Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 77–95 | Cite as

Design-by-analogy: experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation improvement

  • Katherine Fu
  • Jeremy Murphy
  • Maria Yang
  • Kevin Otto
  • Dan Jensen
  • Kristin Wood
Original Paper

Abstract

Design-by-analogy is a growing field of study and practice, due to its power to augment and extend traditional concept generation methods by expanding the set of generated ideas using similarity relationships from solutions to analogous problems. This paper presents the results of experimentally testing a new method for extracting functional analogies from general data sources, such as patent databases, to assist designers in systematically seeking and identifying analogies. In summary, the approach produces significantly improved results on the novelty of solutions generated and no significant change in the total quantity of solutions generated. Computationally, this design-by-analogy facilitation methodology uses a novel functional vector space representation to quantify the functional similarity between represented design problems and, in this case, patent descriptions of products. The mapping of the patents into the functional analogous words enables the generation of functionally relevant novel ideas that can be customized in various ways. Overall, this approach provides functionally relevant novel sources of design-by-analogy inspiration to designers and design teams.

Keywords

Design-by-analogy Function-based analogy Design cognition 

References

  1. Ahmed S (2005) Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index knowledge. Des Stud 26:565–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuller GS, Shapiro RB (1956) O Пcиxoлoгии изoбpeтaтeльcкoгo твopчecтвa (On the psychology of inventive creation)(in Russian). Boпpocы Пcиxoлoгии (The Psychological Issues) 6:37–39Google Scholar
  3. Altshuller GS, Zlotin BL, Philatov VI (1985) Analysis of the initial situation. Kartya Moldovenyaske Publishing House, Kishinev, pp 181–182Google Scholar
  4. Bhatta S, Goel A (1996) From design experiences to generic mechanisms: model-based learning in analogical design. AIEDAM 10:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatta S, Goel A, Prabhakar S (1994) Innovation in analogical design: a model-based approach. In: Gero J, Sudweeks F (eds) Artificial intelligence in design. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, pp 57–74Google Scholar
  6. Bohm MR, Szykman S, Stone RB (2005) Enhancing virtual product representations for advanced design repository systems. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5:360–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohm MR, Stone RB, Simpson TW, Steva ED (2008) Introduction of a data schema to support a design repository. Comput Aided Des 40:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell M, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (1999) A-design: an agent-based approach to conceptual design in a dynamic environment. Res Eng Des 11:172–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell M, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2003) The A-design approach to managing automated design synthesis. Res Eng Des 14:12–14Google Scholar
  10. Cascini G, Russo D (2007) Computer-aided analysis of patents and search for TRIZ contradictions. Int J Product Devel 4:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cascini G, Zini M (2008) Measuring patent similarity by comparing inventions functional trees. In: Cascini G (ed) IFIP international federation for information processing. Springer, Boston, pp 31–42Google Scholar
  12. Chakrabarti A (2000) Design creativity research. In: Product research. Springer, Netherlands, pp 17–39Google Scholar
  13. Chakrabarti A, Bligh TP (2001) A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Des Stud 22:493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakrabarti AK, Dror I, Nopphdol E (1993) Interorganizational transfer of knowledge: an analysis of patent citations of a defense firm. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 40:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chakrabarti S, Dom B, Agrawal R, Raghavan P (1998) Scalable feature selection, classification and signature generation for organizing large text databases into hierarchical topic taxonomies. VLDB J 7:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B, Nataraju BS (2005) A functional representation for aiding in biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19:113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chakrabarti A, Shea K, Stone R, Cagan J, Campbell M, Hernandez NV, Wood KL (2011) Computer based design synthesis research: an overview. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 11:021003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chan J, Fu K, Schunn C, Cagan J, Wood K, Kotovsky K (2011) On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. J Mech Des 133(8):081004. doi:10.1115/1.4004396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charlton CT, Wallace KM (2000) A web broker for component retrieval in mechanical engineering. Des Stud 21:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chiu I, Shu LH (2007) Biomimetic design through natural language analysis to facilitate cross-domain information retrieval. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 21:45–59Google Scholar
  21. CREAX. (7 September 2012). CREAX: creativity for innovation. Available: http://www.creax.com
  22. Duran-Novoa R, Leon-Rovira N, Aguayo-Tellez H, Said D (2011) Inventive problem solving based on dialectical negation, using evolutionary algorithms and TRIZ heuristics. Comput Ind 62:437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fantoni G, Apreda R, Dell’Orletta F, Monge M (2013) Automatic extraction of function-behavior-state information from patents. Adv Eng Inform 27:317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Fu K (2012) Discovering and exploring structure in design databases and its role in stimulating design by analogy. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Fu K, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2010) Design team convergence: the influence of example solution quality. J Mech Des 132:111005–111011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fu K, Cagan J, Kotovsky K, Wood K (2013a) Discovering structure in design databases through function and surface based mapping. J Mech Des 135(3):031006-1–031006-13. doi:10.1115/1.4023484
  28. Fu K, Chan J, Cagan J, Kotovsky K, Schunn C, Wood K (2013b) The meaning of “Near” and “Far”: the impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. ASME J Mech Des 135(2):021007-1–021007-12. doi:10.1115/1.4023158
  29. Goel A, Bhatta S (2004) Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Adv Eng Infom 18:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goel A, Bhatta S, Stroulia E (1997) Kritik: an early case-based design system. In: Maher M, Pu P (eds) Issues and applications of case-based reasoning in design. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 87–132Google Scholar
  31. Goldfire IM (2012). Invention machine goldfire: unleashing the power of research. Available: http://inventionmachine.com/products-and-services/innovation-software/goldfire-Research
  32. Hacco E, Shu LH (2002) Biomimetic concept generation applied to design for remanufacture. Presented at the ASME design engineering technology conference and computers and information in engineering conferenceGoogle Scholar
  33. Hernandez NV, Schmidt LC, Okudan GE (2013) Systematic ideation effectiveness study of TRIZ. J Mech Des 135(10):101009. doi:10.1115/1.4024976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirtz J, Stone RB, Mcadams DA, Szykman S, Wood KL (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Des 13:65–82Google Scholar
  35. Hölttä-Otto K, Tang V, Otto K (2008) Analyzing module commonality for platform design using dendrograms. Res Eng Des 19:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Houssin R, Coulibaly A (2011) An approach to solve contradiction problems for safety integration in innovative design process. Comput Ind 62:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Indukuri KV, Ambekar AA, Sureka A (2007) Similarity analysis of patent claims using natural language processing techniques. Presented at the international conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applicationsGoogle Scholar
  38. Kang I, Na S, Kim J, Lee J (2007) Cluster-based patent retrieval. Inf Process Manag 43(5):1173–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kasravi C, Risov M (2007) Patent mining: discovery of business value from patent repositories. Presented at the proceedings of the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  40. Koch S, Bosch H, Giereth M, Ertl T (2011) Iterative integration of visual insights during scalable patent search and analysis. Vis Comput Graph 17:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krasnoslobodtsev V, Langevin R (2005) TRIZ application in development of climbing robots. Presented at the first TRIZ symposium, JapanGoogle Scholar
  42. Kurfman M, Rajan J, Stone R, Wood K (2003) Experimental studies assessing the repeatability of a functional modeling derivation method. J Mech Des 125:682–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kurtoglu T, Campbell M, Bryant CR, Stone RB, McAdams D (2009) A component taxonomy as a framework for computational design synthesis. ASME J Comput Inform Sci Eng 9(1):011007. doi:10.1115/1.3086032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liang YH, Tan RH, Ma JH (2013) Study on patent text classification for product innovative design. Comput Integr Manuf Syst 19:382–390Google Scholar
  45. Linsey JS (2007) Design-by-analogy and representation in innovative engineering concept generation. The University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  46. Linsey JS, Wood KL, Markman AB (2008) Modality and representation in analogy. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 22:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Linsey J, Clauss EF, Kurtoglu T, Murphy JT, Wood KL, Markman AB (2011) An experimental study of group idea generation techniques: understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods. J Mech Des 133:031008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linsey J, Markman AB, Wood KL (2012) Design by analogy: a study of the WordTree method for problem re-representation. J Mech Des 134(4):041009. doi:10.1115/1.4006145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu Y-C, Chakrabarti A, Bligh TP (2000) A computational framework for concept generation and exploration in mechanical design. Artificial intelligence in design ’00, Book Part 9, pp 499–519. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4154-3_25
  50. Liu Y-C, Bligh TP, Chakrabarti A (2003) Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation. Des Stud 24:341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mann D, Dewulf S, Zlotin B, Zusman A (2003) Matrix 2003, updating the TRIZ contradiction martix. CREAX Press, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller GA (1995) WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun ACM 38:39–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moss J, Kotovksy K, Cagan J (2007) The influence of open goals in the acquisition of problem relevant information. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 33:876–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mukherjea S, Bhuvan B, Kankar P (2005) Information retrieval and knowledge discovery utilizing a biomedical patent semantic web. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17:1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murphy JT (2011) Patent-based analogy search tool for innovative concept generation,” Ph.D. dissertation, department of mechanical engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  56. Murphy J, Fu K, Otto K, Yang M, Jensen D, Wood K (2014a) Function based design-by-analogy: a functional vector approach to analogical search. J Mech Des 136:101102–101116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Murphy J, Fu K, Otto K, Yang M, Jensen D, Wood K (2014) Facilitating design-by-analogy: development of a complete functional vocabulary and functional vector approach to analogical search. Presented at the ASME 2014 IDETC & CIE, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  58. Nakagawa T (2012) Creative problem-solving methodologies TRIZ/USIT: overview of my 14 years in research, education, and promotion. The Bulletin of the Cultural and Natural Sciences in Osaka Gakuin University, vol. 64, March 2012Google Scholar
