An Approach to Identify the Readiness Level of a Solution Concept in the Inventive Design Method

Abstract It is generally known that the ranking of ideas during creative sessions creates two majors problems. The first is to undervalue a promising idea and thus wash away business priorities. The second is to overstate a false good idea that will be the underlying cause of unnecessary expenses. Although the subject of ranking ideas is spread and common in studies and research, it still poses an obvious contradiction: the level of definition of an idea must be precise to secure investments and imprecise to preserve its innovative role. In our research on this topic, we endeavored to highlight a new path that would both simplify engineers access to formal calculation (such as to give credibility to an idea by removing the blur surrounding it) while preserving potential inventive margins by identifying for each concept its degree of feasibility. However, this second part was not clearly defined in our research. In this paper, we present a complementary aspect of our approach. Its underlying idea is to associate each index to a TRL (Technical Readiness Level) that is likely to assess in an objective and formal way its maturity with a recognized scale in industrial environments. A case study and a discussion of the results of the contribution will be discussed at the end of the paper.

[1]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  Towards a formal definition of contradiction in inventive design , 2012, Comput. Ind..

[2]  Bryan Michael O'Halloran A framework to model reliability and failures in complex systems during the early engineering design process , 2013 .

[3]  Ellen Domb,et al.  Simplified TRIZ: New Problem-Solving Applications for Engineers and Manufacturing Professionals , 2002 .

[4]  Amadou Coulibaly,et al.  Safety-based availability assessment at design stage , 2014, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[5]  Michael A. Orloff,et al.  Inventive Thinking through TRIZ: A Practical Guide , 2006 .

[6]  Vicky L. Putman,et al.  Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making , 2009 .

[7]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering , 1991 .

[8]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  REQUIREMENTS FOR A FAILURE MODE TAXONOMY FOR USE IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN , 2003 .

[9]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  Engineering Design A Systematic Approach , 2016 .

[10]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 1992 .

[11]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  TEAM STORM: demonstrating an interaction model for working with multiple ideas during creative group work , 2007, C&C '07.

[12]  Jean Renaud,et al.  Understanding the rapid evaluation of innovative ideas in the early stages of design , 2010 .

[13]  Kathryn Cormican,et al.  An Ontology Model for Systems Engineering Derived from ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288: 2015: Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes , 2016 .

[14]  Robert Stone,et al.  The risk in early design method , 2009 .

[15]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  An ontological basis for computer aided innovation , 2009, Comput. Ind..

[16]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  The function-failure design method , 2005 .

[17]  G. Altshuller Creativity as an exact science : the theory of the solution of inventive problems , 1984 .

[18]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  Use of formal ontologies as a foundation for inventive design studies , 2011, Comput. Ind..