Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:12:33.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Product configuration as decision support: The declarative paradigm in practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2011

Albert Haag  and
Steffen Riemann
Albert Haag
Affiliation:
SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany
Steffen Riemann
Affiliation:
SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Product configuration is a key technology, which enables businesses to deliver and deploy individualized products. In many cases, finding the optimal configuration solution for the user is a creative process that requires them to decide trade-offs between conflicting goals (multicriteria optimization problem). These problems are best supported by an interactive dialog that is managed by a dedicated software program (the configurator) that provides decision support. We illustrate this using a real example (configuration of a business software system). This productively used application makes the user aware of which choices are available in a given situation, provides assistance in resolving inconsistent choices and defaults, and generates explanations if desired. One of the key configurator components used to manage this is a truth maintenance system. We describe how this component is used and two novel extensions to it: methods for declarative handling of defaults (of varying strength) and the declarative handling of incompleteness. Finally, we summarize our experiences made during the implementation of this application and the pros and cons of declarative versus procedural approaches.

Keywords

Business ConfigurationConstraintsDecision SupportInteractive ConfigurationTruth Maintenance Systems
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 25 , Issue 2: Configuration , May 2011 , pp. 131 - 142
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

Blumöhr, U., Münch, M., & Ukalovic, M. (2009). Variant Configuration with SAP®. Dedham, MA: SAP Press.Google Scholar
De Kleer, J. (1986 a). An assumption–based truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 28(1), 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kleer, J. (1986 b). Extending the ATMS. Artificial Intelligence 28(1), 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desisto, R.P. (2004). Constraints Still Key for Product Configurator Deployments. Gartner Report T-22-9419, June 1, 2004. Stamford, CT: Gartner.Google Scholar
Doyle, J. (1979). A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12(3), 231–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, A. (1991). Konzepte zur praktischen Handhabbarkeit einer ATMS basierten Problemlösung. In Das Plakon Buch (Cunis, R., Günter, A., & Strecker, H., Eds.), pp. 212–237. Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, A. (1998). Sales configuration in business processes. IEEE Intelligent Systems 13(4), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, A., Junker, U., & O'Sullivan, B. (2007). Explanation in product configuration. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(1), 78–90.Google Scholar
Junker, U. (2006). Configuration. In Handbook of Constraint Programming (Rossi, F., van Beek, P., & Walsh, T., Eds.), pp. 837–874. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, J. (1982). R1: a rule-based configurer of computer systems. Artificial Intelligence Journal 19, 39–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, C.J. (1992). Constrained decision revision. Proc. AAAI 1992, pp. 393–400.Google Scholar
Petrie, C.J. (1993). The redux server. Proc. CoopIS 1993, pp. 134–143.Google Scholar
Rossi, F., van Beek, P., & Walsh, T. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Constraint Programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar