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

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.

[1]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[2]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: addressing complexity challenges in inventive design , 2007 .

[3]  Federico Rotini,et al.  Model and algorithm for computer-aided inventive problem analysis , 2012, Comput. Aided Des..

[4]  P. Frensch,et al.  Complex problem solving : the European perspective , 1995 .

[5]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Margaret M. Burnett,et al.  Gender pluralism in problem-solving software , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[7]  Stefan Kohn,et al.  "Open CAI 2.0" - Computer Aided Innovation in the era of open innovation and Web 2.0 , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[8]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Rev. ed. , 1993 .

[9]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Understanding how the information requests of aerospace engineering designers influence information-seeking behaviour , 2010 .

[10]  David H. Jonassen.  Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problems , 2007 .

[11]  Thomas T. Hewett,et al.  Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[12]  Todd Lubart,et al.  How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the Special Issue , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Federico Rotini,et al.  A TRIZ-based CAI Framework to guide Engineering Students towards a Broad-spectrum Investigation of Inventive Technical Problems , 2013 .

[14]  Altshuller.  Creativity As an Exact Science , 1984 .

[15]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  A research agenda for computing developments associated with innovation pipelines , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[16]  Fumihiko Kimura,et al.  Design methodologies: Industrial and educational applications , 2009 .

[17]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  CHARACTERISING THE INFORMATION REQUESTS OF ENGINEERING DESIGNERS , 2006 .