Hierarchical Workflow Planning With GUI Goal-State Validation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current hierarchical planning methods for technical system workflows are error-prone and require expert-level manual specification of goal states, lacking intuitive graphical support and flexibility to handle complex, flexible workflows.

Innovation Solution

A method and device for hierarchically planning execution sequences using a graphical-user-interface-based goal-state-specifying-process, which allows users to specify allowed ranges of goal states precisely and iteratively check executions through system simulation or hardware execution.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If manual text-file specification of goal states is used, then expert-level precision can be achieved, but the process becomes time-consuming and error-prone

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvegoal state specification precisionVSAvoidtime for goal specification

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses a graphical user interface that visually represents goal states through icons and drag-and-drop operations, creating a visual copy of the desired system state. This visual representation is then translated into the formal planning domain representation, eliminating the need for manual text specification while maintaining precision through the structured GUI elements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces the manual mechanical process of text-file editing with an automated graphical interface system. The GUI automatically handles the conversion of visual goal specifications into formal planning representations, substituting manual text manipulation with automated graphical processing and reducing both time and error potential.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Manufacturing precision

If detailed goal state models are specified, then precise control is achieved, but the planner's degrees of freedom are unnecessarily restricted

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvegoal state control precisionVSAvoidplanner flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements selective attribute specification where users can choose which goal state attributes to define at different levels of detail. Critical attributes like position and orientation can be specified precisely, while less critical attributes are left unspecified or set to default values, allowing the planner to optimize those parameters freely. This local differentiation of specification depth maintains precision where needed while preserving planner flexibility elsewhere.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

3Adaptability or versatility

If abstract goal state models are used, then planner flexibility is maintained, but undesired end configurations may result

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveplanner flexibilityVSAvoidgoal state accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a hierarchical goal specification approach where essential attributes are specified with high precision while non-essential attributes are left more abstract. This partial specification strategy ensures that critical goal aspects are accurately controlled while maintaining flexibility in less important dimensions, preventing undesired configurations in critical areas without overly constraining the planner.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Reliability

If hierarchical planning is used to reduce complexity, then feasibility is improved, but optimality may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveplan feasibilityVSAvoidplan optimality

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides the goal specification into hierarchical segments: high-level goal concepts, intermediate attribute specifications, and detailed parameter definitions. This segmentation allows the planner to work with abstract goal concepts first, ensuring feasibility, and then progressively refine specific parameters to improve optimality. The hierarchical structure enables both feasibility assurance through high-level constraints and optimality improvement through detailed parameter optimization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS20250139552A1Method and device for hierarchically planning executions of operation sequences achieving goal states of technical system workflows and checking them through system simulation or system hardware execution

Publication Date: 2025.05.01 SIEMENS AG

AI summary

A method and device for hierarchically planning executions of operation sequences achieving goal states of technical system workflows and checking them through system simulation or system hardware execution is provided. To hierarchically plan executions of operation sequences achieving goal states of technical system workflows and checking them, it is proposed to implement a goal-state-specifying-process, wherein <1> for a workflow of a technical system a workflow related planning domain is given, <2> a workflow related goal state is specified, <3> a planning task is defined, and <4> by a planning approach <4a> executions of the at least one selected planning operator are checked iteratively in order to find a full plan, and <4b> when in <4a> the full plan is found, the executions of the found full plan achieving the goal state are checked iteratively by a secondary query loop until the goal state is achieved.