Cooperation Module for Decentralized Work Task Allocation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing automation solutions for execution devices in industrial settings, such as AGVs and AMRs, require significant effort to adapt to new processes and are often integrated into static automation systems, making dynamic scaling and fault handling inefficient and labor-intensive.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method and cooperation module that allows for the flexible distribution of work tasks among multiple execution devices by querying and selecting the device with the smallest work effort, including execution time and resource expenditure, through a communication network, enabling decentralized, self-organized task execution without central control.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Stability of the object's composition

If execution devices are integrated into static automation solutions, then system stability is improved, but adaptability to new processes deteriorates and requires significant manual effort

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem stabilityVSAvoidadaptability to new processes

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transforms static automation solutions into dynamic systems by enabling execution devices to autonomously determine and communicate their work effort. The system dynamically adapts to new processes through self-organized task distribution based on real-time capability assessment, eliminating the need for manual reconfiguration while maintaining system stability through decentralized coordination.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

Execution devices perform self-assessment of their work effort and autonomously communicate this information to the coordination system. This self-service mechanism enables the system to adapt to new processes without external intervention, as each device independently evaluates its capabilities and contributes to the overall task distribution optimization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If execution devices are directly integrated in static automation solutions, then system reliability is improved, but reconfiguration complexity increases and requires significant manual effort

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem reliabilityVSAvoidreconfiguration complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Each execution device autonomously determines its work effort and communicates this information without requiring manual configuration. The devices self-organize into an efficient task distribution system, maintaining reliability through consistent performance metrics while dramatically reducing reconfiguration complexity through automated capability assessment and task allocation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Measurement precision

If manual configuration is used for dynamic scaling and fault handling, then system control precision is improved, but manual effort and time consumption increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem control precisionVSAvoidmanual effort and time consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements automated feedback loops where execution devices continuously communicate their work effort, current status, and capability information. This feedback mechanism enables precise control of task distribution and dynamic scaling without manual intervention, as the coordination system automatically adjusts task allocation based on real-time device status and performance metrics.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

Execution devices autonomously monitor their own status, determine their work effort, and communicate this information to the coordination system. This self-service approach enables precise system control through automated decision-making, eliminating time-consuming manual configuration while maintaining accurate task distribution based on real-time device capabilities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Productivity

If work tasks are distributed to multiple execution devices, then productivity is improved, but coordination complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetask execution efficiencyVSAvoidcoordination complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses work effort as a key parameter to simplify coordination complexity. By evaluating and comparing the work effort of different execution devices, the system automatically determines optimal task distribution without complex coordination protocols. This parameter-based approach enables high productivity through parallel task execution while maintaining simple coordination mechanics based on quantitative work effort assessment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS20240257006A1Methods for Transmitting the Execution of a Working Task, Cooperation Module and Plant

Publication Date: 2024.08.01 SIEMENS AG

AI summary

Various embodiments of the teachings herein include a method for communicating execution of a work task in an installation with two or more execution devices. The method may include: tendering execution of the work task to a plurality of execution devices for execution; querying a work effort of the respective execution devices for execution of the work task; selecting one of the plurality of execution devices on the basis of the queried work effort; and transferring execution of the work task to the selected execution device. The work effort includes an execution time and/or a resource expenditure.