|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
|
|
+Improving Digital Twin Experience Reports
|
|
|
+==========================
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+This repository stores a spreadsheet recording the application of our conceptual structure to digital twin experience reports selected from the literature.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The spreadsheet is available in both PDF and ODS file formats. ODS files can be opened with [LibreOffice](https://www.libreoffice.org/).
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The characteristics of nineteen experience reports are presented here. Unclear information is highlighted in yellow, while missing information is highlighted in red. A suggested classification and the classification by Kritzinger *et al.* and Fuller *et al.* are at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Seven experience reports were sourced from Kritzinger *et al.*, and six from Fuller *et al.*. Note that further papers were labelled as case studies in Kritzinger *et al.* and Fuller *et al.*, but from our reading these papers did not present a strong experience report and are therefore not expressed through our framework.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The goal is to demonstrate the applicability of our conceptual structure to DT solutions in multiple domains, and highlight how the framework provides a structure to ensure that essential characteristics are reported. Any missing or unclear information can affect the ease of classification of the solution and thus hamper further research and insights.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+For example, in five cases the digital twin classification (digital model, digital shadow, and digital twin) suggested by the report differs from that determined by Kritzinger *et al.* and Fuller *et al.*. This confusion over classification comes from the uncertainity over some of the characteristics and capabilities of the DT solution found in the experience reports.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
