Hierarchical Process Planning for Parallel Task Coordination
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing technologies face challenges in automating complex technical processes with high flexibility and parallel execution, particularly in fields like logistics, road traffic, passenger transport, and processing industry, due to the need for manual design and time-consuming simulations, which are costly and inflexible.
Innovation Solution
A computer-implemented method for planning technical processes with hierarchically structured tasks, incorporating dependency specifications, parallelization options, and adaptive action sequences to ensure flexible and error-free execution, using a hierarchical planner and monitoring component.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If manual design and simulation methods are used for technical processes, then flexibility and adaptability can be achieved, but time consumption and costs increase significantly
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces manual design and simulation methods with an automated planning system that uses computer algorithms to generate and evaluate process plans automatically. The system substitutes human experts' mechanical work with automated computational processes, achieving both flexibility and reduced time consumption through algorithmic optimization rather than iterative manual simulation.
Solution Approach 2:
The planning system performs self-evaluation and self-optimization through automated feasibility checks and criterion-based assessment. The system independently evaluates generated plans against predefined criteria and constraints, eliminating the need for external manual review and simulation, thereby reducing time consumption while maintaining adaptability.
2Adaptability or versatility
If manual design methods are used for complex technical processes, then detailed control can be achieved, but the process becomes costly and inflexible
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces costly manual design processes with automated computational planning. The system uses computer algorithms to perform what previously required expensive human expert intervention, making the process both cheaper and more flexible through automated generation and evaluation of multiple process plan alternatives.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the approach from fixed manual design parameters to dynamic automated optimization parameters. By using configurable criteria and constraints that can be adjusted without additional cost, the system achieves flexibility while reducing costs through automated parameter optimization rather than expensive manual reconfiguration.
3Productivity
If parallel execution of processes is implemented, then productivity increases, but coordination complexity and error potential increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the complex coordination task into hierarchical levels: high-level process planning and low-level detailed scheduling. This segmentation allows parallel execution at each level while managing coordination complexity through structured decomposition, enabling productivity gains without overwhelming coordination burden.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements automated feedback mechanisms through feasibility checks and criterion-based evaluation that continuously monitor parallel process execution. This feedback enables real-time detection and correction of coordination issues, maintaining productivity while controlling error potential through systematic monitoring and adjustment.
4Reliability
If comprehensive simulation and testing are performed before process execution, then reliability improves, but time consumption and costs increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent performs preliminary automated feasibility checks and criterion evaluations during the planning phase rather than requiring extensive post-hoc simulation and testing. By conducting essential validation upfront through automated means, the system achieves reliability while minimizing time consumption compared to traditional comprehensive simulation approaches.
Solution Approach 2:
The system replaces time-consuming physical or detailed computational simulation with automated algorithmic feasibility assessment. This substitution maintains reliability through rigorous logical evaluation while dramatically reducing the time required compared to traditional simulation and testing methodologies.
Data Source
AI summary
Various embodiments of the teachings herein include a computer-implemented method for executing a technical process comprising hierarchically structured tasks. The technical process includes modification of physical units. The method may include: providing dependency specifications for hierarchically structured tasks; deriving parallelization options from the dependency specifications; generating a first action sequence based on the parallelization options; and executing the first action sequence. The first action sequence implements the hierarchically structured tasks.