Elsevier

Computers in Industry

Volume 101, October 2018, Pages 25-40
Computers in Industry

Experience capitalization to support decision making in inventive problem solving

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We proposed a new approach to capitalize experience for inventive problem solving.

  • The proposed approach reuses existing solutions to solve new specific problems.

  • Eases problem solving by improving its efficiency and effectiveness.

Abstract

The theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) is based on the use of tools and their related knowledge sources for solving different types of inventive problems. Using classical TRIZ tools to solve a specific problem requires additional knowledge such as the expert's accumulated know-how in their problem solving practice (i.e. experience). In order to facilitate the use of experience, this paper explores a new inventive problem solving approach based on experience capitalization. Accordingly, the user with less expertise can solve new problems by reusing or revising the old solutions of other people. This approach is based on the use of the case-based reasoning (CBR) for collecting and rapidly accessing the experiences. A case study illustrates the problem solving process based on the proposed approach. In addition to that, we conducted a set of experiments to evaluate our approach. We considered a number of new problems whose resolution is performed in three different ways: manually, using an existing rule-based approach and using our proposed approach. The evaluation demonstrates that our approach gives better results and improves decision making in the inventive design process.

Introduction

Innovation in the workplace has become an increasingly important determinant of organizational performance, success, and longer-term survival [1], [2]. The generation of creative ideas is the first stage activity that leads to innovation. Creative ideas are specific inventive technical solutions to the specific inventive technical problems (hereafter, we refer the former as specific solutions and the latter as specific problems).

The theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) [3] is recognized as a suitable methodology to facilitate the resolution of specific problems through the use of different tools, models and knowledge sources [4], [5]. According to the TRIZ methodology, solving a specific problem goes through three phases [6] as illustrated in Fig. 1.

  • 1.

    The “formulation” phase, where the experts formulate their specific problem into an abstract problem in terms of a physical contradiction, a technical contradiction or a substance-field model.

  • 2.

    The “abstract solution finding” phase, where, depending on the type of the abstract problem obtained in the former phase, different knowledge sources are used to get one or more abstract solutions.

  • 3.

    The “interpretation” phase, where the experts interpret the abstract solutions using other specific knowledge sources and their own creativity in order to get one or more specific solutions.

TRIZ is based on the use of tools (e.g. the Contradiction Matrix,1 the Substance-Field analysis2 and the use of the pointers to the scientific effects3, etc.) to build a certain type of abstract problem. It is also based on the use of different knowledge sources (e.g. 40 inventive principles,4 the 76 inventive standards,5 the scientific effects, etc.) to find abstract solutions. However, the TRIZ knowledge sources are built independently from each other at different levels of abstraction. Depending on the abstraction level, they produce results also at different levels: at the highest abstraction level, the results are ideas of solutions (abstract solutions), at the lowest abstraction level, they produce specific solutions. The use of TRIZ for specific problem solving requires a high level of expertise. Indeed:

  • TRIZ's body of knowledge are sometimes ambiguous and cannot be interpreted adequately. The methodology does not currently provide clear guidelines for the use of its knowledge sources to solve a specific problem.

  • TRIZ provides the wealth of knowledge for solving a large variety of inventive problems, but the access to the specific needed knowledge might be troublesome.

In order to facilitate the use of TRIZ, several works have been carried out using ontologies. The authors in [7] explored the indexing of knowledge involved in the patents. A TRIZ Technical System ontology is developed in this work and an ontology-based classification methodology is implemented to support the retrieval of related information extracted from patents. Moreover, the work in [8] explored the formulation of two of TRIZ knowledge sources based on ontology. Recently, a rule-based approach [9] has found its way to facilitate the search for abstract solutions using an ontology and rules, as it is illustrated in Fig. 2(a). Firstly, it formalized two TRIZ knowledge sources (40 Inventive Principles, 76 Inventive Standards) with different abstraction levels based on ontologies. Then, the knowledge base was populated with the TRIZ knowledge sources and its associated rules. In this way, each rule specifies the representation of different pieces of knowledge involved in the TRIZ knowledge sources and enables reasoning to search for abstract solutions.

However, the use of the rule-based approach presents some disadvantages, mainly associated with the fact that the introduction of additional knowledge to solve a specific problem might make the whole model logically incoherent. This is exactly the case when an adaptation of an abstract solution can be applied to solve similar specific problems, because new specific knowledge needs to be included in the original knowledge base to calculate this adaptation. Additionally, the use of a rule-based approach for solving problem implies that every new specific problem needs a new solving process, making the whole time consuming.