  59. Nix A (2011) Innovation strategies for product design. M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  60. Oman SK, Tumer IY, Wood KL, Seepersad C (2012) A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Res Eng Des 24(1):65–92. doi:10.1007/s00163-012-0138-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Otto K, Wood K (2001) Product design techniques in reverse engineering and new product development, Upper Saddle River. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  62. Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Potter S, Culley SJ, Darlington MJ, Chawdhry PK (2003) Automatic conceptual design using experience-derived heuristcs. Res Eng Design 14:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Qian L, Gero JS (1992) A design support system using analogy. In: Artificial intelligence in design. Springer Netherlands, pp 795–813Google Scholar
  65. Reich Y, Shai O (2012) The interdisciplinary engineering knowledge genome. Res Eng Des 23:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rindflesch TC (1996) Natural language processing. Annu Rev Appl Linguist 16:71–85Google Scholar
  67. Salonen M, Holtta-Otto K, Otto K (2008) Effecting product reliability and life cycle costs with early design phase product architecture decisions. Int J Prod Dev 5:109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Segers NM, De Vries B, Achten HH (2005) Do word graphs stimulate design? Des Stud 26:625–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shah JJ, Kulkarni SV, Vargas-Hernández N (2000) Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: effectiveness metrics and design of experiments. Trans ASME J Mech Des 122:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shah JJ, Vargas-Hernandez N, Smith SM (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 24:111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shai O, Reich Y (2004) Infused design. I. Theory. Res Eng Des 15:93–107Google Scholar
  72. Souili A, Cavallucci D (2012) Toward an automatic extraction of IDM concepts from patents. Presented at the CIRP designGoogle Scholar
  73. Souili A, Cavallucci D, Rousselot F, Zanni C (2011) Starting from patents to find inputs to the problem graph model of IDM-TRIZ. Presented at the TRIZ Future 2011, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  74. Stone R, Wood KL (2000) Development of a functional basis for design. J Mech Des 122(4):359–370. doi:10.1115/1.1289637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stone R, Wood K (2000) A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Des Stud 21(1):5–31. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00003-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sycara K, Navinchandra D, Guttal R, Koning J, Narasimhan S (1991) CADET: a case-based synthesis tool for engineering design. Int J Exp Syst 4:157–188Google Scholar
  77. Szykman S, Sriram RD, Bochenek C, Racz J (1999) The NIST design repository project. In: Advances in soft computing: engineering design and manufacturing. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Szykman S, Sriram RD, Bochenek C, Senfaute J (2000) Design repositories: next-generation engineering design databases. IEEE Intell Syst Their Appl 15(3):48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Terpenny J, Mathew D (2004) Modeling environment for function-based conceptual design, presented at the ASME International design engineering technical conferences, Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  80. Trippe AJ (2003) Patinformatics: tasks to tools. World Pat Inf 25(3):211–221. doi:10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00079-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tseng Y, Lin C, Lin Y (2007) Text mining techniques for patent analysis. Inform Process Manag 43(5):1216–1247. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tseng I, Moss J, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2008) The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Des Stud 29:203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ullman DG (2003) The mechanical design process, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2004) Product design and development. McGraw Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  85. van Rijsbergen CJ (1979) Information retrieval. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  86. Van Wie M, Bryant CR, McAdams D, Stone R (2005) A model of function-based representations. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19:89–111Google Scholar
  87. Vangundy AB (1988) Techniques of structured problem solving, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NYGoogle Scholar
  88. Verhaegen P, D’hondt J, Vandevenne D, Dewulf S, Duflou JR (2011) Identifying candidates for design-by-analogy. Comput Ind 62:446–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vincent JFV, Bogatyreva OA, Bogatyreva NR, Bowyer A, Pahl AK (2006) Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J R Soc Interface 3:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yang MC, Wood WH, Cutkosky MR (2005) Design information retrieval: a thesauri-base approach for reuse of informal design information. Engineering with Computers, pp. 177–192Google Scholar
  91. Zhang R, Cha J, Lu Y (2007) A conceptual design model using axiomatic design, functional basis and TRIZ. Presented at the proceedings of the 2007 IEEE IEEMGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine Fu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeremy Murphy
    • 3
  • Maria Yang
    • 1
  • Kevin Otto
    • 2
  • Dan Jensen
    • 4
  • Kristin Wood
    • 2
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Engineering Product Development PillarSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeRepublic of Singapore
  3. 3.Schlumberger LimitedSugarlandUSA
  4. 4.United States Air Force AcademyColorado SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations