I am modelling a one-off production system with the purpose of automating some detailed design, inventory tracking and as-built reporting processes. Machines are remote-operated, but systems don’t talk to each other and there is a lot of manual paperwork (printed excel sheets and yellow markers). Every piece of input material has unique serial numbers and properties, and we need to keep track of these into the final product.
Stakeholders are concerned about the status (draft/approved-for-construction/as-built/approved) of the tally (the detailed description of the item produced).
The state transitions of designs and as-built reports, does it make sense to model these in the system analysis? What constructs to use? Pointers to similar examples are appreciated.
Using modes or state diagrams makes sense to describe moving from one situation to another, each requiring different activities (in operational analysis) or functions (in SA LA PA perspectives), and triggered by operational interactions (functional exchanges in SA LA PA) between them.
So if you want to describe the way the process evolves along with the status of your assets, you can use modes & states diagrams describing the different statuses of each asset, and specifying which activities are to be performed for each status; activities will in turn produce interactions triggering the transition from one status to the next one.
Thank you, that makes sense.
Capella seems to tie the mode diagram to an operational entity. Is it customary or beneficial to use operational entities for business objects? In my example, should I model both the design, as-built descriptions (and maybe actual built object as well) as operational entitites?
Thanks,
Åsmund Hjulstad