Design Support System for Assembly Cost and Defect Reduction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for estimating assembly time and defective assembly occurrence in product design fail to provide a comprehensive approach to reduce these factors and prioritize improvement measures effectively, as they do not account for the total assembling cost and cannot specify improvement objects for specific parts.

Innovation Solution

A design support system that stores assembly difficulty and defective assembly potential coefficients from past design examples, allowing for the extraction of improvement guidelines to reduce assembly time and defective assembly by converting these elements into assembling costs and loss costs, thereby deciding on the importance and priority of improvements.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If assembly time and defective assembly occurrence are estimated separately using existing methods, then estimation capability is provided, but comprehensive improvement guidance cannot be given and priority of improvement measures cannot be decided

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveestimation capabilityVSAvoidcomprehensive improvement guidance
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent combines separate estimation methods for assembly time and defective assembly occurrence into a unified evaluation system. By integrating multiple estimation dimensions (assembly time, defective assembly occurrence, and their interrelationships) into a single comprehensive framework, the system provides holistic improvement guidance that was previously unavailable when methods were used separately.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

2Measurement precision

If assembly operations and attributes are analyzed in detail, then assembly time and defective assembly occurrence can be calculated, but the total assembling cost and loss cannot be comprehensively evaluated

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecalculation accuracyVSAvoidtotal cost evaluation
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a multi-functional evaluation system that simultaneously assesses multiple dimensions including assembly time, defective assembly occurrence, and their combined impact on total assembling cost and loss. This universal framework allows detailed analysis of individual operations while comprehensively evaluating overall cost implications in a single integrated process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Adaptability or versatility

If improvement measures are selected from general TRIZ contradiction matrix, then basic performance improvement can be achieved, but specific assembly time reduction and defective assembly reduction cannot be targeted

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimprovement guidanceVSAvoidassembly time reduction
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by providing customized improvement guidance tailored to specific assembly operations and their attributes. Instead of generic TRIZ recommendations, the system identifies particular operations with high assembly times or defective assembly occurrence and provides targeted improvement measures specific to those local contexts, enabling precise productivity enhancement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

4Measurement precision

If assembly difficulty coefficients are established from past design examples, then estimation accuracy improves, but the ability to prioritize and specify improvement objects is lost

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveestimation accuracyVSAvoidimprovement specification
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements feedback mechanisms that use estimation results to guide improvement actions. By establishing coefficients from past design examples and applying them to current designs, the system generates actionable feedback that identifies specific operations requiring improvement and ranks them by priority, making the improvement process both accurate and operationally straightforward.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS8583578B2Method and system for supporting design
Publication Date: 2013.11.12 HITACHI LTD
  • US8583578B2 patent drawing
  • US8583578B2 patent drawing
  • US8583578B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method and system for determining an optimal improvement measure for a product assembling time and a defective assembly generated in an assembling process. This is achieved by extracting an assembling element having a high assembling time and a high defective assembly potential from similar assembling operations and extracting a concrete improvement guideline from extracted improvement guidelines and the parts, the assembling operations, and the attributes associated with the extracted improvement guidelines.