Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design

Brief description of the context

Synthesizing Contradictions

Representing & Ordering TCs

From Solutions to Decisions

Conclusions – Future work

1

2

3

4

2nd IFIP Working Conference on Computer Aided Innovation

October 8-9 2007 – Brighton - USA

[email protected]

-

[email protected]

5

A brief overview of LICIA

A research Team from the :

Laboratoire de GÉnie de la Conception (LGÉCO)/Design Engineering Laboratory

Inventive Design and

Innovation

•Problems (re)formulation

•Technological Forecasting

•Management of innovation

•Training and developments of competences

•Acquisition and validation of knowledge

•Driving of knowledge systems and competences

Knowledge and

competences

Architecture of production systems and

integrated design

•Modelization and evaluation of performance

•New technologies introduction

40 researchers : (7 PU

– 25 MDC – 8 teachers – 22 PhDs – 7 Administrative staff.)

LICIA’s research team topics

Engineering

Design

It's Time To Rethink Quality-Improvement Programs

Erin White, The Wall Street Journal

GE executives don't believe Six Sigma hinders innovation

Interview of Gary Reiner, senior vice president GE

Six Sigma and other process management techniques hindered

the process of innovation in knowledge-based environments.

Cenek Report, Uncommon Commentary on the World of Work

I think General Electric has reached the limits of Six Sigma

and that it is now time for Creative Management.

Interview of Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric

Initial situation - Introduction

Les ères industrielles et les difficultés qu’elles imposent

1930

₁₉₇₀

1990

•Answering to demand

•Organize workshops

•Improve productivity rates

•Be competitive

•Ensure quality

•Optimize organization

•Organize innovation

•Manage knowledge

•Anticipate product/system’s evolutions

?

Productivity

Quality

Innovation

S

u

m

o

f

w

o

rr

ie

s

Clarifying the Research question

Context :

• Our industrial world is in search of solutions for its sum of problems

brought by the need of organizing Innovation.

• After having exploited proven quality theories/methods/tools, R&D is

now in search for addressing innovation with structured and efficient

methods and tools built for this purpose.

Some disclosed problematic :

• Innovation is an interdisciplinary problematic, to be addressed it needs

a new and specific language usable and understood by all.

• When involving a large quantity of data’s from several domains,

complexity of information treatment/use increases. There is a need to

disclose

a

simple

computer-capable

representation

for

lowering/managing the complexity of problems.

Research hypothesis :

• Integrating Contradiction formalism (from TRIZ); ENV representation

model (from OTSM) and Artificial Intelligence findings (text mining,

semantic graph,…) may structure R&D teams task definition when in

inventive context.

[Miller & all-99]

[Lewis-97]

[Erin White-WSJ]

[Jeff Immelt-GE]

[Kaji & all-99]

[Altshuller-89]

[Khomenko & all-07]

[Stan Williams-HP]

[Steward & al.]

[Rechtin & al.]

Synthesizing

contradictions

Synthesizing contradictions

1

2

3

4

From TRIZ viewpoint (2nd axiom):

Problem = Contradiction

If the contradiction is still unsolved in the world, we are facing with an

Inventive Problem.

Solving it inventively means orienting the process towards a

non-compromise attitude (regarding conflicting requirements).

Therefore, formulating contradictions in a domain brings forward

opportunities of Inventive Solutions.

But how could we purposefully choose the appropriate one(s) ?

(true within the context of inventing)

Active Parameter

AP

n

Va

Va

Evaluating

Parameter EP1

Evaluating

Parameter EP3

TC

n.m

…problem formulation remains a disciplinary field poorly exploited by

scientists. [Cross]

… one of the reasons is that researchers in design have concentrated their

efforts on the phases of exploration, selection, implementation and

evaluation [Mc Guire]

Case study about Door latch systems

Research partnership with ArvinMeritor (USA-UK-France)

How many contradictions do we have in a latch ?

Which latch are we talking about ?

G1 Pawl on excentric

G5 2nd pawl

G7.2&3 Pawl is under centre toggle

G4 Store energy in spring

G3 Pawl is over centre toggle

G8 LER Pawl on excentric + 2nd pawl

G10 Pre-cinching

G2 Over centre Toggle

G9 2 way pawl

G6 Rolling contact

G7.1 Claw linked to pawl by toggle

Roltra Morse Spa

Synthesizing contradictions

1

2

3

4

Description: The pawl is pivoted on an axle, which in turn is

pivoted on an eccentric pin in order to cinch the latch more

tightly onto the striker. To release the latch the eccentric pin

is rotated back to the relaxed position.

Advantages: Could allow a large negative angle at

pawl/claw interface to ensure pawl walkout will not occur. A

three mm diameter eccentric motion would reduce seal force

by approximately 60%, thus reducing release energy also by

60%.

Disadvantages: An electrical drive is required to rotate the

eccentric pin. This adds to cost, operating time and

unreliability. If the motor fail the latch cannot be tightly

cinched so that the door will be poorly sealed and will rattle.

-localisation Physical Elements Substance -+nature Field Space Time Product Control Transmission Motor Work TRIZ System Model

1

1 1

1

TRIZ System + Env. Energy 1

1

1

-interaction (harmful, useful, unsufficient)

Elementary S-Field 1 1 1 2 -desired value Evaluation Parameter Action Parameter -description -name -measured value -importance Parameter -description -importance -loi(s) concernée(s) Contradiction -character S-Field Model 1

plays the role of substance 1 Value Opposite Value 1 1 influences influences in _a opposite way 1 2 1

Main Useful Function

deliv ers acts o n fe e d s Element 1 is described by pla ys th e r ole of _su bs ta nc e 2

Description: The

pawl

is pivoted on an axle, which in turn is

pivoted on an eccentric pin in order to cinch the latch more

tightly onto the striker. To release the

latch

the eccentric pin

is rotated back to the relaxed position.

Advantages: Could allow a

large

negative angle

at

pawl/claw interface

to ensure pawl

walkout

will not occur.

A

three mm

diameter

eccentric motion

would reduce

seal

force

by approximately 60%, thus reducing

release energy

also by 60%.

Disadvantages: An electrical drive

is required

to rotate the

eccentric pin. This adds to cost,

operating time

and

unreliability.

If

the

motor

fail

the latch cannot be

tightly

cinched

so that the

door

will be

poorly sealed

and will

rattle.

Walkout

 Walkout

seal force

 Seal force

operating time

 Operating time

Unreliability

 Reliability

tightly cinched

 Cinching tightness

poorly sealed

 Sealing effectiveness

Rattle

 Rattling

Pawl

 Pawl

Latch

 Latch

pawl/claw interface

 Pawl/claw interface

eccentric motion

 Eccentric motion

Motor

 Motor

Door

 Door

Large

 Large

three mm

 Small

is required

 Amount

If

 Lowered

negative angle

 Negative angle

Diameter

 Diameter

release energy

 Release energy

Fail

 Robustness

Elements

Active Parameters

Values

Evaluating Parameters

Synthesizing contradictions

1

2

3

4

Walkout

1

Seal force

1

Release energy

1

Pawl/claw

interface

Eccentric

motion

Pawl

External

parts

(electrical drive)

Unreliability

1

Operating time

1

Latch

_{Cinching tightness}

₁

Door

Sealing effectiveness

1

Rattling

1

Motor

Negative

angle

Large

Tight?

Diameter

small

Big ?

Amount

Rised ?

Lowered

Robustness

Non-guarnatied ?

guarantied

Negative angle

Large

Tight

Walkout

Release energy

TC

1.1

.

