In-Vehicle Software Distribution Campaign Management
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing software distribution systems for in-vehicle devices face challenges in preventing erroneous software updates due to human-caused errors, particularly in environments where multiple software versions are used, leading to inefficiencies and rework during testing and development.
Innovation Solution
A software distribution system that employs a campaign management approach, using a telematics center to remotely distribute software to vehicles, which includes a campaign managing section that compares statistical information of recent updates to prevent the creation of campaigns for potentially inappropriate software, alerting operators and preventing incorrect updates.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If manual software selection is used for distribution, then operational simplicity is maintained, but human-caused errors lead to erroneous software distribution
Solution Approach 1:
The system enables self-service through automatic software selection based on ECU information and campaign parameters. The server automatically matches software to target ECUs using identification information and selection criteria, eliminating manual intervention while ensuring accurate distribution. This resolves the contradiction by replacing manual operation with automated self-selection processes.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements feedback mechanisms where the server verifies software selection accuracy by comparing ECU identification information against campaign parameters and selection criteria. Error detection and alert notification systems provide feedback loops that prevent erroneous distribution, thereby improving reliability without compromising operational simplicity.
2Device complexity
If software update verification is performed manually, then process simplicity is maintained, but errors occur in confirming or reading software versions
Solution Approach 1:
The system replaces manual verification processes with automated information processing. The server automatically reads and compares software version information, ECU identification data, and campaign parameters using digital processing mechanisms. This substitution eliminates human reading errors while maintaining process simplicity through automated workflows.
Solution Approach 2:
The server acts as an intermediary that automatically manages software version verification. It mediates between the software repository, ECU information database, and campaign parameters, performing automated comparisons and selections. This intermediary function ensures precise version confirmation without requiring manual intervention.
3Reliability
If comprehensive software verification is implemented, then distribution accuracy is improved, but processing time and system complexity increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary actions by pre-configuring campaign parameters, software selection criteria, and ECU information databases before distribution. Verification rules and selection algorithms are established in advance, allowing comprehensive verification to occur automatically during execution without adding operational complexity. This resolves the contradiction by preparing verification frameworks beforehand.
Solution Approach 2:
The server implements universal verification mechanisms that handle multiple verification tasks through integrated functions. A single verification system simultaneously checks software version compatibility, ECU identification matching, campaign parameter alignment, and selection criteria validation. This multi-functional approach improves accuracy without proportionally increasing system complexity.
4Reliability
If automated software selection is implemented, then human-caused errors are prevented, but system complexity and processing requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system achieves error prevention through self-service automation where the server independently performs software selection based on pre-configured criteria. Automated matching algorithms compare ECU information with campaign parameters and selection rules without human intervention, preventing human-caused errors. The self-automated nature manages complexity by eliminating manual processes.
Solution Approach 2:
The system manages complexity through parameter-based automation. Software selection and verification are controlled by configurable parameters including ECU identification fields, campaign parameters, selection criteria, and verification rules. By changing from manual to parameter-driven automated processes, the system prevents errors while keeping complexity manageable through structured parameter management.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2~3
Figure 4~5
AI summary
Software is prevented from being distributed due to a human-caused error. A software distribution system includes a software distribution server that uses a campaign to manage an update of a function for an in-vehicle device of a vehicle and remotely distributes software based on the campaign, a terminal that executes input and output, and a software update device that is attached to the vehicle and configured to download the distributed software and install the software in the in-vehicle device. In the software distribution system, when the creation of the campaign is requested, statistical information of updated amounts of the software updated based on the most recent multiple campaigns in the target in-vehicle device for the requested campaign is compared with an updated amount of the software updated based on the requested campaign. When a predetermined requirement is satisfied, the requested campaign is not created and a predetermined alert is notified.