Collaborative design using solution spaces

Complex design tasks from many domains such as mechanical, electrical and civil engineering make the collaboration of many partners unavoidable for several reasons: knowledge from various experts is necessary, often more than one enterprises are involved and deadlines impose concurrent engineering. However, collaboration also leads to certain in-conveniences such as information loss and misunderstandings during communication and iterative negotiation when suggested partial solutions for sub-tasks conflict. Moreover, major problems are related to management of changes and ensuring design consistency. This thesis conjectures that many of these problems are caused by the use of single solutions during negotiation. Currently, project partners assign single values for sub-tasks and then proceed, often after tedious negotiations with other partners, to integrate these partial solutions into solutions for the whole project. While partners determine one single solution for a sub-task, much information about potential alternatives is lost and premature decisions are taken. The integration of partial solutions then often leads to artificial conflicts which are not due. to incompatible design goals but arise because information about possible compromises is no longer available. Consequently, many changes usually occur during negotiation about parameter values and much, effort must be invested in. order to keep the design consistent. Therefore, we investigate the use of solution spaces instead of single solutions. When solution. spaces are used during negotiation, more information about alternatives is avail-able, premature decisions are avoided and thus, no artificial conflicts arise. Moreover, since project partners provide formal information about project requirements, real conflicts between diverging project goals can be detected. However, the implementation of a collaboration system using solution spaces is far from trivial, since in general the computation of exact solution spaces is intractable. We employ constraint satisfaction techniques in order to calculate solution space approximations. Constraints arise naturally in many fields of engineering and are therefore suited to formally express project requirements. Using constraints on design parameters, project partners can describe large families of acceptable solutions. Moreover, descriptions using constraints can be easily adapted to changes in the project's context. When project descriptions in terms of constraints are available, constraint satisfaction techniques such as consistency can be employed to provide computational support during collaboration. Consistency algorithms use local inconsistencies to prune regions from the original search space where no solution can be expected and thus provide approximations of solution spaces. Algorithms which ensure low degrees of consistency provide a rough over-estimation of the solution space but have low complexity, while algorithms which enforce high degrees of consistency provide a tight estimation of the solution space but suffer from high complexity. Since consistency algorithms provide over-estimations of solution spaces they are suited to find real conflicts between the various project requirements. In fact, using constraint satisfaction techniques in collaboration splits negotiation into two phases: negotiation of project requirements and negotiation about parameter values. During the negotiation of requirements, expressed as constraints, partners search for a feasible set of restrictions. Given such a set of restrictions, partners can negotiate about parameter values within the corresponding solution space approximation. During negotiation about parameter values some support for decision-making can be provided by analysing the shape of the solution space approximations. In order to illustrate the use of constraint satisfaction techniques in collaborative de-sign, a prototype of an Internet-based communication platform has been implemented, which focuses on the exchange of data related to constraints and solution spaces, including the visualisation of constraints and projections of solution space approximation. It provides access to several constraint satisfaction algorithms. Moreover, some standard techniques were extended as follows: A reformulation algorithm transforms algebraic constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) into ternary form, i.e., such that they contain exclusively constraints involving at most three variables. Thereby, few auxiliary variables are introduced and certain intermediary variables are removed in order to provide a small CSP in ternary form. In addition, the use of interval arithmetic techniques to discretise continuous constraints is proposed. Moreover, variants of 2-consistency and 3-consistency for ternary CSPs have been developed and an improvement of (3,2)-relational consistency's space efficiency. Finally, a description of search heuristics for interactive use is described. The results of this research have been evaluated in the context of the construction industry. Construction projects are suitable test cases for collaboration systems, since they always imply complex interactions between several partners from various domains. With the help of practitioners, three realistic examples have been modelled. These projects demonstrate the usefulness of constraint satisfaction techniques during negotiation and collaboration within design projects. Constraint-based support leads to better management of changes and easier implementation of least commitment decision strategies. The results of this research may therefore improve the performance of collaboration systems currently in use.

[1]  Alan K. Mackworth Consistency in Networks of Relations , 1977, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Alan K. Mackworth On Reading Sketch Maps , 1977, IJCAI.

[3]  Eugene C. Freuder Synthesizing constraint expressions , 1978, CACM.

[4]  Henry Fuchs,et al.  On visible surface generation by a priori tree structures , 1980, SIGGRAPH '80.

[5]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Increasing Tree Search Efficiency for Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Eugene C. Freuder A Sufficient Condition for Backtrack-Free Search , 1982, JACM.

[7]  Irene Gargantini,et al.  Linear octtrees for fast processing of three-dimensional objects , 1982, Comput. Graph. Image Process..

[8]  A. Guttmma,et al.  R-trees: a dynamic index structure for spatial searching , 1984 .

[9]  Eugene C. Freuder,et al.  The Complexity of Some Polynomial Network Consistency Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1985, Artif. Intell..

[10]  M. F.,et al.  Bibliography , 1985, Experimental Gerontology.

[11]  Thomas C. Henderson,et al.  Arc and Path Consistency Revisited , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  The R+-Tree: A Dynamic Index for Multi-Dimensional Objects , 1987, VLDB.

[13]  David K. Smith Theory of Linear and Integer Programming , 1987 .

[14]  Hanan Samet,et al.  Hierarchical data structures and algorithms for computer graphics. II. Applications , 1988, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[15]  Oliver Günther,et al.  Efficient Structures for Geometric Data Management , 1988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Philippe Jégou,et al.  A filtering process for general constraint-satisfaction problems: achieving pairwise-consistency using an associated binary representation , 1989, [Proceedings 1989] IEEE International Workshop on Tools for Artificial Intelligence.

[17]  Hanan Samet,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Spatial Data Structures , 1989 .

[18]  F. Frances Yao,et al.  Binary partitions with applications to hidden surface removal and solid modelling , 1989, SCG '89.

[19]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Temporal Constraint Networks , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Tree Clustering for Constraint Networks , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Hanan Samet,et al.  Applications of spatial data structures , 1989 .

[22]  Hans-Peter Kriegel,et al.  The R*-tree: an efficient and robust access method for points and rectangles , 1990, SIGMOD '90.

[23]  John Amanatides,et al.  Merging BSP trees yields polyhedral set operations , 1990, SIGGRAPH.

[24]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..

[25]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1990, AAAI.

[26]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: Overview and Perspectives , 1991, Wissensbasierte Systeme.

[27]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: some issues and experiences , 1991, CACM.

[28]  Bruce F. Naylor,et al.  Interactive solid geometry via partitioning trees , 1992 .

[29]  Luiz Velho,et al.  Physically-based methods for polygonization of implicit surfaces , 1992 .

[30]  Peter van Beek,et al.  On the Minimality and Decomposability of Constraint Networks , 1992, AAAI.

[31]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Distributed constraint satisfaction for formalizing distributed problem solving , 1992, [1992] Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[32]  James Bowen,et al.  Constraint-based software for concurrent engineering , 1993, Computer.

[33]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  PACT: an experiment in integrating concurrent engineering systems , 1993, Computer.

[34]  William A. Wulf,et al.  Capturing design rationale in concurrent engineering teams , 1993 .

[35]  Tim Smithers,et al.  Creativity and design as exploration , 1993 .

[36]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  FCDA: A framework for collaborative distributed multidisciplinary design , 1993 .

[37]  Mark Klein,et al.  Capturing design rationale in concurrent engineering teams , 1993, Computer.

[38]  Charles J. Petrie The Redux' server , 1993, [1993] Proceedings International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems.

[39]  K. J. Werkman Using negotiation and coordination in collaborative design , 1993 .

[40]  Masao Sakauchi,et al.  A Balanced Hierarchical Data Structure for Multidimensional Data with Highly Efficient Dynamic Characteristics , 1993, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[41]  William N. Robinson Interactive Decision Support for Requirements Negotiation , 1994 .

[42]  Eugene C. Freuder,et al.  Constraint reasoning based on interval arithmetic: the tolerance propagation approach , 1994 .

[43]  Christian Bessiere,et al.  Arc-Consistency and Arc-Consistency Again , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[44]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Design Space Navigation as a Collaborative Aid , 1994 .

[45]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Progressive Negotiation for Resolving Conflicts among Distributed Heterogeneous Cooperating Agents , 1994, AAAI.

[46]  Mark D. Gross Avoiding Conflicts in Architectural Subsystem Layout , 1994 .

[47]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Hilbert R-tree: An Improved R-tree using Fractals , 1994, VLDB.

[48]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Coordinating distributed ViewPoints: the Anatomy of a Consistency Check , 1994 .

[49]  W. D. Jonge,et al.  S + -trees: an efficient structure for the representation of large pictures , 1994 .

[50]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Arc-Consistency for Continuous Variables , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[51]  James Bowen,et al.  An Axiomatic Approach that Supports Negotiated Resolution of Design Conflicts in Concurrent Engineering , 1994 .

[52]  Marc Gyssens,et al.  Decomposing Constraint Satisfaction Problems Using Database Techniques , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[53]  Sanjai Tiwari,et al.  Automated Configuration Management in Concurrent Engineering Projects , 1994 .

[54]  James Bowen,et al.  Mediating Conflict in Concurrent Engineering with a Protocol Based on Utility , 1994 .

[55]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  An agent-based approach to concurrent cable harness design , 1994, Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf..

[56]  Gregory P. Pasley,et al.  Using Artificial Intelligence for Concurrent Design in the Steel Building Industry , 1994 .

[57]  Daniel Kuokka,et al.  A Collaborative Parametric Design Agent , 1994, AAAI.

[58]  William P. Birmingham,et al.  Automated design for concurrent engineering , 1994, IEEE Expert.

[59]  H. Craig Howard,et al.  Improving design and documentation by using partially automated synthesis , 1994, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[60]  Thomas Froese Models of Construction Process Information , 1995 .

[61]  Alexander Kott,et al.  Representation and Management of Requirements: The RAPID-WS Project , 1995 .

[62]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Spatial composition using cases: IDIOM , 1995, ICCBR.

[63]  Kincho H. Law,et al.  A Data Management Model for Design Change Control , 1995 .

[64]  James Bowen,et al.  Mixed quantitative/qualitative method for evaluating compromise solutions to conflicts in collaborative design , 1995, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[65]  Kuo-Liang Chung,et al.  A fast search algorithm on modified S-trees , 1995, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[66]  Peihua Gu,et al.  A Constraint-Based System for Product Design , 1995 .

[67]  Peter van Beek,et al.  A Theoretical Evaluation of Selected Backtracking Algorithms , 1995, IJCAI.

[68]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  Dynamic Variable Ordering in CSPs , 1995, CP.

[69]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Look-Ahead Value Ordering for Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1995, IJCAI.

[70]  Charles J. Petrie,et al.  Using Pareto optimality to coordinate distributed agents , 1995, Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf..

[71]  Feniosky Peña-Mora,et al.  Design rationale for computer-supported conflict mitigation , 1995 .

[72]  John Sharpe,et al.  Conflict management in an interdisciplinary design environment , 1995, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[73]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster , 1995 .

[74]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Management of conflict for preliminary engineering design tasks , 1995, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[75]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Constraint Consistency Techniques for Continuous Domains , 1995 .

[76]  Gregory R. Olsen,et al.  Collaborative Engineering Based on Knowledge Sharing Agreements , 1995 .

[77]  Eswaran Subrahmanian,et al.  Concurrent design happens at the interfaces , 1995, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[78]  Eric Pascal Sauthier Model based supervisory control using empirical knowledge , 1996 .

[79]  Ian Smith,et al.  CADRE: case-based geometric design , 1996, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[80]  William P. Birmingham,et al.  An attribute-space representation and algorithm for concurrent engineering , 1996, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[81]  Norman M. Sadeh,et al.  Variable and Value Ordering Heuristics for the Job Shop Scheduling Constraint Satisfaction Problem , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[82]  K. Badhrinath,et al.  Modeling for Concurrent Design Using Game Theory Formulations , 1996 .

[83]  Renate Fruchter,et al.  Conceptual, Collaborative Building Design Through Shared Graphics , 1996, IEEE Expert.

[84]  Toby Walsh,et al.  An Empirical Study of Dynamic Variable Ordering Heuristics for the Constraint Satisfaction Problem , 1996, CP.

[85]  David C. Brown,et al.  Conflicts and Negotiation in Single Function Agent Based Design Systems , 1996 .

[86]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Creating design objects from cases for interactive spatial composition , 1996 .

[87]  Martin Fischer,et al.  EXAMPLES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SHARED PROJECT MODELS , 1996 .

[88]  Mark S. Fox,et al.  A Requirement Ontology for Engineering Design , 1996 .

[89]  Timothy Darr,et al.  Hierarchical Concurrent Engineering , 1996 .

[90]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Madefast: collaborative engineering over the Internet , 1996, CACM.

[91]  William P. Birmingham,et al.  Hierarchical Concurrent Engineering in a Multiagent Framework , 1996 .

[92]  Ram D. Sriram,et al.  Developing Knowledge Sources to Identify and Evaluate Tradeoffs among Alternate Designs in a Cooperative Engineering Framework , 1997 .

[93]  Mark Klein An Exception Handling Approach to Enhancing Consistency, Completeness, and Correctness in Collaborative Requirements Capture , 1997 .

[94]  John E. Renaud,et al.  A Comparison of Equality Constraint Formulations for Concurrent Design Optimization , 1997 .

[95]  Utpal Roy,et al.  Product Development in a Collaborative Design Environment , 1997 .

[96]  Biren Prasad,et al.  Towards a Computer-Supported Cooperative Environment for Concurrent Engineering , 1997 .

[97]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Local Consistency for Ternary Numeric Constraints , 1997, IJCAI.

[98]  Christian Bessiere,et al.  Arc Consistency for General Constraint Networks: Preliminary Results , 1997, IJCAI.

[99]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Collaborative Design using Constraint Solving , 1997 .

[100]  D. Sriram,et al.  Computer Aided Collaborative Product Development , 1998 .

[101]  Rudi Stouffs,et al.  Supports for Information and Communication in a Collaborative Building Project , 1998, AID.

[102]  Esther Gelle,et al.  On the generation of locally consistent solution spaces in mixed dynamic constraint problems , 1998 .

[103]  Gilles Trombettoni,et al.  Using Graph Decomposition for Solving Continuous CSPs , 1998, CP.

[104]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Constraint solving and preference activation for interactive design , 1998, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[105]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Constraint techniques for collaborative design , 1998, Proceedings Tenth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (Cat. No.98CH36294).

[106]  Peter O'Grady,et al.  Distributed Concurrent Engineering: Internet-Based Interactive 3-D Dynamic Browsing and Markup of STEP Data , 1998 .

[107]  Claude Bédard,et al.  Information Model for Managing Design Changes in a Collaborative Environment , 1998 .

[108]  Gerhard Schmitt A new collaborative design environment for engineers and architects , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[109]  John C. Kunz,et al.  Collaborative desktop engineering , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[110]  Narendra Jussien,et al.  Dynamic Domain Splitting for Numeric CSPs , 1998, ECAI.

[111]  Xavier Boucher,et al.  A Decision Support System for a Concurrent Design of Cable Harnesses: Conceptual Approach and Implementation , 1998 .

[112]  Barbara M. Smith,et al.  Trying Harder to Fail First , 1998, ECAI.

[113]  Feniosky Peña-Mora,et al.  COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATION METHODOLOGY , 1998 .

[114]  Pascal Van Hentenryck,et al.  Newton - Constraint Programming over Nonlinear Constraints , 1998, Sci. Comput. Program..

[115]  Divine T. Ndumu,et al.  Agents in computer-assisted collaborative design , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[116]  Li Chen,et al.  On the Tradeoff Control to Concurrent Product and Process Design , 1998 .

[117]  Abhay Gupta,et al.  Implementing Java Computing: Sun on Architecture and Applications Development , 1998, IEEE Internet Comput..

[118]  Feniosky Peña-Mora,et al.  A collaborative negotiation methodology for large scale civil engineering and architectural projects , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[119]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Constraint-Based Support for Collaboration in Design and Construction , 1999 .

[120]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  A Comparison of Structural CSP Decomposition Methods , 1999, IJCAI.

[121]  Claudio Lottaz Rewriting Numeric Constraint Satisfaction Problems for Consistency Algorithms , 1999, CP.

[122]  Rudi Stouffs,et al.  Increasing Understanding During Collaboration Through Advanced Representations , 2000, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[123]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Combining Constraint Propagation and Backtracking for Distributed Engineering , 2002 .