Advertisement

Facilitating Engineers Abilities to Solve Inventive Problems Using CBR and Semantic Similarity

  • Pei ZhangEmail author
  • Denis Cavallucci
  • Zhonghang Bai
  • Cecilia Zanni-Merk
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 541)

Abstract

Our industry currently undergoes a period of important changes. The era of computerization implies to companies to change not only through their organization, but also in automating as much as possible their internal processes. Our research focuses on the computerization of the problem-solution couple when facing inventive situations in R&D. The method used is based on Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) that has already been proven to be useful in routine design. On the other hand, CBR is hardly used in inventive situations because the latter require reasoning outside the circle of knowledge recorded in a database. Our proposal consists in coupling CBR with semantic similarity algorithms. The aim is to resolve a new problem based on its semantic similarity with the old problems. Then the old solution can be adapted to solve the new problem. We postulate that a multidisciplinary case base sufficiently populated of multidisciplinary problem-solution couples is likely to considerably improve the performance of R&D engineers to solve inventive problems. This being possible by bringing them alternative solutions based on the semantically similar problems, which are distant from their field of origin. In this way, we provide the possibility to enhance the inventiveness of solution. This type of reasoning, largely inspired by the TRIZ theory, is the subject of this paper. The methodology, the experiments and the conclusions that we develop here validate that this type of approach produces the claimed effects on designers although limited to the context where it has been conducted.

Keywords

TRIZ Case-based reasoning (CBR) Semantic similarity 

References

  1. 1.
    Altshuller, G.S., Shulyak, L., Rodman, S.: The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Inc., Worcester (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cavallucci, D.: World Wide status of TRIZ perceptions and uses a survey of results. Report of TRIZ Future (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilevbare, I.M., Probert, D., Phaal, R.: A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation 33(2), 30–37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spreafico, C., Russo, D.: TRIZ industrial case studies: a critical survey. Procedia CIRP 39, 51–56 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slocum, M.S.: Analogies are the way of breakthrough innovation. Triz J. (2005). https://triz-journal.com/innovation-theories-strategies/innovation-general/analogies-way-breakthrough-innovation/
  6. 6.
    Duflou, J.R., Dewulf, W.: On the complementarity of TRIZ and axiomatic design: from decoupling objective to contradiction identification. Procedia Eng. 9, 633–639 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coelho, D.A.: Matching TRIZ engineering parameters to human factors issues in manufacturing. Wseas Trans. Bus. Econ. 6(11), 547–556 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toshio, T.: How people interact with objects using TRIZ and ASIT. TRIZ J. (2003). http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2003/08/d/04.pdf
  9. 9.
    Cong, H., Tong, L.H.: Grouping of TRIZ inventive principles to facilitate automatic patent classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 34(1), 788–795 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prickett, P., Aparicio, I.: The development of a modified TRIZ technical system ontology. Comput. Ind. 63(3), 252–264 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yan, W., Zanni-Merk, C., Cavallucci, D., Collet, P.: An ontology-based approach for inventive problem solving. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 27, 175–190 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan, W., Liu, H., Zanni-Merk, C., Cavallucci, D.: IngeniousTRIZ: an automatic ontology-based system for solving inventive problems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 75, 52–65 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun. 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, P., Essaid, A., Zanni-Merk, C., Cavallucci, D.: Case-based reasoning for knowledge capitalization in inventive design using latent semantic analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 112, 323–332 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, D.: Extracting collocations from text corpora. In: First Workshop on Computational Terminology, pp. 57–63 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salton, G., Lesk, M.E.: Computer evaluation of indexing and text processing. J. ACM JACM 15(1), 8–36 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sparck Jones, K.: A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. J. Doc. 28(1), 11–21 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yan, W., Zanni-Merk, C., Rousselot, F., Cavallucci, D.: A method for facilitating inventive design based on semantic similarity and case-based reasoning. Procedia Eng. 131, 194–203 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pei Zhang
    • 3
    • 1
    Email author
  • Denis Cavallucci
    • 3
  • Zhonghang Bai
    • 4
  • Cecilia Zanni-Merk
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIP @ ICube (UMR-CNRS 7357)Strasbourg CedexFrance
  2. 2.LITIS, Norm@Stic (FR CNRS 3638), INSA Rouen NormandieRouenFrance
  3. 3.INSA de StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance
  4. 4.Hebei University of TechnologyTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations