# Solution Concept Modeling and Evaluation Based on Function-Structure and Behavior Approach in the Context of Inventive Design

Muhammed Irshad Yehya, Amadou Coulibaly, Hicham Chibane, Remy Houssin

► To cite this version:

Muhammed Irshad Yehya, Amadou Coulibaly, Hicham Chibane, Remy Houssin. Solution Concept Modeling and Evaluation Based on Function-Structure and Behavior Approach in the Context of Inventive Design. Creative Solutions for a Sustainable Development: 21st International TRIZ Future Conference, TFC 2021, Bolzano, Italy, September 22-24, 2021, Sep 2021, Bolzano, Italy. pp.456-464, 10.1007/978-3-030-86614-3_36. hal-03412226

HAL Id: hal-03412226

https://hal.science/hal-03412226

Submitted on 2 Nov 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
Solution Concept Modeling and Evaluation Based on
Function- Structure and Behavior Approach in the
Context of Inventive Design

Muhammad Irshad YEHYA¹,², Amadou COULIBALY¹, Hicham CHIBANE¹ and
Remy HOUSSIN ²

¹ICUBE Laboratory-CSIP Team, INSA of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

² ICUBE Laboratory-CSIP Team, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
muhammad.irshad_yehya@insa-strasbourg.fr

**Abstract.** With the advancement in technology, market competition and global-
ization, innovative design processes are attracting researchers and designers
more. There are many innovative methods upon which designers mainly depend
on the initial phase of innovative concept generation. However, literature shows
that these techniques have some research gaps in terms of the final evaluation
and selection of best solution concept. In this study, we identify three scientific
questions for evaluation method of solution concepts resulting from the TRIZ
based inventive design method, first, how to define a solution concept, then a
Function-Structure-Behavior approach for modeling solution concept. The pro-
posed model is based on object-oriented modeling formalism. Then in future,
using this solution concept modeling we will identify, analyze and classify eval-
uation criterion to evaluate solution concepts.

**Keywords:** Inventive Design, Solution Concept Modeling, Function-Behavior-Structure Approach

# 1 Introduction

Concept generation can be seen as a matter of generating, developing and communi-
cating ideas, where ‘idea’ is understood as a basic element of thought [1] while solution
concept (SC) is the final form of an idea that can be either visual, concrete or abstract.
The evaluation and selection SC is an important part of concept generation in design
process because of its effect on all following steps in terms of performance, quality,
maintainability, cost, safety, etc., of the selected SC for development [2].

The inventive design method IDM is a problem solving tool derived from the theory
of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) with the intention to assist the engineers in in-
ventive design process [3][4][5]. The TRIZ based IDM is based on the understanding
of the initial problem, transform the problem into the form of a contradiction, and solve
this latter by taking into account inventive principles and patents databases. At the end
of the problem-solving process, several SCs that solve the initial problem are identified
[6][7][8]. After the generation of SCs the evaluation and selection phase is most
important phase as failure of a selected SC for development can barely be compensated at next phases of advance design and development by resulting into long time of redesign and rework expense without any solution and disadvantages of delay in commercialization of product than competitors [9].

Literature shows in various evaluation methods, mostly qualitative, the evaluation is done by identifying criterion from design requirements dominated by voice of customers and experience of decision maker [10][11][12]. Many researchers have developed different methods, to evaluate and select the more suitable SCs, including identifying evaluation criteria from concept of ideality [13], using functional ideal model and the algorithm [14] and by comparing Problem Model and SCs [15]. Recently Thongchai [8] used Design of Experiments (DOE) method to evaluate SCs from concept of feasibility. Besides this, selection of best SC is not easy, since the IDM provides a list of SCs and no further input to go for the selection of best SC to develop [16][2] resulting the final selection of SC depends on the R&D department or the top management of the company. That is why, the absence of a confident model does not allow evaluation and compare competing concepts thereby making a challenge for researchers and designers to develop a confident model for evaluation of SCs in IDM. So, there is a need for an evaluation framework for SCs generate in IDM [16].

In our case of SCs, the evaluation step will be focusing on criterion related to TRIZ parameters. Keeping the evaluation research gap in view [16], in this study as a first step of SCs evaluation, we deal with the following scientific questions:

* Define what is a SC in a more general context?

* How SC could be represented?

* Define evaluation criterion?

