1 a collaborative problem solving method, using terms classification samuel bassetto, ali siadat,...
DESCRIPTION
3 From the text to a matrix : the model of expert’s analysis The knwoledge model p A scientometric approach Analysis 1 Text of the analysis of expert number 1 … Analysis 2 Text of the analysis of expert number 2 … Analysis 3 Text of the analysis of expert number 3 … (KW1,KW2,KW3,KW4) (KW2,KW5,KW6,KW1) (KW4,KW3,KW2,KW6) KW1KW2KW3KW4KW5KW6 Analysis Analysis Analysis Key Word base Instance of analysis = A [7]TRANSCRIPT
1
A collaborative problem solving A collaborative problem solving method, using terms classificationmethod, using terms classification
Samuel BASSETTO, Ali SIADAT, Samuel BASSETTO, Ali SIADAT, Patrick MARTIN (speaker)Patrick MARTIN (speaker)
22
1.1. What we want to do…proposition of a What we want to do…proposition of a knowledge modelknowledge model
2.2. Test of this model… toward a structured solving Test of this model… toward a structured solving methodmethod
3.3. The study case and results The study case and results 4.4. Conclusion et discussionsConclusion et discussions
A collaborative problem solving method, using A collaborative problem solving method, using terms classificationterms classification
OU
TLIN
EO
UTL
INE
1234
33
From the text to a matrix : the model of expert’s analysis
The
knw
oled
ge m
odel
The
knw
oled
ge m
odel
A scientometric approach
Analysis 1
Text of the analysis of
expert number 1
…Analysis 2
Text of the analysis of
expert number 2…
Analysis 3Text of the analysis of
expert number 3…
(KW1,KW2,KW3,KW4)
(KW2,KW5,KW6,KW1)
(KW4,KW3,KW2,KW6)
KW1 KW2 KW3 KW4 KW5 KW6 Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 Analysis 2 1 1 1 1 Analysis 3 1 1 1 1
Key Word base
Instance of analysis
1234
= A
[7]
44
A distance between analysis…Th
e kn
owle
dge
mod
elTh
e kn
owle
dge
mod
el
Calulation of a distance (named Δ) between analysis
KW1 KW2 KW3 KW4 KW5 KW6 Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 Analysis 2 1 1 1 1 Analysis 3 1 1 1 1
Key word base
Instance of analysis
KW1 KW2 KW3 KW4 KW5 KW6 Analysis 1 A11 A12 A13 A14 A14 A16 Analysis 2 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 Analysis 3 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36
Generic notation
Aij = the value of the ith analysis for the jth key word
)(*)(
)())()((
2
kAnalysisiAnalysis
AikAijkAnalysisiAnalysis i
)*
*cos(),(
22
kj
j
AikAij
AkjAijAki
Lafourcade’s distanceGeneric distance
1234
= A
A =
[11]
55
Main issues of this seducing knowledge model
The
know
ledg
e m
odel
The
know
ledg
e m
odel
How to define a stable (from a set of analyses to an other one) and shared (between experts) Key Word Base ? – How to cope with evolution of terms from an analysis to its successor– How to cope with quiproquo (a key word seems to be used by an
expert in a particular way, but it means something else for this expert)– How to cope with polysemy (multiple meening of one word ex: table
for a informatician and for carpenter)– How to build at least a locally shared ontology ?
How to define the semantic linked at key word’s weight– What does +1, 0, 0.5… means– Can we authorize positive and negative weights ?
How to formulate the issue for minimizing impact on key word use and weights ?
1234
66
The
know
ledg
e m
odel
The
know
ledg
e m
odel
Main opportunities of this seducing model
Go a step further in the modelization of expert’s knowledge Ability to deep the knowledge acquisition process Formal use of codesign space (with key word) Ability to compare analysis (evolution of 1 analysis and
distance between analysis) Abitlity to build a case base
1234
[2],[3],[4]
77
1.1. What we want to do…proposition of a What we want to do…proposition of a knowledge modelknowledge model
2.2. Test of this model… toward a structured solving Test of this model… toward a structured solving methodmethod
3.3. The study case and results The study case and results 4.4. Conclusion et discussionsConclusion et discussions
A collaborative problem solving method, using A collaborative problem solving method, using terms classificationterms classification
OU
TLIN
EO
UTL
INE
1234
88
The
stru
ctur
ed m
etho
dTh
e st
ruct
ured
met
hod
The structured problem solving method
Application: the team problem solving method used for resolution of scraps happened in semiconductor’s industries (TOPS methods, 8D methods)
Operationnal goal of this method: reduce problem solving cycle time
Research goal: interact with expert’s knowledge
1234
99
The
stru
ctur
ed m
etho
dTh
e st
ruct
ured
met
hod
The structured problem solving method
The structure of the methodology: 5 steps (and some recursive ones) to go from the problem to the solution.
1234
Building the team
Analyse the problem for the first time
Restitute analyses for the first time
Meet to work toward the solution
Converge toward the solution
end Convergence achieved
start
Issue
1010
The
stru
ctur
ed m
etho
dTh
e st
ruct
ured
met
hod
Rules
The structure of the methodology: 5 steps (and some recursive ones) to go from the problem to the solution.
1234
Team Building
First problem analysis
First restitution
Working meetings
Convergence
end Convergence achieved
start
Issue End by the expression of expert’s analysis and sum up with a set of weighted key words
Definition of a shared vocabulary, used for key word : B0
Definition of a shared vocabulary, used for key word: B1
Use of B1 to sum up analysis
Retrieve of analysis matrix A in the co-design space
[12]
1111
The
stru
ctur
ed m
etho
dTh
e st
ruct
ured
met
hod
Convergence measure
Indicator I behavior:1) If the group converge: I -> 02) If the group diverge: I-> 13) If I->0 the group converge4) If I->1 the group diverge
1234 Mistake
in the paper : 3 & 4 have
been interverted
I -> 0 the group convergeI ->1 the group diverge
1212
The
stru
ctur
ed m
etho
dTh
e st
ruct
ured
met
hodIndicator calculation
Ir = Sin(Amax)Ie = Spread(Amax/3) I1 = Ie*Ir I2 = (Ie+Ir)/2
1234
I -> 0 the group convergeI ->1 the group diverge
))();((max ),( jAnalysisiAnalysisDMAXA PersonsPersonsji
)(1)( rCDrSpread Number of couples @ a distance of r
CD(r )= ________________________________Number of possibles couples
Number of couples @ a distance of rCD(r )= ________________________________
Number of possibles couples
Number of couples @ a distance of rCD(r )= ________________________________
Number of possibles couples
1313
1.1. What we want to do…proposition of a What we want to do…proposition of a knowledge modelknowledge model
2.2. Test of this model… toward a structured solving Test of this model… toward a structured solving methodmethod
3.3. The study case and results The study case and results 4.4. Conclusion et discussionsConclusion et discussions
A collaborative problem solving method, using A collaborative problem solving method, using terms classificationterms classification
OU
TLIN
EO
UTL
INE
1234
1414The
stud
y ca
seTh
e st
udy
caseStudy case presentation
Analysis Why the choice of a particular test banc of forged cog influence cog’s lifetime, then the measurement.
5 expert’s of forged cog and lifetime measurement (5 doctors engineers about the subject)
Test @ ENSAM laboratory
1234
1515The
stud
y ca
seTh
e st
udy
case
Results 3 Iterations of analysis B0: Instead of the technical aspect of the problem, experts
retrieve 36 differents Key Words B1: 17 alias have been build based on these 36 KW Use of codesign space by Alias Key words
1234
Indicator (Ie+Ir)/2
Indicator Ie*Ir
Iteration Number Value Value
1 1,00 1,00
2 0,85 0,21
3 0,44 0,00
I1I2
1616
1.1. What we want to do…proposition of a What we want to do…proposition of a knowledge modelknowledge model
2.2. Test of this model… toward a structured solving Test of this model… toward a structured solving methodmethod
3.3. The study case and results The study case and results 4.4. Conclusion et discussionsConclusion et discussions
A collaborative problem solving method, using A collaborative problem solving method, using terms classificationterms classification
OU
TLIN
EO
UTL
INE
1234
1717Conc
lusi
on a
nd d
iscu
ssio
nCo
nclu
sion
and
dis
cuss
ion
Conclusion Compared to other tests (not mentionned in this paper) has
lead @ a quantified results Technological problem help experts to focus on key word
without QUIPROQUO & POLYSEMY Building a shared terminology (group ontology) is required Necessary to define the signification of key word weight Indicators can help the group to manage weak signals
(persons who will not take the lead)
1234
(software design, software development post mortem
analysis)
1818Conc
lusi
on a
nd d
iscu
ssio
nCo
nclu
sion
and
dis
cuss
ion
Still open questions…1234
At least, 5 questions are still pending…– How to define the problem ?Ex: If the question is: Is the function f1 involved ? And a key word is f1 yes this
function is involved, the answer can be sum-up with (1,f1)At the opposite, if the question is: Is the function f1 non involved ?, the answer
will be, no, this function is involved and the answer can be sum up with (f1, -1) or (f1,0) !
– What is expressive power of weighted key word ? what does mean -1,0,1…– Can we take an ‘alien’ ontology as a key word base– Is it possible to reuse a key word index defined by another group ?– How the codesign space can be tooled so as better managing the key
word creation ?
1919Conc
lusi
on a
nd d
iscu
ssio
nCo
nclu
sion
and
dis
cuss
ion
Thank you for your attentionDanke, Gracie, Merci
Questions ???
1234