ch18

Mechanical Engineers’ Handbook: Materials and Mechanical Design, Volume 1, Third Edition. Edited by Myer Kutz Copyright  2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CHAPTER TRIZ 18 James E. McMunigal MCM Associates Long Beach, California Steven Ungvari Strategic Product Innovations, Inc. Columbus, Ohio Michael Slocum Breakthrough Management Group Longmont, Colorado Ruth E. McMunigal MCM Associates Long Beach, California 1 2 WHAT IS TRIZ? ORIGINS OF TRIZ 2.1 Altshuller’s First Discovery 2.2 Altshuller’s Second Discovery 2.3 Altshuller’s Third Discovery 2.4 Altshuller’s Levels of Inventiveness BASIC FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES 3.1 Ideality 3.2 Contradictions 3.3 Technical Contradictions 3.4 Physical Contradictions 3.5 Maximal Use of Resources A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH 4.1 How TRIZ Works 4.2 Five Requirements for a Solution to be Inventive CLASSICAL AND MODERN TRIZ TOOLS 5.1 Contradiction Matrix 613 613 613 613 614 614 6 615 615 616 617 617 617 618 619 622 622 622 9 7 8 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Physical Contradictions Formulating and Solving Physical Contradictions An Example Laws of Systems Evolution Analytical Tools Su-Field 624 624 624 625 626 626 628 629 630 635 635 639 639 641 3 PROBLEMS WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS RULES FOR THE INVENTOR: SU-FIELD SYNTHESIS CLASS 4: MEASUREMENT AND DETECTION STANDARDS ALGORITHM FOR INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING 9.1 Steps in ARIZ CAVEAT CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 10 11 5 612 2 Origins of TRIZ 613 1 WHAT IS TRIZ? TRIZ is the acronym for the Russian words Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch (Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems). TRIZ’s development, evolution, and refinement covers over 50 years of rigorous, empirically based analysis. The creativity and innovation mentioned within the context of science are rare. Typically, creativity and innovation are considered spontaneous phenomena occurring in a capricious and unpredictable way. Individuals such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Thomas Edison appear to have possessed innate, natural ability for creative thought and inventiveness. What characteristics enabled them, or anyone, to perform as a highly creative thinker? The term theory to the solution of inventive problems implies there is an innovation and/ or creative thought process (supported by an underlying construct and architecture) that can be deployed on an as-needed basis. The implications of such a theory, if true, are enormous, suggesting that technicians can elevate their creative thinking abilities by orders of magnitude when the need arises. 2 ORIGINS OF TRIZ The catalyst for TRIZ was a Russian named Genrich Altshuller (1926–1998). His interest in inventions began at an early age, patenting a device for generating oxygen from hydrogen peroxide by age 14. Altshuller’s fascination with inventions and innovation continued through Stalin’s regime and World War II. After the war, he was assigned as a patent examiner for the Department of the Navy. He found himself helping would-be inventors solve various problems with their inventions. Over time, Altshuller became fascinated with the study of inventions and understanding how their inventors’ minds worked. His initial attempts were psychologically based; however, these probes provided little if any insight on how creativity could be ‘‘engineered.’’ Altshuller turned his attention to studying inventions and reverse engineering them to understand the essential engineering problem being solved and the elegance of the solution as described in the patent application. Patent applications, called Author Certificates (ACs) in the former Soviet Union, were concise documents of three to four pages. The AC consisted of a descriptive title of the invention, a schematic of the new invention, a rendering of the current design, the purpose of the invention, and a description of the solution. 2.1 Altshuller’s First Discovery The brevity of the ACs facilitated analysis, cataloguing, and mapping of solutions to the problems. As the number of inventors applying for an AC increased, Altshuller uncovered similar patterns of solutions for similar problems. He developed a scientific, standardized approach to a problem and incorporated a latent knowledge base as an integral element of the solution process when he recognized that similar technological problems gave rise to similar patents. This phenomenon was repeated in widely disparate engineering disciplines, in various geographical areas, during different time frames. Altshuller postulated the possibility of creating a mechanism for describing ‘‘types’’ of problems and mapping them to types of solutions. This led to a mechanism naming the 39 typical engineering parameters, the contradiction matrix, and 40 inventive principles. 2.2 Altshuller’s Second Discovery As Altshuller assembled chronological technology maps, he uncovered regularity in the evolution of engineered systems. He described these time-based phenomena as ‘‘laws’’ and 614 TRIZ called them the eight laws of engineered systems evolution. The term laws does not imply that they conform to a strict scientific construction as one would describe in the field of physics or chemistry. The laws, though general in nature, are recognizable, and predictable and provide a road map to future derivatives. Today, these eight laws have been expanded into more than 400 ‘‘sublines’’ of evolution and are useful in technology development, product planning, and the establishment of defensible patent fences. 2.3 Altshuller’s Third Discovery The third truism that emerged was the realization that inventions are vastly different in their degree of ‘‘inventiveness.’’ Indeed, many of the patents he studied were filed to describe a system and provide some degree of protection. These patents were useless to Altshuller’s determination for discovering the secret of how an inventor reaches the highest order. To differentiate inventiveness, he devised a scale of 1–5 for categorizing the elegance of the solution. See Fig. 1. Only levels 3 and 4 solutions are deemed ‘‘inventive.’’ Within the body of TRIZ knowledge, ‘‘inventive’’ states that the solution was one that did not compromise conflicting requirements. For example, strength versus weight is an example of conflicting parameters. To increase strength, the engineer will typically make something thicker or heavier. An inventive solution would increase strength with no additional weight or even a reduction in weight. 2.4 Altshuller’s Levels of Inventiveness Level 1: Parametric Solution A solution utilizing well-known methods and parameters within an engineering field of specialty is the lowest level solution and is not an inventive solution. For example, a problem with roads and bridges icing over can be solved with the application of salt or sand. Level Nature of solution Number of trials to find the solution None to few Origin of the solution The designer’s field of specialty Within a branch of technology Several branches of technology From science— physical/chemical effects Beyond contemporary science % of patents at this level 1 Parametric Significant improvement in paradigm Inventive solution in paradigm Inventive solution out of paradigm True discovery 32% 2 10–50 45% 3 Hundreds Thousands to tens of thousands Millions 18% 4 4% 5 1% Figure 1 Altshuller’s levels of inventiveness. 3 Basic Foundational Principles 615 Level 2: Significant Improvement in the Technology Paradigm A significant improvement in the system utilizing known methods possible from several engineering disciplines is a level 2 solution. It is a significant improvement over the previous system, but it is not inventive. A level 2 solution of the icing problem would be required if conventional means were prohibited. This type of solution demands choosing between several variants that leave the original system essentially intact. The roadways or bridges, for example, could be formulated or coated with an exothermic substance that is triggered at a certain temperature. Level 3: Invention within the Paradigm The elimination of conflicting requirements within a system utilizing technologies and methods within the current paradigm is a level 3 solution. It is deemed to be inventive because it eliminates the conflicting parameters in such a way that both requirements are satisfied simultaneously. A level 3 solution to the conflicting requirements of strength versus weight has been solved in aircraft by the use of honeycomb structures and composites. Level 4: Invention Outside the Paradigm Creation of a new generation of a system with a solution derived not in technology but in science is a level 4 solution. It integrates several branches of science. The invention of the radio, the integrated circuit, and the transistor are examples of level 4 solutions. Level 5: True Discovery A level 5 discovery in one that is beyond the bounds of contemporary science. It will often spawn entire new industries or allow for the accomplishment of tasks in radically new ways. Laser and the Internet are examples of level 5 inventions. 3 BASIC FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES Altshuller’s three discoveries provide the construct for the formation of the foundational underpinnings upon which all TRIZ theory, practices, and tools are built. The three building blocks of TRIZ are ideality, contradictions, and the maximal use of resources. 