Structuring knowledge use in inventive design

Denis Cavallucci, François Rousselot

To cite this version:

Denis Cavallucci, François Rousselot. Structuring knowledge use in inventive design. León-Rovira,
Noel. Trends in Computer Aided Innovation, Springer US, pp.12, 2007. �hal-00677424�

HAL Id: hal-00677424

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00677424
Submitted on 8 Mar 2012

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive
Design
Denis Cavallucci*, François Rousselot
INSA Strasbourg Graduate School of Science and Technology –
LgéCo
24 Boulevard de la Victoire 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract. Computer Aided Innovation (CAI) has emerged for a few years as a
scientific field offering a framework for contributions aiming at providing
assistance to designers and industries in the problematic brought by
innovation’s organization. In the context of R&D activities’ management
when in Inventive Design context, it is nowadays acknowledged that a
significant attention needs to be given to problem formulation of a studied
system associated to a specific domain. It is also commonly agreed that the use
of domain knowledge and in particular their synthesis, is essential to the
understanding and the elicitation of problems in a given field of industrial
actors/competitors. Through this article, we are aiming at communicating on
the results of a research activity led within an industrial context, where it was
required to build an appropriate use of domain knowledge to ease the
comprehension of key domain problems and assist decision making for R&D
deciders.

1 Introduction

1.1 Opposition between an « optimizing » mode and an « inventive » mode of

design

The paradigm in which our contribution resides concerns invention. Our

reflections take place with the organization of innovation and propose a reflection
towards the fact that an efficient inventive activity will positively influence the
overall result of innovation within an organization. To introduce our contribution we
would like to start by stating on the major differences which separate innovation’s
paradigm from optimization one.
2 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design

The orientation which engineering design undertakes since a few decades is

turned towards optimization [1]. It tends to obtain the best possible result on the
basis of a whole set of known elements. The example can be taken to optimize
thickness of a part’s walls respectfully to laws of mechanics, the best possible choice
of a material constitutive of a mechanism. In the case, for example, of a design of a
mechanism answering a precise set of requirements, Optimization Design (OD) will
then employ a procedure based on the most efficient way, taking into consideration
all elements at disposal of designers (from their respective knowledge) or resulting
from their research findings (state of the art, surveys). This type of process is largely
inspired by the reflex of compromise when choices in opposition are posed to
designers (the body of a mechanism having to be both thick to be resistant
mechanically and thin to be light). The criteria involved here are primarily
mechanical laws, the use of a potential specific material in the design of the body
and the restrictive specific conditions imposed by the situation of the object’s life
(space roominess, safety, norms to be respected,).
A contrario, Inventive Design (ID) identifies situations of opposed features as
being sources of key-problems to be solved by the refusal of a compromise [2]. The
compromise is here characterized as the acceptance to reduce ambitions of one of the
dimensions of design orientation (to design a rigid body) for the limited benefit of
the other (to design a body “not too heavy”). The objective of ID is thus to refuse
compromise while formulating an inventive challenge and to assume the fact that the
fruit of the act of design leads to “both” a resistant and light body. Let us add that
elements of knowledge being able to become actor of the resolution are probably
unknown to the designer or not highlighted by the sequencing of events in the design
process. It is essential thus that an ID process assumes its two major difficulties: to
assist the formulation of the whole set of problems raised by the act of design of an
evolving object and to assist the revealing of non-existent elements of knowledge at
the origin of the design process, allowing to refuse compromise and to solve the
problem. In our example, physics of the soap bubble and in particular the study of
the phenomena of tensile surface stress has opened a field of research (the concept of
foam) as potentially a way to solve inventively the opposition between mechanical
resistance and mass [3].
To finish on this subject, there are different postulates between OD and ID, the
first remains the most legitimate reflex under the paradigm of quality (to improve the
concept of value, to reduce costs, to ever assume new functionalities) whereas the
second is proven to be useful under the paradigm of invention (to create the new,
what does not exist yet). We can even go further in postulating that ID seems an
unavoidable way as soon as OD shows an exhausted space of potential improvement
when the best possible compromise is found and maintained [4].
In short, OD presupposes a problem well posed and documented, adapted to
certain contexts, while ID is more adapted to situations where the problem is badly
formulated, where a certain amount of interpretation are to be made and in a context
where the willingness to innovate is strong. K Dorst in [4] is presenting a typology
of design problems where the distinction between two types of problems is
fundamental: those which presuppose the existence of a structure of the problem
“objectified” existing a priori and the others who partially sees design rather as a co-
 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design 3

evolution where the process consists in developing and simultaneously refining

formulation and the ideas for synthesizing a solution.
This way of considering the situation has of course consequences on the way
knowledge is gathered in ID.

1.2 Problem formulation in design

It is generally mentioned in contributions brought to the design science that

problem formulation remains a disciplinary field poorly exploited by scientists [5].
Mc Guire goes even further advancing that one of the reasons is that researchers in
design have concentrated their efforts on the phases of exploration, selection,
implementation and evaluation. The paradox is that these same scientists do
recognize the crucial aspect of problems formulation in a process of design. Even
beyond scientists, it is of notoriety that a well formulated problem is half solved.
Whatever is the path adopted in design, the phase dedicated to problem
formulation has a multidisciplinary character where social, economic and
engineering (all disciplines potentially concerned) interfere with each others. The
goal of this phase is to reveal problems in order to engage a resolution process in the
appropriate direction. Some researchers, as Meijers, are even advancing that all
possible spaces where the problems are situated and appears to the designers should
be entirely specified [6].
Among contributions on this subject, let us note that Restrepo and Christiaans
stressed the importance of the problems of designer’s knowledge accumulation while
postulating that the primary representations (often built upon a small quantity of
data) attribute the degree of clearness of the problem in its future [7]. Lloyd and
Scott even advanced that personal experiences observed as prerequisite are a
determinant variable sometimes placing the designer under either the paradigm of
problem or solution [8].
Goel and Pirolli recall that most of research in problem solving was carried out,
for practical reasons, on the basis of well structured tasks, semantically simple with
clearly defined objectives. What makes axiomatization easy but differs from lived
realities of designers in industry [9]. Last, Darke explains why in formulation,
designers are exposed to interpretations when disclosing problems [10]. They
unconsciously associate to the initial problematic images of possible solutions
elaborated on the basis of their respective knowledge, making this process directly
dependant on the designer’s acquired know-how.

1.3 Structuring knowledge’s in a « problem-oriented » model

Our objectives to contribute to Computer Aided Innovation (CAI) can be

summarized as follows: The suggested model contributing to innovation activities
management rely on the assumption that inventive activities must evolve towards the
resolution of revealed “inventive challenges”.
This is why we start from a set of notions posed a priori which have the role to
drive knowledge acquisition process so as to facilitate innovation: the main concept
advocates that a design problem must be associated to a contradiction oriented
formalism which will be further detailed. In sort, a problem is a contradiction (as it is
4 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design

stated in [11]). A contradiction describes the problem precisely at its axiomatic level.
A contradiction is representative of a clearly expressed inventive challenge to be
solved for the concerned system. Then, the undertaken direction to assume
inventiveness is to solve it without compromise. In priority, the whole set of
contradictions useful for problems definition of the studied domain needs to be
disclosed and the links between these contradictions established. The concept of
contradiction is axiomatically described by E-N-V formalism (Element Name of the
feature-Value) brought from OTSM-TRIZ1 [12] so as influences parameters have
between them: the modification of a value of a parameter in a given direction
induces the modification of another. These components are to be extracted,
completed and validate by the concerned domain experts so as by other actors of the
project.
In the model suggested through this article, we start from the principle that the
methodology employed must propose a problem representation formalism, formally
defined in order to offer to designers a simple and shareable model (easy to
manipulate by a computer). The attributes towards which we intend to move for this
formulation phase are:
• Speed: the speed to which knowledge of the experts fields passes from tacit,
to explicit then formalized stage;
• Universality: the capacity of the formalism to be accepted at various
departments, services, persons of the company;
• Representativeness: the capacity of the model to give project actors a clear
and reliable representation of the whole set of problems within the scope of
the study.
• Dynamicity: the easiness of the model to be permanently updated.

2 Ontology building

2.1 Two fundamentals brought from TRIZ

For a few years TRIZ is observed and appreciated as a set of theoretical and
methodological elements assisting the creative phases of the product/systems design
process. Regarding this statement we would like to underline that current uses of
elements of this theory of inventive problem solving associated with technical
systems evolution, are only partial. Our approach borrowed from TRIZ two of its
fundamental axioms:
The contradiction axiom: Proposes a dual formalism of problem’s expression.
The interest we observe here is that contradiction breaks up in a pragmatic way the
attributes, often confused in a problem statement. Its duality underlines and brings
forward the opposite character between desirable but contradictory directions.
Contradiction consequently becomes a simple and effective mode of expression
problems, stakes and unsolved inventive challenges.

1
OTSM TRIZ stands as the Russian acronym of General Theory of Powerful Thinking, as it
is expressed in [16]
 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design 5

The axiom of laws of technical system’s evolution [13]: It advances, in the same
current of thought as Simondon [14], Deforges [15] and others that Technical
Systems (TS) follow generic tendencies throughout their existence. These laws, at
the grounding of TRIZ, were extracted consecutively to the analysis of thousands of
systems. With at each step of their evolution, key patents protecting solutions
resulting from problems having been solved an inventive way. These patents,
analyzed by the founders of TRIZ, revealed similarities in the fact that at certain
stages of the evolution of a TS, there are invariants generic and common to all TS. In
our approach, laws become a mean of assistance to study orientations since there is a
high probability that a technical system is invariably aiming at being in accordance
with these laws in its intrinsic evolution.
The process of knowledge acquisition and manipulation will then be based on
these two concepts to help reformulation of the initial problem statement through a
net of problems as specified in [16], each one attached to a set of contradictions. The
laws of TS evolutions are used to select among a large quantity of evoked parameters
in the exchanges with domain experts which ones appears as a barrier to a logical
evolution of the artefact and form important contradictions among which it will be
necessary to select those needing to be solved. ID already possesses, through
classical TRIZ Body of knowledge, methods and tools to solve a single
contradiction.

2.2 Concepts Ontology brought to TRIZ

Knowledge acquisition will lead to the creation of a shared model and the model
concept must then be clearly defined. The gathering of knowledge is carried out
without a precise ordering, a parameter will appear perhaps initially without
belonging to a contradiction, a contradiction will perhaps appear without mentioning
its dependence to a problem etc… We currently develop a software prototype
dedicated to knowledge acquisition, it fulfils for now only the function of memo pad
(it does not yet allows reasoning on acquired knowledge). To elaborate this software,
it was necessary to clearly define the concepts implemented and the relations that
they present, it consists in providing assistance to the detection of possible
inconsistencies and eventual missing items. To clarify relations between TRIZ
associated concepts is a need; the elaborated model must be sharable, targeting a
semantic integration of all useful sources of information. These information’s might
be extracted either from the speech of an expert (interviews, working sessions…) or
captured in texts (patents, list of requirements, norms).
The starting point of our contribution consists in giving a representation of the
used concepts borrowed to TRIZ for the development of the ontology in question.
This ontology has been built for the moment with PROTÉGÉ. Here, our choice is to
describe it using UML formalism, for readability reasons. Figure 1 gives a partial
UML representation of this ontology.
6 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design

Parameter
-description
-name

is
Description according to E-N-V formalism

d
-measured value

es
-importance

cr
ibe
d
by
Value Element
Evaluation Parameter influences
-desired value
influence 1
s
opposit in a Opposite Value
e way
2
1 1 TRIZ System + Env. Product Substance
1 1
1
Contradiction
Action Parameter on
-description acts
-importance 1
Energy Main Useful Function
-loi(s) concernée(s) 1

rs
live
TRIZ System Model de

feeds
1 1

1 1
Motor Transmission Work

Description according to Integrality law formalism Control

Figure 1: Partial ontology of TRIZ concepts used in our approach

During knowledge acquisition, the entering point towards contradictions is a
systemic model used by TRIZ. It has the aim of provoking discussion between
participants of the design project and to invite them to objectively specify a certain
amount of concepts. This prerequisite can at first appear useless since a company
obviously knows what they are manufacturing, but it often appears that domain
experts of the same company are carrying different perceptions concerning the same
object. This will invariably lead to description difficulties. Our analysis for the
description of a technical system can be observed like the notion of artefact (what
man built entirely or partially) this artefact being associated to a Main Useful
Function (MUF) which justifies its existence. This artefact can be considered as a
System and thus its MUF acts on an object which is identified as the receptor
receiving the MUF. The decomposition must then be done in coherence with
Altshuller’s law of completeness by identifying the key components co-producing
this MUF. These components are four (Engine, Transmission, Work and Control).
The engine is powered by an energy coming from outside.
Contradiction formalism is an association of three different types of components:
elements, parameters and values.
Elements are components of a system. If one analyses sentences where they are
mentioned, elements are generally subjects, or simply names or nominal groups or
complements of object (for example: the hammer hits the nail; E=hammer). The
nature of elements can constantly switch between different systemic levels
depending on the description attributed to it. Thus the hammer hits the nail can
become, the <anvil> inserts the nail under the point of view of another expert. In this
second case, E=anvil. For a third one <man> inserts the nail, etc…. It is important,
when identical situations are described with divergent viewpoints, to organize a
 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design 7

consensus by forcing the reformulation (for instance within the meaning of physics)
using the systemic decomposition stated beforehand. The principal interest of the
systemic model is thus to unify viewpoints and at the same time formulations of the
concerned elements while building a model composed of physical objects in their
respective roles.
• Parameters qualify elements while allocating them a specificity which, associated
to elements, represent an explicit knowledge of the field observed. The forms of
their expression are multiple; they are mainly names, complements of objects or
adverbs. They are divided in two categories:
– Action Parameters: they represent parameters on which the designer has a
capacity of state modifications (the designer can make a design choice, an
anvil of large volume or a small one, in this case volume = AP).
– Evaluation Parameters: Their nature lies in the capacity to evaluate the
positive aspect resulting from a choice of the designer. The consequence to
design an anvil with an important mass is that an ease of insertion is a logical
consequence; (in this case Ease of driving = EP).
• Values are mainly adjectives employed to qualify a parameter (the volume of the
anvil must be important; in this case Important = Va). Let us note that the
fundamental aspect of the concept of contradiction lies in the opposition of the
values and the fact that if V, in a specific state, involves positive aspects, then to
lead to a contradiction, it is essential to investigate the opposite of V (Vā)
generally forgotten in the description, to highlight it and to validate that the
contradictory aspects of the analysis are true. Thus, an anvil of large volume
involves an ease of insertion and a small volume of anvil involves an ease of
handling (in this case Va = important and Vā = small).
Finally, a last stage to highlight the concept of contradiction is to check the
reversibility of the assertions. Will an important mass of anvil invariably involve a
bad ease of handling? Will a low mass invariably involve a bad ease of insertion? If
the answer is yes in both cases, the contradiction can be validated and stored,
becoming a partial representation of the knowledge associated to the description of
the problems involved in the evolution of the hammer.
The use we make out of ENV formalism will consist in extracting, according to
its frame, the whole set of knowledge held by available experts and contained in
various available documents of the studied domain.

2.3 Aims and usages of the ontology

The direction we intend to give to our work through this article, in particular
concerning the use of the ontology’s results, can be summarized in 3 points:
One of the original goals of an ontology is to clarify the concepts of a domain of
knowledge. In our case, TRIZ has almost never been subjected to an ontological
description except in [17]. This statement can easily be perceived when observing
the divergences of viewpoint concerning its contents and goals. However, the uses
which we intend to build, resulting from TRIZ, require establishing one.
Thereafter, we intend to contribute to the efficiency of inventive design processes by
fast and reliable gathering of ENV elements of given knowledge domain. This
8 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design

efficiency could be reached only if formalized elements allowing computerization

and measurement are established.
Finally the formalism employed must be pursued until it reaches exhaustively in
problem’s perception for an R&D decision maker. We further plan to be respectful to
this ontology for data manipulation and to give them exploitable forms within the
meaning of Inventive Design’s efficiency.
The realization of a software prototype uses this ontology and takes part in the
construction of the implied models; it guarantees certain coherence and makes it
possible to point out on imprecise situations (incomplete contradictions etc). The
software, based on internal representation of knowledge, allows visualization of
missing or badly structured elements and assists the construction of a model
commonly built and shared. The construction proceeds by iteration, reformulation,
gathering of new parameters, etc. Only when everything appears stabilized and
contradictions considered as fundamental are extracted, we possess a modelized
domain which reflects realities and is now ready to be analysed for engaging
Inventive Problem Solving Activities.

3 Case example

3.1 Situation’s description

Due to paper’s length limitation, this section will be limited to discuss about the
results of our gathering stage. The presented case is treating the overall problematic
of lowering energy to release a Door Latch System. The concept of Low Energy
Release (LRE) is an actual concern in automotive industry, mostly in supplier’s
R&D where permanently innovative solutions must be proposed to car constructors.
In appendix 1, is proposed a schematic illustration of the overall contradictions
gathered questioning domain experts during 3 sessions of half a day. In total, 58
contradictions have been gathered and organized so as to illustrate which challenge
are to be addressed within this domain.
For instance a contradiction is read the following way:
TC12.2 [AP12]“Distance” between [E]“claw axis and pawl engagement radius”
should be both [Va]“small” for lowering [EP16]“walkout risks” and [Vā]“large” for
maximizing [EP23]“crash retention capacity”.
Such expressed problematic is still unsolved and as a decision for engaging R&D
Inventive Activities would disserve to be considered. To add pertinence for decision
purposes, contradictions have been weighted and priorized according to company’s
strategy.

3.2 Case analysis and partial conclusions

The methodology developed in [18] demonstrates that in a set of contradictions

covering a knowledge domain, it is crucial for an R&D decision maker to have a
clear vision of the targeted objectives when launching an inventive solving activity.
Among others, at the level of engineers, it has been observed that the benefit of such
a representation adds traceability to the generated concepts, therefore providing them
 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design 9

a structured approach (arguments) when defending their concepts in front of

company’s deciders. Contradictions treated are clearly expressed problems they have
tackled and EPs are positively improved engineering issues. In addition, the fact that
their concept (if this one is respectful to TRIZ’s groundings) is not resulting of a
compromise (Both EP’s are improved), inventiveness is appearing significantly.

4 Discussions

4.1 Questionings

The first point we wanted to emphasize relates to the benefit and limitations of
contradiction formalism. In the introduction paragraph, we postulated that
contradiction formalism could contribute to complexity reduction and therefore ease
complex problems representation and data manipulation. In light of several case
study results, we have observed that a large amount of data’s were investigated and
disclosed in a short amount of time. Comparatively, engineers having tackled the
same problem during several years have noticed that on the same knowledge domain,
what was traditionally a set of disharmonized vision of actors resulting in a fuzzy set
of data’s for qualifying which problems to address, has been transformed into a clear
shared model of expressing their know-how.
A second point to discuss is the paradigm shift in design from “assuming
functional specifications” to “problem to be inventively solved” proposed by our
model. In light of the testimonies received by engineers, they have had difficulties to
enter into this mode of thinking (defining goals through problems). Nevertheless,
after a day of practice, all engineers (except one) have entered pro-actively into this
process and added the result of their reflections and know-how. In light of these
observations, we can draw the hypothesis that problem thinking has not been
sufficiently exploited in Design Science and particularly in R&D structures.
Another point to discuss is the improvement of the ratio between concept
quantity and inventive findings. In ArvinMeritor classical innovation workshop’s
structure, priority was given to the obtaining of a large quantity of ideas. Despite this
indicator has already been argued by [19], it is still a criterion of performance in
many companies. What we have observed in our case was the prolific aspect of the
idea generation stage but not in terms of quantity but in terms of technical disclosure
of the same idea. This resulted in a few categories of concepts where each concept
was significantly described by diverse engineering solutions interpreted by each
member and their personal competence fields. As a result, the quantity of concept
categories was lower but the robustness of each developed idea has resulted in
additional confidence from engineers and directly affected the quantity of patent
filled. Out of these observations, we can postulate that targeting quantity of ideas
may not be the only way of efficiently addressing inventivity in groups. Addressing
the right problem, with a more exhaustive definition of the challenge seems
promising. In other terms, contradiction formalism has helped to clearly define what
was expected from each participant, resulting consequently in a more pro-active
attitude from them.
10 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design

4.2 Addressing limitations

A first an obvious limitation resides on the fact that a specific domain is

presupposed modelized in terms of contradictions. Each contradiction, in our
approach, represents a domain problem (most probably unsolved). Nevertheless, at
no moment we can ensure that all problems have been disclosed. Assuming that
contradictions have been synthesized from available texts and experts questioning
(plus verification and validation), nothing is ensuring a total domain coverage. A
first direction possibly employable to improve this statement is to boost contradiction
revealing automation through a finer reasoning. The expected result is that more
documents browsed and complied would lead to wider domain coverage.
Second limitation, still unsolved, is grounded on the difference of an approach,
“problem-oriented” and a more traditional one “functions-to-be-assumed”, most
often accepting compromise as a solution. This leads us to the problematic to link
Inventive Design and classically employed Optimization Design, omnipresent in
industry nowadays. We strongly believe that this is the most predominant bottleneck
to solve in order for CAI to be on a next level of its own “S” curve: the high
development segment.

5 Conclusions and perspectives

As it has been written and argued many times, differences in people’s mind
between creativity, innovation, invention and problems solving are unclear. Is
Inventing a Problem Solving activity? Should “Functional requirements” or
“problem definition” drive the design process? Nowadays, it is almost impossible to
draw a state of the art of what innovation is. We can even postulate: “one man, one
definition of innovation”. Therefore, this paper was aiming at addressing the
problematic of innovation’s organization through a more structured way to succeed
in Inventive Problem Solving Activities inherent to any Inventive Design process.
We have underlined the problematic of knowledge structuring for efficient problem
statement and proposed a model for addressing this task. The proposed model is
based on a partially automated text analysis eased by both contradiction formalism
and E-N-V model. The ontology built and tested during an industrial application
provided interesting results and leads us to claim that this ontology has significantly
improved the speed of contradiction revealing while diminishing the necessary time
for domain expert to validate and complete the set of contradictions.
The perspectives of this work are now leading us to analyze the problematic of
linking a problem-driven process with actual industrial practices. Nevertheless, we
are inclined to address our future research orientations in engineering design science
with the following observation. Obtaining the best from what is known cannot be
managed as the holistic synthesis what is still unknown.
 Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design 11

6 References

[1] Kevin N. Otto and Erik K., “Trade-off strategies in engineering design”, Antonsson,
Research in Engineering Design, Volume 3, Number 2 (1991), 87-104.
[2] G.S. Altshuller: 1984, “Creativity as an exact science: The Theory of the Solution of
Inventive Problems”, Gordon & Breach, ISBN 0-677-21230-5.
[3] L. J. Gibson, “Mechanical behaviour of metallic foams” , Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 2000.
30:191–227.
[4] André de Korvin, Margaret F. Shipley, “Sample size: achieving quality and reducing
financial loss”, Journal: International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
ISSN: 0265-671X, 2001, Volume: 18 Issue: 7 Page: 678 – 692.
[5] N. Cross, H. Christiaans & K. Dorst, 1993, “Analysing design activity” International
Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, 247-278
[6] Anne P. Massey, Robert M. O'Keefe (1993) “Insights from Attempts to Validate a
Multi-Attribute Model of Problem Definition Quality”, in Decision Sciences 24 (1),
Volume 24 Issue 1, Page 106-125, January.
[7] Meijers, A. W. (2000). “The Relational Ontology of Technical Artifacts” . In P. Kroes &
A. Meijers (Eds.), The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
[8] Restrepo J., Christiaans H., “Problem Structuring and Information Access in Design”,
Journal of Design Research (ISSN: 1748-3050) , vol: 4, issue: 2, 2004, Inderscience
[9] Lloyd, P., & Scott, P. (1994). “Discovering the Design Problem” . Design Studies,
15(2), 125-140
[10] Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). “The Structure of Design Problem Spaces” . Cognitive
Science, 16, 395-429
[11] Darke, J. (1979). “The Primary Generator and the Design Process” . Design Studies,
1(1), 36-44
[12] Cavallucci, D. and Khomenko, N. (2007), “From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: Addressing
complexity challenges in inventive design”, International Journal of Product
Development (IJPD), Volume 4 - Issue 1-2, p 4-21.
[13] Salamatov Yu. P., 1991, “A System of Laws of Engineering Evolution” , in Chance for
Adventure, A.B. Selutsky ed., Petrozavodsk, Russia.
[14] Simondon G. “Du mode d'existence des objets techniques”, Paris, Aubier, 1958 (rééd.
1989), ISBN 2-7007-3414-9.
[15] Deforge Y., “technologie et génétique de l'objet industriel”, Collection UTC Maloine SA
ed., Paris 1981, isbn 2-224-01104-0.
[16] Cavallucci, D., Khomenko, N. (2007), “From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: Addressing
complexity challenges in inventive design”, International Journal of Product
Development (IJPD), Volume 4 - Issue 1, p 4-21.
[17] Dubois S., “Contribution à la formulation de problèmes de conception de systèmes
techniques”, PhD thesis, Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, 2004.
[18] Cavallucci D., Rousselot F., “Improving the relevance of R&D’s problem solving
activities in Inventive Design context”, International Conference on Engineering Design
(ICED), Paris, 28-31-AUG, The Design Society, (forthcoming).
[19] Shaw D., Eden C., Ackermann F. “Evaluating group support systems: improving
brainstorming research methodology”, May 2002, ISBN No: 1 85449 517 8.
 Lowering release efforts (both fully & secondary latch positions) Lowering release stroke Lowering sensitivity to manufacturing tolerences Equivalent effort on first and second latch positions
Lowering
friction at
pawl & claw
interface
12

Lowering
walkout risks
Va
Increasing
Va crash
retention
Confidential
Confidential Va
Lowering
fully latch Va
release Va Va
efforts only Va
Confidential

Confidential Confidential
Va Increasing reliability

Va Va
Lowering Va

Confidential
Noise

Confidential

Confidential
Conventionnality of kinematics
Confidential

Confidential
Confidential
Va Va Va

Confidential
large

Confidential
Confidential Confidential

distance

Confidential
Va
Lowering

Confidential
Va Va
packaging
size small

radius
to pawl
Confidential

Claw axis
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential

Engagement
Cinching
Va energy
Va no

Operating
existence Confidential time
Va

yes Va
Va Confidential
Va
Va
Increasing
Confidential Va Va Va
dust

Appendix 1: Overview of Low Release Energy domain’s challenges

Secondary Confidential tolerence
pawl not- Confidential
required
Va Confidential Confidential
Va
Va

Va Va
Lowering amount of parts Lowering door manoeuvring energy
Structuring knowledge use in Inventive Design