Not known to be repeatable How many different possible solutions will work, which one is better if you don’t know of other approaches to solving the problem We look at problems and the potential solutions the same way we always have, with the same tools that we have always had. Using the same hammer in the tool box is not always appropriate, sometimes a jewelers screwdriver is needed. Paradigms, Habits, (NIH mentality) Past Success, Rewards & Punishments Self Talk – “I am not that creative” “ Don’t go out of scope” “ Stay in your own turf” Intel hires bright people but there are very few Einstein's in the world, even at Intel. Ordinary in one field, Innovative in another Difficult for one person to be expert in many areas 5. One grand idea mind set A project will only produce one correct solution Don’t exceed the local budget If it looks like it will work, make it work Get on to the next problem
“TRIZ” is the acronym for the Russian terms &quot; Teorijz Rezhenija Izobretatel'skich Zadach .” when translated into English equates to “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.” A ll innovations emerge from the application of a very small number of inventive principles and strategies. T echnology evolution trends are highly predictable. T he strongest solutions transform the unwanted or harmful elements of a system into useful resources. T he strongest solutions also actively seek out and destroy the conflicts and trade-offs most design practices assume to be fundamental.
The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving is a powerful tool that has been developed over the last 50 years in the former Soviet Union. It is a structured methodology for a directed development of new products and processes, thereby guiding technological evolution. Altshuller’s TRIZ research began with the hypothesis that there had to be and are universal principles of invention that are the basis for creative innovations that advance technology, and that if these principles could be identified and codified, they could be taught to people to make the process of invention more predictable. TRIZ was developed to provide the innovator with reliable and repeatable results -results that do not depend on personal creative ability or psychological techniques such as brainstorming. TRIZ relies on proven knowledge that has been applied time and again throughout mankind’s history.
Ideality: Altshuller identified a trend in which systems always evolve towards increasing 'ideality' and that this evolution process takes place through a series of evolutionary S-curve characteristics. A key finding of TRIZ is that the steps denoting a shift from one S-curve to the next are predictable. A number of underlying technology evolution trends consistent with the ideality concept have been identified during the course of research on the global patent database. Used as a problem definition tool, the ideality part of TRIZ encourages problem solvers to break out of the traditional 'start from the current situation' type of thinking, and start instead from what is described as the Ideal Final Result (IFR). The simple definition of IFR is that the solution contains all of the benefits and none of the costs or 'harms' (environmental impact, adverse side-effects, etc). Although there are many instances where systems have been seen to evolve all the way to their Ideal Final Result, many have not. The method gets users to think about these situations by working back from the IFR to something which is practicably realizable. Contradictions: TRIZ researchers have identified the fact that the world's strongest inventions have emerged from situations in which the inventor has successfully sought to avoid the conventional trade-offs that most designers take for granted. More importantly they have offered systematic tools through which problem solvers can tap into and use the strategies employed by such inventors. The most commonly applied tool in this regard is the Contradiction Matrix - a39x39 matrix containing the three or four most likely strategies for solving design problems involving the 1482 most common contradiction types. Probably the most important philosophical aspect of the contradiction part of TRIZ is that, given there are ways of 'eliminating' contradictions', designers should actively look for them during the design process. Use of resources: The Resources part of TRIZ relates to the unprecedented emphasis placed on the maximization of use of everything contained within a system. In TRIZ terms, a resource is anything in the system which is not being used to its maximum potential. TRIZ demands an aggressive and seemingly relentless pursuit of things in (and around) a system which are not being used to their absolute maximum potential. Discovery of such resources then reveals opportunities through which the design of a system may be improved. In addition to this relentless pursuit of resources, TRIZ demands that the search for resources also take due account of negative as well as the traditionally positive resources in a system. Thus the pressures and forces we typically attempt to fight when we are designing systems, are actually resources. Patterns of Evolution: The 5 most useful patterns of evolution are the following: 1. Uneven evolution of the parts and features of the system. 2. Transition to the macro level or incorporation to the larger system of higher level. 3. Transition to the micro level or the segmentation of the system into smaller parts. 4. Increasing the interactions between systems. 5. Expansion and convolution of systems Functionality: Although the functionality aspects of TRIZ owe a significant debt to the pioneering work done on Value Engineering, the method of defining and using functionality data is markedly different; sufficient at the very least to merit discussion as a distinct paradigm shift in thinking relative to traditional occidental thought processes. Three aspects are worthy of particular note:
NOTE TO REMEMBER: The Ideal Final Result is critical: One for base-lining what the best design “could be” but also it helps to begin the solution provider with the initial map for functional analysis that we will touch on more in later sections and specifically in the software tools. Engineering is really all about functions. The main purpose of a technical system is to satisfy one or more functions. The result is a &quot;form:&quot; a technical design (technical system) that satisfies the required function(s). Architects know that &quot;Form follows function.&quot; The use of the word &quot;function&quot; implies that the technical system &quot;does&quot; something. The engineer-designer's task is to conceive and build the form (i.e., the design) so that (1) each function works reliably, and (2) the design as a whole is perceived by its user (customer) as offering &quot;value.&quot; It is important to know what function to work on. Towards this purpose, the approach called &quot;functional analysis&quot; or &quot;functional cost analysis&quot; is important. Functional analysis is an approach that has been successfully employed as a part of value analysis and value engineering. The &quot;value&quot; of a technical system lies in (1) its ability to satisfy required functions at a high level of reliability, and (2) its price (cost). From an organizational point of view, this means that the organization's technical challenge is to assure reliable functions at minimal costs. Total cost decomposes into the costs of each of the individual parts. To increase the value offered to customers, parts are eliminated or &quot;pruned,&quot; without eliminating their required functions. If a specific part is pruned, then there may be another part, or sub-system, or system, that can satisfy the function of the part being pruned. Exploring pruning possibilities by using functional notations described in 3 above, is an important aspect of applying functional analysis to creative problem solving.
There are 40 inventive principles behind all inventive problems (problems that have technical conflicts). When &quot;applied&quot; to the important elements or objects of a technical system, these inventive principles solve complex problems, and great new designs are achieved. Altschuller and his associates discovered, one by one, the 40 basic principles that make the transition from problem to solution possible. They did this by examining the global patent collection. The list of the 40 inventive principles are listed here:
Over the period 1946 and into the 1970's, the Russians had been examining the global patent collection with several aims in mind, one of which was to &quot;universalize the language of engineering parameters and characteristics used to address the important attributes of a technical system.&quot; The result was a listing of &quot;39 standard features.&quot; Three engineers or scientists might describe a particular technical conflict using quite different words - and all three descriptions could be entirely correct. Genrikh Altschuller, however, posed the question: &quot;Can all technical conflicts be boiled down (or condensed) to only a few, universal technical conflicts?&quot; In other words, can all possible technical conflicts in the world be categorized into a limited number of &quot;universal&quot; conflicts, expressed in a &quot;universal&quot; parametric language? The answer to this question is &quot;Yes!&quot; Altschuller and his associates completed the Herculean task of establishing the minimum number of standard technical features that would, as a group, serve as category-titles for all possible engineering parameters. These he called the &quot;39 standard features,&quot; and they are listed here: It behooves the conceptual engineer or designer or inventor to learn the 39 standard features well, and to practice categorizing ordinary parameters or characteristics into standard features.
Altshuller’s research revealed that Inventors through the ages had been employing a relatively small set of techniques to resolve contradictions, regardless of the industry or application in which they worked. From that Altshuller identified 40 Inventive Principles, which we’ll get to in a few slides.
Please refer to the 2 articles on TRIZ (a.k.a. TIPS in Engineering Education) that are written by Timothy G. Clapp PhD., PE Professor of Textiles North Carolina State University and Michael S. Slocum, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor North Carolina University
Review each perspectives of the IFR This is the example of what “point-of-view” of ideality.
The notion of “performing the function without the existence of the system is a very high level objective, we often need to step back a little to identify the opportunities for real world solutions. Remember that the goal is to solve the problem with as close to an ideal solution as possible – to blindly pursue an unrealistic ideal.
Genrich Altshuller identified CONTRADICTIONS. A contradiction is not a tradeoff contest between two features or functions. In a contradiction, one part of the system demands diametrically opposed properties or characteristics Stating the problem as a contradiction pushes the designer to &quot;go for broke,&quot; and not be trapped by ordinary (tradeoff) thinking. Contradictory thinking is &quot;out of the usual box&quot; thinking. Once contradictory thinking becomes a habit, the designer is far less likely to consider looking for partial (tradeoff) solutions. Instead he'll look for higher-level solutions. When this happens, the designer's productivity is significantly increased. I-Beam example: If we want to make the I-beam stronger, we must make it heavier – a change that often has counterproductive results. Imagine an I-beam of unsurpassed strength. It would be too heavy to lift. So there is a contradiction – or paradox – between strength and weight.
To guide engineers in developing solutions for inventive problems, Altshuller developed a contradiction table, which consists of the 39 system characteristics placed in rows under the heading of “Improving Feature” , and the same characteristics placed in columns under heading “Worsening Feature” . Each cell of the resulting matrix therefore represents a particular technical contradiction and contains one or more references corresponding to the Inventive Principles that had been successfully applied to resolve it.