Dear Norbert,
thank you for the interesting thoughts concerning TRIZ, Biomimetics and
Biomimicry.
I think that SIT, USIT or ASIT (three acronyms which mean practically the
same method) would not be a good framework for organising biological problem
solving heuristics. This is because SIT was developed so as not to use the
huge databases of heuristics found in TRIZ methods - and thus become a much
simpler and easier method. SIT relies in two "sufficient conditions" and
only five problem solving heuristics. The sufficient conditions were derived
from TRIZ concepts of finding and solving contradictions (SITīs qualitative
change condition) and use of resources (SITīs closed world condition). In
SIT, as well as in TRIZ, the conditions work both as a problem formulation
aid and as criteria for a solution to be considered creative or not. SITīs
problem solving heuristics work as "hints" for finding solutions, just like
TRIZī inventive principles, standards, separation principles, and trends of
evolution.
On the other hand, TRIZ parts such as the Inventive Principles Method,
Su-Field Analysis, Effects, and others provide structures into which
heuristics and examples originated in Biology could be added, just as it is
being done in the arts, business administration, and other areas. In his
book "Engineering of Creativity", Savransky cites some references on the
development of biological effects.
Best regards,
Marco
===========================================================
Marco Aurélio de Carvalho
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doctoral candidate at UFSC / PPGEP - NEDIP
Av. Sete de Setembro, 3165
80230-901 Curitiba PR Brasil
Tel. +55.41.310.4777
Fax. +55.41.310.4753
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.nupes.cefetpr.br/~marco
===========================================================
Automatic digest processor wrote:
> There is one message totalling 91 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Application of TRIZ to Biomimetics and Biomimicry
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 01:18:45 +0100
> From: Norbert Hoeller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Application of TRIZ to Biomimetics and Biomimicry
>
> PHILOSOPHY
> TRIZ appears very compatible with Biomimicry: minimise external resources,
> use resources efficiently, leverage even bad effects, and understand the
> problem as a system. TRIZ strives to bridge the abstract concepts of
> researchers and academics with the concrete world of engineers and
> designers. I believe the reliance of TRIZ on technical contradictions as
> key problem solving component parallels the fundamentally optimistic nature
> of Biomimicry, refusing to fall into the trap that doing the right things
> necessarily means we will 'freeze in the dark'.
>
> CONTENT
> TRIZ includes databases of physical, chemical, mathematical and engineering
> principles organised by function for easy retrieval. These databases are
> available as part of software tools such as Innovation
> Machine's "TechOptimizer" and Ideation International's "Innovation
> Workbench". TRIZ has abstracted information discovered from patent
> applications into 40 Inventive Principles. TRIZ also defines a set of
> solution parameters, arranged in a 39 x 39 matrix that define Technical
> Contradictions where improving one parameter causes another parameter to
> worsen. The top two or three inventive principles have been associated
> with each pair of parameters, based on a patent analysis linking
> contradictions to the inventive principle used in the solution.
> Using patents as the basis for the original TRIZ body of knowledge was a
> masterstroke. Patent information is compact (patent libraries/databases),
> concise (written in the language required by the patent approval process),
> and directional (focus is on the end-result/effect, supported by underlying
> principles/means). I suspect biological information is typically written
> with greater emphasis on the description of the organism or natural
> system. Often, the underlying function is analysed in terms that are very
> specific to the object of study, the reverse of a typical patent
> application structure. Although a review of existing
> Biomimetics/Biomimicry examples suggests that the 40 Inventive Principles
> apply to biological problems, categorising biological principles by
> function and abstracting a Biological Contradictions matrix may require
> considerable effort and specialised skills.
>
> METHODOLOGY
> The methodology of TRIZ is the Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving
> (ARIZ). It involves a complex series of nine steps including problem
> analysis through investigation of Technical Contradictions, problem
> abstraction, reformulation into Physical Contradictions (mutually opposite
> requirements of one technical aspect need to be simultaneously fulfilled),
> and solution through application of Separation Principles. Tools include
> functional "Substance-Field Analysis", 76 Inventive Standard Solutions, and
> the theory of ideality (technology develops towards self-serving/self
> actuating, without use of external systems). Eight specific technology
> evolution trends have been identified, including increasing dimensions,
> noncontinuous movement, and surface segmentation. Based on preliminary
> study, it is likely that additional natural evolution trends will be
> identified.
> The training required to be proficient in ARIZ has resulted in slow
> application of TRIZ in technology fields. If anything, the challenge will
> be even greater in Biomimetics and Biomimicry. The Unified Structural
> Inventive Thinking (USIT) developed at Ford Motor Company appears to be
> simpler approach. Toru Nakagawa implies that problem solving with USIT can
> leverage technical databases and software tools, although USIT does not
> require them (focused on generating multiple concepts quickly than on the
> engineering details). Another concern is the lack of a common language
> between designers/engineers/architects and biological researcher. The leap
> from biology to application ranges from the straightforward (mussel foot
> based glues), through the unexpected (rough surfaces can be self-cleaning)
> to the obscure (applying forest floor patterning reduces waste and
> increases visual uniformity). Until such time as a common language evolves
> and is generally accepted, we may need experts trained in TRIZ, biology and
> technology to mediate between researchers and practitioners. Contrary to
> Richard Kirk's concerns of April 18/2002, I don't expect that machines will
> replace human inventiveness and creativity for some time to come!
>
> SUMMARY
> Although TRIZ brings organisational structure, an existing body of
> knowledge and a methodology for applying this knowledge to problems, it is
> not clear to me how comprehensive information from the realm of biology can
> efficiently added to TRIZ. I expect a significant number of experts in the
> field of biology as well as the principles of TRIZ will need to work
> together closely on this project. Similarly, using the TRIZ to solve
> problems in the field of Biomimetics and Biomimicry may prove to be
> challenging, due to the high learning curve of TRIZ and the language
> differences between practitioners and researchers. We may need individuals
> trained in ARIZ or USIT methodologies who are able to translate between
> groups.
>
> If collaboration turns out to be a critical element of both extending and
> applying TRIZ, considerable effort may be required to identify, build and
> maintain the necessary relationships between the participants.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of BIOMIMETICS Digest - 10 May 2003 to 11 May 2003 (#2003-34)
> *****************************************************************
>
|