Patent n° xx

Req. list XX

Ppt slides

Bench report

Observation/

analyses

Is new

model commonly

validated?

implement

Expression of

Know-how through viewpoints

Translation into

contradiction f ormalism

Discussion

Yes

No

Synthesizing contradictions

1

2

3

4

Next

Knowledge model

Version 3

Knowledge representation model constantly

growing in terms of:

•quantity (data’s)

•precision of their formulation

•corporate legitimacy

Constantly growing spiral

of shared

knowledge representations

t

_(n+2)

t

(n+1)

t

(n)

t

(n+n)

Knowledge model

Version 2

Knowledge model

Version 1

Off center angle big small Length long short Location Under center Over center Angle Self-closing Self-opening Friction coeficient low high Engagment depth deep shallow distance long short diameter large small force large small existence no yes existence no yes distance large small Contact angle Self-closing Self-opening Kinematic of contact Rolling contact Sliding contact existence no yes Direction of action dual single existence no yes Conventionnality of kinematics Cinching energy Operating time Toggle/ eccentric Pre-release cinching system Pawl&claw Claw pivot Striker S point Claw axis Pawl return Spring Secondary pawl Energy storage spring Claw axis to pawl Engagement radius Toggle linked with Pawl & claw (Brose) Contact between Pawl & claw Primary Pawl Roller in contact Between Pawl & Claw

Difference in toggle ratio between first and second latch positions Small Large Increasing crash retention

Lowering amount of parts

Increasing reliability Lowering walkout risks Lowering fully latch release efforts only Lowering Noise Lowering packaging size

Lowering door manoeuvring energy

Increasing dust tolerence Secondary pawl not-required 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Representing

ordering

TC21

TC11

TC31

TC7

TC1

...

TC15

3

Technical Contradictions

C

o

n

tr

a

d

ic

ti

o

n

’s

im

p

a

c

t

Im

p

o

rt

a

n

c

e

re

la

ti

ve

ly

to

s

ce

n

a

ri

o

n

Scenario n

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Set of variables 1

(TC’s, Hx, Pn, Coef ? ., ...)

Scenario 2

Set of variables 2

(TC’s, Hy, Pm, Coef ?., ...)

Scenario n

Set of variables n

(TC’s, Hz, Pz, Coef l ., ...)

Technology 1

Technology 2

Technology 3

Technology n

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

• Statement regarding competition

• Company’s strategy (costs reduction,

leadership, protection,…)

• Opportunities of logical evolution

(norms, laws, emerging technologies,…)

• …

Definition of

decision variables

TC15

TC16

TC13

TC3

TC7

...

TC11

4

Technical Contradictions

C

o

n

tr

a

d

ic

ti

o

n

’s

im

p

a

c

t

Im

p

o

rt

a

n

c

e

re

la

ti

ve

ly

to

s

ce

n

a

ri

o

1

Scenario 1

TC17

TC1

TC15

TC4

TC3

...

TC16

3

Technical Contradictions

C

o

n

tr

a

d

ic

ti

o

n

’s

im

p

a

c

t

Im

p

o

rt

a

n

c

e

re

la

ti

ve

ly

to

s

ce

n

a

ri

o

2

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

From Solutions

to Decisions

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Technology 3

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Technology 5

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Technology 6

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Technology 1

Technology 2

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Technology 4

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Technology 7

TC #1

TC #2

TC #3

Ideal

System

Sun diagram representation of TCs

Fir st le ve l dri ver Se con d L eve l Con ven tiona l Rol tra Va leo VW Fiat Kiek ert GM ARM GM ARM Va leo Rol tra Brose ARM (ex-Hon eywel l) ARM ARM (ecce ntr ic) ARM Kiek ert 9 4 5 6 7,1 0 1 2 3 7.2/7.3 8 Group 10 Unweighted total 65 57 49 57 57 57 45 49 61 61 61 53 41 65 57 69 57 41 Weighted total 325 329 273 321 321 321 337 349 329 329 329 273 273 369 321 381 337 217 Operating effort 20

Ease of door closing 10 5 9 9 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 9

Ease of door opening 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Ease of unlatching from full latch 50 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Ease of unlatching from secondary latch 30 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 9

Noise 5

Quality of closing noise 60 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1

Quality of unlatching and opening noise 40 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1

Product cost 25

Number of parts 50 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Weight 20 5 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1

Assembly complexity (Nb of riveting, clipping,

etc.) 30 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fail Safe 40

Reliability of release function (target to remain

functional after 10 years in-service) 15 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 1 9 5 1

Retention Strength 50 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ability to unlatch from full latch with excessive

striker force 30 5 9 5 9 9 9 5 5 9 9 9 5 9 9 9 9 9 1

Ability of unlatching from secondary latch with

excessive striker force 5 5 9 5 9 9 9 5 5 9 9 9 5 1 9 9 9 9 1

Space Roominess 10

Retention thickness (X) 30

Retention width (Y) 40

Retention height (Z) 30 9 4 5 6 7,1 0 1 2 3 7.2/7.3 8

Representing ordering TCs

1

2

3

4

GM

ARM

VALEO

G5 2nd

pawl

ARM

G7.2&3 Pawl is

under centre

toggle

ARM

GM

G4 Store

energy in

spring

ROLTRA

VALEO

G1 Pawl on

excentric

KIEKERT

FIAT

G3 Pawl is over

centre toggle

ARM

G8 LER

Pawl on excentric

+ 2nd pawl

KIEKERT

G10

Pre-cinching

VW

G2 Over

centre

Toggle

ARM

G9 2 way pawl

ROLTRA

G6 Rolling

contact

BROSE

G7.1 Claw

linked to pawl

by toggle

TC15 TC13 TC3 TC3 TC3 TC3 TC11 TC11 TC11 TC17 TC2 TC2 TC2 TC2 TC2 TC7 TC14

Detailed

path

Negative angle

Large

Tight

Walkout

Release

energy

TC

3.2

.

( TC 1 ) ( TC 2 )

Altshuller’s

Matrix

Method/

Tool

40 Inventive

Principles

Knowledge

base

Separating conf licting

requirements

Method /

Tool

11 separation’s

methods

Knowledge

base

Substances -f ield modeling

– Pointers to effects

System of 76 Inventive

Standards

Method/

Tool

Knowledge

base

All TRIZ Kn

bases

Method

/Tool

Knowledge

base

1st phase

2st phase

3rd phase

A

R

IZ

8

5

C

Simple path

And/Or

Treating the chosen contradiction

TC2

06ARM0264

Chosen

Contradiction

Use of Su-field

Analysis & system

of Inventive Standards

Resulting in

Invention

disclosure

Issued patent

Resulting in Drafted

Solution concept

Technical refinement of

the solution concept

TC3

06ARM0259

Treating the chosen contradiction

1

2

3

4

Chosen

Contradiction

Use of

Inventive principles

Resulting in

Invention

disclosure

Issued patent

Resulting in Drafted

Solution concept

Technical refinement of

the solution concept

TC7

06ARM0289

Chosen

Contradiction

Use of methods for

separating conflicting

requirements of a

physical contradiction

Resulting in

Invention

disclosure

Issued patent

Resulting in Drafted

Solution concept

Technical refinement of

the solution concept

TC11

06ARM0207

Treating the chosen contradiction

1

2

3

4

Chosen

Contradiction

Use of

combination of tools

Resulting in

Invention

disclosure

Issued patent

Resulting in Drafted

Solution concept

Technical refinement of

the solution concept

Concluding

elements

Analyses :

• Pertinent (justified) decisions relative to the choice of the appropriate set of

inventive activities to engage

(universality of descriptions, clarifying company challenges)

• Relevance “at least one” of the most important TRIZ fundamentals

(driving design activities through inventive problem expression)

Limits :

• Time of problem statement, data gathering

• Ensuring an exhaustive representation of all contradictions of a given domain

Future research directions :

• Assisting experts analyses with text mining procedures (patent, Req., norms,…)

(BABELPATENT)

• Definition/elaboration and put into practice of measurement means of «Inventive

Efficiency» allowing to validate the impact of the appropriation of our

methodology by R&D departments (DEFI project)

Some thoughts for further discussions

within IFIP-CAI WG

Problem driven design

might be an interesting path towards

inventive disclosure/findings having sense

– we postulate that

it

should serve CAI

.

Knowledge elicitation

and shaping for purposeful storage and

use/reuse when choosing which problem R&D teams should

address might be

“one of” the key issues

for CAI community.

Corporate acceptance

of models / procedures / tools

unavoidably

passes though education

, testing (case studies),

and

return of investment

carefully elaborated. CAI should pay

Lots of work ahead !