In our case, we are mainly focused on IDM which is based on TRIZ theory. The generated SCs not only contain functional data, but also very likely to have data of behavioral and structural domains. So, we propose a FSB (Function Structure Behavior) SC modeling based on object-oriented modeling formalism. Further this modeling will be used to identify evaluation criterion using TRIZ parameters. Because of the importance of function, behavior and structure, there have been countless definitions, descriptions, and discussions on them in the research community. The Function Behavior Structure FBS approach initially proposed by [17][18][19] forms part of the research area in functional, behavioral and structural modeling, a general idea is shown in Fig 1. The FBS ontology is a design ontology that describes all designed things, or artefacts, irrespective of the specific discipline of designing. The propose method is different from others in TRIZ but not a novelty regarding Function-Behavior-Structure theory using in TRIZ as some researches have already used FBS and TRIZ by rewriting TRIZ principles based on FBS[20], using FBS for device functions clarification [21] or using FBS for TRIZ contradiction definitions [21].

This paper is structured as follows. Section 1 introduces SC and highlights the importance of evaluation and indicates the scientific questions. Section 2 presents our general work on SC modeling, highlights our position in IDM phases, and shows using FBS for SC modeling. Section 3 shows classification of TRIZ parameters with respect to function, structure and behavior domains. Finally, the conclusions and future perspectives were represented in the last section.
## 2 Solution Concept Modeling Using FSB

In proposing SC modeling, this research will be an addition to the previous research work of TRIZ-IDM that generates SCs for inventive design process[8]. The IDM is subdivided into four main steps shown in Fig 1: initial situation analysis, contradiction formulation, SC generation, and SC selection or evaluation [6].

In our research first how, we define a SC: A SC can be considered as a virtual product describes by words only, sketches only with no words, or a combination of words and sketches. It is just an idea which is not really realized in terms of product, but we can say that this SC has to full fill some functions. So, SC has already a functional dimension. Keeping this in view, in the case of IDM, SCs already consist of functions. SC modeling is a critical foundation for evaluation of SC. As we are mostly concerned with the TRIZ tools developed SC which is very near to product design concepts so for SC modeling we can use the product design concept modeling approaches such as Function Structure Behavior FSB approaches.

### 2.1 Function Behavior Structure Approach

There are many ways adopted in literature to model design concepts. The structural modeling of concept, named function structure [22] which defines all functions and relationships between functions and the relationships are defined by flow (material, signal and energy). This kind of model can be constructed based on the function tree [23]. Following this idea many structured methods developed consisting Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) [24], Structure-Behavior-Function (SBF) and Function-Behavior-State (FBS) [25]. Following these different new methods [26] also proposed like "configuration flow graph (CFG). One of our author proposed and developed product modeling approach for behavior performance of product maintainability [27].
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Propose General Framework for Evaluation of SCs in IDM.</figcaption></figure>

The FBS ontology is a design ontology that describes all designed things, or artefacts, irrespective of the specific discipline of designing. Its three fundamental constructs i.e., Function (F), Behavior (B) and Structure (S) are defined as follows:

* **Function dimension:**

Function is the explanation of the SC i.e., what the SC is for. This model deals with the conversion of the requirements into functions that the SC has to realize. Through Functional Analysis related functional specifications are identified. This diagram is helpful to explain the SCs main functions and the constraints to fulfill, etc., as it is used for related things in product design [28].

* **Structure dimension:**

The structure part describes the different components of SC and states their geometry, topology, dimensions, and other physical properties. Using functional specifications and matching functions with parts or sub-assemblies the structural model is derived.

The structural view is similar to physical model [29]. This structural view represents SC information with a description of the physical realization of SC and is strongly related to the physical parameters.

* **Behavior dimension:**

In other words, like behavior is like consumption of inputs (stimuli) and production of outputs (responses). In conventional design engineering, the inputs and outputs that form behavior are flows of either mass, energy, or information. The SC behavior is like the degree and extent of response of a SC to stimulus.
The SCs generated in IDM already consists of functional dimension, further then
these SCs may have a structure and then it may have some behavior. In terms of behav-
ior what can be considered, like if you have the structure and the function then you may
have different behavioral domains like efficiency, performance etc. And then what we
really need to do is to define criteria with respect to these domains, that may allow us
to distinguish between different SCs to evaluate. Satisfying functional requirements is
one of the primary SC requirements. To achieve this, the behavior and structure of the
SC often needs to be explored. Function, behavior and Structure the most fundamental
and dominant concepts. Therefore, this research focuses on the Function, Behavior and
Structure dimensions in SC modeling. A generic schematic of how our SC modeling is
concerned with FBS dimensions shown in Fig 2.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Solution Concepts FBS modeling with focus on TRIZ Parameters.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2 Application of FBS for SC Modeling

The general proposal of this research is to model SC making way for its evaluation. The Fig 1 also shows the position of our contribution to IDM in the first phase of innovative product design process indicated after step 3 i.e., solution concept synthesis. As stated in literature that with the four main steps, IDM develops a list of SCs and rank them using Pugh's matrix and there is no further input from IDM for modeling and selection of SC. This lack is encouraging our research to go for development of an evaluation method of SC. The output of SC modeling with FSB domains will be helpful in identifying the evaluation criteria of SCs. This last step is done by focusing on TRIZ process parameters.