To cope with the drawbacks of the rule-based approach, we are interested here in finding ways to reuse existing solutions to solve new specific problems. Therefore, there is a need to capitalize experience through collecting and making use of previous cases in order to enhance problem solving [10]. In this paper, we propose a new approach for inventive problem solving through experience capitalization. The contribution of our approach is twofold: (1) it helps the new TRIZ users to solve inventive problems more easily by avoiding going through the TRIZ problem solving process; (2) it helps the users to obtain the solution directly from capitalized experiences, thus reducing the time needed for inventive problem solving. There are several ways to facilitate the capitalization of experience [11], [12]. Among them, case-based reasoning (CBR) is relevant to our needs. In particular, we built the case base to facilitate the storage of the additional needed knowledge without risking the logical coherence of the whole model. The case base is implemented as an ontology in order to store different types of cases represented by different features. Furthermore, specific problems can be solved by finding and reusing old solutions. In this way, solving a specific problem is now possible by adapting old specific solutions, as depicted in Fig. 2(b). The user finds the old specific problems that are similar to the new one based on a similarity calculation. The new specific problem can be solved by reusing or revising the old specific solutions of the obtained similar old problems. If the CBR approach fails (because, for example, there are no similar old problems or adaptation of old solutions is not possible), the classic rule-based approach is used.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the related concepts and the literature review about different approaches to facilitate the resolution of specific problems. Section 3 describes the general architecture of the proposed approach. In Section 4, the proposed approach is described in detail, including the two modules to facilitate specific problem solving. In Section 5, the resolution of a specific problem is given to illustrate the proposed approach. Section 6 introduces the implementation and evaluation of the proposed approach. Finally, Section 7 concludes with a summary and highlights some directions for future work.

Section snippets

The theory of inventive problem solving

TRIZ is the Russian acronym for the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving [3]. The basic idea of TRIZ is that there are general principles that can be used as abstract solutions. The abstract solutions can be applied to similar problematic situations by adaptations. Therefore, TRIZ is used to solve inventive problems by going through three phases: formalizing the abstract problem, finding the abstract solution and then interpreting the abstract solution to the specific solution according to the

General architecture of the proposed approach

In this section, we present the general architecture of the proposed approach (Fig. 4). On the one hand, it adds an alternative route to the classical TRIZ problem solving by solving the specific problem directly. On the other hand, it uses one or several modules independently or collectively to facilitate the resolution of the specific problem. Generally speaking, the proposed approach contains four modules:

  • The Experience-based specific solution finding module (ESS) is proposed to provide an

Description of the proposed approach

In this section, we give a detailed description of the ESS and EAP modules.

Case study

To better illustrate our approach, we present in this section a case study related to cloth hangers. We describe in detail how this specific problem is resolved by going through the modules presented in Section 4. To test the approach, we consider a case base of 47 cases that have been solved by engineering students and experts.

Implementation

The prototype10 implementing the proposed approach, named CBRID (case-base reasoning for inventive design), is developed as a Java EE web application, using the Spring Boot framework version 1.5.9 11. It is deployed on a Tomcat12 server version 8.

Evaluation

The ISO 9241-11 standard13 defines usability as “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to

Discussion and conclusion

This paper explores an approach for experience capitalization for inventive problem solving. Within this paper, we only deal with two modules that applied CBR to facilitate the capitalization of experience, the ESS module and the EAP module. A specific solution can be obtained primarily by reusing or revising one of the cases retrieved in the ESS module through the use of different similarity calculation algorithms. If the similar specific problem is not found or the revision based on the old

References (51)

  • T.L. Saaty

    How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process

    Eur. J. Oper. Res.

    (1990)
  • N. Anderson et al.

    Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework

    J. Manage.

    (2014)
  • P.-J. Benghozi

    Innovation Based Competition & Design Systems Dynamics: Lessons From French Innovative Firms and Organizational Issues for the Next Decade

    (2000)
  • G.S. Altshuller et al.

    The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity

    (1999)
  • O. Abramov

    Industry best practices and the role of TRIZ in developing new products

    International Research Conference ”TRIZFest

    (2013)
  • G.S. Altshuller

    Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems

    (1984)
  • W. Yan

    (Meta) Knowledge Modeling for Inventive Design, (Ph.D. thesis)

    (2014)
  • A. Bultey et al.

    A hybrid system combining description logics and rules for inventive design

  • C. Zanni-Merk

    KREM: a generic knowledge-based framework for problem solving in engineering

    KEOD

    (2015)
  • A. Aamodt et al.

    Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches

    AI Commun.

    (1994)
  • C. Sanin et al.

    An OWL ontology of set of experience knowledge structure

    J. UCS

    (2007)
  • K. Rantanen, Levels of solutions, the triz journal, dec....
  • E. Domb, The 39 features of altshuller's contradiction matrix, TRIZ J., [https://triz-journal.com/ (accessed 12.05.17)...
  • D. Mann, E. Domb, 40 inventive principles with examples, TRIZ J., [Available at...
  • M.S. Slocum, Analogies are the way of breakthrough innovation, TRIZ J., [https://triz-journal.com/ (accessed 12.05.17)...
  • Cited by (13)

    • A new computational method for acquiring effect knowledge to support product innovation

      2021, Knowledge-Based Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      The technical characteristic implicit in category information of main groups and subgroups, generally relevant to functionality and principle or structure, can be extracted as design knowledge [20]. Classification numbers or category information of section-class-subclass are competent for the technical area definitions of products/design problems [21,22]. To acquire the desired knowledge from IPC, our method first pre-processes IPC text reasonably, then extracts technical area and functional features of effects respectively by regular expression matching and a technology combining syntactic analysis and word vector (i.e., the global vector [23], abbreviated as GloVe), and finally adopts a taxonomy consisting of an existing functional taxonomy (i.e., Functional Basis [24]) and the section-class-subclass taxonomy of IPC, and concept classification methods, such as WordNet-based [25] word similarity measures and GloVe [23], to classify the effects extracted as effect-function-flow-technical area knowledge.

    • Emergency Management Case-Based Reasoning Systems: A Survey of Recent Developments

      2023, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text