3.1 Ideality The notion of ideality is a simple concept. Ideality states that, in the course of time, systems move toward a state of increased ideality. Ideality is the ratio of useful functions FU to harmful functions FH: Ideality I Fu FH Useful functions embody all of the desired attributes, functions, and outputs from the system. From an engineering point of view, it is what is termed design intent. Harmful functions, on the other hand, include the expenses or fees that are associated with the system; the space it occupies, the resources it consumes, cost to manufacture, cost to transport, cost to maintain, etc. Extrapolating the concept to its theoretical limit, one arrives at a situation where a system’s output consists solely of useful functions with the complete absence of any harmful consequences. Altshuller called this state the ideal final result (IFR). The IFR is not calcu- 616 TRIZ lated; it is a tool to define the ideal end state. Once the end state is defined, the question as to why it is difficult to attain it flushes out the real (contradictory) problems that must be overcome. One might argue that it is absurd to think of solving problems from the theoretical notion of the IFR instead of explicitly defining the current dimensions of the problem. However, it is precisely this point of view that opens up innovative vistas by reducing prejudice, bias, and psychological inertia (PI). Psychological inertia is analogous to thinking only within one’s paradigm. An engineer competent in mechanics, for example, is unlikely to search for a solution in chemistry because it is outside his or her paradigm. Problems with long duration yield an especially target-rich environment for TRIZ. Those intelligent folks who own the problem tend to work in their technical domain and the solution space often resides elsewhere. Some examples where discipline lines were successfully crossed are mechanical to microelectronic and composite lay-up to injection mold. The notion of ideality postulates that a system, any system, is not a goal in itself. It is only a goal or design intent of any system—the useful function(s) that the system provides. Taken to its extreme, the most ideal system is one that does not exist but nevertheless one that produces its intended useful function(s). See Figs. 2 and 3. In Fig. 3 the system has not reached a state of ideality because the useful interaction between A and B is accompanied by some type of unwanted (harmful) function. An ideal system A, on the other hand, is one that does not exist even when its design intent is fully accomplished. In the abstract, this notion might seem fantastical or even absurd. There is, however, a very subtle yet very powerful heuristic embodied in ideality. First, ideality creates a mind set for finding a noncompromising solution. Second, it is effective in delineating all of the technological hurdles that need to be to overcome in order to invent the best solution possible. Third, it forces the problem solver to find alternative means or resources in order to provide the intended useful function. The latter outcome is similar to an organization reassigning key functions to the individuals that are retained after a reduction in force. 3.2 Contradictions The second foundation principle is the full recognition that systems are inherently rife with various conflicts. Within TRIZ these conflicts are called contradictions. In TRIZ an ‘‘inventive’’ problem is one that contains one or more contradictions. Typically, when one is faced with a contradictory set of requirements, the easy resolution is to find a compromising solution. This type of solution, while it may be expedient, is not an inventive solution. If we return to the example of weight versus strength, an inventive solution satisfies both requirements. Another example would be speed versus precision. A TRIZ level 3 solution would satisfy both requirements utilizing available ‘‘in-paradigm’’ methods, while a level 4 Fh System A FU System B Fh Figure 2 System A and system B interaction with useful output and harmful effects. 3 Basic Foundational Principles 617 System A FU System B Figure 3 A’s effect of A when there is no system A yet system A function is carried out. solution would incorporate technologies outside of the current paradigm. In both cases, however, speed and precision would be achieved at a quality level demanded by the contextual parameters of the situation. In TRIZ, two distinct types of contradictions are delineated: technical contradictions and physical contradictions. (Methods for solving technical contradictions will be discussed later in the chapter.) 3.3 Technical Contradictions A technical contradiction is a situation where two identifiable parameters are in conflict: When one parameter is improved, the other is made worse. The two previously mentioned, weight versus strength and speed versus precision, are examples. See the Fig. 4. 3.4 Physical Contradictions A physical contradiction is a situation where a single parameter needs to be in opposite physical states; e.g., it needs to be thin and thick, hot and cold, etc., at the same time. A physical contradiction is the controlling element or parameter linking the parameters of the technical contradiction. Figure 5 shows the pulley (C) upon which parameters A and B rotate as the physical contradiction. The physical contradiction lies at the heart of an inventive problem; it is the ultimate contradiction. When the physical contradiction has been found, the process of generating an inventive solution has been greatly simplified. It stands to reason that when a physical contradiction is made to behave in two opposite states simultaneously, the technical contradiction is eliminated. For example, if by some means pulley C could rotate in opposite directions at the same time, both A and B would increase, hence eliminating the technical contradiction. 3.5 Maximal Use of Resources The third foundation principle of TRIZ is the maximal utilization of any available resources before introducing a new component or complication into the system. Resources are defined as any substance, space, or energy that is present in the system, its surroundings, or the environment. The identification and utilization of resources increase the operating efficiency of the system, thereby improving its ideality. In the former Soviet Improvement B A Figure 4 Relationship of parameters A and B; as one improves, the other worsens. 618 TRIZ C Improvement B A Figure 5 Physical contradictions example. For A and B to improve, C must rotate clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneoulsy. Union, where money was scarce, necessity proved to be the mother of invention. In the West, on the other hand, system problems were often engineered out by ‘‘throwing money and complexity’’ at a system. The utilization of resources as an X agent to solve the problem was and still is not widely practiced. A practiced TRIZ problem solver will marshal any in-system or environmental resources to assist in solving the problem. It is only when all resources have been exhausted or it is impractical to utilize one that the consideration for additional design elements comes into play. The mantra of a TRIZ problem solver is, ‘‘Never solve a problem by making the system more complex.’’ More on this when the Algorithm for Problem Solving (ARIZ) is discussed. Table 1 lists the types of resources used in TRIZ. 4 A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TRIZ is comprised of a comprehensive set of analytical and knowledge-based tools that were heretofore buried at a subconscious level in the minds of creative inventors. If asked to explain specifically how they invent, most people are unable to provide a repeatable formula. Table 1 Types of Resources Substance—any material contained in the system or its environment, manufactured products or wastes Energy—any kind of energy existing in the system Space—any space available in the system and its environment Time—time intervals before start, after finish, and between technological cycles, unused or partially used Functional—possibilities of the system or its environment to carry out additional functions Own—unused specific features and properties, characteristics of a particular system, such as special physical, chemical or geometrical properties; for example, resonance frequencies, magnetosusceptibility, radioactivity, and transparency at certain frequencies System—new useful functions or properties of the system that can be achieved from modification of connections between the subsystems or a new way of combining systems Organizational—existing but incompletely used structures or structures that can be easily built in the system, arrangement or orientation of elements or communication between them Differential—differences in magnitude of parameters that can be used to create flux that carry out useful functions; for example, speed difference for steam next to a pipe wall versus in the middle, temperature variances, voltage drop across resistance, height variance Changes—new properties or features of the system (often unexpected), appearing after changes have been introduced Harmful—wastes of the system (or other systems) which become harmless after use 4 A Scientific Approach 619 Through his work, Altshuller has codified the amorphous process of invention. His contribution to society is that he made the process of inventive thinking explicit. He has made it possible for anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence to become an inventor. TRIZ makes it possible for people of average intelligence to access a large body of inventive knowledge and through analogical analysis formulate inventive ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ solutions. 4.1 How TRIZ Works The general scheme in TRIZ is solution by abstraction. A specific problem is described into a more abstract form. The abstracted form of the problem has a counterpart solution at the level of abstraction. The connection between the problem and the solution is found through the use of various TRIZ tools. Once the solution analog is arrived at, the process is reversed, producing a specific solution. Figure 6 illustrates the process of solution by abstraction and Fig. 7 applies the process to an algebraic problem. Assume that we were given the task of solving the problem found in the equation 3x2 5x 2 0. Without a specific process, we would be reduced to the inefficient process of trial and error. An even more absurd method would be to try to arrive at the answer by brainstorming. Yet, brainstorming is often applied to problems that are much more complex than that shown above. This is what makes TRIZ so compelling—it provides a roadmap to highly creative and innovative solutions to seemingly impossible problems. Figure 7 provides the general schema for how TRIZ works. The fundamental idea in TRIZ is to reformulate a problem into a more general (abstract) problem and then find an equivalent ‘‘solved’’ problem. These analogs, in theory, define the solution space that is occupied by one or several noncompromising alternative solutions. TRIZ tools and techniques Abstract problem Abstrac category Abstract solutions category Abstraction Specialization Your specific inventive problem Your specific inventive solution Trial and error Brainstorming Partial solutions and compromises Figure 6 Solution by Abstraction using TRIZ. 620 TRIZ Algebraic techniques Abstract problem Abstract solutions a x 2 + bx + c = 0 X= [ -b ± b 2 - 4 ac Abstraction Specialization Specific problem 3 x 2 + 5x + 2 = 0 Specific solution X = -1, - 2 3 Figure 7 Solution by Abstraction using algebraic techniques. The advantage of increasing the level of abstraction is that the solution space is expanded. Solving the equation illustrated in Fig. 7 is relatively simple, assuming knowledge of algebra. The correctness of the solution is also easier to verify because the solution space is very small, e.g., there is only one right answer! Inventive problems pose a greater challenge than the one shown above because the solution space is very large. Figure 8 illustrates this truism. Figure 8 shows what happens when solving ‘‘inventive’’ versus noninventive problems. An inventive problem is often confused with problems of design, engineering, or a technological nature. For example, in constructing a bridge, the type of bridge to be built is largely an issue related to design. A cantilever bridge provides known design advantages over a suspension bridge in specific contexts and vice versa. This is an example of a noninventive design problem. The calculations of load and stress the bridge will have to withstand are an engineering problem. Coordinating the construction and assuring that materials meet specifications and the job is on time and within budget is a technical problem. While any of these problems are not insignificant by themselves, they are not inventive within the context of TRIZ because they are solvable by using known methods, formulas, schedules, etc. Furthermore, the path to the correct solution is defined and direct, and since the solution space is very small, verification of the answer is straightforward. This is not the case with inventive problems. An inventive problem in the context of building a bridge would to be to make the bridge lighter and stronger, larger and less expensive, longer and more stable, etc. These problems are inventive because they have to overcome one or more contradictions. Therefore, to reiterate, a problem is an inventive one when one or several contradictions must be overcome in the solution and a compromise solution is not acceptable. There are several distinguishing characteristics of an inventive versus typical problem, as shown in Fig. 8. The entire solution space can be quite large, containing both noninventive and inventive solutions. The two inner concentric circles represent level 3 and level 4 in- [ 1 2a 4 X = -1, 2 3 A Scientific Approach 621 Typical problem Psychological inertia Unacceptable solution 3x 2 + 5x + 2 = 0 Inventive problem Solution space S Compromising solution Unacceptable solution Level 3 inventive solution space Level 4 inventive solution space Figure 8 Solution space for inventive versus other problems. ventive solutions, while the larger outer circle represents an area of noninventive solutions. Just as it is harder to hit the bull’s-eye when shooting an arrow, so it is with hitting on an inventive solution. Why is this so? The initial factor oftentimes driving one off the mark, PI, defined previously, presupposes a solution path as defined by one’s individual paradigms. The route to a solution is often one of trial and error and strewn with several unacceptable solutions arrived at along the vector of one’s PI. In a sense, the process of defining the current problem and then driving to a solution can be considered a ‘‘push’’ method for finding a solution. TRIZ is different because one of the initial steps of the TRIZ process is to define the ideal state, i.e., the solution space found in level 3 or 4 solutions. The articulation of the ideal solution acts to orient the problem solver and ‘‘pulls’’ him or her in that direction. Furthermore, TRIZ guides one to the ideal solution through the process of abstraction and finding analogs, as discussed previously. These two fundamental elements of TRIZ serve as a powerful magnet to draw one to an inventive solution and provide an example of how this has been accomplished by a previous inventor. 622 4.2 TRIZ Five Requirements for a Solution to be Inventive Within the context of TRIZ, before a proposed solution is labeled inventive, it must meet all of the stringent requirements outlined in Table 2. 5 CLASSICAL AND MODERN TRIZ TOOLS In the course of his analytical work, Altshuller amassed a vast body of knowledge and invented analytical methods on how to access that body of knowledge. The subsequent evolution of TRIZ followed logical parallel paths. The creation of a body of ‘‘inventive’’ knowledge gave rise to various analytical tools making it easier to catalog and create more inventive knowledge that, in turn, spawned more sophisticated tools, and so on. The end result after more than 50 years of work is a complete set of sophisticated tools and an immense knowledge base of inventive ideas, methods, and solutions that can be mobilized to attack any inventive problem. To date, these tools have been used to solve problems related to product design and development, quality, manufacturing, cost reduction, production, warranty, and prevention of product failures, to name just a few applications. The tools of TRIZ are subdivided into two major categories. The first division is by the nature of the tool, e.g., analytical versus knowledge base. The second differentiation is chronological: classical TRIZ versus I-TRIZ. The classical TRIZ tools span those derived from 1946 to 1985 with Altshuller as the primary inventive force. A protegee of Altshuller, Boris ´ ´ Zlotin of The Kishnev School (of TRIZ), continued developing the methodology, which for purposes of differentiation is called I-TRIZ. 5.1 Contradiction Matrix The first of the classical TRIZ tools invented by Altshuller is the contradiction matrix. The objective of the matrix is to direct the problem-solving process to incorporate an idea that has been utilized before to solve an analogous ‘‘inventive’’ problem. The contradiction matrix accomplishes this by asking two simple questions: Which element of the system is in need of improvement? If improved, which element of the system is deteriorated? This is a technical contradiction. A portion of the 39 39 matrix is shown in Fig. 9. The matrix is constructed by juxtaposing 39 engineering parameters along the vertical and horizontal axis. At the intersections Altshuller filled in from one to four numerical values hinting at ways to solve the problem. The numerical values identified one of the 40 inventive principles that were culled from the knowledge base as ways in which an analog to the specific problem had been solved previously. The 39 engineering parameters are general in nature and act as surrogates for the specific ‘‘real’’ parameters in conflict. The inventive principles are broad and nonspecific as the exact way in which they should be applied. In Fig. 9, the problem is trying to improve ‘‘convenience of use,’’ but when this is attempted, Table 2 Requirements of Inventive Solutions Solution Solution Solution Solution Solution fully resolves the contradictory requirements. preserves all advantages of the current system. eliminates the disadvantages of the current system. does not introduce any new disadvantages. does not make system more complex. 5 1 Classical and Modern TRIZ Tools 2 3 22 623 Deteriorated feature Weight of nonmoving object Feature to improve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weight of a moving object Weight of a nonmoving object Length of a moving object Length of a nonmoving object Area of a moving object Area of a nonmoving object Volume of moving object Weight of a moving object 15,8 29,34 6, 2 34,19 18, 19 28, 15 8,15 29,34 35,28 40,29 2,17 29,4 30,2 14,18 2,26 29,40 1,7 35,4 14,15 18,4 35,39 6, 28 15, 17 30,26 17, 7 30 7 ,15 13,16 33 Convenience of use 34 Repairability 35 Adaptability 36 Complexity of device 25,2 6,13,1 1,17 13,15 ,25 13,12 2,27 2,27 1,28 35,11 35,11 10,25 1,6 19,15 35,1 15,8 29,16 29,2 26,30 2,36 1,19 34,36 35,39 26,24 27,26 6,13 16,17 28,13 28,1 26,24 28,26 28,26 14,13 18,35 35,10 17,28 35,26 28,27 18,4 24,37 15,3 28,38 2,19 13 15, 1 32,19 18, 15 1 10,35 13,2 35,3 15,19 23,28 28,10 29,35 37 Complexity of control 38 Level of automation 39 Productivity Figure 9 Contradiction matrix. it results in ‘‘waste of energy.’’ The matrix suggests that when this type of problem is encountered, principles 2, 9, and 13 have been utilized to resolve the contradiction. Table 3 provides details on these three principles. The process for using the contradiction matrix follows the general schema shown in Fig. 7. The steps are as follows: 1. Describe the problem. 2. Select the parameter most closely aligned with one of the 39 engineering parameters from the feature-to-improve column. 3. State your proposed solution. Waste of energy 7, 2 Length of a moving object 624 TRIZ Table 3 Three of the Forty Inventive Principles → 3. Local quality a. Change an object’s structure from uniform (homogeneous) to nonuniform (heterogeneous) or change the external environment (or external iinfluence) from uniform to nonuniform b. Have different parts of the object carry out different functions c. Place each part of the object under conditions most favorable for its operation ↓ ↑ → 9. Preliminary antiaction prepare a. If it is necessary to perform some action with both harmful and useful effects, consider a counteraction in advance that will negate the harmful effects b. Create stresses in an object that will counger known undesirable forces later on → 13. The other way around a. Instead of an action dictated by the specifications of the problem, implement an opposite action b. Make a moving part of the object or the outside environment immovable and the nonmoving part movable c. Turn the object upside down and inside out; freeze it instead of boiling it 4. Select which feature will be deteriorated. 5. Note the inventive principle(s) at the intersection. 6. Apply the inventive principle(s). 5.2 Physical Contradictions A physical contradiction (PC) is the controlling element in the system that links the two conflicting parameters in the technical contradiction; see Fig. 4. The PC expresses the most extreme form of contradictory requirements because the conflict must be resolved solely within a single entity. As Fig. 4 shows, the PC (pulley) is at the root of the inventive problem. If it were possible to make the pulley turn in opposite directions simultaneously, the technical contradiction would disappear. From a TRIZ standpoint, solving an inventive problem by satisfying the conflicting requirements of the PC results in elegant solutions with a greater degree of inventiveness. 5.3 Formulating and Solving Physical Contradictions A PC is formulated according to the logic: ‘‘To perform function F1, the object must exhibit property P, but to perform function F2, it must exhibit property P. The solution to PCs is accomplished by incorporating principles of separation. There are five separation principles that can be used to resolve a PC. See Table 4. 5.4 An Example The principle of separation in time can be explained by a well-known illustration used by Altshuller. Assume that one is driving concrete piles for buildings into very hard ground. To 5 Table 4 Separation Principles 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Classical and Modern TRIZ Tools 625 Separation in time Separation in space Separation between the system and its components Separation upon condition Coexistence of contradictory properties facilitate ease of driving the piles, the tip profile should be sharp. Once in place, the pile should be stable, which means the profile should be blunt. In other words, the pile should be sharp and blunt—a PC. How can this be? The problem is solved by imbedding an explosive into the sharp end of the pile and, when it is in place, destroying the sharp profile by setting off the explosive. The tip profile is sharp (P) during time T1 (driving into the ground) and it is blunt ( P) during time T2 (in place). 5.5 Laws of Systems Evolution The notion of predicting future technological patterns and derivatives has been recognized as a means of creating competitive leverage. Techniques such as technology forecasting, morphological analysis, trend extrapolation, and the Delphi process have been utilized since the World War II. All of these techniques are based on statistical probability modeling. In TRIZ, future derivatives are based on predetermined patterns of evolution that have been around since the invention of the wheel. Past evolutionary trends provide an ‘‘evolutionary crystal ball’’ for understanding how current technologies will morph over time. Altshuller termed these phenomena ‘‘laws of evolution.’’ These laws represent a stable and repeatable pattern of interactions between the system and its environment. These patterns occur because systems are subject to various cycles of improvement. When a new technological system emerges, it typically provides the minimum degree of functionality required to satisfy the inventor’s intent. For example, the first powered flight by the Wright brothers occurred on December 17, 1903. The Flyer, with Orville Wright as the pilot, flew to a height of 10 ft and landed heavily after 12 s in the air. Today, jets are capable of flying at heights over 60,000 ft over thousands of miles at several times the speed of sound. What happened with airplanes has been repeated in other types of engineered systems. The way in which systems evolve can be shown on life cycle, or ‘‘S,’’ curves. Figure 10 shows the evolutionary picture. From the time a system emerges to point a, its development is slow as it is unproven. At point a, the dominant design paradigm appears and the system is poised for commercialization. From point a to b the system experiences rapid improvement as commercialization and market pressures force cycles of continuous improvements. From point b to c the rate of improvement slows as the technology matures. As the system passes point b, the next system (B) is itself emerging. The abandonment of the original system in favor of the new one is governed by how much greater potential it possesses in comparison to the unrealized improvements remaining in system A. Being a keen observer of inventive phenomena, Altshuller, through his analysis, uncovered eight describable, chronologically sequenced events. He called these events the laws of systems evolution. See Table 5. Within these eight major laws, Altshuller and his students have found numerous ‘‘sublines’’ of evolution. Given the detail that is now captured in the evolutionary knowledge 626 TRIZ ideality Degree of I c b B d C A a Time Figure 10 Life cycle, or ‘‘S’’ curves, evolutionary picture. base, it is possible through the analysis of patents to fix where the technological system is positioned on its life-cycle curve. Figure 11 shows a few of the sublines of Law 4, increased dynamism. An analogy can be drawn between use of the laws of evolution and laws of motion. If the position of a moving object is known at a certain moment of time, any future position can be determined by solving equations containing velocity and direction. The laws of evolution serve as ‘‘equations’’ describing how the system will change as it travels through time. If the current position of the system is known, future derivatives can be ‘‘calculated’’ using the laws to indicate future positions. The implications to research-and-development initiatives, protection of intellectual assets, technology development strategy, patent strategies, and product development scenarios are profound. 5.6 Analytical Tools In addition to the knowledge-based tools, Altshuller developed several analytical tools. The two most widely used are substance field modeling (Su-Field) and ARIZ. 5.7 Su-Field The standard minimum system and its transformations (a generic formulation, according to the corollaries associated with Su-Field analysis) became the foundation of a set of standard Table 5 Patterns of Technological Systems Evolution 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Stages of evolution Evolution toward increased indeality Nonuniform development of systems elements Evolution toward increased dynamism and controllability Increased complexity, then simplification Evolution with matching and mismatching components Evolution toward microlevel and increased use of fields Evolution toward decreased human involvement 5 Classical and Modern TRIZ Tools 627 Increased dynamism In the course of time, technological systems transition from rigid systems to flexible and adaptive ones Nondynamic system System with many states Variable system Evolution of Automotive Transmission One-speed gearbox One Multispeed gearbox Automatic transmission Continuously variable Figure 11 Sublines of Law 4, increased dynamism. solutions (76 standard solutions) that is effectively utilized for manipulation, with the intent of the model transformations analogically resulting in solutions to a specific problem. These solutions, or standard transformations, are grouped into five classes: Class 1. Composition and decomposition of Su-Field models (SFMs) Group 1-1: Synthesis of a SFM Group 1-2: Decomposition of SFMs Class 2. Evolution of SFMS Group 2-1: Transition to complex SFMs Group 2-2: Evolution of SFM Group 2-3: Evolution by coorinating rhythms Group 2-4: Ferromagnetic SFMs (feSFMs) Class 3. Transitions to supersystem and microlevel Group 3-1: Transitions to bisystem and polyststem Group 3-2: Transition to microlevel Class 4. Measurement and detection standards Group 4-1: Instead of measurement and detection—system change Group 4-2: Synthesis of a measurement system Group 4-3: Enhancement of measurement systems Group 4-4: Transition to ferromagnetic measurement systems Group 4-5: Evolution of measurement systems Class 5. Special rules of application Group 5-1: Substance introduction Group 5-2: Introduction of fields 628 TRIZ Group 5-3: Use of phase transitions Group 5-4: Physical effects use Group 5-5: Substance particles obtaining Su-Field analysis 6 PROBLEMS WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS Overcoming contradictions solves both simple and complex problems. Why do contradictions occur? Because, striving to improve the world around us, the inventor demands a lot from technical objects. This is logical, for in order to meet the increasing demand, technical systems (TSs) should constantly increase in efficiency (or decrease in harmful, or redundant, properties). This means that one group of inventive problems focuses on improving the existing technical systems. Once involved in the technological evolution process, they start facing contradictions. The increasing demand cannot always be met by improving the existing TS. This gives rise to a question: Are there problems where no contradiction can be defined? Example. In the course of reconstruction, a match factory was equipped with highperformance machines that doubled the factory’s production rate. Yet, there was an operation that slowed down the whole process: packing the ready matches into boxes. The old machines could not cope with twice as much production. Lack of space made it impossible to install two packing lines. Finally, a decision was made to remove the out-of-date packing equipment. The old equipment had some deficiencies, too. It was ‘blind’ and would often pack reject matches without heads or pack the wrong number of matches. Therefore, it became urgent to find an accurate method for packing millions of matches into boxes. There was a requirement for a system that would detect faulty matches. There was no visible contradiction in this problem, but still there was the need to find a solution. The introduction of a small amount of ferromagnetic powder (application of a standard form Class 4, Group 4-4) to the ignition compound gave slight magnetic properties to each match. This was enough to orient the matches in a magnetic field and pack them faster and with higher accuracy (for a magnet of certain square surface attracts a fixed number of matches). Let us analyze the problem and its solution in detail. First, as the conditions of the problem suggest, there was nothing to improve. The old TS was dismantled; therefore, a new system should be created. The matches were there, but what were we supposed to do with them? Should we count, orient, or package the matches? The problem was solved using the introduction of a ferromagnetic powder into the ignition compound of the match heads and using a magnetic field to create a system that could easily detect and control defect reduction in the packaged system. In the beginning, there was one substance (the matches, S1), and in the end there were two substances (the matches, S1, and the ferromagnetic powder, S2) and one field (magnetic, FM). The system is depicted in Fig. 12. Initial situation Result S1 (matches) S1 S2 F Figure 12 Pre-Su-Field analysis. (matches) (ferro-powder) (magnetic field) 7 Rules for the Inventor: Su-Field Synthesis 629 How does the system work? The magnetic field (FM) acts on the ferro magnetic powder, S2, which in turn acts on the matches (S1). Graphically the operation can be represented as depicted in Fig. 13. In other words, one should work from a single element (S1) toward a system of interacting elements (S1, S2, and FM). A double arrow (to avoid confusion with arrows that indicate the interaction between elements) indicates this transition. The entire process of transition is displayed in Fig. 14. All this resembles the symbolic representations of a chemical reaction. Two elements (e.g., oxygen and nitrogen) are heated (i.e., an external thermal field is introduced). As a result of interaction, they form a molecule of water; but, if a single atom is withdrawn from the molecule, the water will disappear. Can we treat the right-hand triangle of this technical reaction, in Fig. 14, as a ‘‘molecule’’ of a TS? Let us validate this idea: Will the system work if we withdraw any of the substances? No, the system will fall apart and cease to be a system. The same holds true for the situation in which the field is withdrawn. Does this mean that the system’s operation is secured by the presence of all three of the elements? Yes. This follows from the main principle of materialism: A substance can only be modified by material factors, i.e., by matter or energy (a field). With respect to a TS, this principle is as follows: A substance can only be modified as a result of a direct action performed by another substance (e.g., impact—mechanical field) or by field action of another substance (e.g., magnetic) or by an external field. As a consequence, the minimal number of elements any TS consists of is three: two substances and a field—thus the concept of a minimal TS was named a Su-Field. 7 RULES FOR THE INVENTOR: SU-FIELD SYNTHESIS Discarding redundancies, SFMs shed light on the essence of transformations (synthesis and evolution) of technical systems and allow the use of universal technical language to represent the process of solving any inventive problem. That is why analysis of Su-Field structures in those parts of technical systems where contradictions occur under transformation is called Su-Field analysis. Su-Field analysis presents a general formula that shows the direction of solving the problem. This direction depends heavily on the initial conditions of the problem. Consider the example problem: Any slightest alteration of conditions will profoundly change the process of solving the problem. For example, no materials may be introduced into the match head, no cooling medium can be poured into the hollow boom of the robot, etc. How can you decide which step to take? The SFM is defined as follows: A Su-Field model is a representation of the minimal, functioning and controllable technical system. Quite often, conditions contain two substances and a field that have insufficient interaction and cannot be replaced with other substances or field. That is, the SFM is there (all FM S1 S2 Figure 13 Su-Field model for the example system. 630 TRIZ FM S1 S1 S2 Figure 14 Incomplete system and the transformation to a solution model using Class 4, Group 4.4, from the 76 standard solutions. three elements are present) and, at the same time, it is not there. It simply will not work. The same may happen after completing a SFM. That means that the SFM needs to be improved: The substances should become controllable, the field should have a desired effect, and the character of interaction of elements should proceed as required. There is a set of transformation rules for substances and fields in SFMs. The following is one such rule (see also Fig. 15): Formation of complex Su-Field by introducing an easily controllable admixture possessing desirable properties into the substance. The admixture can be introduced into the substance (internal complex Su-Field) or, where internal introduction is inadmissible, placed outside the substance (external complex Su-Field). (a) Internal Complex Su-Field. Wetting of fabric; foaming of varnish (problem 3); emergence of multicolored inserts impressed at certain distance to the cutting edge indicates the wear of the cutting tool (Soviet patent 905,417). (b) External Complex Su-Field. Admixing ferromagnetic powder to cereal, production of hollow metal porous balls: Polystyrene balls are given a metal coat and subsequently dissolved in organic solvent (U.S. patent 3,371,405). To avoid rumpling, the corrugations of the thin surface are filled with low-melting-point metal, which is withdrawn after treatment (Soviet patent 776,719) (see Fig. 16.) 8 CLASS 4: MEASUREMENT AND DETECTION STANDARDS Group 4-1: Instead of Measurement and Detection—System Change Standard 4-1-1. If we are given the problem of detection or measurement, it is proposed to change it such that there should be no need to perform detection or measurement at all. EXAMPLE. To prevent a permanent electric motor from overheating, its temperature is measured by a temperature sensor. If the poles of the motor are made from an alloy with a Curie point equal to the critical value of the temperature, the motor will stop itself. Standard 4-1-2. If we are given the problem of detection or measurement and it is impossible to change the problem to remove the need for detection or measurement, it is proposed to replace direct operations on the object with operations on its copy or picture. S F S1 S S2 F S1 F S2 Figure 15 Transformational rules for SFM. 8 Initial Su-Field system Class 4: Measurement and Detection Standards (a) Internal complex Su-Field (b) External complex Su-Field 631 F S1 F S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 F ( S 2, S 3) F S1 F ( S 2, S 3) S 2, S 3 F S1 S 2, S 3 Figure 16 Complex SFM. Nonexistent interactions shown by dashed lines; parentheses indicate internal. EXAMPLE. It might be dangerous to measure the length of a snake. It is safe to measure its length on a photographic image of the snake and then recalculate the obtained result. Standard 4-1-3. If we are given the problem of measurement and the problem cannot be changed to remove the need for measurement and it is impossible to use copies or pictures, it is proposed to transform this problem into a problem of successive detection of changes. Note: Any measurement is carried out with a certain degree of accuracy. Therefore, even if the problem deals with continuous measurement, one can always single out a simple act of measurement involving two successive detections. This makes the problem considerably simpler. EXAMPLE. To measure a temperature, it is possible to use a material that changes its color depending on the current value of the temperature. Alternatively, several materials can be used to indicate different temperatures. Group 4-2: Synthesis of Measurement Systems Standard 4-2-1. If a non-SFM is not easy to detect or measure, the problem is solved by synthesizing a simple or dual SFM with a field at the output. Instead of direct measurement or detection of a parameter, another parameter identified with the field is measured or detected. Refer to Fig. 17. If the conditions contain limitations on the introduction or attachment of substances, the problem has to be solved by synthesizing a Su-Field model using external environment as the substance: F S1 S 2, S se S se is the substance from the surrounding environment. The left part of the formula coincides with that in the previous formulas. Figure 17 Synthesizing SFM using external environment as the substance. 632 TRIZ EXAMPLE. To detect a moment when a liquid starts to boil, an electrical current is passed through the liquid. During boiling, air bubbles are formed; they dramatically reduce electrical resistance of the liquid. Standard 4-2-2. If a system (or its part) does not provide detection or measurement, the problem is solved by transition to an internal or external complex measuring SFM, introducing easily detectable additives. EXAMPLE. To detect leakage in a refrigerator, a cooling agent is mixed with a luminophore powder. Standard 4-2-3. If a system is difficult to detect or to measure at a given moment of time and it is impossible to introduce additives in the object, then additives that create an easily detectable and measured field should be introduced in the external environment and the changing state of the environment will provide an indication of the state of the object. EXAMPLE. To detect the wear of a rotating metal disc in contact with another disk, it is proposed to introduce luminophore into the oil lubricant, which already exists in the system. Metal particles collecting in the oil will reduce luminosity of the oil. Standard 4-2-4. If it is impossible to introduce easily detectable additives in the external environment, they can be obtained in the environment itself, e.g., by decomposing it or by changing the aggregate state of the environment. Note: Specifically, gas or vapor bubbles produced by electrolysis, cavitation, or by any other method are often used as additives obtained by decomposing the external environment. EXAMPLE. The speed of water flow in a pipe might be measured by the amount of air bubbles resulting from cavitation. Group 4-3: Enhancement of measurement system Standard 4-3-1. Efficiency of a measuring SFM is enhanced by the use of physical effects. EXAMPLE. The temperature of liquid media can be determined by measuring the change in the coefficient of retraction, which depends on the value of the temperature. Standard 4-3-2. If it is impossible to detect or measure directly the changes that take place and if no field can be passed through the system, the problem is to be solved by exciting resonance oscillations (of the whole system or of its part), whose frequency change is an indication of the changes that take place. Refer to Figs. 18 and 19. F1 S1 S1 S2 F1 modified Figure 18 8 F S1 Class 4: Measurement and Detection Standards F1 S2 S2 S1 F1 modified Figure 19 633 S3 EXAMPLE. To measure the mass of a substance in a container, the container is subjected to mechanically forced resonance oscillations. The frequency of the oscillations depends upon the mass of the system. Standard 4-3-3. If no resonance oscillations can be excited in a system, its state can be determined by a change in the natural frequency of the object (external environment) connected with the system under control. EXAMPLE. The mass of boiling liquid can be determined by measuring the natural frequency of gas resulting from evaporation. Group 4-4: Transition to Ferromagnetic Measurement Systems Standard 4-4-1. The efficiency of a measuring SFM is enhanced by using a ferromagnetic substance and a magnetic field. Note: The standard indicates the use of a ferromagnetic substance that is not crushed. EXAMPLE. A group of students developed a method of measuring speed, direction, time, and operating status of an operating system designed to unwind some type of material from one spool to another spool. To take mechanical rotations and put them in the form of analog pulses that could be analyzed by either a microprocessor or electronic component through a pulsed tachometer, the following detection method was developed. A pulsed tachometer can detect rotations of a rotating shaft that contain a ferromagnetic rotor comprised of ‘‘iron brushes’’ perpendicular to the axis. The magnet in the pickup sensor creates a magnetic field around the sensor. When the iron brushes on the rotor pass through the magnetic field, the flux change induces an electromotive force (EMF) in a coil sensor. These create analog pulses that can be used to determine operating speed, time, direction, and status. Standard 4-4-2. Efficiency of detection or measurement is enhanced by transition to feSFMs, replacing one of the substances with ferromagnetic particles (or adding ferromagnetic particles), and by detecting or measuring the magnetic field. EXAMPLE. In an effort to orient or align numerous objects, ferromagnetic material can be added to the same portion of each object to be aligned. A magnet can then be used to attract the ferromagnetic portion of the object thus, orienting or aligning the objects. Standard 4-4-3. If it is required to raise a system’s efficiency of detection or measurement by going to a feSFM, while replacement of the substance with ferromagnetic particles is not allowed, the transition to the feSFM is performed by building a complex feSFM, introducing (or attaching) ferromagnetic additives to the substance. 634 TRIZ EXAMPLE. The addition of iron oxide (a ferromagnetic powder) is now included as a pigment in black ink to validate currency and other negotiable documents. This technology is in continual development as computers and high-quality color printers make counterfeiting an elementary process. The magnetic fields from these particles produce signatures that, when read by magnetic sensors, can also be used to determine denominations of currency by vending or change machines. Standard 4-4-4. If it is required to enhance a system’s efficiency of detection or measurement by going over to a feSFM, while introduction of ferromagnetic particles is not allowed, ferromagnetic particles are to be introduced in the external environment. EXAMPLE. The discovery of the electron resulted in extreme advances in the chemistry field. In 1927, Wolfgang Pauli developed a formal representation of the electron spin concept. Experimentation in 1967 produced data that indicated that electrons from ferromagnetic particles (Fe, Co, and Ni) were not spin polarized as had been previously theorized. To continue testing, an ultrahigh vacuum was constructed where photoemissions of electrons could be performed down to 4.2 K and in magnetic fields up to 50 kOe. This device obtained strikingly different results: The electrons photoemitted from various particles were highly spin polarized. Continued research allowed for the development of spin polarization spectroscopy, helping scientists to further understand magnetism. Recent testing utilizing thin ferromagnetic films indicates that the films may be useful in acting as a spin filter similar to plastic foils used with polarized light. Standard 4-4-5. Efficiency of a feSFM measuring system is enhanced by the use of physical effects, such as going through the Curie point, Hopkins and Barkhausen effects, magnetoelastic effect, etc. EXAMPLE. Diagnosing and forecasting residual life of steel structures are important in determining the safety of large structures. Material magnetic memory (MMM) is effective in the assessment of the stressed–strained state of structures. This method envelops the theory that in zones of stress and strain concentration there are irreversible changes of the magnetic state of ferromagnetic items. Change of residual magnetization in tension, compression, torsion, and cyclic loading of ferromagnetic items is directly related to the maximal acting stress. The operator moves a sensor measuring the residual magnetic field intensity (Hp, A / m) along the weld over the entire perimeter and then transversely to the weld with the amplitude of deviation from the weld edge for 30–50 mm toward the base metal of the pipe element. The second operator records in the log book the data on residual magnetization of the metal, namely magnetic field intensity with the plus or minus sign. An abrupt change of the sign and value of Hp points to a concentration of residual stresses along the Hp 0 line for a specific section of the welded joint. The main purpose of MMM is detection of the most critical sections and components in the controlled plant, which are characterized by strain concentration zones. After MMM, the traditional methods of nondestructive testing (ultrasonic test, X-ray, and eddy current inspection, etc.) are used to determine the presence of a particular defect. Group 4-5: Evolution of Measurement Systems Standard 4-5-1. Efficiency of a measuring system at any stage of its development is enhanced by transitioning to a measuring bi- or polysystem. Note: For a simple formation of bi- and polysystems two or more elements are to be combined. The elements to be combined may be substances, fields, Su-Field pairs, and whole SFMs. 9 Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving 635 EXAMPLE. It is difficult to accurately measure the temperature of a small beetle. However, if there are many beetles put together, the temperature can be measured easily. Standard 4-5-2. Measuring systems are developed towards a transition to measuring the derivatives of the function under control. The transition is performed along the following line: Measurement of a function → measurement of the first derivative of the function → measurement of the second derivative of the function EXAMPLE. Changes of stress in the rock are defined by the speed of changing the electrical resistance of the rock. 9 ALGORITHM FOR INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING ARIZ is the primary problem-solving tool in TRIZ. ARIZ was published in 1959 and revised many times: ARIZ-61, ARIZ-64, ARIZ-65, ARIZ-71 and ARIZ-85. Each revision improved the structure, language, and length of the algorithm. In its current state, we have a carefully crafted set of logical statements that transform a vaguely defined problem into an articulation of one with a clearly defined number of contradictions. The assumptions designed into ARIZ are that the true nature of the problem is unknown and the process of finding a solution will follow the problem solver’s vector of psychological inertia. It is why many of the steps in ARIZ are reformulations of the problem. With each reformulation, the problem is viewed from a different vantage point, yielding the possibility of new and novel ideas. In mathematics, an algorithm is a precise set of steps designed to arrive at a single outcome. No consideration is given to the personality of the problem solver or to any changeable external conditions. The process is rote. In a broader context, an algorithm is a process following a set of sequential steps. ARIZ falls within that broader definition. ARIZ is a structured set of logic statements that guide the process of invention through a series of formulations and reformulations of the problem. If a chronic technological problem persists even after many attempts to solve it, the reason is often because the wrong problem is being solved. The selection of which problem to solve in an inventive situation is the starting point. It is critical that this selection is correct if there is any hope of arriving at an inventive solution in a timely manner. As with any systematized process, ARIZ is dependent on the innate intelligence and knowledge of the subject matter expert and the skill with which he or she utilizes the tool. The strength of ARIZ, however, is that the process of thinking inventively is stripped of psychological inertia and regulated in a stepwise fashion toward the ideal solution, or in TRIZ terms, the IFR. The result is, the innate knowledge of the inventor is leveraged so that he or she is forced into thinking ‘‘inventively,’’ e.g., into the solution space containing the most inventive ideas. Once the person is in the solution space, there are a number of inventive principles, analogs or Su-Field models that promote ‘‘thinking outside the box.’’ See Fig. 20. 9.1 Steps in ARIZ The architecture of ARIZ is composed of three major processes that are subdivided into nine high-level steps, each with their own substeps. ARIZ is designed to utilize all of the tools in TRIZ, including: 636 TRIZ Formulation of the problem Elimination of the physical contradiction Analysis of the solution 1.0 Problem analysis 4.0 Solution support 9.0 Review all steps in ARIZ Solved Yes Solved NO Stop Stop 2.0 Resource analysis 5.0 Application of scientific effects 8.0 Develop maximum usage of solution NO Solved Solved Yes Stop Stop NO 3.0 Model of the IFR 6.0 Alteration of microproblem 7.0 Review of solution Solved Yes Solved Stop Stop Solved Solved Yes Stop Stop NO Figure 20 ARIZ flowchart. • Ideality • The ideal final result • Elimination of physical and technical contradictions • Maximal utilization of the resources of the system • SFMs and standard solutions • The 40 inventive principles ARIZ is designed to manage the inventive process on two types of problems: micro- and macroproblems. A microproblem is focused on solving a contradiction contained within the 9 Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving 637 system while a macroproblem is a redesign of the entire system. ARIZ is iterative in that the inventor is provided several alternative paths to solving a problem. If all the solutions generated at the microlevel are unsatisfactory, the problem must be solved at the macrolevel. A portion of the algorithm (Stage 1—Formulation of the problem) is detailed below. 1. Problem analysis 1.1. Microproblem. Write down the conditions of the microproblem (do not use technology-specific jargon): • A technological system for (specify the purpose of the system) that includes (a list of the main elements of the system). Technical contradiction 1: (formulate). • Technical contradiction 2: (formulate). • It is required to achieve (specify desirable result) without incurring (specify the undesirable result) with minimal changes or complications introduced into the system. Note: Technical contradictions are defined using nouns for the elements in the system and actionable verbs describing the interaction between them. 1.2. Conflicting elements. Identify the conflicting elements: An article and a tool Rules: 1. If an element can be in two states, point out both of them. 2. An article is an element that is to be processed or improved. A tool is an element that has an immediate interaction with the article. 3. If there is more than one pair of the identical conflicting elements, it is sufficient to analyze just one pair. 1.3. Conflict intensification. Formulate the intensified technical contradiction (ITC) by showing an extreme state of the elements. 1.4. Conflict diagrams. Compile diagrams of the intensified technical contradictions. 1.5. Selection of the conflict. Select from two conflict diagrams, one for further analysis. Rules: 1. Select a diagram which better emphasizes the main (primary) function. 2. If intensification of the conflicts resulted in impossibility of performing the main function, select a diagram that is associated with an absent tool. 3. If intensification of the conflicts resulted in elimination of the article, use a ‘‘95% principle.’’ 4. Select a diagram which better emphasizes the main function but reformulate an associated technical contradiction by showing, not extreme, but very close to extreme, states of the elements. 1.6. Model of solution. Develop a model of solution by specifying actions of an Xresource capable of resolving the selected ITC: • It is required to find such an X-resource that would preserve (specify the useful action) while eliminating (specify harmful action) with minimal changes or complications introduced into the system. 1.7. Model of solution diagram. Construct a diagram of the model of the solution. 1.8. Substance field analysis. Compile a Su-Field diagram that models the solution: Compile a SFM representing a selected ITC. • Compile a desirable SFM illustrating resolution of the conflict. • Select the appropriate standard solution and compile the complete Su-Field transformation. 2. Resource analysis 2.1. Conflict domain. Define the space domain within which the conflict develops. 638 TRIZ 2.2. Operation time. Define the period of time within which the conflict should be overcome: • Operation time is associated with the time resources available: 1. Pre-conflict time T1 2. Conflict time T2 3. Postconflict time T3 • It is always preferable to overcome a conflict during T1 and / or T2 Substance and energy resources. List the substance and energy resources of the system and its environment: • The substance and energy resources are physical substances and fields that can be obtained or produced easily within the system or its environment. These resources can be of three types: 1. In-system resources: a. Resources of the tool b. Resources of the article 2. Environmental resources: a. Resources of the environment that is specific to the system b. General resources that are natural to any environment such as magnetic or gravitation fields of the earth 3. Overall system resources a. Side products: waste products of any system or any inexpensive or free foreign objects 3. Model of ideal solution 3.1. Selection of the X-resource. Select one of the resources from 2.3 for further modification. Rules: 1. Select in-system resources in the conflict domain first. 2. Modification of the tool is more preferable than modification of the article. 3.2. First ideal final result. The first IFR can be formulated as follows: The X-resource, without any complications or any harm to the system, terminates (specify the undesirable action) during the operation time within the conflict domain while providing the (specify the useful action). 3.3. Physical contradiction. Formulate a physical contradiction: • To terminate (specify the undesirable action), the X-resource within the conflict domain and during the operation time must be (specify the physical state P). • To provide (specify the desirable action), the X-resource within the conflict domain and during the operation time must be (specify the opposite physical state P). 3.4. Elimination of physical contradiction macro. Use methods for elimination of physical contradictions: • Separation of opposite physical properties in time • Separation of opposite physical properties in space • Separation of opposite physical properties between system and its components • Separation of opposite properties upon conditions • Combination of the above methods Note: When applying the separation principles, use one or a combination of the following techniques: • Separation in time: 1. Think of ways to make the X-resource have property P before or after the conflict and property P during the conflict. 2. Use ‘‘high-speed’’ processes. 11 Conclusion 639 3. Explore various phenomena possible for the X-resource developed during phase transitions. 4. Change the parameters or characteristics of the X-resource using a field. 5. Explore using phenomena associated with decomposition of the X-resource into its basic elementary structure and then its recovery, e.g., ionization, recombination, dissociation, association, etc. • Separation in space: 1. Divide the X-resource into two parts having properties P and P with one part in the conflict domain and the other outside the conflict domain. 2. Combine the X-resource with a void, porosity, foam, bubbles, etc. 3. Combine X-resource with other resources. 4. Combine X-resource with a derivative of another resource (e.g., hydrogen and oxygen is a derivative of water). • Separation between the system and its components. Divide the X-resource into several components in a way that one component has property P while the other has property P. 1. Decompose the X-resource into elementary particles, granules, flexible rods, shells, etc. 2. Explore using the phenomena associated with the decomposition of the Xresource into its base elements. 10 CAVEAT ARIZ is a highly developed complex tool and should not be used on typical straightforward engineering problems. Also, becoming proficient with ARIZ takes time and practice. As a general rule of thumb, it is recommended that an individual solve 10 problems with ARIZ before they claim a layman’s level of competency with the tool. 11 CONCLUSION TRIZ is a powerful comprehensive problem-solving tool. It is the product of a massive analytical study of the output of the world’s best inventors and most creative inventions. The fundamental underlying principle of TRIZ is ideality. The ideality principle holds that over time systems evolve to higher levels of functionality through the elimination of internal contradictions and the efficient utilization of available resources. In time, the study of inventions by Altshuller and others yielded a number of knowledgebased and analytical tools. Knowledge-based tools include the contradiction matrix, the 40 inventive principles, and the laws of systems evolution. Analytical tools include Su-Field analysis and ARIZ. Contradiction as a goal is a tough sell to American engineers. We rely on ‘‘trades.’’ For the TRIZ practitioner finding a contradiction is the answer. If something has to be on / off, hot / cold, liquid / solid, magnetic / nonmagnetic, or any other dichotomy, that contradiction is the answer. We are lucky to have the founding efforts of Jim Kowalick, the sustained efforts of Ellen Domb, and the addition of M. Michael Slocum at the TRIZ Journal (www.trizjournal.com). The online journal has archives also online which are readily available. Google TRIZ and you will find out a great deal of information. Some of the best case studies are locked in the vaults. The 300 cases at Ontro by Michael Slocum are delineated in the TRIZ journal. 640 TRIZ A number of these engineering tools and initiatives work together. The reader may note several connects in various chapters of this document. Another recent tool is Design for Six Sigma, (see Chapter 17). Where creativity or inductive reasoning is used, TRIZ may perform a positive service, especially those involving teams. A short list would include concurrent engineering, value engineering, ergonomic factors in design, processes, patents, total quality management, knowledge management, dimensional management, Six Sigma, and technical areas where teams are stalling or where a team needs to know if it is on the correct technical path or change is happening at the appropriate pace. Refer to the ABET certified course on Systems Engineering lecture notes of J. McMunigal. Acknowledgments A special ‘‘thank you’’ to John Opfell for collaboration utilizing engineering tools in the 1980s, including TRIZ starting in 1992 and for insights gleaned from direct Russian translation; Sam Brooks for long Sunday ‘‘chalk talks’’ on engineering tools and projects within Boeing featuring TRIZ and other engineering tools; Jeffrey A. Wolfe, Six Sigma black belt (BB); and Kelly R. McMunigal, Six Sigma yellow belt for technical support. BIBLIOGRAPHY Altshuller, G., Creativity as an Exact Science, Gordon & Breach, New York, 1984. Altshuller, G., The Innovation Algorithm, Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MA, 1999. Batchelor, S., ‘‘Solving the Problems of Particle Filled Fibers Using the TRIZ Methodology,’’ TRIZ J., Oct. 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Bosse, V., and J. E. McMunigal, book review of Solving Problems with TRIZ (An Exercise Book), TRIZ J., May, 2004, www.triz-journal.com. Carr, J., ‘‘Analysis of a Problem: Clogging of a Multi-Drum Filter Used in a Textile Application,’’ TRIZ J. Aug. 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Champa, R. and R. Handley, Brainware for the Strategist, Strategy Partners International, Mission Viejo, CA, 2003. Clapp, T. G. and B. A. Dickinson, ‘‘Design and Analysis of a Method for Monitoring Felled Seat Seam Characteristics Utilizing TRIZ Methods,’’ TRIZ J., Dec. 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Clapp, T. G., and M. S. Slocum, ‘‘Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Pedagogy in Engineering Education, Part I,’’ TRIZ J., Nov. 1998, www.triz-journal.com. Gahide, S., ‘‘Smart Garment for Firefighters,’’ TRIZ J., June 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Gasanov, A. M., B. M. Gochman, A. P. Yefimochkin, S. M. Kokin, and A. G. Sopelnyak, Birth of an Invention, Interpraks, Moscow, 1995. Gibson, N., ‘‘The Determination of the Technological Maturity of Ultrasonic Welding,’’ TRIZ J., July 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Heath, D., ‘‘Addressing Salt Issues in Textile Dyeing Using an ISQ and ARIZ,’’ TRIZ J., Jan. 2000, www.triz-journal.com. Khona, V. J., ‘‘Increasing Speed of Yarn Spinning,’’ TRIZ J., Aug. 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Kunst, B. and T. Class, ‘‘Automatic Boarding Machine Design Employing Quality Function Deployment, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, and Solid Modeling,’’ TRIZ J., Jan. 2000, www.trizjournal.com. McMunigal, J. E., ‘‘In Memory of Genrich Altschuller, ‘‘ triz-viet nam, Jan., 1999, www.trizvietnam.com. McMunigal, James E., notes from Systems Engineering course, California State University—Long Beach, Spring 2000. Rantanen, K. and E. Domb, Simplified TRIZ, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2002. Bibliography 641 Raviv, D., ‘‘Introduction to Inventive Problem Solving in Engineering,’’ TRIZ J., Mar. 1997, www.trizjournal.com. Rivin, E. I., ‘‘Use of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) In Design Curriculum,’’ Innovations in Engineering Education, 1996 ABET Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp. 161–164; TRIZ J., Mar. 1997, www.triz-journal.com. Roberts, M., ‘‘B-cyclodextrin Molecules and Their Use in Breathable Barriers,’’ TRIZ J., Nov. 1999, www.triz-journal.com. Salamatov, Y., TRIZ: The Right Solution at the Right Time, Insytec B.V., Hattem, Netherlands, 1999. Savransky, S. D., Engineering of Creativity, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000. Slocum, M., and J. E. McMunigal, ‘‘TRIZ and the Deconstruction of the Major World Philosophies,’’ No. 17, Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies, 2003, www.aitriz.org / 2003 / ABSTRACTS.htm. Terninko, J., A. Zusman, and B. Zlotin, Systematic Innovation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1998. Ungvari, S., TRIZ Two Day Workshop Manual, Strategic Product Innovations, Columbus, OH, 1998. Ungvari S., TRIZ Refresher Course, Strategic Product Innovations, Columbus, OH, 1999. Ungvari, S., TRIZ Problem Solving Guidebook, Strategic Product Innovations, Columbus, OH, 1999. Vijayakumar, S., ‘‘Maturity Mapping of DVD Technology,’’ TRIZ J., Sept. 1999, www.triz-journal.com.