process planning - Computer Aided Process Planning
(CAPP). Nevertheless, because the CAPP problem is
complex and characterized by many interdependent
technical and business parameters and variables, no
viable off-the-shelf solution can yet be easily or widely
implemented in industry. Moreover, because expert
process planners are becoming an expensive and rare
resource in industry, their productivity, effectiveness and
consistency must be enhanced through improved decision
support tools and knowledge management capabilities.
In this paper we have developed an ontology for the
extended" process planner environment and the process
planner decision-making process model. These models
are used as the basis for developing decision support and
knowledge management templates and capabilities to
support the process planning decision process for
component manufacturing in the cutting and abrasive
process domain. In these models a holistic approach was
adopted that incorporates traditional technological aspects
of process planning as well as complementary business
aspects. Since the process plan is used in production
scheduling as well as in machine control, it affects
production efficiency, final cost and product quality [2].
manufacturing profitability. Emphasizing the business
aspects of CAPP will enhance existing CAPP solutions
that currently focus on technological feasibility and
optimization.
In addition, this paper presents PLM/CAD-CAPP solutions
available in industry today from leading providers such as
UGS, PTC, and Dassault Systemes, as well as their
current development directions. Moreover, we discuss
some additional complementary capabilities, identified
during the literature review, market survey and industry
survey, required to complete the holistic solution.
1.1 CAPP Overview
There are two basic approaches to computer-aided
process planning variant and generative [3].
Variant CAPP was the first approach used to computerize
planning techniques. It is based on the notion that similar
parts will have similar process plans. Part coding and
classification based on group technology are used to
implement this concept. A standard plan is formulated
and stored for each part family [4].
Variant CAPP has the following advantages: (a) once a
standard plan has been written, a variety of components
can be planned; (b) programming and installation are
comparatively simple; (c) the system is understandable,
and the planner has control over the final plan; and (d) it is
easy to learn and use. Yet several problems are also
associated with variant CAPP: (a) the components to be
planned are limited to previously planned similar
components, and process optimization is not included;
(b) experienced process planners are still required to
modify the standard plan for a specific component;
(c) variant planning cannot be used in an entirely
automated manufacturing system without additional
process planning [2].
Generative CAPP envisions creation of a process plan
from information available in a manufacturing database

Annals of the CIRP Vol. 56/1/2007 -175- doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.05.042

without human intervention. Upon receiving the design x PLM KID management capability
model, the system is able to generate the required x Interface to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and
operations and operation sequence for the component [5]. Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) systems
A generative process-planning system comprises three Figure 1 presents the current system configuration, as
main components: (a) part description, (b) manufacturing well as the strategic aim of future systems. Current and
databases, and (c) decision-making logic and algorithms. future solutions differ mainly in the applicability of the PLM
Because the definition of generative process planning and Digital Manufacturing component as the KID
used in industry today is somewhat relaxed, any system backbone to support CAD-CAPP-CAM systems and the
containing some decision-making capabilities on process not-yet-existing feedback loop for improving design and
selection is called a generative system. process planning productivity and profitability. Current
Generative process planning is regarded as more CAPP solutions are suited to mass production of specific
advanced than variant process planning. Ideally, a product types, e.g., the power train market, the automotive
generative process-planning system is a turnkey system industry, and, more recently, the aerospace industry.
with all the decision logic built in. However, due to
differences among manufacturing shops, decision logics CAD CAPP CAM
have to be customized for each shop. The generative
process-planning approach has the following advantages:
(a) process plans are generated rapidly; (b) new
components can be planned without relying on previous PLM (Digital Manufacturing component)
Machine
similar parts; and (c) there is potential for integrating with x Product definition Code &
automated manufacturing facilities to provide detailed x Part Process Plan Process
objective control information [2][3]. Most research x Resource Data (tools, machines, Plan
fixtures, etc)
systems are of the generative CAPP type [6]. x Resource Content (tool database, etc)
x Manufacturing Knowledge
1.2 Digital Manufacturing Overview
Historically, manufacturing process planning was manual
Future
and based primarily on the experience and knowledge of ERP/MES
individual process planners, who typically developed Current
manufacturing process plans after product planning. The Figure 1: Current and future process planning solutions.
failings of this sequential approach contributed to the
advent of concurrent engineering, enabling simultaneous Figure 2 presents the most common knowledge-based
product and process planning. Most digital manufacturing methods used in CAx. Historically, computer aided design
technology suites are built around this core manufacturing was the first to support knowledge in engineering
process function. processes and thus incorporates the largest number of
knowledge management methods. Computer aided
Digital manufacturing has become a key component of process planning and manufacturing have also introduced
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). PLM systems are similar techniques, but knowledge generation and transfer
the current solution for managing the integrated must be carried out separately for each application and
Knowledge Information and Data (KID) regarding product specific environmental conditions.
design, production process and production capabilities.
Digital manufacturing seeks to define and manage
Knowledge-based CAx
manufacturing process information and support effective
collaboration among engineering disciplines by using full
digital product and plant definitions. It facilitates a holistic CAD CAPP CAM
view of product and process design as integral to the x Macro programming x Macro programming x Macro programming
product lifecycle and enables referencing to process x Element libraries x Features x Parameters
constraints and capabilities during product design. Digital x Parameters x Templates x Features
manufacturing supports product data release, engineering x Associativity x Knowledge-based x Templates
x Features search x Simulation
change management, factory modeling, visualization and
x User defined features
collaboration, simulation of operations, and ergonomic x Model checks
and human factor analyses. The PLM platform is, x Templates
therefore, the natural backbone for enabling technological x Configuration tools
KID management for CAPP.
Figure 2: Established knowledge tools in CAx systems.
2 LEADING PLM/CAPP SOLUTIONS Generally, solution providers focus on CAD and CAM
tools rather than on CAPP. However, available CAM
This research encompasses process planning of abrasive solutions have been expanded to include some CAPP
component manufacturing and therefore excludes functionalities, e.g., feature recognition, process plan
additional CAPP capabilities such as assembly planning definition for compound features (including tool selection)
and shop floor planning. A field study collected information and rule-based prioritization of machine operations.
on process planning solutions available in industry and Because CAM systems are well accepted and
mapped the state-of-the-art in the field. Interviews with implemented in the market, their expansion was
leading solution providers, among them UGS, PTC and appropriate. Moreover, cooperation between process
Dassault Systemes, demonstrate the state-of-the-art in planners and manufacturersor shop flooris more
digital manufacturing. The companies employ similar common than between process planner and designer.
strategies offering manufacturers an integrated solution This trend of including CAPP capabilities in CAM systems
for digital management of product and process KID. All of is contrary to the expected benefits from collaboration
the proposed solutions include the following components: between designers (CAD) and process planners (CAPP).
x CAD system Integrating product and manufacturing process design is
x Process planning capabilities vital, for it facilitates optimization of product cost. This
x CAM system integration also reduces product development lead time,

-176-
hence lowering R&D costs, and promises improved
product quality and performance, thus enabling a more
timely and profitable solution for industry [7].
In the future, solution providers will be able to interface
CAD and CAM systems to a PLM backbone with the
following digital manufacturing capabilities:
x Rough cut process planning
x Resource management (tools, machines, fixtures)
x Knowledge management and rule base for process
planning
x Process template management
x Change management of product and process data
x Part and process KID classification
2.1 Market solution discussion
x Currently, no complete solution is appropriate for
SMEs with small batch production and vast product
varieties (outsourcing market). Existing solutions suit
in-house mass production manufacturers.
x CAPP solutions require significant investment to
describe the specific environment of each variable.
x Existing solutions focus mainly on prismatic parts, with
minimal support for freeform process planning.
x Existing CAPP solutions focus on detailed planning
and finding the optimal solution for machine
processing planning. They do not include business
considerations that often determine process plan
variables such as technology or machines selected.
3 SURVEY OF CAPP AND PROCESS PLANNING
IN SME MANUFACTURING
Experienced process planners from five SME
manufacturing facilities and twenty expert researchers
were interviewed to gather baseline information on
process planning and CAPP.
3.1 SME Industrial Survey
Four Israeli manufacturing facilities were selected initially.
The interviews sought to understand decision-making in
process planning as well as to collect available or missing
decision support tools and to pinpoint decision processes
where such tools would contribute most. The focus was on
plants planning small batch production processes rather
than mass production processes. Interviewees were
production managers, process planners and CNC
programmers, all experts in process planning.
Analysis of the results of the first round of interviews
yielded a preliminary decision model and an ontology
structure for describing the process planners immediate
environment (inputs and outputs of the decision process).
Results were validated by a return visit to one of the plants
for model verification as well as by model validation by
interviewing a fifth process planner.
3.2 The Questionnaire
x Describe the environment, technologies, machines
and existing CAD/CAM tools.
x Describe the information included in every new order
(drawing, CAD model, routing, file formats, dimensions
and tolerances).
x Describe the decision process for selecting a
manufacturing technology, specific machines, tools,
jigs, dividing operations into elements, parameters for
each element, setups.
x Describe the interaction between product designer,
process planner and manufacturer.
x Describe the relevant KID management capabilities.
x Define business parameters impacting process plan
(e.g., priorities in manufacturing resource allocation).
-177-
3.3 Industrial Field Study Conclusions
Process planning combines both technological and
business considerations to select the optimal process to
ensure part quality in accordance with specifications and
at minimal cost. Nevertheless, our overview of SME
manufacturers shows that:
x Contrary to CAD/CAM, CAPP is not implemented in
SMEs.
x Management of infrastructure knowledge (machining
equipment and tools) is lacking.
x Production process knowledge is not managed, but
rather only documentation of work performed.
x Difficulties exist in identifying similar jobs (e.g., in case
of significant engineering change, job is considered
entirely new), with reliance only on employee memory.
x Digital information is transferred from designer to
manufacturer (i.e. STEP and PDF files), but there is no
digital data collaboration for transferring feedback from
manufacturer to designer.
3.4 Survey at IFW
To determine the requirements and conditions of process
planning in experimental situations, a survey was
conducted at IFW. The goal was to identify relevant
process data used for planning research experiments in
an academic environment. Twenty researchers were
questioned about necessary preparation and needed data
while planning experiments. The results revealed that
process parameters such as feed or cutting speed are
often searched for. Yet frequently it is indirect and
processed data sources such as diagrams or pictures that
are searched. While such sources visualize parameter
relations, they also make them more difficult to find and
extract. The conclusion is that organizational knowledge
tends to be converted into tacit knowledge and thus is
difficult to extract.
4 MODELING THE PROCESS PLANNER
ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Decision Process Model
Whether a process planning decision procedure is
completely manual or computer aided, it will inevitably
include the following stages:
x Receiving order and design details.
x Selecting raw material and shape.
x Selecting process technology.
x Determining process order.
x Preparing processing plan, which includes:
o Selection of machining operations
o Sequencing of machining operations
o Selection of cutting tools
o Determination of setup requirements
o Calculations of cutting parameters
o Selection/design of jigs and fixtures
o Planning tool path
o Estimating processing setup costs and times.
x Generating planning output (CNC program,
documentation).
Figure 3 presents the upper aggregate level of the
process planning decision-making procedure. This model
is a drill-down model where each activity is further
explicated in a lower level model. Figure 4 demonstrates
one such drill-down process for rough planning. For such
applications, OPM provides a good modeling tool [8].
4.2 Ontology Structure
The process planner environment was described by
developing an ontology. For a particular domain, an
ontology expresses the set of terms, entities, objects and
classes and the relationships between them, and provides
formal definitions and axioms that constrain the
interpretation of these terms [9]. The ontology is often
captured in some form of semantic networka graph with
nodes representing concepts or individual objects and
arcs representing relationships or associations among the
concepts [10].
The ontologys aim is to make explicit the knowledge
contained within software applications, as well as that
within an organization and the business procedures in a
particular domain. All the instances and classes of the
process-planning ontology have been identified and
verified, and the ontology is now being generated using
the Protg tool. Figure 5 presents the data base classes
relevant to the facility data, and Figure 6 shows the
database classes relevant to the order data. The rough
plan and detailed plan are similarly described.
5 THE HOLISTIC PLM/CAPP SOLUTION
In section 2, the current available solutions and current
development strategies of the PLM market were
discussed. In this section we identify and discuss a
complementary set of tools and capabilities required for
providing a holistic PLM/CAPP solution. Moreover, the
added contribution to existing research directions is
discussed.

Rough plan:
Selected technology
Selected machines Output:
Additional treatments Machine code
Finishing processes List of tools
Quality assurance List of jigs
Sequencing Process documentation

Facility
Data Rough cut planning: Detailed planning
based on commercial, machine/ operation
logistic and technical
considerations

Order Data

PLM process
CAD ERP/MES KID manager CAPP CAM

Figure 3: A complete process plan.

Review previous plans of Determine Technology

similar products/orders
Facility
CAD Data
Evaluate commercial value of
the order: Analyze resource availability
Price
Order data Profitability
ERP/MES
Past experience
Future potential
Engineering KID
Allocate required sources:
Analyze drawings & In-House or
Logistic and
specifications: out-source
commercial KID Part dimensions
Tolerances
Raw material
Surface finish
Determine routing (machine
type, and sequence)

* Rough plan

Figure 4: The drill down rough plan procedure.

-178-
 FACILITY DATA

Resource availability Variable commercial data Implicit facility KID

Explicit facility KID

Machines Variable work costs Previous experience

Process documentation

Tools Facility fixed costs Facility reputation

Resource templates

Raw material Required profit margin

Process templates

Manpower Facility responsiveness

Available process standards

Subcontractors Current backlog

CAD/CAM/CAPP tools

Jigs

Transportation capabilities

Figure 5: The structure of the facility ontology

ORDER DATA

Engineering data Logistic/commercial kid

Product geometry Explicit KID Implicit KID

Customer prioritization
3D model and cross sections Order quantity
Contribution to reputation
2D drawing and cross sections Due date
Previous experience with customer
Recognized features Estimated cost

Price Customer flexibility

Product dimensions

Payment terms Perceived risk

Tolerances
Previous similar tasks
Surface finish
Perceived future prospects
Additional mfg. processes

Quality control requirements

Media type

CAD type
Packing instructions

Figure 6: The structure of the work order ontology

x Part recognition. Feature recognition has been
considered a key technology to link design and
manufacturing information. Development of process
planning and cost evaluation systems considerably
depends on such recognition [11]. Broadening this
concept involves part recognition:
o Part recognition by classification methodologies
A part classification method should be developed
within the PLM environment that incorporates all
KID related to process planning. A generic part
template must be developed to enable part family
formulation and rapid access to similar parts, to be
used as reference process plans.
o Part recognition by geometrical similarity
Part recognition by geometrical similarity is
implemented by using similarity algorithms
combined with an adequate index structure and
similarity query mechanism to retrieve parts from
the database [12].
Although existing PLM solution providers have begun
implementation of user-friendly "resource managing"
components to aid the process planner in classification
and retrieval of resources (tools, jigs, machines),
additional development efforts are required to develop
complementary part recognition capabilities. Such
capabilities for part recognition must be interfaced with the
retrieval mechanisms for process templates and relevant
resource requirements from existing process plans and
resource management databases, in particular recognition
or retrieval of relevant fixturing solutions and tools by
geometrical part recognition. Methodologies such as
Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) can be applied for locating
similar past problems to be used as the basis of the
current process plan.
x Improved Collaboration between Part Designer,
Process Planner and Manufacturer. Process planning
and product design are concurrent processes that
require collaboration among all parties, both internal
and external to the organization [13]. Such
collaboration requires improving technology and
business processes by using a more systematic and
structured approach. In particular, tools, procedures
and business culture must be developed that will
enable systematic feedback to the product designer
from the manufacturer/CNC programmer/process
planner about required changes in product features,
tolerances, etc., in order to improve product
manufacturability/profitability.
Solution providers recognize the need to improve
collaboration between design and manufacturing. To this
end, they are currently working in two different directions:
(a) providing well-defined compound features, which are
recognized by the CAPP system along with their
recommended process plan, to be used as building blocks
for the new product plan; and (b) implementing standards

-179-
for transferring manufacturing KID between the different
CAD/CAPP/CAM/PLM systems (i.e. tolerances, thermal
treatment, coating etc.), for example by incorporating this
additional KID into the STEP standard.
x Developing improved interface between the PLM and
ERP system. An improved interface is required
between the PLM and ERP systems that enables
consideration of logistic and business parameters
such as availability and cost of resources along with
the technological requirements of process planning
available in the PLM system. This interface should
support the industrial environment of today that relies
on outsourcing as well as in-house manufacturing. The
solution therefore must go beyond the boundaries of
the organization to include the ERP and PLM systems
of the companys subcontractors.
x Improve reusability of tacit and explicit knowledge.
Research and development are required to solve two
problems with the rule-base mechanisms implemented
in existing CAD-CAPP solutions: (a) the rule base is
not comprehensible, so that existing knowledge bases
currently cannot be reused in additional organizations,
and (b) defining new rules requires significant
programming skills and is not intuitively applicable for
the standard process planner.
x Freeform Process Planning. Existing CAPP solutions
support prismatic parts but not freeform shaping.
Freeform modeling shortens modeling processes by
simplifying geometry description, especially within the
tool, die and mold-making industry. Although some
research on classifying and reusing geometrical
freeform features has been conducted [14][15], few
studies apply geometrical knowledge to machining
operations during process planning and code
generation. Such support for machining of freeform
features can include automatic tool selection and
suggestions of sequencing and type of machining
operations for an autonomously determined region of a
part based on the feature description provided by the
user. Such a capability will facilitate reuse of previous
process plan segments by adapting them to the new
part or feature.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the literature review, market survey and
industry survey emphasize the complexity of the process
planning problem as well as the lack of mature holistic
solutions for industry that include all relevant business,
logistic and technological considerations.
The findings of this comprehensive review of the CAD-
CAPP market and of the available solutions provide the
basis for developing an ontology for the process planner
environment and a complementary decision process
model. These models (a) provide the basis for knowledge
management support and business process modeling,
and (b) enable an improved understanding of the work of
process planners by pinpointing opportunities for
enhancing both the efficiency and the consistency of the
process planner's decision making. The models are based
on a holistic approach by zooming out on the CAPP
environment for a broader view of the planning problem
and by incorporating business considerations as part of
the process planning solution.
This comprehensive overview has highlighted the need for
additional complementary capabilities required to provide
a holistic solution to the process planning problem.
Furthermore, it is evident that the most appropriate
environment for developing the required support tools is
PLM-ERP. These tools have reached maturity and are
well developed and implemented in industry, providing an
-180-
infrastructure for the planning problem.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is a collaborative project between the
Technion and Hannover University, funded by the
Niedersachsen Foundation, Grant 2005847, and
supported in part by the Schlesinger Minerva Laboratory
for Life Cycle Engineering.
8 REFERENCES
[1] Wang, H.P., Li, J.K., 1991, Computer Aided Process
Planning, Elsevier Science, Netherlands.
[2] Chang, T.C., 1999, Tools for Manufacturing Process
Planning, Modern Manufacturing, CRC Press LLC.
[3] Boer, C.R, Petitti, M., Lombardi, F., Simon J.P.,
1990, A CAPP/CAM expert system for a high
productivity, high flexibility CNC turning center,
Annals of the CIRP, 39/1:481-483.
[4] Koenig, D.T., 1990, Computer Integrated
Manufacturing: Theory and Practice, Taylor &
Francis, Washington.
[5] Rho, H.M., Geelink, R., vant Erve, A.H., Kals, H.J.J.,
1992, An integrated cutting tool selection and
operation sequencing method, Annals of the CIRP,
41/1: 517-520.
[6] Gologlu, C., 2004, A constraint-based operation
sequencing for a knowledge-based process planning,
Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 15:463-470
[7] Tichkiewitch, S., Brissaud, D., 2000, Co-ordination
between product and process definitions in a
concurrent engineering environment, Annals of the
CIRP, 49/1:75-78.
[8] Dori, D., Shpitalni, M., 2005, Mapping knowledge
about Product Life Cycle Engineering for Ontology
construction via Object-Process Methodology (OPM),
Annals of the CIRP, 54/1:117-120.
[9] Gomez-Perez, A., 1998, Knowledge Sharing and Re-
Use. In J. Liebowitz, (Ed.), The Handbook of Applied
Expert Systems, Boca Raton, pp. 10:1-10:36).
[10] Huhns, M. N. & Singh, M. P., 1997, Ontologies for
Agents, IEEE-Internet Computing 1/6:81-83.
[11] Woo, W., Wang, E., Kim, Y.S., Rho, H.M., 2005,
A hybrid feature recognizer for machining
process planning systems, Annals of the CIRP,
54/1:397.
[12] Berchtold, S. and Kriegel, H., 1997, S3: Similarity
search in CAD database systems, SIGMO.
[13] Maropoulos, P.G., McKay, K.R., Bramall, D.G., 2002,
Resource-aware aggregate planning for the
distributed manufacturing enterprise, Annals of the
CIRP, 51/1:363.
[14] van den Berg, E., Bronsvoort W. F. and Vergeest J.
S. M., 2002, Freeform feature modelling: concepts
and prospects, Computers in Industry, 49/2:217-233.
[15] Fontana, M., Giannini, F., and Meirana M., 1999, A
freeform feature taxonomy, In: Brunet, P., Scopigno,
R. (Eds.), Proceedings of Eurographics, Computer
Graphics Forum, 18/3:107-118.