A Multiagent Approach to Identifying Innovative Component Selection
Though there is a clear correlation between profitability and innovativeness, the steps that lead to designing a “creative” product are elusive. In order to learn from past design successes, we must identify the impact of design choices on the innovativeness of an entire product. This problem of quantifying the impact of design choices on a final product is analogous to the problem of ‘credit assignment’ in a multiagent system. We use recent advances in multiagent credit assignment to propagate a product’s innovativeness back to its components. To validate our approach we analyze products from the Design Repository, which contains thousands of products that have been decomposed into functions and components. We demonstrate the benefits of our approach by assessing and propagating innovation evaluations of a set of products down to the component level. We then illustrate the usefulness of the gathered component-level innovation scores by illustrating a product redesign.
KeywordsMultiagent System Circuit Board Component Solution Innovative Product Innovation Score
The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their support under Grant Nos. CMMI-0928076 and 0927745 from the Engineering Design and Innovation Program and the NSF REU supplement grant CMMI-1033407. Any opinions or findings of this work are the responsibility of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or collaborators.
- 1.Oman S, Gilchrist B, Rebhuhn C, Tumer IY, Nix A, Stone R (2012) Towards a repository of innovative products to enhance engineering creativity education. In: ASME 2012 International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 207–218Google Scholar
- 2.Arnold C, Stone R, McAdams D (2008) MEMIC: an interactive morphological matrix tool for automated concept generation, In: Proceedings of the 2008 industrial engineering conference. Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
- 5.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, Springer 13(2):65–82Google Scholar
- 6.Brown DC (2008) Guiding computational design creativity research. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on studying design creativity, University of Provence, Aix-en-ProvenceGoogle Scholar
- 8.Barto AG, Dietterich TG (2004) Reinforcement learning and its relationship to supervised learning. In: Handbook of learning and approximate dynamic programming. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 9.Claus C, Boutilier C (1998) The dynamics of reinforcement learning in cooperative multiagent systems. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 746–752Google Scholar