Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T05:39:29.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DETECTING BAD DESIGN AND BIAS FROM PATENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Nicola Melluso ,
Sara Pardelli ,
Gualtiero Fantoni ,
Filippo Chiarello  and
Andrea Bonaccorsi
Nicola Melluso*
Affiliation:
University of Pisa B4DS Lab - Business Engineering for Data Science
Sara Pardelli
Affiliation:
Erre Quadro s.r.l.
Gualtiero Fantoni
Affiliation:
University of Pisa B4DS Lab - Business Engineering for Data Science Erre Quadro s.r.l.
Filippo Chiarello
Affiliation:
University of Pisa B4DS Lab - Business Engineering for Data Science Erre Quadro s.r.l.
Andrea Bonaccorsi
Affiliation:
University of Pisa B4DS Lab - Business Engineering for Data Science Erre Quadro s.r.l.
*
Melluso, Nicola, University of Pisa, Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Italy, nicolamelluso@gmail.com

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.

The representation of the product use context is a well established design practice in Engineering Design. Recently, design theory is studying the product interaction involving several cognitive aspects such as the possible conditions in which a wrong interaction occurs. The aim of this paper is to find a quantitative evidence of the causes of these misuses. In particular, this study focuses on the detection of bad design and biases.

In this paper, we propose a method that helps to the automatic detection of bad design and biases from patents. The method is based on an approach that defines syntactic rules to detect sentences containing these artifacts. These rules are defined based on an exploratory analysis of the explicit mention of “bad design” and “bias” and then, tested with multiple experiments on a sample of patents. The results give a first quantitative evidence of the presence of bad design and biases in patents and consequently of their importance in the design theory. In particular, it is provided a fine grain analysis of the linguistic structure of sentences containing these artifacts helping designers in detecting automatically them from patents.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign theorySemantic data processingBad DesignBias
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1173 - 1182
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Apreda, R., Bonaccorsi, A., Fantoni, G. and Gabelloni, G. (2014). “Functions and Failures: How to Manage Technological Promises for Societal Challenges.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10.1080/09537325.2013.850653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A. (2011). “A Functional Theory of Technology and Technological Change.”Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A., Apreda, R., and Fantoni, G. (2020). “Expert Biases in Technology Foresight. Why They Are a Problem and How to Mitigate Them.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151: 119855.10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A. and Fantoni, G. (2007), “Expanding the functional ontology in conceptual design”, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED07).Google Scholar
Cascini, G., Del Frate, L., Fantoni, G. and Montagna, F. (2011), “Beyond the design perspective of Gero's FBS framework”, In: Design computing and cognition, Springer, Vol. 10, pp. 77–96.Google Scholar
Cascini, G., Fantoni, G., and Montagna, F. (2013). “Situating Needs and Requirements in the FBS Framework.” Design Studies 34 (5): 636–662.10.1016/j.destud.2012.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhari, A. M., Bilionis, I., and Panchal, J. H. (2020). “Descriptive Models of Sequential Decisions in Engineering Design: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Mechanical Design 142 (8)10.1115/1.4045605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarello, F., Cimino, A., Fantoni, G., and Dell'Orletta, F. (2018). “Automatic Users Extraction from Patents.” World Patent Information 54 (September): 28–38.10.1016/j.wpi.2018.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarello, F., Cirri, I., Melluso, I., Fantoni, G., Bonaccorsi, A., and Pavanello, T.. (2019). “Approaches to Automatically Extract Affordances from Patents.” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19) 1(1): 2487–2496.10.1017/dsi.2019.255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarello, F., Melluso, N., Bonaccorsi, A., and Fantoni, G. (2019). “A Text Mining Based Map of Engineering Design: Topics and Their Trajectories Over Time.” International Conference on Engineering Design 1 (1): 2765–2774.10.1017/dsi.2019.283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarello, F., Bonaccorsi, A., and Fantoni, G. (2020). Technical Sentiment Analysis. Measuring Advantages and Drawbacks of New Products Using Social Media. Computers in Industry, 123, 103299.10.1016/j.compind.2020.103299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantoni, G., Coli, E., Chiarello, F., Apreda, R., Dell'Orletta, F. (2020), “Text mining tool for translating terms of contract into technical specifications: Development in the railway sector” Computers in Industry 10.1016/j.compind.2020.103357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantoni, G., Apreda, R., Dell'Orletta, F., and Monge, M. (2013). “Automatic Extraction of Function–behaviour–state Information from Patents.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 27 (3): 317–334.10.1016/j.aei.2013.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippi, S., Barattin, D. and Cascini, G., (2013), “Analyzing the Cognitive Processes of an Interaction Design Method Using the FBS Framework.” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13)Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. (1978), “Fault Trees: Sensitivity of Estimated Failure Probabilities to Problem Representation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 4 (2)10.1037/0096-1523.4.2.330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabelloni, D., Apreda, R., Fantoni, G. (2011), “On the Link between Features and Functions.” In International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11) 15.-19.08. 2011, 1–12.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W. (1991). “Technology Affordances.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 79–84. CHI ’91. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S., and Kannengiesser, U. (2002). “The Situated Function — Behaviour — Structure Framework.” Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0795-4_5.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (2014), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition. Psychology Press.10.4324/9781315740218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. MA: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hay L., Cash, and McKilligan, P., S. (2020). “The future of design cognition analysis”. Design Science, 6, E2010.1017/dsj.2020.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honnibal, M., and Montani, I. (2017). “spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing”.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, S.P., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (1982), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kan, J.W.T. and Gero, J.S. (2009), “A Generic Tool to Study Human Design Activities.” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 09) 123–134.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1988), The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Otto, K. N., and Antonsson, E. K. (1991), “Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design.” Research in Engineering Design 3 (2): 87–103.10.1007/BF01581342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parraguez, P., Maier, A. (2017), “Data-Driven Engineering Design Research: Opportunities Using Open Data.” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) 41–50.Google Scholar
Shealy, T., and Gero, J.S. (2019), “The Neurocognition of Three Engineering Concept Generation Techniques.” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 19) 1833–1842.10.1017/dsi.2019.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreafico, C., Fantoni, G. and Russo, D. (2015), “FBS Models: An Attempt at Reconciliation towards a Common Representation.” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15) 399-408Google Scholar
Toh, C. A., Strohmetz, A.A. and Miller, S.R. (2016), “The Effects of Gender and Idea Goodness on Ownership Bias in Engineering Design Education.” Journal of Mechanical Design 138 (10)10.1115/1.4034107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., Liao, J., Song, W., Mao, H., Huang, Z., and Mao, H. (2018), “Semantic Hyper-Graph-Based Knowledge Representation Architecture for Complex Product Development.” Computers in Industry 100: 43–56.10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar