The term "digital twin" is frequently used in discussions surrounding digitalization, especially in the manufacturing and smart factory sectors. However, there is no universal agreement on what the term actually means. In fact, more than 100 different definitions have been suggested, and they tend to vary from industry to industry and application to application.
At our company, we define digital twin based on our previously defined term of "digitalization" (link), which involves leveraging digital tools to achieve business objectives. Therefore, we define digital twin as:
a digital representation of relevant aspects of a physical phenomenon (such as a process, machine, or behavior) necessary for achieving specific business objectives at a given stage
We believe this is the most encompassing and generic definition of digital twin because:
It focuses on the business objective behind the use of the twin, rather than the twin itself or the technology used (that is frequently championed by various hardware or software manufacturers).
It narrows down the scope of work required for creating a digital twin to only the "relevant" and "necessary" aspects, enabling cost-efficiency.
It promotes transparency in the business regarding the purpose of the digital twin and the activity employing it, facilitating alignment between management and the execution team.
It provides flexibility in terms of the continuous and incremental nature of product and software development. The term "at a given stage" is left open for interpretation (e.g., development stage, project stage, market stage) to allow for gradual and agile refinement of the definition. This approach enables assumption-based and market-driven validation of the definition, which leads to reduced market risk and lower development costs for the final twin. This also means your digital twin is likely to change/grow with time.
It is technology-agnostic.
It is domain-agnostic.
Comments