Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:31:58.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supporting Knowledge Re-Use with Effective Searches of Related Engineering Documents - A Comparison of Search Engine and Natural Language Processing-Based Algorithms

Part of: Knowledge-based Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Ivar Örn Arnarsson ,
Otto Frost ,
Emil Gustavsson ,
Daniel Stenholm ,
Mats Jirstrand  and
Johan Malmqvist
Ivar Örn Arnarsson*
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology;
Otto Frost
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer-Chalmers Centre
Emil Gustavsson
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer-Chalmers Centre
Daniel Stenholm
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology;
Mats Jirstrand
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer-Chalmers Centre
Johan Malmqvist
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology;
*
Contact: Arnarsson, Ivar Örn, Volvo Trucks / Chalmers, Product Development, Sweden, varo@chalmers.se

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Product development companies are collecting data in form of Engineering Change Requests for logged design issues and Design Guidelines to accumulate best practices. These documents are rich in unstructured data (e.g., free text) and previous research has pointed out that product developers find current it systems lacking capabilities to accurately retrieve relevant documents with unstructured data. In this research we compare the performance of Search Engine & Natural Language Processing algorithms in order to find fast related documents from two databases with Engineering Change Request and Design Guideline documents. The aim is to turn hours of manual documents searching into seconds by utilizing such algorithms to effectively search for related engineering documents and rank them in order of significance. Domain knowledge experts evaluated the results and it shows that the models applied managed to find relevant documents with up to 90% accuracy of the cases tested. But accuracy varies based on selected algorithm and length of query.

Keywords

Natural Language ProcessingSemantic data processingMachine learningKnowledge management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2597 - 2606
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Arnarsson, Í.Ö., Gustavsson, E., Malmqvist, J. and Jirstrand, M. (2017), “Design analytics is the answer, but what questions would product developers like to have answered?”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada, August 21-25, 2017Google Scholar
Bird, S. and Loper, E. (2004), “NLTK: the natural language toolkit. “Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Catic, A. and Malmqvist, J. (2013), “Effective method for creating engineering checklists”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 453–475, available: http://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2013.766824.Google Scholar
Catron, B.A. and Ray, S.R. (1991), “ALPS: A language for process specification”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 105–113.Google Scholar
Chirumalla, K. (2014), “Analyzing lessons learned practice in complex product development: Identification of barriers and recommendations”, International Conference on Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Academic Conferences International Limited, p. 108.Google Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., Simons, C. and Eckert, C. (2004), “Predicting change propagation in complex design”. Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 788–797.Google Scholar
Devlin, J., et al. (2018), “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding”, arXiv preprint arXiv,1810.04805.Google Scholar
Dong, A. (2005), “The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication”, Design Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 445–461.Google Scholar
Dong, A. and Agogino, A.M. (1997), “Text analysis for constructing design representations”, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J. and Zanker, W. (2004), “Change and customisation in complex engineering domains”, Research in engineering design, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Stacey, M.K. and Clarkson, P.J. (2000, January). “Algorithms and inspirations: creative reuse of design experience”. In Greenwich 2000 International Symposium: Digital Creativity, University of Greenwich, London, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Elasticsearch, B.V., accessed 01.11.2018, https://www.elastic.co/products/elasticsearch.Google Scholar
Jarratt, T.A.W., Eckert, C.M., Caldwell, N.H. and Clarkson, P.J. (2011), “Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature”, Research in engineering design, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 103–124. https://doi/org/10.1007/s00163-010-0097-yGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. and Wallace, K. (2009), “An Automatic Identification of Negation in Design Documents”, ICORD 09: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research into Design, Bangalore, India 07.-09.01. 2009.Google Scholar
Le, Q. and Mikolov, T. (2014), “Distributed representations of sentences and documents”, International Conference on Machine Learning.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. and Dean, J. (2013), “Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space”, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1301.3781.Google Scholar
Peters, M. E., et al. (2018), “Deep contextualized word representations”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05365.Google Scholar
Pikosz, P. and Malmqvist, J. (1998), “A comparative study of engineering change management in three Swedish engineering companies”, Proceedings of the DETC98 ASME design engineering technical conferences, pp. 78–85.Google Scholar
Rehurek, R. and Sojka, P. (2010), “Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora”, In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks.Google Scholar
Schindler, M. and Eppler, M.J. (2003), “Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219–228.Google Scholar
Steinbach, M. George, K. and Vipin, K. (2000), “A comparison of document clustering techniques”, KDD workshop on text mining. Vol. 400. No. 1.Google Scholar
Wu, X., Zhu, X., Wu, G.Q. and Ding, W. (2014), “Data mining with big data”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 97–107Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2013), Case study research: Design and methods, SAGE Publications, London.Google Scholar