Dynamic Validation Rules for Software Configuration Adaptability

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing software configuration systems face complexity and inefficiency in accommodating diverse customer needs, often resulting in unsuccessful configurations due to untested settings, and lack the ability to effectively derive useful information from customer experiences.

Innovation Solution

A method that involves receiving and modifying validation rules using unsuccessful configurations, incorporating shared experiences from multiple sender systems, and generating variations based on probabilistic distributions to improve the validation rules, thereby enhancing the configuration process and preventing unsuccessful configurations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If extensive configuration capability is provided to accommodate diverse customer needs, then adaptability is improved, but device complexity increases and reliability deteriorates due to insufficiently tested configurations

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveconfiguration adaptabilityVSAvoidsoftware configuration complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary validation by sharing unsuccessful configuration experiences from multiple customers before a configuration is deployed. The recipient system receives and analyzes these experiences, then modifies validation rules proactively to prevent the same unsuccessful configurations from being applied again, thus avoiding the need for extensive post-deployment testing

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a feedback mechanism where unsuccessful configuration experiences are collected from sender systems, analyzed by recipient systems, and used to update validation rules that are then distributed back to prevent recurrence. This closed-loop feedback continuously improves configuration reliability without increasing complexity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If validation rules are strictly enforced to prevent unsuccessful configurations, then reliability is improved, but adaptability deteriorates as legitimate configurations may be blocked

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveconfiguration reliabilityVSAvoidconfiguration flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The validation rules are made dynamic rather than static. The recipient system continuously updates validation rules based on incoming unsuccessful configuration experiences from multiple customers. This allows the system to adapt its validation criteria over time, blocking only those configurations that have been proven unsuccessful while maintaining flexibility for legitimate configurations

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs self-validation by automatically analyzing unsuccessful configuration experiences and generating updated validation rules without requiring manual intervention. The validation rules evolve autonomously based on collected experiences, maintaining reliability while adapting to new configuration patterns

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If configuration experiences are collected and analyzed to improve validation rules, then reliability is improved, but loss of time increases due to data collection and processing

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveconfiguration success rateVSAvoidexperience processing time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges unsuccessful configuration experiences from multiple sender systems into a single recipient system for centralized analysis. This consolidation approach allows the recipient system to learn from aggregate experiences across multiple customers simultaneously, improving reliability without each individual system needing to process extensive data independently

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The recipient system creates simplified representations or variations of unsuccessful configurations to analyze patterns without processing the complete, complex original configuration data. This copying approach reduces processing time while still capturing the essential failure patterns for validation rule updates

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentUS8234485B2Method relating to rule-regulated software configuration

Publication Date: 2012.07.31 SAP SE

AI summary

A method relating to rule-regulated configuration of software includes receiving an unsuccessful configuration that a sender computer system sends to a recipient computer system upon software being unsuccessfully configured in the sender computer system. Validation rules for configuring the software allowed the unsuccessful configuration. The validation rules are modified in the recipient computer system using the using the unsuccessful configuration. The modified validation rules are provided to the sender computer system. Several sender systems may routinely report new configurations to the recipient computer system. The rules may be modified upon creating a variation of the configuration and determining whether it successfully configures the software. The variation may involve using a probabilistic distribution.