Process Validation System Using Functional Maps
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing methods for predicting and validating logistical processes, such as those described in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0160103, fail to accurately estimate the time required for process validation and are complex to use, lacking precision in operational failure prediction and requiring significant expertise.
Innovation Solution
A method and system that utilize a functional map to relate operational failures and times, allowing for the prediction of when a process will achieve a desired failure percentage by establishing initial and acceptable failure rates, and normalizing the predicted time based on process resources, enabling more accurate and user-friendly process validation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If existing methods are used to predict and validate logistical processes, then the validation process can be performed, but the time required for process validation cannot be accurately estimated
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary analysis by establishing functional maps that relate operational failures to operational times before actual process validation begins. This allows the system to predict validation time requirements in advance, enabling better planning and reducing actual validation time by avoiding iterative adjustments during the validation process itself.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces complex manual validation processes with an automated computer-based system that uses algorithms and functional maps to predict validation times. This substitution of mechanical/manual processes with automated computational methods enables accurate time prediction without requiring extensive manual expertise or trial-and-error validation approaches.
2Measurement precision
If complex validation systems are used to improve prediction accuracy, then measurement precision improves, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The validation system is segmented into distinct functional components: functional maps that relate failures to times, prediction algorithms, and user interfaces. This segmentation allows each component to be optimized independently while maintaining overall system accuracy, reducing complexity by breaking down the monolithic validation process into manageable modular elements.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces functional maps as intermediary structures that mediate between raw process data and validation predictions. These maps serve as simplified representations that capture complex relationships without requiring the full complexity of the underlying processes, enabling accurate predictions through a layer of abstraction that reduces system complexity.
3Measurement precision
If detailed process validation is performed to achieve accurate failure prediction, then measurement precision improves, but ease of operation deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The validation system performs self-service by automatically analyzing process data, establishing functional maps, and generating predictions without requiring extensive manual intervention. The system serves itself by using its own computational resources and algorithms to conduct the validation analysis, freeing users from complex manual validation tasks while maintaining high prediction accuracy.
Solution Approach 2:
Complex manual validation operations are replaced with automated computer-based analysis. The system substitutes human expertise and manual process execution with algorithmic computations that automatically perform detailed analysis, making the sophisticated validation process as easy to operate as simply initiating a computational task.
Data Source
AI summary
A method for evaluating process implementation is disclosed. The method includes establishing at least one functional map that relates a first criteria indicative of operational failures associated with operating the process and a second criteria indicative of operational times associated with operating the process. The method also includes establishing a first value indicative of a quantity of operational failures predicted to occur during start-up of the operation of the process. The method also includes establishing a second value indicative of a quantity of operational failures allowed to occur during continued operation of the process. The method further includes predicting a first timing indicative a time the process will be operated to achieve the second value as a function of the first and second criteria.