Product Configuration Engine Conflict Resolution via Default Strength
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing product configuration systems often struggle with resolving inconsistencies caused by user selections, leading to restrictive user experiences and increased development costs, as they either disallow conflicting choices or restrict user options, rather than allowing users to address conflicts by dropping default selections.
Innovation Solution
A method and system that utilize a configuration engine to identify a minimal set of conflicting choices (MSCC) and determine the strength level of each choice based on its authority source, automatically dropping the choice with the lowest strength level to resolve conflicts, allowing users to make selections that previously caused inconsistencies.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If the system disallows conflicting choices to maintain consistency, then reliability is improved, but ease of operation deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts and identifies the minimal set of conflicting choices (MSCC) from the configuration options. When a conflict is detected, the system automatically removes (takes out) the default choice with the lowest strength level from the MSCC, resolving the inconsistency while preserving user-selected options. This extraction approach maintains configuration consistency without restricting user freedom.
Solution Approach 2:
The configuration engine automatically resolves conflicts by itself without requiring user intervention. It evaluates the strength levels of conflicting choices, determines which default selection to drop, and executes the resolution autonomously. This self-service mechanism maintains reliability while preserving ease of operation, as users can freely select options without worrying about manual conflict resolution.
2Reliability
If the system restricts user options to prevent conflicts, then reliability is improved, but adaptability deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
Instead of restricting user options preemptively, the system extracts and identifies only the specific conflicting choices within the minimal set. It selectively removes only the default choice with the lowest strength level from the conflict, leaving all other user options intact. This approach maintains configuration consistency while preserving maximum user adaptability and configuration flexibility.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent inverts the traditional approach by not preventing conflicts through restriction, but rather by automatically resolving them after detection. Instead of limiting user freedom upfront, the system allows users to make selections and then automatically drops the appropriate default choice to resolve any resulting conflicts, thereby maintaining both reliability and adaptability.
3Ease of manufacture
If the system uses procedural methods to resolve conflicts, then ease of manufacture is improved, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces procedural (mechanical) conflict resolution methods with a declarative system based on strength level evaluation. Instead of using complex procedural logic to determine which choices to drop, the system assigns strength levels to choices based on their sources and automatically identifies the weakest default selection. This substitution simplifies the conflict resolution mechanism while reducing system complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces strength level as a parameter to characterize choices, enabling automatic conflict resolution through parameter comparison. By evaluating the strength levels of choices in the minimal conflicting set and identifying the one with the lowest value, the system resolves conflicts through a simple parameter-based mechanism rather than complex procedural logic, thereby reducing device complexity while maintaining ease of implementation.
Data Source
AI summary
According to various embodiments, methods, systems, and configuration applications for handling defaults and/or choices in a product configuration are provided. An exemplary method of handling defaults in a product configuration comprises presenting a product configuration to a user via a user interface. The method further comprises receiving a selection from the user of a configuration option via the user interface. The method further comprises determining, using a configuration engine implemented using instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and executable by one or more processors, at least one set of conflicting choices relating to a conflict resulting from the user selection of the configuration option and one or more constraints of the product configuration. The set of conflicting choices includes choices directly contributing to the conflict such that dropping any choice will resolve the conflict. The method further comprises determining, using the configuration engine, a strength level associated with each default selection in the minimal set of conflicting choices. The strength level of each default selection is based on an authority associated with a source of the default selection. The method further comprises determining, using the configuration engine, a default selection to drop based on its strength level. The method further comprises dropping, using the configuration engine, the determined default selection.