← Older posts Service Dynamics Products & Services

Inherent Conflict
The dynamics of a service business and innovative product business are dramatically different. Established product companies tend to emphasize the practices and culture they know best when they move into services. The tendency is to find synergies based on their products that become the recommended solutions for customers. Additionally, it can be more difficult for a product company who provides services to be the champion for the customer when there is a problem with the product being implemented.

Ideal Product Company Focus

Innovation
I believe that companies who aspire to grow from services are in a sense making a statement that product innovation cannot be achieved to further automate. I think a major goal of product companies should be to use technology to compete with service providers. Consider the history of copiers where Xerox dominated the market and had a massive service organization. A group of Japanese companies changed this with copiers that could be installed and serviced by the user. In the automation industry, open network protocols have certainly enabled systems to be applied using best of breed sensors.

Ideal Product Company Focus
I believe that product companies should always be striving to eliminate implementation and operations labor with improved and innovative automation technology. There is an inherent conflict by having a company that provides services and products.

Is it possible?
Is it possible for an automation vendor to be effective at products and services? Maybe, but there have been a number of large computer companies that tried to offer services and products eventually becoming total service providers or went out of existence.
On balance, the use of a totally independent service provider may be in the best interest of the user.
refer to:http://www.automation.com/portals/factory-discrete-automation/can-automation-vendors-serve-two-masters-products-services

Acrosser unveils its ultra slim fanless embedded system with 3rd generation Intel core i processor

Acrosser Technology Co. Ltd, a world-leading industrial and embedded computer designer and manufacturer, announces the new AES-HM76Z1FL embedded system. AES-HM76Z1FL, Acrosser’s latest industrial endeavor, is surely a FIT under multiple circumstances. Innovation can be seen in the new ultra slim fanless design, and its Intel core i CPU can surely cater for those seeking for high performance. Therefore, these 3 stunning elements can be condensed as "F.I.T. Technology." (Fanless, Intel core i, ultra Thin)

The heat sink from the fanless design provides AES-HM76Z1FL with great thermal performance, as well as increases the efficiency of usable space. The fanless design provides dustproof protection, and saving the product itself from fan malfunction. AES-HM76Z1FL has thin client dimensions, with a height of only 20 millimeters (272 mm x183 mm x 20 mm). This differs from most embedded appliances, which have a height of more than 50 millimeters.

The AES-HM76Z1FL embedded system uses the latest technology in scalable Intel Celeron and 3rd generation Core i7/i3 processors with a HM76 chipset. It features graphics via VGA and HDMI, DDR3 SO-DIMM support, complete I/O such as 4 x COM ports, 3 x USB3.0 ports, 8 x GPI and 8 x GPO, and storage via SATA III and Compact Flash. The AES-HM76Z1FL also supports communication by 2 x RJ-45 gigabit Ethernet ports, 1 x SIM slot, and 1 x MinPCIe expansion socket for a 3.5G or WiFi module.

Different from most industrial products that focus on application in one specific industry, the AES-HM76Z1FL provides solutions for various applications through the complete I/O interfaces. Applications of the AES-HM76Z1FL include: embedded system solutions, control systems, digital signage, POS, Kiosk, ATM, banking, home automation, and so on. It can support industrial automation and commercial bases under multiple circumstances.

Key features:
‧Fanless and ultra slim design
‧Support Intel Ivy Bridge CPU with HM76 chipset
‧2 x DDR3 SO-DIMM, up to 16GB
‧Support SATA III and CF storage
‧HDMI/VGA/USB/Audio/GPIO output interface
‧Serial ports by RS-232 and RS-422/485
‧2 x GbE, 1 x SIM, and 1 x MiniPCIe(for3G/WiFi)

Product Information:

http://www.acrosser.com/Products/Embedded-Computer/Fanless-Embedded-Systems/AES-HM76Z1FL/Intel-Core-i3／i7-AES-HM76Z1FL.html

Contact us：

http://www.acrosser.com/inquiry.html

Introduction to model-based design

With model-based design, UAV engineers develop and simulate system models comprised of hardware and software using block diagrams and state charts, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. They then automatically generate, deploy, and verify code on their embedded systems. With textual computation languages and block diagram model tools, one can generate code in C, C++, Verilog, and VHDL languages, enabling implementation on MCU, DSP[], FPGA[], and ASIC hardware. This lets system, software, and hardware engineers collaborate using the same tools and environment to develop, implement, and verify systems. Given their auto-nomous nature, UAV systems heavily employ closed-loop controls, making system modeling and closed-loop simulation, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, a natural fit.
Testing actual UAV systems via ground-controlled flight tests is expensive. A better way is to test early in the design process using desktop simulation and lab test benches. With model-based design, verification starts as soon as models are created and simulated for the first time. Tests cases based on high-level requirements formalize simulation testing. A common verification workflow is to reuse the simulation tests throughout model-based design as the model transitions from system model to software model to source code to executable object code using code generators and cross-compilers.
An in-the-loop testing strategy is often used as itemized below and summarized in Table 2:
1. Simulation test cases are derived and run on the model using Model-In-the-Loop (MIL) testing.
2. Source code is verified by compiling and executing it on a host computer using Software-In-the-Loop (SIL) testing.
3. Executable object code is verified by cross-compiling and executing it on the embedded processor or an instruction set simulator using Processor-In-the-Loop (PIL) testing.
4. Hardware implementation is verified by synthesizing HDL and executing it on an FPGA using FPGA-In-the-Loop (FIL) testing.

5. The embedded system is verified and validated using the original plant model using Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) testing.
A requirements-based test approach with test reuse for models and code is explicitly described in ARP4754A, DO-178C, and DO-331, the model-based design supplement to DO-178C.

refer to:
http://mil-embedded.com/articles/transitioning-do-178c-arp4754a-uav-using-model-based-design/