Advertisement

Assessing the Performance of Computerized Tools for Inventive Design: Insights From Unsatisfactory Outcomes

Conference paper

Abstract

Computers actually support, almost automatically, routine tasks such as those related to the optimization in design. Besides, the scientific community shows a growing interest in developing computer systems to aid non-routine tasks as a key to enhance individuals’ creativity and innovation potential. In such a context, several attempts have been made to create tools based on the TRIZ logic to support inventive problem solving; some of them have been commercialized since decades, but still there is no established paradigm and all of them suffer from several limitations. So far the analysis of those limitations has been focused on the structure and on the nominal features of the software tools, while no in-depth and systematic investigation has been made to identify the reasons behind the partial failure of the existing systems. This paper proposes a set of general criteria to perform the evaluation of computerized tools supporting inventive design and reports an exemplary application, through protocol analysis, to the dialogue-based computerized algorithm for problem analysis, published by the authors in the past.

Keywords

Problem Analysis Technical System Protocol Analysis Design Activity Problem Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hüsig S, Kohn S (2011) Open CAI 2.0—computer aided innovation in the era of open innovation and web 2.0. Comput Ind 62(4):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lubart T (2005) How can computers be partners in the creative process: classification and commentary on the special issue. Int. J Human–Comput Stud 63:365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Funke J, Frensch PA (2007) Complex problem solving: the European perspective. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Learning to solve complex scientific problems. Lawrence Erilbaum, New York, pp 25–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simon HA (1973) The structure of ill-structured problems. Artif Intell 4:181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomiyama T, Gu P, Jin Y et al (2009) Design methodologies: industrial and educational applications. CIRP Ann—Manuf Technol 58(2):543–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becattini N, Borgianni Y, Cascini G, Rotini F (2012) Model and algorithm for computer-aided inventive problem analysis. Comput Aided Des 44(10):961–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becattini N, Borgianni Y, Cascini G, Rotini F (2011) A TRIZ-based CAI framework to guide engineering students towards a broad-spectrum investigation of inventive technical problems. Int J Eng Edu (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burnett MM, Beckwith L, Wiedenbeck S et al (2011) Gender pluralism in problem-solving software. Interact Comput 23(5):450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hewett T, Czerwinski M, Terry M et al. (2005) Creativity support tool evaluation methods and metrics. Report of NSF workshop on creativity support tools (available at http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CST/report.html), 10–24
  10. 10.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hewett T (2005) Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity. Int J Human–Comput Stud 63:383–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aurisicchio M, Bracewell R, Wallace K (2010) Characterising the information requests of engineering designers. J Eng Des 21(6):707–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Altshuller GS (1984) Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Breach Science Publisher, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavallucci D, Khomenko N (2007) From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: addressing complexity challenges in inventive design. Int J Product Dev 4:4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cavallucci D (2011) A research agenda for computing developments associated with innovation pipelines. Comput Ind 4:377–383MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jiang H, Yen CC, (2009) Protocol analysis in design research: a review. Paper presented at the design | rigor and relevance, international association of societies of design research (IASDR) conference Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Becattini
    • 1
  • Y. Borgianni
    • 2
  • G. Cascini
    • 1
  • F. Rotini
    • 2
  1. 1.Politecnico di MilanoDipartimento di MeccanicaMIItaly
  2. 2.Università degli Studi di FirenzeDipartimento di Meccanica e Tecnologie Ind.liFIItaly

Personalised recommendations