Search Results

Search found 10556 results on 423 pages for 'practical approach'.

Page 3/423 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Free Practical SEO

    Effective SEO is achieved by having a complete knowledge of the integral workings of the internet and expert knowledge of how to process this information and put it in place. There are a number of key factors that contribute to the success of your website, most notably Quality & Relevance and Popularity.

    Read the article

  • The Ultimate Tar Command Tutorial with 10 Practical Examples

    <b>The Geek Stuff:</b> "In this article, let us review various tar examples including how to create tar archives (with gzip and bzip compression), extract a single file or directory, view tar archive contents, validate the integrity of tar archives, finding out the difference between tar archive and file system, estimate the size of the tar archives before creating it"

    Read the article

  • Practical PowerShell for SQL Server Developers and DBAs – Part 2

    Having shown just how useful PowerShell can be for DBAs in executing queries, Michael Sorens now takes us through navigating SQL Server space and finding meta-information - valuable information for anyone looking to be more productive in SQL Server. What can SQL Monitor 3.2 monitor?Whatever you think is most important. Use custom metrics to monitor and alert on data that's most important for your environment. Find out more.

    Read the article

  • Vital Factors to Get Practical and Good SEO Services Providers

    The best way to find the best when it comes to Toronto SEO service providers is to look for this topic online. You just have to be very careful because once you started looking for the right one, you will find many choices, including those that offer their services for the cheapest rates. You should not easily believe such claim.

    Read the article

  • Success Quote: A Hybrid Approach for Success

    - by Lauren Clark
    We recently received this quote from a project that successfully used OUM: “On our project, we applied a combination of the Oracle Unified Method (OUM) and the client's methodology. The project was organized by OUM's phases and a subset of OUM's processes, tasks, and templates. Using a hybrid of the two methods resulted in an implementation approach that was optimized for the client-specific requirements for this project." This hybrid approach is an excellent example of using OUM in the flexible and scalable manner in which it was intended. The project team was able to scale OUM to be fit-for-purpose for their given situation. It's great to see how merging what was needed out of OUM with the client’s methodology resulted in an implementation approach that more closely aligned to the business needs. Successfully scaling OUM is dependent on the needs of the particular project and/or engagement. The key is to use no more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the implementation and appropriately address risks. For more information, check out the "Tailoring OUM for Your Project" page, which can be accessed by first clicking on the "OUM should be scaled to fit your implementation" link on the OUM homepage and then drilling into the link on the subsequent page. Have you used OUM in conjunction with a partner or customer methodology? Please share your experiences with us.

    Read the article

  • Best approach for tracking dependent state

    - by Pace
    Let's pretend I work on a project tracking application. The application is a database backed, server hosted, web application. In this application there are Projects which have many Activities which have many Tasks. A Task has two date fields an originalDueDate and a projectedDueDate. In addition, there are dynamic fields on the Activities and the Projects which indicate whether the Activity or Project is behind schedule based on the projected due dates of the child tasks and various other variables such as remaining buffer time, etc. There are a number of things that can cause the projectedDueDate to change. For example, an employee working on the project may (via a server request) enter in a shipping delay. Alternatively, a site may (via a server request) enter in an unexpected closure. When any of these things occur I need to not only update the projectedDueDate of the Task but also trigger the corresponding Project and Activity to update as well. What is the best way to do this? I've thought of the observer pattern but I don't keep a single copy of all these objects in memory. When a request comes in, I query the Task in from the database, at that point there is no associated Activity in memory that would be a listener. I could remove the ability to query for Tasks and force the application to query first by Project, then by Activity (in context of Project), then by task (in context of Activity) adding the observer relationships at each step but I'm not sure if that is the best way. I could setup a database event listening system so when a Task modified event is dispatched I have a handler which queries for the Activity at that point. I could simply setup a two-way relationship between Task and Activity so that the Task knows about the parent Activity and when the Task updates his state the Task grabs his parent and updates state. Right now I'm stuck considering all the options and am wondering if any single approach (doesn't have to be a listed approach) is jumping out at others as the best approach.

    Read the article

  • What is the best approach of creating a login System?

    - by Starx
    I am always wondering that the login systems I have created is vulnerable to attacks or not. As many other programmers I also use sessions to hold a specific token token to know the login status. Cookies to hold the username or even sometime saved status. What I am wondering is, Is this the right way? Is there any approach better that this?

    Read the article

  • Best approach for unit enemy "awareness" in RTS?

    - by Phil
    I'm using Unity3d to develop an RTS/TD hybrid prototype game. What is the best approach to have "awareness" between units and their enemies? Is it sane to have every unit check the distance to every enemy and engage if within range? The approach I'm going for right now is to have a trigger sphere on every unit. If an enemy enters the trigger, the unit becomes aware of the enemy and starts distance checking. I'm imagining that this would save some unnecessary checks? What's the best practice here (if there's such a thing)? Thanks for reading.

    Read the article

  • Model Driven Architecture Approach in programming / modelling

    - by yak
    I know the basics of the model driven architecture: it is all about model the system which I want to create and create the core code afterwards. I used CORBA a while ago. First thing that I needed to do was to create an abstract interface (some kind of model of the system I want to build) and generate core code later. But I have a different question: is model driven architecture a broad approach or not? I mean, let's say, that I have the language (modelling language) in which I want to model EXISTING system (opposite to the system I want to CREATE), and then analyze the model of the created system and different facts about that modeled abstraction. In this case, can the process I described above be considered the model driven architecture approach? I mean, I have the model, but this is the model of the existing system, not the system to be created.

    Read the article

  • Best approach for a flexible layout for ASP.NET application

    - by Rohith Nair
    I am looking for a best approach for designing a dynamic page. I want my users to be able to determine the position of set of controls to be loaded into a page. Should be able to add new controls or swap in and out new controls into an existing page. Eg: Portal based applications,iGoogle kind of websites I am afraid that I will be re-inventing the wheel if I go and create a portal structure for my web application. There are a couple of things in my mind to look into: Good third-party suites which can do the same Should I look into Silverlight RIA application? I have researched about the Infragistics and Telerik controls and the price is high for just a control like LayoutManager which I need. Any alternatives? What is the best approach for this kind of situation, to add to the list?

    Read the article

  • Tackling Security and Compliance Barriers with a Platform Approach to IDM: Featuring SuperValu

    - by Darin Pendergraft
    On October 25, 2012 ISACA and Oracle sponsored a webcast discussing how SUPERVALU has embraced the platform approach to IDM.  Scott Bonnell, Sr. Director of Product Management at Oracle, and Phil Black, Security Director for IAM at SUPERVALU discussed how a platform strategy could be used to formulate an upgrade plan for a large SUN IDM installation. See the webcast replay here: ISACA Webcast Replay (Requires Internet Explorer or Chrome) Some of the main points discussed in the webcast include: Getting support for an upgrade project by aligning with corporate initiatives How to leverage an existing IDM investment while planning for future growth How SUN and Oracle IDM architectures can be used in a coexistance strategy Advantages of a rationalized, modern, IDM Platform architecture ISACA Webcast Featuring SuperValu - Tackling Security and Compliance Barriers with a Platform Approach to Identity Management from OracleIDM  

    Read the article

  • The Business Case for a Platform Approach

    - by Naresh Persaud
    Most customers have assembled a collection of Identity Management products over time, as they have reacted to industry regulations, compliance mandates and security threats, typically selecting best of breed products.  The resulting infrastructure is a patchwork of systems that has served the short term IDM goals, but is overly complex, hard to manage and cannot scale to meets the needs of the future social/mobile enterprise. The solution is to rethink Identity Management as a Platform, rather than individual products. Aberdeen Research has shown that taking a vendor integrated platform approach to Identity Management can reduce cost, make your IT organization more responsive to the needs of a changing business environment, and reduce audit deficiencies.  View the slide show below to see how companies like Agilent, Cisco, ING Bank and Toyota have all built the business case and embraced the Oracle Identity Management Platform approach. Biz case-keynote-final copy View more PowerPoint from OracleIDM

    Read the article

  • Calculating an orbit and approach velocties

    - by Mob
    I have drones in my game that need to approach and orbit a node and shoot at it. Problem is I want to stay away from a real physics simulation, meaning I don't want to give the node and drone a mass and the drone's thrusters' a force. I just want to find the best way to approach and then enter orbit. There was a pretty good answer about using bezier curves and doing it that way, but that is essentially a tween between two fixed points. The nodes are also moving as the drones enter orbit.

    Read the article

  • Apress Deal of the Day - 22/Feb/2010 - Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach

    - by TATWORTH
    Todays $10 deal from Apress at  http://www.apress.com/info/dailydeal is "Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach" Whilst I am still wary of using the Entity framework and I would caution against its use for updates in financial systems, unless you use a technique such as you can find on pages 509-512 of this book. This book is very impressive as I found the answer to this in about 2 minutes from the time I downloaded the e-book. Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach With this book, you will learn the core concepts of Entity Framework through a broad range of clear and concise solutions to everyday data access tasks. Armed with this experience, you will be ready to dive deep into Entity Framework, experiment with new approaches, and develop ways to solve even the most difficult data access challenges. $49.99 | Published May 2010 | Larry Tenny

    Read the article

  • Azure Table&ndash;Entities having different Schema (Implementation Approach)

    - by kaleidoscope
    Below is the approach that can be implemented whenever there is a requirement of creating an Azure Table having entities with different schema definitions.   We can have a Parent Entity defined which will hold the data common in all the entity types and then rest all entities should inherit from this parent class. There will be only on DataServiceContext class which will accept the object of the Parent class and this can be used for CRUD operations of all the entities. Hope this approach helps! Thanks. Technorati Tags: Azure Table,Geeta

    Read the article

  • Looking for best approach to create new projects for enviroment specifics files

    - by Ness
    ClearCase Question... Overview of requirements: There are 3 diff environments (DEV, TEST and PROD) which have a folder called 'common' that users across all envs. There are multiple servers in those 3 envs and we want to store their server environment specific configuration files in Clearcase. The executables files are different for each environment. Thus there will not be cross delivery require between dev/test/prod. Any thoughts on how we can approach this? Is keeping it simplest is the best approach here? One component to one vobs as (DEV_Serv1, TEST_Serv1, PROD_Serv1, Dev_Serv2, Test_Serv2 and etc)? OR Have multiple components VOB? One other thing is developers here like to use snapshots views.

    Read the article

  • Approach for packing 2D shapes while minimizing total enclosing area

    - by Dennis
    Not sure on my tags for this question, but in short .... I need to solve a problem of packing industrial parts into crates while minimizing total containing area. These parts are motors, or pumps, or custom-made components, and they have quite unusual shapes. For some, it may be possible to assume that a part === rectangular cuboid, but some are not so simple, i.e. they assume a shape more of that of a hammer or letter T. With those, (assuming 2D shape), by alternating direction of top & bottom, one can pack more objects into the same space, than if all tops were in the same direction. Crude example below with letter "T"-shaped parts: ***** xxxxx ***** x ***** *** ooo * x vs * x vs * x vs * x o * x * xxxxx * x * x o xxxxx xxx Right now we are solving the problem by something like this: using CAD software, make actual models of how things fit in crate boxes make estimates of actual crate dimensions & write them into Excel file (1) is crazy amount of work and as the result we have just a limited amount of possible entries in (2), the Excel file. The good things is that programming this is relatively easy. Given a combination of products to go into crates, we do a lookup, and if entry exists in the Excel (or Database), we bring it out. If it doesn't, we say "sorry, no data!". I don't necessarily want to go full force on making up some crazy algorithm that given geometrical part description can align, rotate, and figure out best part packing into a crate, given its shape, but maybe I do.. Question Well, here is my question: assuming that I can represent my parts as 2D (to be determined how), and that some parts look like letter T, and some parts look like rectangles, which algorithm can I use to give me a good estimate on the dimensions of the encompassing area, while ensuring that the parts are packed in a minimal possible area, to minimize crating/shipping costs? Are there approximation algorithms? Seeing how this can get complex, is there an existing library I could use? My thought / Approach My naive approach would be to define a way to describe position of parts, and place the first part, compute total enclosing area & dimensions. Then place 2nd part in 0 degree orientation, repeat, place it at 180 degree orientation, repeat (for my case I don't think 90 degree rotations will be meaningful due to long lengths of parts). Proceed using brute force "tacking on" other parts to the enclosing area until all parts are processed. I may have to shift some parts a tad (see 3rd pictorial example above with letters T). This adds a layer of 2D complexity rather than 1D. I am not sure how to approach this. One idea I have is genetic algorithms, but I think those will take up too much processing power and time. I will need to look out for shape collisions, as well as adding extra padding space, since we are talking about real parts with irregularities rather than perfect imaginary blocks. I'm afraid this can get geometrically messy fairly fast, and I'd rather keep things simple, if I can. But what if the best (practical) solution is to pack things into different crate boxes rather than just one? This can get a bit more tricky. There is human element involved as well, i.e. like parts can go into same box and are thus a constraint to be considered. Some parts that are not the same are sometimes grouped together for shipping and can be considered as a common grouped item. Sometimes customers want things shipped their way, which adds human element to constraints. so there will have to be some customization.

    Read the article

  • A Simple Approach For Presenting With Code Samples

    - by Jesse Taber
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/GruffCode/archive/2013/07/31/a-simple-approach-for-presenting-with-code-samples.aspxI’ve been getting ready for a presentation and have been struggling a bit with the best way to show and execute code samples. I don’t present often (hardly ever), but when I do I like the presentation to have a lot of succinct and executable code snippets to help illustrate the points that I’m making. Depending on what the presentation is about, I might just want to build an entire sample application that I would run during the presentation. In other cases, however, building a full-blown application might not really be the best way to present the code. The presentation I’m working on now is for an open source utility library for dealing with dates and times. I could have probably cooked up a sample app for accepting date and time input and then contrived ways in which it could put the library through its paces, but I had trouble coming up with one app that would illustrate all of the various features of the library that I wanted to highlight. I finally decided that what I really needed was an approach that met the following criteria: Simple: I didn’t want the user interface or overall architecture of a sample application to serve as a distraction from the demonstration of the syntax of the library that the presentation is about. I want to be able to present small bits of code that are focused on accomplishing a single task. Several of these examples will look similar, and that’s OK. I want each sample to “stand on its own” and not rely much on external classes or methods (other than the library that is being presented, of course). “Debuggable” (not really a word, I know): I want to be able to easily run the sample with the debugger attached in Visual Studio should I want to step through any bits of code and show what certain values might be at run time. As far as I know this rules out something like LinqPad, though using LinqPad to present code samples like this is actually a very interesting idea that I might explore another time. Flexible and Selectable: I’m going to have lots of code samples to show, and I want to be able to just package them all up into a single project or module and have an easy way to just run the sample that I want on-demand. Since I’m presenting on a .NET framework library, one of the simplest ways in which I could execute some code samples would be to just create a Console application and use Console.WriteLine to output the pertinent info at run time. This gives me a “no frills” harness from which to run my code samples, and I just hit ‘F5’ to run it with the debugger. This satisfies numbers 1 and 2 from my list of criteria above, but item 3 is a little harder. By default, just running a console application is going to execute the ‘main’ method, and then terminate the program after all code is executed. If I want to have several different code samples and run them one at a time, it would be cumbersome to keep swapping the code I want in and out of the ‘main’ method of the console application. What I really want is an easy way to keep the console app running throughout the whole presentation and just have it run the samples I want when I want. I could setup a simple Windows Forms or WPF desktop application with buttons for the different samples, but then I’m getting away from my first criteria of keeping things as simple as possible. Infinite Loops To The Rescue I found a way to have a simple console application satisfy all three of my requirements above, and it involves using an infinite loop and some Console.ReadLine calls that will give the user an opportunity to break out and exit the program. (All programs that need to run until they are closed explicitly (or crash!) likely use similar constructs behind the scenes. Create a new Windows Forms project, look in the ‘Program.cs’ that gets generated, and then check out the docs for the Application.Run method that it calls.). Here’s how the main method might look: 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: do 4: { 5: Console.Write("Enter command or 'exit' to quit: > "); 6: var command = Console.ReadLine(); 7: if ((command ?? string.Empty).Equals("exit", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine("Quitting."); 10: break; 11: } 12: 13: } while (true); 14: } The idea here is the app prompts me for the command I want to run, or I can type in ‘exit’ to break out of the loop and let the application close. The only trick now is to create a set of commands that map to each of the code samples that I’m going to want to run. Each sample is already encapsulated in a single public method in a separate class, so I could just write a big switch statement or create a hashtable/dictionary that maps command text to an Action that will invoke the proper method, but why re-invent the wheel? CLAP For Your Own Presentation I’ve blogged about the CLAP library before, and it turns out that it’s a great fit for satisfying criteria #3 from my list above. CLAP lets you decorate methods in a class with an attribute and then easily invoke those methods from within a console application. CLAP was designed to take the arguments passed into the console app from the command line and parse them to determine which method to run and what arguments to pass to that method, but there’s no reason you can’t re-purpose it to accept command input from within the infinite loop defined above and invoke the corresponding method. Here’s how you might define a couple of different methods to contain two different code samples that you want to run during your presentation: 1: public static class CodeSamples 2: { 3: [Verb(Aliases="one")] 4: public static void SampleOne() 5: { 6: Console.WriteLine("This is sample 1"); 7: } 8:   9: [Verb(Aliases="two")] 10: public static void SampleTwo() 11: { 12: Console.WriteLine("This is sample 2"); 13: } 14: } A couple of things to note about the sample above: I’m using static methods. You don’t actually need to use static methods with CLAP, but the syntax ends up being a bit simpler and static methods happen to lend themselves well to the “one self-contained method per code sample” approach that I want to use. The methods are decorated with a ‘Verb’ attribute. This tells CLAP that they are eligible targets for commands. The “Aliases” argument lets me give them short and easy-to-remember aliases that can be used to invoke them. By default, CLAP just uses the full method name as the command name, but with aliases you can simply the usage a bit. I’m not using any parameters. CLAP’s main feature is its ability to parse out arguments from a command line invocation of a console application and automatically pass them in as parameters to the target methods. My code samples don’t need parameters ,and honestly having them would complicate giving the presentation, so this is a good thing. You could use this same approach to invoke methods with parameters, but you’d have a couple of things to figure out. When you invoke a .NET application from the command line, Windows will parse the arguments and pass them in as a string array (called ‘args’ in the boilerplate console project Program.cs). The parsing that gets done here is smart enough to deal with things like treating strings in double quotes as one argument, and you’d have to re-create that within your infinite loop if you wanted to use parameters. I plan on either submitting a pull request to CLAP to add this capability or maybe just making a small utility class/extension method to do it and posting that here in the future. So I now have a simple class with static methods to contain my code samples, and an infinite loop in my ‘main’ method that can accept text commands. Wiring this all up together is pretty easy: 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: do 4: { 5: try 6: { 7: Console.Write("Enter command or 'exit' to quit: > "); 8: var command = Console.ReadLine(); 9: if ((command ?? string.Empty).Equals("exit", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("Quitting."); 12: break; 13: } 14:   15: Parser.Run<CodeSamples>(new[] { command }); 16: Console.WriteLine("---------------------------------------------------------"); 17: } 18: catch (Exception ex) 19: { 20: Console.Error.WriteLine("Error: " + ex.Message); 21: } 22:   23: } while (true); 24: } Note that I’m now passing the ‘CodeSamples’ class into the CLAP ‘Parser.Run’ as a type argument. This tells CLAP to inspect that class for methods that might be able to handle the commands passed in. I’m also throwing in a little “----“ style line separator and some basic error handling (because I happen to know that some of the samples are going to throw exceptions for demonstration purposes) and I’m good to go. Now during my presentation I can just have the console application running the whole time with the debugger attached and just type in the alias of the code sample method that I want to run when I want to run it.

    Read the article

  • Best approach for utility class library using Visual Studio

    - by gregsdennis
    I have a collection of classes that I commonly (but not always) use when developing WPF applications. The trouble I have is that if I want to use only a subset of the classes, I have three options: Distribute the entire DLL. While this approach makes code maintenance easier, it does require distributing a large DLL for minimal code functionality. Copy the classes I need to the current application. This approach solves the problem of not distributing unused code, but completely eliminates code maintenance. Maintain each class/feature in a separate project. This solves both problems from above, but then I have dramatically increased the number of files that need to be distributed, and it bloats my VS solution with tiny projects. Ideally, I'd like a combination of 1 & 3: A single project that contains all of my utility classes but builds to a DLL containing only the classes that are used in the current application. Are there any other common approaches that I haven't considered? Is there any way to do what I want? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Variant Management– Which Approach fits for my Product?

    - by C. Chadwick
    Jürgen Kunz – Director Product Development – Oracle ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Introduction In a difficult economic environment, it is important for companies to understand the customer requirements in detail and to address them in their products. Customer specific products, however, usually cause increased costs. Variant management helps to find the best combination of standard components and custom components which balances customer’s product requirements and product costs. Depending on the type of product, different approaches to variant management will be applied. For example the automotive product “car” or electronic/high-tech products like a “computer”, with a pre-defined set of options to be combined in the individual configuration (so called “Assembled to Order” products), require a different approach to products in heavy machinery, which are (at least partially) engineered in a customer specific way (so-called “Engineered-to Order” products). This article discusses different approaches to variant management. Starting with the simple Bill of Material (BOM), this article presents three different approaches to variant management, which are provided by Agile PLM. Single level BOM and Variant BOM The single level BOM is the basic form of the BOM. The product structure is defined using assemblies and single parts. A particular product is thus represented by a fixed product structure. As soon as you have to manage product variants, the single level BOM is no longer sufficient. A variant BOM will be needed to manage product variants. The variant BOM is sometimes referred to as 150% BOM, since a variant BOM contains more parts and assemblies than actually needed to assemble the (final) product – just 150% of the parts You can evolve the variant BOM from the single level BOM by replacing single nodes with a placeholder node. The placeholder in this case represents the possible variants of a part or assembly. Product structure nodes, which are part of any product, are so-called “Must-Have” parts. “Optional” parts can be omitted in the final product. Additional attributes allow limiting the quantity of parts/assemblies which can be assigned at a certain position in the Variant BOM. Figure 1 shows the variant BOM of Agile PLM. Figure 1 Variant BOM in Agile PLM During the instantiation of the Variant BOM, the placeholders get replaced by specific variants of the parts and assemblies. The selection of the desired or appropriate variants is either done step by step by the user or by applying pre-defined configuration rules. As a result of the instantiation, an independent BOM will be created (Figure 2). Figure 2 Instantiated BOM in Agile PLM This kind of Variant BOM  can be used for „Assembled –To-Order“ type products as well as for „Engineered-to-Order“-type products. In case of “Assembled –To-Order” type products, typically the instantiation is done automatically with pre-defined configuration rules. For „Engineered- to-Order“-type products at least part of the product is selected manually to make use of customized parts/assemblies, that have been engineered according to the specific custom requirements. Template BOM The Template BOM is used for „Engineered-to-Order“-type products. It is another type of variant BOM. The engineer works in a flexible environment which allows him to build the most creative solutions. At the same time the engineer shall be guided to re-use existing solutions and it shall be assured that product variants of the same product family share the same base structure. The template BOM defines the basic structure of products belonging to the same product family. Let’s take a gearbox as an example. The customer specific configuration of the gearbox is influenced by several parameters (e.g. rpm range, transmitted torque), which are defined in the customer’s requirement document.  Figure 3 shows part of a Template BOM (yellow) and its relation to the product family hierarchy (blue).  Figure 3 Template BOM Every component of the Template BOM has links to the variants that have been engineeried so far for the component (depending on the level in the Template BOM, they are product variants, Assembly Variant or single part variants). This library of solutions, the so-called solution space, can be used by the engineers to build new product variants. In the best case, the engineer selects an existing solution variant, such as the gearbox shown in figure 3. When the existing variants do not fulfill the specific requirements, a new variant will be engineered. This new variant must be compliant with the given Template BOM. If we look at the gearbox in figure 3  it must consist of a transmission housing, a Connecting Plate, a set of Gears and a Planetary transmission – pre-assumed that all components are must have components. The new variant will enhance the solution space and is automatically available for re-use in future variants. The result of the instantiation of the Template BOM is a stand-alone BOM which represents the customer specific product variant. Modular BOM The concept of the modular BOM was invented in the automotive industry. Passenger cars are so-called „Assembled-to-Order“-products. The customer first selects the specific equipment of the car (so-called specifications) – for instance engine, audio equipment, rims, color. Based on this information the required parts will be determined and the customer specific car will be assembled. Certain combinations of specification are not available for the customer, because they are not feasible from technical perspective (e.g. a convertible with sun roof) or because the combination will not be offered for marketing reasons (e.g. steel rims with a sports line car). The modular BOM (yellow structure in figure 4) is defined in the context of a specific product family (in the sample it is product family „Speedstar“). It is the same modular BOM for the different types of cars of the product family (e.g. sedan, station wagon). The assembly or single parts of the car (blue nodes in figure 4) are assigned at the leaf level of the modular BOM. The assignment of assembly and parts to the modular BOM is enriched with a configuration rule (purple elements in figure 4). The configuration rule defines the conditions to use a specific assembly or single part. The configuration rule is valid in the context of a type of car (green elements in figure 4). Color specific parts are assigned to the color independent parts via additional configuration rules (grey elements in figure 4). The configuration rules use Boolean operators to connect the specifications. Additional consistency rules (constraints) may be used to define invalid combinations of specification (so-called exclusions). Furthermore consistency rules may be used to add specifications to the set of specifications. For instance it is important that a car with diesel engine always is build using the high capacity battery.  Figure 4 Modular BOM The calculation of the car configuration consists of several steps. First the consistency rules (constraints) are applied. Resulting from that specification might be added automatically. The second step will determine the assemblies and single parts for the complete structure of the modular BOM, by evaluating the configuration rules in the context of the current type of car. The evaluation of the rules for one component in the modular BOM might result in several rules being fulfilled. In this case the most specific rule (typically the longest rule) will win. Thanks to this approach, it is possible to add a specific variant to the modular BOM without the need to change any other configuration rules.  As a result the whole set of configuration rules is easy to maintain. Finally the color specific assemblies respective parts will be determined and the configuration is completed. Figure 5 Calculated Car Configuration The result of the car configuration is shown in figure 5. It shows the list of assemblies respective single parts (blue components in figure 5), which are required to build the customer specific car. Summary There are different approaches to variant management. Three different approaches have been presented in this article. At the end of the day, it is the type of the product which decides about the best approach.  For „Assembled to Order“-type products it is very likely that you can define the configuration rules and calculate the product variant automatically. Products of type „Engineered-to-Order“ ,however, need to be engineered. Nevertheless in the majority of cases, part of the product structure can be generated automatically in a similar way to „Assembled to Order“-tape products.  That said it is important first to analyze the product portfolio, in order to define the best approach to variant management.

    Read the article

  • The Iron Bird Approach

    - by David Paquette
    It turns out that designing software is not so different than designing commercial aircraft.  I just finished watching a video that talked about the approach that Bombardier is taking in designing the new C Series aircraft.  I was struck by the similarities to agile approaches to software design.  In the video, Bombardier describes how they are using an Iron Bird to work through a number of design questions in advance of ever having a version of the aircraft that can ever be flown.  The Iron Bird is a life size replica of the plane.  Based on the name, I would assume the plane is built in a very heavy material that could never fly.  Using this replica, Bombardier is able to valid certain assumptions such as the length of each wire in the electric system.  They are also able to confirm that some parts are working properly (like the rudders).  They even go as far as to have a complete replica of the cockpit.  This allows Bombardier to put pilots in the cockpit to run through simulated take-off and landing sequences. The basic tenant of the approach seems to be Validate your design early with working prototypes Get feedback from users early, well in advance of finishing the end product   In software development, we tend to think of ourselves as special.  I often tell people that it is difficult to draw comparisons to building items in the physical world (“Building software is nothing like building a sky scraper”).  After watching this video, I am wondering if designing/building software is actually a lot like designing/building commercial aircraft.   Watch the video here (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-selling-the-c-series/article4400616/)

    Read the article

  • How do i approach this collision model?

    - by PeeS
    this is the game level prototype i have already implemented. It has few objects per room to allow me to finally add some collision detection/response code into it. VIDEO As you can probably see, every object inside has it's own AABB, even the room itself has AABB. So a player is like 'inside the Room AABB'. My player will be exactly inside the room, so he would have to collide correctly with those AABBs, so that when he hits any of those objects inside he get's a proper collision response from those AABB's. Now i would like to hear from you what kind of collision approach should i choose in here? How do i approach this kind of stuff: AABB to AABB collision detection then when this is positive go with AABB - Tri to find proper plane normal and calculate response ? AABB to AABB then when positive go with AABB - AABB Side check to find proper proper plane normal and calculate response? Anything else? How do you do this ? Many thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >