Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:54:29.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive attribute selection for configurator design via Shapley value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2011

Yue Wang  and
Mitchell M. Tseng
Yue Wang
Affiliation:
Advanced Manufacturing Institute, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
Mitchell M. Tseng
Affiliation:
Advanced Manufacturing Institute, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Configurators have been generally accepted as important tools to elicit customers' needs and find the matches between customers' requirements and company's offerings. With product configurators, product design is reduced to a series of selections of attribute values. However, it has been acknowledged that customers are not patient enough to configure a long list of attributes. Therefore, making every round of configuring process productive and hence reducing the number of inputs from customers are of substantial interest to academic and industry alike. In this paper, we present an efficient product configuration approach by incorporating Shapley value, which is a concept used in game theory, to estimate the usefulness of each attribute in the configurator design. This new method iteratively selects the most relevant attribute that can contribute most in terms of information content from the remaining pool of unspecified attributes. As a result from product providers' perspective, each round of configuration can best narrow down the choices with given amount of time. The selection of the next round query is based on the customer's decision on the previous rounds. The interactive process thus runs in an adaptive manner that different customers will have different query sequences. The probability ranking principle is also exploited to give product recommendation to truncate the configuration process so that customers will not be burdened with trivial selection of attributes. Analytical results and numerical examples are also used to exemplify and demonstrate the viability of the method.

Keywords

Attribute SelectionConfiguratorProbability Ranking PrincipleShapley Value
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 25 , Issue 2: Configuration , May 2011 , pp. 185 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Birmingham, W., Brennan, A., & Siewiorek, D. (1988). MICON: a single board computer synthesis tool. IEEE Circuits and Devices Magazine 4(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, R. (2002). Interactive critiquing for catalog navigation in E-Commerce. Artificial Intelligence Review 18(3–4), 245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, R., Hammond, K., & Young, B. (1996). Knowledge-based navigation of complex information spaces. Proc. 13th National Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 462–468. Portland, OR: AAAI Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burke, R., Hammond, K., & Young, B. (1997). The FindMe approach to assisted browsing. Journal of IEEE Expert 12(4), 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S., Dror, G., & Ruppin, E. (2007). Feature selection via coalitional game theory. Neural Computation 19, 1939–1961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, D.R. (1970). The Analysis of Binary Data. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Darr, T., & Birmingham, W. (2000). Part-selection triptych: a representation, problem properties and problem definition, and problem-solving method. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 14(1), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrett, R. (2003). Probability: Theory and Examples, 3rd ed.New York: Thomson Learning/Brooks–Cole.Google Scholar
Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elturky, F., & Nordin, R. (1986). BLADES: an expert system for analog circuit design. Proc. IEEE Symp. Circuit and System, pp. 552–555, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
Enos, L. (2001). Report: five keys for e-tail success. E-Commerce Times. Accessed at http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/7743.htmlGoogle Scholar
Frayman, F., & Mittal, S. (1987). Cossack: a constraint based expert system for configuration task. In Knowledge-Based Expert Systems in Engineering: Planning and Design (Sriram, D., & Adey, R., Eds.), pp. 143–166. Boston: Computational Mechanics Publication.Google Scholar
Gelle, E., & Faltings, B. (2003). Solving mixed and conditional constraint satisfaction problems. Constraint 8(2), 107–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüllermeier, E. (1997). Case-based search techniques for solving configuration problems. Accessed at http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/old/79018.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kamakura, W.A., & Wedel, M. (1995). Life-style segmentation with tailored interviewing. Journal of Marketing Research 32, 308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keinan, A., Sandbank, B., Hilgetag, C., Meilijson, I., & Ruppin, E. (2004). Fair attribution of functional contribution in artificial and biological networks. Neural Computation 16(9), 1887–1915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurniawan, S., Tseng, M., & So, R. (2003). Consumer decision making process in mass customization. Proc. 2003 World Congress on Mass Customization and Personalization, p. 38, Munich.Google Scholar
Lilien, G., Kotler, P., & Moorthy, K. (1992). Marketing Model. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Löckenhoff, C., & Messer, T. (1994). Configuration. In CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling (Breuker, J., & Van de Velde, W., Eds.), pp. 197–212. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Mailharro, D. (1998). A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 12(4), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCutcheon, D., Raturi, A., & Meredith, J. (1994). The customization-responsiveness squeeze. Sloan Management Review 35(2), 89–99.Google Scholar
McDermott, J. (1980). R1: an expert in the computer systems domain. Proc. 1st Annual National Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 269–271, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Mittal, S., & Falkenhainer, B. (1990). Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. Proc. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–32, Boston.Google Scholar
Mittal, S., & Frayman, F. (1989). Towards a generic model of configuration task. Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1395–1401. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Piller, F., & Moeslein, K. (2004). Does mass customization pay? An economic approach to evaluate customer integration. Production Planning & Control 15(4), 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahmer, J., & Voß, A. (1996). Case-based reasoning in the configuration of telecooperation systems, pp. 93–98, AAAI Technical Report FS-96-03. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, R., McCarthy, K., McGinty, L., & Smyth, B. (2004). Dynamic critiquing. Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, pp. 763–777. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, D., & Freuder, E. (1996). Configuration as composite constraint satisfaction. Proc. 1st Artificial Intelligence and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop, pp. 153–161. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Sabin, M., & Freuder, E. (1998). Detecting and resolving inconsistency and redundancy in conditional constraint satisfaction problems. Accessed at http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/sabin98detecting.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sabin, D., & Weigel, R. (1998). Product configuration frameworks—a survey. IEEE Intelligent Systems 13, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, F., & Forza, C. (2004). Configuring products to address the customization-responsiveness squeeze: a survey of management issues and opportunities. International Journal of Production Economics 91(3), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schierholt, K. (2001). Process configuration: combining the principles of product configuration and process planning. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 15(5), 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York: ECCO.Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(7), 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, L. (1953). A value for n-person games. In Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. 1 (Kuhn, H.W., & Tucker, A.W., Eds.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers' responses to customized offers: conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Marketing 69(1), 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumptner, M., Friedrich, G., & Haselböck, A. (1998). Generative constraint-based configuration of large technical systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 12(4), 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, H., Chang, C., & Chang, S. (2005). Applying case-based reasoning for product configuration in mass customization environments. Expert Systems With Applications 29(4), 913–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, M., & Piller, F. (2003). New direction for mass customization. In The Customer Centric Enterprise (Piller, F., & Tseng, M., Eds.), pp. 519–535. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rijsbergen, C.J. (1979). Information Retrieval. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., & Tseng, M.M. (2008). Incorporating probabilistic model of customers' preferences in concurrent engineering. Annals of the CIRP 58(1), 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., & Tseng, M.M. (2009). Attribute selection for configurator design based on Shapley value. Proc. ASME 2009 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. (IDETC/CIE 2009), Paper No. DETC2009-86904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielinga, B., & Schreiber, G. (1997). Configuration-design problem solving. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 12(2), 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, B., Skovgaard, H.. & Baan Frond Office Systems. (1998). A configuration tool to increase product competitiveness. IEEE Intelligent Systems 13 (July/August), 34–41.Google Scholar