The general implementation of proposed model for evaluation of SCs generate in
IDM is shown in Fig 1. The SC modeling will be helpful to identify criteria for evalu-
ation of SCs by focusing on TRIZ parameters.
The FSB representation of SC deals with the already generated SCs from IDM. So, the generated SC already has function(s). Then main step to follow is the collection of information to predict how a SC will behave and what kind of properties it will show in a particular context. Analysis and simulation are activities that are characteristics for this step. Analysis mainly focuses on estimation of the required behavior for SC and simulation to identify potential limitations or disadvantages. To be able to define the function, behavior and structure of a SC, we propose to use the TRIZ parameters.

## 3 TRIZ Parameters Considering FBS Perspective

Generally, a traditional TRIZ contradiction matrix consists of 39 improving and worsening parameters. In our study, we are using the extended parameters [30] consist of 48 parameters. Following these parameters, suggests different kinds of solutions to a technical or socio-technical problem, that, according to our opinion, they can be extended thinking the parameters in terms of function, behavior, structure of a SC. Characterizing the TRIZ parameters based on FBS makes the user aware if he is acting on the function, on the behavior or on the structure of the SC. By analyzing the parameters with the FBS approach, we can see that most part of parameters can be extended to structure and behavioral directions which could be used as criteria. In Table 1 we characterized and classified TRIZ parameters in the three defined dimensions: function, structure and behavior.

As a next we need to define a set of parameters to describe the SC function, behavior and structure parameters in terms of TRIZ parameters. So, we propose to future generate a set of related criteria for evaluation focusing on TRIZ parameters. This means we need to present the SC in terms of FBS model and by use of TRIZ parameters to identify relevant domain parameters of SC. Once the parameters are defined, we use it to define evaluation criteria and by using multicriteria decision methods the best SC to be identified depending upon the situation given. As the current research is in process so the details of how criteria identification from TRIZ parameters table is not mentioned here.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** TRIZ Parameters and their classification in terms of Function, Behavior and Structure.</caption><thead><tr><th>Sr.</th><th>Parameters</th><th>FBS Domain</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Weight of Moving Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Weight of Stationary Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Length/Angle of Moving Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Length/Angle of Stationary Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Area of Moving Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Area of Stationary Object</td><td>Physical Parameters</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Volume of Moving Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Volume of Stationary Object</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Shape</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Amount of Substance</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Amount of Information</td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Duration of Action of Moving Object</td><td>Behavior</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>13</td><td>Duration of Action of Stationary Object</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Speed</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Force/Torque</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Energy Used by Moving Object</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Energy Used by Stationary Object</td><td>Performance related</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Power</td><td>Parameters</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Stress/Pressure</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Strength</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Stability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Temperature</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Illumination Intensity</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Function Efficiency</td><td></td><td>Function</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Loss of Substance</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Loss of Time</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Loss of Energy</td><td>Efficiency related</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Loss of Information</td><td>Parameters</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Noise</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Harmful Emissions</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Other Harmful Effects Generated by System</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Adaptability/Versatility</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Compatibility/Connectability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Transportability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Trainability/Operability/ Controllability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Reliability/Robustness</td><td>ility (Reliability, Durability related Parameters)</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Reparability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Security</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Safety/Vulnerability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Aesthetics/Appearance</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Other Harmful Effects Acting on System</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Manufacturability</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Manufacture Precision/Consistency</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Automation</td><td>Manufacture/ Cost Parameters</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Productivity</td><td></td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>System Complexity</td><td></td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Control Complexity</td><td></td><td>Structure</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Ability to Detect/Measure</td><td>Measurement</td><td>Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Measurement Precision</td><td>Parameters</td><td>Behavior</td></tr></table>

## 4 Conclusion and Future Perspective

This paper presents an approach to undertakes in future, application of TRIZ parameters and brings some new insight into the SC modeling and FSB approach. It makes the idea that designer can evaluates the performance of a SC in each specific domain by defining
criteria, from TRIZ parameters. The general proposed SC modeling approach focuses on giving the SC a functional, behavioral and structural dimensions. The research is in process and after the completion of the model, this will help in identifying various evaluation criteria of SCs from different dimensions of FSB and in different domains of application.

In future, work illustrating the detail steps showing the applicability of TRIZ parameter tables for criterion and feasibility of our proposed model with case study for evaluation of SC will be done. Also, we work to refine our analyses and classification of TRIZ parameters in terms of FSB approach (Table 1). We have another challenge which is how to extract evaluation criteria from TRIZ inventive parameters in function of domain in which SC will be developed.

## References

[1] B. Jonson, "Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age," *Des. Stud.*, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 613-624, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j destud.2005.03.001.

[2] M. I. Yehya, R. Houssin, A. Colibaly, and H. Chibane, "towards evaluation of solution concepts in inventive design," *acta tech. Napocensis-series appl. Math. Mech. Eng.*, vol. 63, no. 3s, 2020.

[3] G. Altshuller, L. Shulyak, and S. Rodman, "principles: TRIZ keys to technical innovation. Technical Innovation Center," *Inc.*, *Worcester, MA*, 40AD.

[4] D. D. Sheu, C.-H. Chen, and P.-Y. Yu, "Invention principles and contradiction matrix for semiconductor manufacturing industry: chemical mechanical polishing," *J. Intell. Manuf.*, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1637-1648, 2012.

[5] A. Souili, D. Cavallucci, and F. Rousselot, "A lexico-syntactic pattern matching method to extract IDM-TRIZ knowledge from on-line patent databases," *Procedia Eng.*, vol. 131, pp. 418-425, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.437.

[6] D. Cavallucci and I. Strasbourg, "From TRIZ to Inventive Design Method (IDM): towards a formalization of Inventive Practices in R & D Departments," no. Idm, pp. 2-3, 2012.

[7] T. Chinkatham, A. Souili, A. Taheri, and D. Cavallucci, "An Approach to Identify the Readiness Level of a Solution Concept in the Inventive Design Method," *Procedia CIRP*, vol. 39, pp. 179-184, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.185.

[8] T. Chinkatham and D. Cavallucci, "On solution concept evaluation/selection in inventive design," in *Procedia Engineering*, 2015, vol. 131, pp. 1073-1083, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.425.

[9] R. Y. K. Fung, Y. Chen, and J. Tang, "A quality-engineering-based approach for conceptual product design," *Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.*, vol. 32, no. 11-12, pp. 1064-1073, 2007.

[10] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K. Grote, *Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach Third Edition*. 2007.

[11] K. N. Otto, *Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development*. 清华大学出版社有限公司, 2003.

[12] K. T. Ulrich and S. D. Eppinger, "Product design and development," 2004.

[13] K. Rantanen and E. Domb, *Simplified TRIZ: New problem solving applications for*
engineers and manufacturing professionals. CRC press, 2010.

[14] K. Narasimhan, "Inventive thinking through TRIZ: a practical guide," *TQM Mag.*, 2006.

[15] F. Rousselot, C. Zanni-Merk, and D. Cavallucci, "Towards a formal definition of contradiction in inventive design," *Comput. Ind.*, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 231-242, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2012.01.001.

[16] H. C. Muhammad Irshad Yehya, Remy Houssin, Amadou Coulibaly, "State of the art for Evaluation of Inventive Design Solution Concepts," [Online]. Available: http://www.jcm2020ct.com/en/programme/ataglance/j1/.

[17] Y. M. Deng, "Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design," *Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. AIEDAM*, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 343-362, 2002, doi: 10.1017/s0890060402165024.

[18] M. A. Rosenman and J. S. Gero, "The what, the how, and the why in design," *Appl. Artif. Intell. an Int. J.*, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 199-218, 1994.

[19] Y. Umeda, M. Yoshioka, Y. Shimomura, and T. Tomiyama, "Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler," no. April 2014, 1996, doi: 10.1017/S0890060400001621.

[20] D. Russo and C. Spreafico, "TRIZ 40 Inventive principles classification through FBS ontology," *Procedia Eng.*, vol. 131, pp. 737-746, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.367.

[21] V. Chulvi and R. Vidal, "TRIZ on Design-oriented Knowledge-based Systems," *TRIZ J.*, 2009.

[22] G. Pahl and W. Beitz, *Engineering design: a systematic approach*. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

[23] Y. Tang and X. Liu, "Task partition for function tree according to innovative functional reasoning," in *2008 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design*, 2008, pp. 189-195.

[24] J. S. Gero, "The role of function-behavior-structure models in design," in *Computing in civil engineering*, 1995, pp. 294-301.

[25] Y. Umeda, S. Kondoh, Y. Shimomura, and T. Tomiyama, "Development of design methodology for upgradable products based on function - behavior - state modeling," no. July 2014, 2005, doi: 10.1017/S0890060405050122.

[26] T. Kurtoglu, "A computational approach to innovative conceptual design." 2007.

[27] A. Coulibaly, B. Mutel, and D. Ait-Kadi, "Product modeling framework for behavioral performance evaluation at design stage," *Comput. Ind.*, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 567-577, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2006.12.005.

[28] J. J. Shah and M. T. Rogers, "Functional requirements and conceptual design of the feature-based modelling system," *Comput. Eng. J.*, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 9-15, 1988.

[29] F. Erens and K. Verhulst, "Architectures for product families," pp. 1-14.

[30] "http://www.systematic-innovation.com/."