I am by no means an expert but have studied TRIZ and other design methods
for my design related PhD.
I response to Ken's request for a summary of what TRIZ (pronounced trees) is.
TRIZ is an acronym (in Russian) for what would translate as 'Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving' hence the reason you will also find it labelled
as TIPS in various places. You can read about the details on the various
links that Ken kindly supplied but my thoughts about its core philosophy
are as follows. Apologies if it does not 'flow' particularly well, this a
bit of a cut and paste job from my PhD together with some new thoughts.
One unusual feature of TRIZ is that when compared to its partners in the
design methods arena TRIZ potentially offers an answer to the 'how' to
solve a design problem whereas many other popular techniques such as
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) tend to identify 'what' needs to be
solved / addressed. In addition TRIZ encourages the designer or design team
to look outside of their areas of understanding or expertise for novel
solutions that may exist in concept or form from other areas of knowledge.
The theory of inventive problem solving was developed by Genrich Altshuller
a patent expert for the Soviet Navy in the 1940s. He found that the world
patent database provided a rich source of technical information for a
country isolated from Western advancement. Altshuller conducted a study
and cataloguing of some 400,000 patents looking for principles of
innovation. Since this initial study the number of patents screened has
been increased to over 1.5 million. The objective was to learn how to
apply the principles methodically to increase a problem solver's creativity
and efficiency. The patents studied by Altshuller were not categorised by
industry, but rather by the underlying problem solving process. What
Altshuller found was that there were only forty fundamental inventive
principles. He later identified five levels of solutions.
1. Routine design problems solved by methods well known within the
speciality. No invention
needed. 32% of solutions fell
into this category.
2. Minor improvements to an existing system, by methods known within
the industry. Usually with some
compromise. 45%
3. Fundamental improvement to an existing system, by methods known
outside the industry. Contradictions
resolved. 18%
4. A new generation that uses a new principle to perform the primary
functions of the system. Solution found more in science than in
technology. 4%
5. A rare scientific discovery or pioneering invention of essentially
new system. 1%
The basic findings were that over 90% of the problems engineers faced had
been solved somewhere before. From these findings, Altshuller developed an
extensive, scientifically based problem solving method which incorporates
numerous inventive principles and the laws of engineering system
evolution. This method was entitled the Theory of Inventive Problem
Solving, Teoriya Resheniya Izobretalelskih Zadach or TRIZ
It was recognised that the most elegant inventions were solutions where an
engineering contradiction had been overcome with little or no
compromise. To aid the engineer in addressing a contradiction the 40
fundamental principles were entered into a matrix of 39 engineering
parameters that highlighted the principles that had been successfully
utilised by previous inventors with the same contradiction.
As an example, the engineering contradiction of the need to increase speed
but not reduce weight suggests four inventive principles: 2, 13, 28 & 38.
2. Extraction. Extract a disturbing part or property from an object
or extract only the necessary part.
13. Inversion. Instead of an action dictated by the specifications of
the problem, implement an opposite action, or make the moving part or
outside environment immovable, and the non-moving part moveable.
28. Replacement of a mechanical system. Replace a mechanical system by
an optical, acoustic, etc. system. Use an electrical, magnetic or
electromagnetic field for interaction with the object, or replace fields.
38. Use strong oxidisers. Replace normal air with enriched air,
enriched air with oxygen, or treat object in air or in oxygen with ionising
radiation.
So the application of principle 13 may suggest providing the means of
propulsion and thus speed by moving the surface that the object is placed
upon, rather than the object directly.
The process of using TRIZ for problem solving involves 5 steps, and is
sometimes known as the algorithm for inventive problem solving (ARIZ). The
first involves identification of the problem. This includes the
engineering system being studied, its operating environment, resource
requirements, primary useful function, harmful effects and ideal result.
Once this has been identified the problem must be formulated. This
involves restating the problem in terms of physical
contradictions. Problems should also be identified and also any
interactions that may occur between technical characteristics. Step three
involves determining the contradicting engineering principles from the list
of 39 engineering parameters, such as speed, force, tension etc. and the
nature of their conflict.
Once the contradictions are identified they can be referred to the table of
contradictions for which inventive principles may offer a novel
solution. The final stage involves the application of the inventive
principles to the problem at hand.
TRIZ is not a typical formal method. It uses a scientific and systems
approach to guide the designer or design team to possible novel solutions
or alternative perspectives. It addresses not only the system at hand but
all subsystems and supersystems and also their state with respect to past,
present and future trends. In addition, it facilitates rapid development
of new products by identifying existing similar solutions, and because it
is not industry or application based a solution may be found from totally
unrelated products or processes, giving an market advantage over
competitors following traditional lines of thought.
Hope that helps.
As for Value Analysis being a tool or not for design innovation. I can see
what Jan might be getting at in that VA looks on the surface purely as a
means of analysing existing designs. However if you'll bear with me while
I dig out even more PhD material. The process of value engineering
consists of five phases: information, function, speculation, evaluation,
and implementation. The information phase is used to gain a complete
understanding of the task, supported by factual knowledge in order to
establish the criteria against which alternative proposals will be
compared. The primary component of value engineering is the functional
statement. During the functional phase each component of the product as
well as the overall product itself is given a brief functional statement
and then that function is given a numeric value that represents the
importance of the function based on a discussion by design team
members. The function must be expressed as a verb + noun combination
(transmit torque, insulate energy) to ensure an exact understanding and
broad scope for alternative solutions. A cost for that function is also
determined based on manufacturing and other costs (not necessarily monetary
cost!). The speculation phase involves brainstorming activity by the team
to generate alternate possibilities. The important features of this stage
are to speculate freely and without evaluation. The quality and validity
of this phase will rely heavily on the quality of the information
phase. Thus I would suggest that VA is indeed a tool for innovation if
used in the correct manner, a statement that is probably true of many of
these techniques.
Right, I think I've gone on quite long enough.
Russ.
--
Dr Russell Marshall.
Design Ergonomics Group,
Dept. of Design and Technology,
Loughborough University, Tel. (+44) (0)1509-22 2669.
L'boro, Leics. LE11 3TU. UK. Fax. (+44) (0)1509-22 3999.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cd/
|
