Advertisement

Idea Inspire 3.0—A Tool for Analogical Design

  • Amaresh ChakrabartiEmail author
  • L. Siddharth
  • Madhuri Dinakar
  • Megha Panda
  • Neha Palegar
  • Sonal Keshwani
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)

Abstract

There is a continuous demand for novel and innovative products in the market. In order to develop novel ideas, natural systems are considered to be superior source of inspiration. In order to assist designers in ideation, an analogical design tool called Idea Inspire 3.0 is developed; it is a revised version of Idea-Inspire developed in 2005. The latest version is web-based, and supports retrieval, visualizationand addition of systems. It uses a novel, dynamic representation with amulti-system, multi-instance SAPPhIRE model as basis, and a multi-modal explanation for enhanced understanding that shouldlead to better ideation. In this paper, these latest features of Idea-Inspire along with their potential benefits are discussed.

Keywords

SAPPhIRE Analogical design Bio-mimetic design Multiple-instance model System representation 

References

  1. 1.
    Srinivasan, V., Chakrabarti, A.: An empirical evaluation of novelty-SAPPhIRE relationship. In: ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatta, S., Goel, A., Prabhakar, S.: Innovation in analogical design: a model-based approach. In: Artificial Intelligence in Design’94, pp. 57–74 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kieras, D.E.: Should be taught: choosing instructional content for complex engineered systems. Intell. Tutoring Syst. Lessons Learn, p. 85 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linsey, J., Wood, K., Markman, A.: Modality and representation in analogy. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 22(2), 85–100 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennedy, W.J., Rocha, G.F.: Hook design for a hook and loop fastener. Google Patents (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hargroves, K., Smith, M.: Innovation inspired by nature: biomimicry. Ecos 2006(129), 27–29 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vakili, V., Shu, L.H.: Towards biomimetic concept generation. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Vol. 4, pp. 327–335 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paturi, F.R.: Zeugen der Vorzeit (1976)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galbraith, D.: Understanding Biology. J. Wiley & Sons, Canada (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benyus, J.M.: Biomimicry. William Morrow, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bond, G., Richman, R., McNaughton, W.: Mimicry of natural material designs and processes. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 4(3), 334–345 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S.: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benson, P.J.: Problems in picturing text: a study of visua/verbal problem solving. Tech. Commun. Q. 6(2), 141–160 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pimmler, T.U., Eppinger, S.D., et al.: Integration analysis of product decompositions (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bobrow, J.: Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. Elsevier (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sarkar, P., Chakrabarti, A.: The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. AI EDAM 22(2), 101 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kletke, M.G., Mackay, J.M., Barr, S.H., Jones, B.: Creativity in the organization: the role of individual creative problem solving and computer support. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 55(3), 217–237 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goel, A.K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., Helms, M.: Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: a study in biologically inspired design. Comput. Aided Des. 44(10), 879–900 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Altshuller, G., Shulyak, L., Rodman, S.: The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Inc. (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Domb, E., Miller, J., MacGran, E., et al.: The 39 features of Altshuller’s contradiction matrix. TRIZ J. 11, 10–12 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vincent, J.F., Bogatyreva, O.A., Bogatyrev, N.R., Bowyer, A., Pahl, A.-K.: Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J. R. Soc. Interface 3(9), 471–482 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vincent, J.F., Bogatyreva, O., Pahl, A.-K., Bogatyrev, N., Bowyer, A.: Putting biology into TRIZ: a database of biological effects. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14(1), 66–72 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verhaegen, P.-A., Peeters, J., Vandevenne, D., Dewulf, S., Duflou, J.R.: Effectiveness of the PAnDA ideation tool. Procedia Eng. 9, 63–67 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., Nataraju, B.: A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AIE EDAM 19(2), 113–132 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qian, L., Gero, J.S.: Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. AI EDAM 10(4), 289–313 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., Vattam, S.: Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 23(1), 23–35 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abramsky, S.: Domain theory in logical form. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 51(1), 1–77 (1991)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hubka, V., Eder, W.E.: Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design. Springer Science & Business Media (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: KM3: a DSL for metamodel specification. In: Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. Springer, pp. 171–185 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nature, A., Schwan, B.: BioInspired! BioInspired! (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deldin, J.-M., Schuknecht, M.: The AskNature database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In: Biologically Inspired Design. Springer, London, pp. 17–27 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vattam, S.S., Helms, M.E., Goel, A.K.: A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. AI EDAM 24(4), 467–481 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baldussu, A., Cascini, G., Rosa, F., Rovida, E., et al.: Causal models for bio-inspired design: a comparison. In: DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ranjan, B., Srinivasan, V., Chakrabarti, A.: System-environment view in designing. In: CIRP Design 2012. Springer, Berlin, pp. 59–70 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L.: Development of a functional basis for design. J. Mech. Des. 122(4), 359–370 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eppinger, S.D., Ulrich, K.T.: Product design and development. Prod. Des. Dev (1995)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chakrabarti, A., Bligh, T.P.: An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: theory, applications, and emerging research issues. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 10(4), 313–331 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brown, D.C., Chandrasekaran, B.: An Approach to Expert Systems for Mechanical Design. DTIC Document (1983)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amaresh Chakrabarti
    • 1
    Email author
  • L. Siddharth
    • 1
  • Madhuri Dinakar
    • 2
  • Megha Panda
    • 3
  • Neha Palegar
    • 4
  • Sonal Keshwani
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Product Design and ManufacturingIndian Institute of ScienceBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Department of BiotechnologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations