S1 Business-driven integration

S1 Business-driven integration

11h10-12h30

Presenters
  • Olivier Rainaut, Sr. Manager R&D, System Architecture at ThermoFisher Scientific

  • Ton Peijnenburg, VDL - ETG
    Ton Aantjes, ASML

  • Paul Harvey, Fellow & Chief Engineer MR Systems Architecture at Philips Healthcare

Abstract

In today’s connected world, systems and system development are integrated in broader contexts. Besides technology also business aspects are increasingly complex. Business-oriented terminologies such as “vertical- and horizontal integration”, “customer value”, “business proposition”, “platform development”, and “eco-system” are often used. But how to do this in practice and how to bridge the “gap” between business and technology? In this track we will illustrate how business influences system integration.

Olivier Rainaut, Thermo Fisher Scientific

Topics being addressed are:

  • Integration and optimization of systems in a customer context?

  • Mapping customer processes onto a set of integrated systems.

  • Developing modular platforms to maximize both customer and business value?

  • Systems engineering in the supply chain.

Integration challenges of supplier components in an OEM system and lifecycle context

Ton Peijnenburg, VDL - ETG
Ton Aantjes, ASML

In the high-level outsourcing of integrated, functional modules of a high-tech system, various challenges exist. In this presentation, Ton Aantjes of ASML and Ton Peijnenburg of VDL ETG will discuss these challenges from the perspective of their supplier-OEM relationship in which they collaborate and based on two functional modules on which they have worked.

Suppliers must evolve from a build-to-print role and develop sufficient technological maturity to understand the customer technology, as well as the application context. The buildup of this knowledge and know-how takes time, and supplier confidence is dependent on sufficient display knowledge in the interactions.

A complicated parameter in the interaction is the cost parameter; cost of goods is both a technical as well as a commercial parameter. When involving an external supplier for the design and manufacturing, this cost parameter has a predominant commercial interpretation – how cost-effective is my supplier, and how much cost can we reduce. The use of cost as a technical parameter is much less obvious – to set a technical target also implies a commercial target.

Full transparency is required – suppliers cannot make good (trade-off) decisions based on incomplete understanding of system level requirements. The transparency also supports mutual trust; both presenters have experience how collaboration efficiency and effectiveness deteriorates when transparency is not full.

Working together at a higher level, including design, development and sometimes even pre-development, also requires collaboration agreements to be adjusted to take into account IP in the context where the OEM is very careful with their IP, and interested in continuously expanding their IPR position, and suppliers do have an interest but want to be able to supply other OEMs with new technology.

Paul Harvey, Philips Healthcare

For a mature health-tech business, legacy and product diversity can be a challenge. The market place constantly demands innovation and asks for products that are tailored to a variety of specific demands and requirements in both functionality and cost. The resulting large set of system configurations present a heavy development, maintenance and regulatory burden. In the management of this, resources are consumed that otherwise could be used to accelerate new and more scalable and sustainable innovations. A platforming approach is helpful in managing the situation and, while platforming is generally used, managing the development and evolution of a platform presents challenges of its own. The systems architects typically own the reference architecture, platform strategy and technology roadmaps for the systems/products. Across a global organization, evolving and maintaining the integrity of the platform poses a number of challenges. What is the best strategy to prevent unnecessary divergence of a product platform within a large global organization? How to define and manage a modular architecture and its interfaces in the R&D processes of complex R&D organizations. How to reduce technical diversity by means of methods, tools, processes, etc.?
Topics in this presentation are:

  •  A strategy to maximize value through a modular platform by defining and controlling system interfaces.

  • The need for an architectural governance structure/processes within a complex R&D organization.

  • The need for tooling and processes that facilitate version control and efficient configuration management of system interfaces.     

Contact Track lead