Knowledge Representation Models Application and Fuzziness in Innovation Projects Assessment

  • Denis A. IstominEmail author
  • Valerii Yu. Stolbov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 136)


Application of three knowledge representation models are presented: fuzzy production rules, frames, semantic networks. Assessment of innovative project is described as a two-stage process. The first step is processing the project attributes using knowledge models in order to build a set of optimality criteria. The second step is the construction of a comprehensive criterion of optimality and the use of a specific metric for comparing and ranking innovative projects.

The model of production rules using fuzzy inference is considered first. The use of production rules for the logical inference of more complex criteria is proposed.

The frame model of knowledge representation is considered for calculating the parameters of an innovative project, since this model supports calculations in the process of inference. An application of semantic networks is considered with a combination of node-based and arc-based inference styles. Complex rules and relationships between entities in a complex process of evaluating an innovative project are presented using a semantic network. As a last step, the combination of all the evaluated characteristics of an innovative project into one complex criterion of optimality using fuzzy sets is described.


Knowledge representation Production rules Fuzzy set Frames Semantic network Innovation project Innovation 



The reported study was funded by the Government of Perm Krai of the Russian Federation (the project «Computer biomechanics and digital technologies in biomedicine»).


  1. 1.
    Andrew, J.P., et al.: A return to prominance-and the emergence of a new world order. BCG Most Innovative Companies (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meredith, J.R., Mantel Jr., S.J.: Project Management: A managerial Approach. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaparro, X.A.F., de Vasconcelos Gomes, L.A., de Souza Nascimento, P.T.: The evolution of project portfolio selection methods: from incremental to radical innovation. Revista de Gestão (2019). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, N.R.: R & D project selection models: an assessment. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 4, 165–171 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bard, J.F., Balachandra, R., Kaufmann, P.E.: An interactive approach to R&D project selection and termination. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 35(3), 139–146 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lal, D.: Methods of project analysis: a review. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J.: New product portfolio management: practices and performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 16(4), 333–351 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alfaro-García, V., Gil-Lafuente, A., Calderon, G.: A Fuzzy logic approach towards innovation measurement. Glob. J. Bus. Res. 9, 53 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapiro, A.F., Marie-Claire, K.: Risk assessment applications of fuzzy logic. Casualty Actuarial Society, Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Society of Actuaries (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roberts, R.B., Goldstein, I.P.: The FRL Primer. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1977). №. AI-M-408Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Istomin, D.A., Gitman, M.B., Trefilov, V.A.: Frames knowledge representation model of innovative projects assessment methodologies. Neirokompyutery: razrabotka, primenenie [NeuroComputers: Development, Use], no. 2, pp. 12–22 (2018). (in Russ.) ISSN 1999-8554Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shapiro, S.C.: Path-based and node-based inference in semantic networks. In: Proceedings of the 1978 workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Istomin, D.A., Gitman, M.B.: Simulation model of strategic innovation management at manufacturing enterprises. Bull. Kalashnikov ISTU. 20(2), 150–153 (2017). (in Russ.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perm National Research Polytechnic UniversityPermRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations