Introduction to TRIZ
Innovative Problem Solving
by
Dr. Prakash R. Apte
Solid State Electronics Group
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Homi Bhabha Road
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005
Tel. +91-22-215 2971 extn 2314
Fax. +91-22-215 2110 or 2181
e-mail: apte@ee.iitb.ac.in
In recent times, it has become apparent that corporations who seek innovative solutions to engineering problems are able to maintain a competitive edge in the world market. The techniques of optimizing and perfecting existing products have now been applied widely and thus are neither able to help in keeping the leading position nor launch new products to create and capture new markets. Innovations in existing products and inventions for new products, that too quickly and with fewer resources, will help in maintaining a competitive edge in an era of downsizing. Companies like Sony, (Japan), Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, 3M (USA) have all benefited by innovative strategies in the sense that more than 30% of their revenue has been due to products that were introduced in the last 2 years! Sony alone introduces about 50 new products every year!!
However, changing tracks from making ‘proven’ (safe) products to ‘innovative’ (new) products is not easy. The very things we cherished in the past are likely to be the hindering (mental) blocks. Specialist training, habits, paradigms, the working environment and (last but not the least) human nature, constrain our innovative thinking. This is called "psychological Inertia" and it has to be overcome to obtain innovative solution concepts for the chronic technical problems.
Many psychological techniques have been suggested
and practiced to overcome the psychological inertia – brainstorming, lateral
thinking etc. Yet, TRIZ is apparently the only technology based systematic
methodology that overcomes the "psychological inertia" and produces a large
range of solution concepts. The stress is on finding innovative solutions
concepts, from other engineering fields, that utilize available resources.
This directly results in improved product at reduced cost,
How will TRIZ help in INDIA ?
Indian industries have been primarily borrowing technologies from West and Japan. However, there are three main difficulties, TRIZ can help, in all the three cases, with quick results using fewer resources, to maintain a competitive edge and hold the market share.
This course introduces all the main TRIZ tools : Ideality and IFR, Problem formulation and Functional Analysis, Use of 40 Principles to solve contradictions, Use of S-curves and Technology Evolution trends, and Use of extended knowledge-bases. The introduction to each TRIZ tool is followed by a few examples from the knowledge (patent) database and at least one case study where a real problem has been solved by applying the particular TRIZ tool.
TRIZ methodology will be compared with
other Creative and Innovative methods like Brainstorming, Lateral Thinking,
Neuro-Lingual-Programming, Mind-mapping, etc. for their efficiency of overcoming
psychological inertia. The role of TRIZ in an innovative design cycle will
be discussed. The synergy between TRIZ, QFD and Taguchi methods will be
highlighted.
What is TRIZ ?
TRIZ is a Russian acronym meaning "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving". In 1946, Genrich Altshuller, the founder of TRIZ, was a patent reviewer at the Russian naval patent office at the young age of 20. He perceived that there is a definite pattern in the way innovations take place in technical systems. He started a study of 200,000 patents to look for the basic principles and patterns in the world's most innovative patents. He found that each of the most inventive patents primarily solved an ‘inventive’ problem. Altshuller defined inventive problems as those which contain conflicting requirements, which he called ‘contradictions’. Further he found that the same fundamental solutions were used over and over again, often separated by many years. He reasoned that if latter inventors had the knowledge of earlier solutions their task would have been simpler. He, therefore, set about extracting, compiling, and organizing such knowledge.
The collated patent database and subsequent analysis revealed a natural pattern of innovation that can help solve similar technological problems. This study was continued, by Altshuller and his disciples, over the past 50 years and has yielded a systematic approach to definition and identification of innovative problems, a set of problem solving tools, and a vast knowledge database, which can help solve current technical problems in an innovative way. Today, the TRIZ software database includes the essence of over 2,500,000 patents.
He defined 39 basic properties and 40 principles for solving problems containing contradiction in any two-of-39 properties. This he gave in the form of a contradiction table of size 39 x 39 with each cell giving up to 4 principles (and examples from patent data base), that may be used to eliminate the contradiction.
Altshuller also laid the foundation for development of an analytical approach to solving inventive problems with an axiom – "The evolution of all technical systems is governed by objective laws". Improvement of any part of a system which has already reached the highest level of functional performance will lead to conflict with another part. This will lead to eventual improvement of the less evolved part(s). Such a continuing and self-sustaining process will bring the system closer to its ‘ideal’ state.
Su-Field analysis ("two Substances and one Field") is used whenever a new function is introduced or modified (either inadvertently or intentionally) and inventive "standard solutions" (and examples from patent database) are available to find an analogous solution. ARIZ – ‘Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving’is used when systems mature and become complex thus making it difficult to modify or improve them in an incremental fashion.
Anticipatory Failure Determination and Directed Evolution are some of the more recent additions (1992-) to the tools of TRIZ. Only a brief introduction is included.
1. Methods and tools of TRIZ:
Altshuller’s research of over fifty years on Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving has led to many different classifications, methods and tools of invention.
1.1 Contradiction Matrix (39 x 39) :
Contradiction appears while trying to improve one desirable property another desirable property deteriorates! Conventional problem solving generally leads to a ‘compromise’ solution. As mentioned before, the most ‘inventive’ solution is obtained when a technical problem containing a ‘contradiction’ is solved by completely eliminating the contradiction.
Altshuller, from his research on over 40,000 most inventive patents, found that there are only "39 Features" which either improve or degrade. So, every problem could be described as a conflict between a pair of parameters (2-out-of-39 parameters). Many patents had, in the past, resolved these individual conflicts in several different fields. The conflicts were solved over and over again, sometimes, these were spaced several years apart. He concluded that only "40 inventive principles" were used to resolve these contradictions fully, and not as a trade-off or compromise. He further argued that, if the latter researchers knew these earlier results, they would have solved their own problems with more ease.
Altshuller, therefore, set about to
extract and to organize the frequently occurring contradictions and the
principles of the resolution of these contradictions. He put it in the
form of a matrix of 39-improving parameters and 39-worsening parameters
(39 X 39 matrix) with each cell entry giving the most often used (up to
4) inventive principles. This matrix is known as the "CONTRADICTION MATRIX"
and remains to be the simplest and the most straightforward of TRIZ tools.
The next page gives the complete list
of "39 Features" and "40 Inventive Principles".
Contradiction matrix and examples (corresponding to each inventive principle) forms the first of the knowledge databases of the TRIZ. This is not given in these notes, as it is a part of the TRIZ software "TechOptimizer-3.0".
List of the 39 Features1. Weight of moving object
2. Weight of stationary object
3. Length of moving object
4. Length of stationary object
5. Area of moving object
6. Area of stationary object
7. Volume of moving object
8. Volume of stationary object
9. Speed
10. Force11. Stress or pressure
12. Shape
13. Stability of the object's composition
14. Strength
15. Duration of action by a moving object
16. Duration of action by a stationary object
17. Temperature
18. Illumination intensity * (jargon)
19. Use of energy by moving object
20. Use of energy by stationary object21. Power * (jargon)
22. Loss of Energy
23. Loss of substance
24. Loss of Information
25. Loss of Time
26. Quantity of substance/the matter
27. Reliability
28. Measurement accuracy
29. Manufacturing precision
30. External harm affects the object31. Object-generated harmful factors
32. Ease of manufacture
33. Ease of operation
34. Ease of repair
35. Adaptability or versatility
36. Device complexity
37. Difficulty of detecting and measuring
38. Extent of automation
39. Productivity *
List of the 40 PrinciplesPrinciple 1. Segmentation
Principle 2. Taking out
Principle 3. Local quality
Principle 4. Asymmetry
Principle 5. Merging
Principle 6. Universality
Principle 7. "Nested doll"
Principle 8. Anti-weight
Principle 9. Preliminary anti-action
Principle 10. Preliminary actionPrinciple 11. Beforehand cushioning
Principle 12. Equipotentiality
Principle 13. 'The other way round
Principle 14. Spheroidality - Curvature
Principle 15. Dynamics
Principle 16. Partial or excessive actions
Principle 17. Another dimension
Principle 18. Mechanical vibration
Principle 19. Periodic action
Principle 20. Continuity of useful actionPrinciple 21. Skipping
Principle 22. "Blessing in disguise" or "Turn Lemons into Lemonade"
Principle 23. Feedback
Principle 24. 'Intermediary'
Principle 25. Self-service
Principle 26. Copying
Principle 27. Cheap short living objects
Principle 28. Mechanics substitution
Principle 29. Pneumatics and hydraulics
Principle 30. Flexible shells and thin filmsPrinciple 31. Porous materials
Principle 32. Color changes
Principle 33. Homogeneity
Principle 34. Discarding and recovering
Principle 35. Parameter changes
Principle 36. Phase transitions
Principle 37. Thermal expansion
Principle 38. Strong oxidants
Principle 39. Inert atmosphere
Principle 40. Composite materials
1.2 Level of inventions
Level 1 : apparent solution (32% of all the patents)
Altshuller felt that Level 1 is
not really innovative as it provides only some improvement to an existing
system without solving any problem.
Level 3 :
major improvements requiring Su-field analysis (18% of all the patents)
Level 4 :
radical change / new concept, requires ARIZ (4% of all the patents)
This level improves a technical
system, but without solving an existing technical contradiction. It simply
replaces the original technology with a new technology so as to move towards
ideality!
Altshuller proposed to exclude the two extreme levels viz. Level 1 and Level 5 from his inventive problem solving tools. As one can see, the tools become progressively more powerful as we move from Level 2 to Level 3 and to Level 4. The levels 2 and 3 are termed as "innovative" and Level 4 as "inventive".
1.3 Patterns in evolution of technological systems :
Contemporary TRIZ software has an Evolution Trends database containing over 20 trends and 200 lines of evolution with examples from different processes and products. Altshuller established 8 patterns of technical system evolution, which are given below
1.4 S-Field Analysis and Standard Solutions :
A technical system, in its smallest
unit, performs a function. Altshuller defined a function as the interaction
between two substances and a field acting between the two substances. The
S-field (or energy) acts on substance S2 to improve or modify
interaction with the substance S1. The two substances are also
known as "tool" (substance S2) and "object" (substance S1). Among many
possibilities that exist, the most important ones are the ‘useful interaction’
and the ‘harmful interaction’. The figure 1 below shows a S-Field
model for useful and harmful interaction.
Figure 1. S-Field model (showing 'useful' and 'harmful' action)
Once a technical system function is
stripped of all 'jargon' and is represented simply by its S-field model,
then it is possible to identify the current system's problem with a 'generic'
problem associated with the S-field model. Altshuller argued that such
generic problems have also been solved earlier by researchers and these
solutions would be part of various patents. He divided the standard solutions
into five generic classes and compiled a knowledge database of their solutions
from the patents. The five classes of standard solution are,
Class #1 : Build or destroy a
S-field
Class #2 : Develop (or bring
into existence) an S-field
Class #3 : Transition from a base system to a supersystem or
Class #4 : Measure or detect
anything within a technical system
Class #5 : Describe how to introduce
substances or fields into the technical system
Improvements in (partly) useful actions and elimination of harmful actions are considered for problem solving using the S-Field model. Each modification performed on S-Field model and its entities (two substances and a Field), is like a transformation of the system. Altshuller proposed that system improvement ideas could also be borrowed from analogous system having similar S-Field model and its transformation examples from patent literature. These he termed as "STANDARD SOLUTIONS". He identified 72 standard solutions based on basic variations and modifications in substances and fields of a S-Field model.
In the TRIZ software available today,
there are more than 200 standard solutions and each having several examples
from technology and patents in different fields. This is referred to as
Standards
database or as prediction database in the IMC's software "TechOptimizer-3.0".
1.5 Law of Ideality and Ideal Final Result (IFR) :
A technical system's primary objective is to provide some function. The main function can be divided and sub-divided into sub-functions till it can not be divided any further. This is known in TRIZ as the S-Field function model. Conventional thinking leads to : "It is required to deliver such and such function. Therefore, we must build such and suchmechanism or device". TRIZ, on the other hand, starts the thinking process by stating : "It is required to deliver such and such function without introducing a new mechanism or device into the system".
Law of ideality states that any technical system moves towards ideality, that is, it becomes more reliable, simple, effective – more ideal. An "Ideal System" can be defined as one that performs the function without existing. As we get closer to ideality, it costs less, it is simpler and more efficient.
Ideality always reflects the maximum
utilization of existing resources – within subsystems themselves or within
super-system including environment’s free resources like gravity, air,
heat, magnetic field, light etc. Altshuller stated that "art of inventing
is the ability to remove barriers to Ideality in order to qualitatively
improve a technical system". There are several ways to make the system
more ideal:
1.5.2 Ideal Final Result :
According to the law of ideality "All technical
systems evolve towards ideality". Every system designer must define an
ideal function that a system has to deliver. This is called as the Ideal
Final Result (IFR). Ideal Final Result is very useful concept as it ,
The IFR concept can be applied to the
product, process, substances by referring to an "the ideal product," "the
ideal process," and "the ideal substance." The ideal product is one that
performs without existing. The ideal process delivers the necessary action
without expending energy and time. The ideal substance does not exist,
but it helps fields to act on them in the required manner. Using the IFR
as a 'lighthouse', the necessary effect or function is achieved without
adding new processes or materials to the technical system. It is important
that the IFR be kept in mind at all times during the problem-solving process
and particularly when several solution concepts have to be evaluated and
one of them is to be selected for final implementation.
1.6 System of Systems and Resources :
In TRIZ, a system is considered as a "system of systems" i.e. a "hierarchical system" consisting of supersystem, base system and the subsystems. Thus, all available resources of supersystem, base system and the subsystems are taken as "resources" of the system.
Further development of the system function
is possible only by addition of new system components or replacement old
components by new components. Each new component brings along with it additional
resources. Thus, Level 4 solutions depend primarily on a new system that
implements the required system function without actually solving any contradiction.
Thus, these can be classified as inventive solutions or inventions. Additional/new
resources will further result in improvement towards a new superior level
of system performance.
1.7 Scientific and Technical Effects:
Altshuller developed an abstract model of scientific effects in which an effect is described as the interaction between two or more parameters, under certain operating conditions, which results in a specific level of output parameter. So, in a sense, an effect is a (non-linear) operator which operates on input (set of parameters) and delivers output (set of parameters).
During 1965-1970, he and his colleagues set about creating an Effects Database which was to be organized "from technical goals to means of realization". This he had to do afresh as conventionally scientific effects were always organized either subject-wise or by the name of the scientist or inventor. An inventor who needs to realize a specific function, say move an liquid, had look into different fields of physics, chemistry etc or search patiently by names of people associated with similar effects. The task is made extremely difficult, as the inventor may not even know anything of fields other than his own! Thus, a large database of effects was compiled in accordance to the basic goal and the means which achieve them. It is now easy for the inventor to first determine what basic function (S-Field model) he needs and then to look into Effects database for possible innovative solution concepts for realization of the same.
The Standard Solutions suggest particular
system transformation on the S-Field model. Scientific and Technical Effects
are used for realizing the function as modeled by the transformed S-Field
diagram. Furthermore, Scientific and technical effects are used in cases
where the S-Field model of the required function is known but there is
no known method of implementation. This is called as the synthesis
of functions.
1.8 ARIZ: Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving :
ARIZ is the central analytical tool
of TRIZ. It is a systematic procedure for identifying solutions, without
apparent contradictions, to the very complex problems. This is achieved
by a step by step analysis which inevitably leads even to reformulation
of the problem, that should be solved, and the solutions to the right problem.
The most recent version, ARIZ-85C contains nine steps:
STEP 2 : Make
S-Field Models of the system parts that have problem
STEP 3 : Formulate
an Ideal final result (IFR) and define ideality
STEP 4 : Make
a list of the available resources (of the system, subsystems and the supersystem)
STEP 5 : Look
into database of examples and find an analogous solution
STEP 6 : Resolve
Technical or physical contradiction by using inventive or separation principles
STEP 7 : Starting
from the S-Field model, Generate several solution concepts using
TRIZ methods : Øthe knowledge-base of Effects
STEP 9 : Analyze the modified system to verify that no new drawbacks appear
1.9 Anticipatory Failure Determination and Directed Evolution :
The Anticipatory Failure Determination
(AFD) is a tool for systematically identifying and eliminating system
failure before these occurs. (in answer to the question "How can we make
the system fail ?"). Directed Evolution is an extension to the Trends
of Evolution and allows the designer to anticipate a future scenario and
visualize a future best selling product and aggressively move into its
implementation.
2. Problem Solving using TRIZ tools :
It is now required to find an appropriate TRIZ method to solve the problem. TRIZ consists of 5 problem solving tools. These are listed below,
1. (Inventive) Principles to solve technical contradictions (the contradiction matrix)
2. Separation (Principles) to solve Physical contradictions (using available resources)
3. Standards for transformation of technical
systems
(for improving useful
function and eliminating harm)
4. Scientific and Technical Effects (for synthesis of functions)
5. ARIZ - Algorithm to solve a (complex)
inventive problem (with no explicit contradiction)
Innovative System / Situation Questionnaire
Even if one knows what is the problem,
it is still a good idea to ask all the relevant questions, because
it is important not to miss any aspect of the problem. The questions
given below form the starting point of TRIZ application of the software
by Ideation International.
2.2 Identify the problem
(System Contradictions) : Ask 5W’s and 1H
W1. Who has the problem?
W2. What does the problem seem to be? What are the resources?
W3. When does the problem occur? Under what circumstances?
W4. Where does the problem occur?
W5. Why does the problem occur? What is root cause?
And
H1. How does the problem occur?
How can the problem be solved?
1Q. Who has the problem? : This
clearly identifies the person connected with the problem. He could be one
who is using the final product or anyone in the line-up of concept-to-market
or a person at any of the product Life-stages (listed below),
stage 2: packaging
stage 3: storage
stage 4: transportation
stage 5: installation
stage 6: operation / use
stage 7: maintenance
stage 7: repair
1. Try to specify a conflict/contradiction
2. Try to specify a harmful action/interaction/effect
3. Try to specify an inefficient useful action/interaction/effect
Determine what is a possible remedy by using a TRIZ tool (keeping track of the resources):
(39 parameters and 40 inventive principles)
1b. Physical Contradiction : use separation principles
(space, time, structure - parts/whole, on condition)
2. Harmful action/effect : use direct or indirect elimination
and standard solutions
3. Inefficient useful action/effect : use standard solutions
and scientific effects
-- Time of conflict is before Time of operation
-- Time of conflict is during Time of operation
-- Time of conflict is after Time of operation
Determine what are the available time resources
Possible remedy using a TRIZ tool :
-- Use "separation-in-time" principle for eliminating
physical contradiction
>> where is the zone of conflict in relation to the Zone
of operation?
Determine what are the available
space resources
Possible remedy using a TRIZ tool :
5Q. Why does the problem occur?
{"Ask WHY 5 times " - W. E. Deming} :
Identify 2 substances ( "tool" and "object" ) and 1 field (energy, enabling, acting force)
Is "tool", "object" or "field" causing the problem?
Determine what are the available substance/field resources
1. Harmful action/effect : use direct or indirect elimination and standard solutions
2. Inefficient useful action/effect : use standard solutions
and scientific effects
" 5W's and an H " leads to a clear
understanding of the problem along with the ideal final result, the resources
available and the possible TRIZ tools to solve the problem.
2.3 Ideal Final Result (IFR) and Ideality :
One of the basic findings of TRIZ is that "Systems evolve towards increased ideality", where ideality is defined as
Benefits
Evolution is always in the direction
of increasing benefits, decreasing costs, and decreasing harm (so
as to give increased Ideality)
2.4 System Resources :
2.5 What issues are addressed by TRIZ ?
3. TechOptimizerTM software :
Definition: ‘Difficult’ engineering problems are those in which there are engineering or physical contradictions.
Engineering contradictions are conflicts between two different variables or requirements – for example, more ‘weight’ of zeolite is required so as to absorb more refrigerant (and give more cooling), but it creates a conflict by making the ‘regeneration’ of zeolite less effective.
A physical contradiction is one in which some variable should have two different values in the same place or at the same time. The above engineering contradiction can be stated as a physical contradiction in the following way - the layer of zeolite must be ‘thick’ (to accommodate more zeolite so as to absorb more refrigerant) and simultaneously be ‘thin’ (to quickly reach the temperature of the panel).
The Principles module helps
eliminate the contradictions or conflicts by giving several analogous examples
from knowledge (Patent) data bases from which an appropriate inventive
solution for the present problem can be arrived at. The Effects
module allows one to access examples from patent data base wherein known
physical, chemical and geometrical effects have been used in analogous
situations. The Prediction module suggests futuristic solutions
by referring to 1-out-of-22 ‘trends of evolution’ which are derived from
the same patent invention database.
TechOptimizerTM has a ‘Problem
Manager’, which receives, as input, a simple function model showing interaction
between one object and another. The problem manager suggests concepts which
would correct insufficient or excessive useful action and eliminate harmful
action by separating them in time, space and / or structure. For each interaction
between objects in the function model diagram, one or more concepts for
improving the said actions are recommended with the help of scientific
effects and engineering examples from a knowledge database extracted from
2.5 million patents. It also recommends trimming of a component
which is not effectively used or whose useful function can be performed
by one of the other existing components. Feature transfer module
compares two alternate systems, each having useful and harmful interactions
between components, and recommends how useful functions can be transferred
from one alternate system to another.
3.1 Function Model and Trimming
:
A system keeps on evolving according to one of the trends of evolution. Engineers all over the world like to add new features or functions through addition of parts or substitution of materials. Sometimes, in an effort to keep the ‘parts’ and ‘functions’ grouped together, the system complexity increases with implementation of every of new functional requirements. The systems usually get lot of ‘padding’, implying that new resources are added but not efficiently used! This is essentially the
Trend #5 "Increasing complexity followed by simplicity through integration."
Trimming a technical system is, therefore,
one of the best methods of getting rid of one or more of the parts/components
and thus initiate the process of integration. Every part in a technical
system performs a function. However, it may not be doing so reliably or
efficiently. Furthermore, it may actually have a harmful effect associated
with it. This will need correcting or will reduce efficiency of performing
useful function. Thus, every component in a function model is shown with
links that are either
Parts are to be eliminated or "trimmed" while their useful functions are still performed. The useful function may be performed by another part in a sub-system, or the super-system. This is illustrated using the example of a solar cooling system.
A function model of the solar cooling system,
given as input to the TechOptimizer, is shown in Figure 2. An example of
insufficient useful interaction is - solar panel raising the temperature
of the zeolite may be insufficient for ‘regeneration’ of the zeolite. An
example of harmful interaction is – ambient air cools the solar panel and
thus reduces the highest temperature the panel can reach.
The ‘problem manager’ of TechOptimizer
suggests concepts for eliminating the ‘harmful’ and improving the ‘partly
useful’ interactions. It also grades the components with ‘problem rank’
and suggests ‘trimming’ action for an inefficient component. In the existing
solar cooling system, the component called ‘container’ was trimmed and
its useful function (to accept condensate from ‘condenser’) was transferred
to ‘Evaporator’. The system thus became simpler and more efficient. The
function model after trimming is shown in Figure 3.
4. TRIZ and QUALITY:
QUALITY using TechOptimizer Modules
- Quality of manufacturing (processes) àTrimming
- Quality of product àPrinciples and effects
- Value or cost or the ratio of benefits/cost àTrimming
- Competitiveness àFeature Transfer
- Environmental quality
àEffects
and
Prediction
5. TRIZ and other 'creative' tools
:
5.2 TRIZ and de Bono’s Thinking Hats :
Color of Hat Thinking mode TRIZ analysis/problem solving
5.3 TRIZ and Lateral Thinking :
Thinking modes Example TRIZ's creative features
5.4 Synergy between QFD, Taguchi and TRIZ :
QFD concentrates on "what the customer wants?" Thus, it really defines the "Functional Requirements" (FR’s), without actually concerning directly with the question : "how these FR’s are met and which technology is used?". The "house of quality" does, however, qualitatively shows the gaps between organization's capabilities and customer requirements. QFD’s "house of quality" can be used to point out conflicts and the parameters that conflict. This can be directly used by TRIZ’s Contradiction Matrix to eliminate the conflict.
Taguchi methods are experimental statistical methods to optimize a given process technology with respect to an objective function defined as
Objective function = 10 Log10 {Ideality} = 10 Log10 { Benefits / ( Costs + Harms ) }
Variance is in fact reduced in presence of noise (variations in the control parameters of the process) and thus the product/process becomes "robust" and "low cost". It is primarily an optimization technique and suggests "optimum" parameter settings for best results. However, should there be trade-off situations, the ANOVA plots point to the situations requiring "trade-off". This occurs when two or more process parameters have conflicting effect on two distinct desired characteristics (technical contradiction) or when low and high levels of one single parameter result in improving one desired characteristics while the middle level gives worsening characteristics (physical contradiction).
The Taguchi method thus points out clearly the technical and physical contradictions and thus helps TRIZ in the sense of identification of the problem becomes easy. TRIZ tools can then be applied to resolve the contradictions. Exactly in the opposite way, the innovative solution concepts of TRIZ can be verified, evaluated, implemented by planning an experiment where parameter settings can be optimized and best process can be selected.
Thus, the synergy between QFD, Taguchi and TRIZ can be utilized for developing future products, right from conception to market.
REFERENCES
General :
Papers :
1926 : Altshuller born on October 15, 1926
1946 : Patterns of Evolution / or Objective Trends of Evolution of technical systems
1948 : Technical and Engineering contradictions
1952 : ARIZ - a step-by-step procedure was developed
(while in prison) and
was meant as "instructions to Inventors". Altshuller gave it the name ARIZ
in 1970
1959 : Ideal Final Result
1964 : In 1964 - Systematic analysis of patents was started
By 1968 it yielded the first table of 35 Inventive Principles1970 : Physical contradictions : The existence of physical contradictions behind technical or
Finally in 1971, 5 more Inventive Principles were added
The table or Altshuller's Matrix was thus complete.
1970 : Standard Solutions : In 1970s Altshuller begun to develop standard solutions of inventive problems.
1972 : Physical effects : The first lists of physical effects were prepared.
1973 : Substance-Field model : Altshuller found
that problems and solutions can be described with so called
substance-field models.
1975 : Database of scientific and technical effects
1977 : ARIZ-77 worked now together with the patterns
or trends of evolution, substance-field-transformations and
compiled guides of effects.
1977 : Standard Solutions : In 1977 existed 10 standards.
1985 : Standard Solutions : the system of 76 standards was published
More recent developments in TRIZ
1990 : In 1990s TRIZ got popular in the US, Germany, Japan
and many other countries.
The TRIZ theory and tools are now being developed and practiced throughout
the world.
1992 : Anticipatory Failure Determination
1995 : Directed Evolution
1992 -1997 : Software (IM-Lab, TechOptimizer 2.5, TechOptimizer
3.0)
by Invention Machine Corporation, USA
1995 -1999 : Software (Ideator, Improver, Eliminator,
Ideation Work-Bench, AFD)
by Ideation International Incorporated, USA
Altshuller died on September 24, 1998
1999 : Software by Ideation (Safety System)
Go back to Apte's web-page
Go back to TRIZ-Page