Dear list members,

This might be of some interest. For those who have not come across it, TRIZ was 
developed in the former Soviet Union, initially from the study of patents. It 
grew into a powerful and philosophical method for finding general design 
principles and reapplying them in different areas, even to the extent of 
technological forecasting. (That is the oversimplification of the year).

There are several posts below: you may want to read them in date order.
They give a flavour of the approach, and a hint of its power.

Conall


=============================================================================
Date Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:20:12 +0100 
From Valeri Souchkov <[log in to unmask]> 
To [log in to unmask] 
Reply-To [log in to unmask] 
Subject RE: More thoughts on Contradictions and Terminology [triz list] 
 
True, the same physical contradiction can generate many technical ones. But
they do not represent the same problem model, although they might be
causally related.

A contradiction does not exist in a technical system, it is our view of a
particular problem situation only when design products fail or when we
discover that we must change something. A contradiction is not a part of a
technical system model, it is a part of a problem model, and, to be more
exact, it is a very generic problem abstraction. To structure studied
information, Altshuller needed a model to represent and categorize a large
variety problems, and it appeared to be the best to formulate problems in
terms of conflicting demands: an attempt to improve A with the use of some
known method would cause undesired degradation of B... and the same might
cause deterioration of C, D, E.... and so on due to causal and physical
relationships which exist between components of the system. The high level
of generalization was needed otherwise it would be not possible to model all
problems and solution principles in a uniform way.

But this causes confusion. Example: if we want to rise a speed of a car
(feature A), we can do it by raising a power of an engine (known method),
which, in turn, increases fuel consumption (B), volume of cylinders (C),
space occupied by the engine (D), most likely atmospheric contamination (E),
weight of the car (F), and so on. Needless to say, this confuses a problem
solver a lot. Even an experienced one. What to choose? And perhaps,
something important was missed (often the case, by the way)? Anyway, the
word "technical" means that a conflict arises between two technical
parameters. So I personally do not see anything wrong with this word: it
exactly designates the nature of a problem representation in terms of
contradicting technical demands.

A physical contradiction is a more exact form of a problem model... But not
of a technical contradiction! I believe this confuses most people who start
with TRIZ. These two are very different. A physical contradiction means that
there are two opposite demands put on the same physical object or a physical
parameter.  An object must be heavy and lightweight at the same time,
temperature of a flame must be high and low, and so on.

In ARIZ, a physical contradiction is formulated on the basis of a pair of
technical contradictions. But technical contradictions are used to identify
a conflicting pair (instrument - product), operative zone and time, etc.,
and therefore to build several models of the same problem which help us to
localize the problem and its attributes. A physical contradiction is then
defined as two opposite states of the instrument or two opposite states of a
physical parameter which is identified with the instrument. But it does not
follow directly from a technical contradiction.  A physical contradiction is
build on the basis of all components of a problem model. And since it
represents information about physical states of a component involved to the
problem, the "physical contradiction" is again a valid term. Although,
in my opinion, a better translation to English would be "physical conflict"
rather than "contradiction". But it does not change much, actually.

A very simple explanation of relationships between physical and technical
contradictions can be given by using a cause-effect diagram. Suppose, a
problem is that a laser printer jams paper. Why? Because the force with
which the rollers are pressed to each other decreased. Why? Because a spring
which presses the rollers against each other degraded over the time and its
tension dropped. Ok, so we see: a spring must not degrade over reasonable
period of time, or to be rigid (to be always good) and non-rigid (to be able
to contract). And a technical contradiction (one of many that can be
formulated on the same basis): to ensure that the force does not decrease
significantly we can put a stronger spring that might however, lead to jams
of some types of paper. Now, if we look carefully, we do not solve the same
problem. In the first case, we deal with providing a permanent tension of a
spring during the printer lifetime. In the second case, we are solving a
problem of how to provide permanently the needed force. Actually, these are
two totally different problems. But there is more. If we would analyze the
same problem with ARIZ, we would finally solve a problem of contact force
between the paper and the roller, which in this particular case gives the
cheapest and more ideal solutions. The latter physical contradiction has
nothing to do with tension of the spring! But spring is a root physical
object that causes the problem. Solving problem at a spring level would
eliminate all negative effects that might be related to the drop of the
spring's tension.

Basically, as follows from my experience, an object in a casual diagram
which causes negative effect (and also some positive effect, otherwise why
would we have it?) can be regarded a carrier of a physical contradiction,
and an attempt to treat the negative effect generates a multitude of
technical contradictions. Their number would depend on a number of known
ways to eliminate the negative effects and a number of technical parameters
that would degrade if some known method is used. A more refined way to
define a technical contradiction on the basis of the causal diagram is to
identify what object causes the negative effect, then define what positive
effect it provides, and these two effects form a pair of technical
parameters that contradict each other (pressure of rollers vs force, for
instance). Both physical and technical contradictions can be defined along
the whole chain of effects in the causal diagram, and choice at what level
of the effects chain to solve a problem can be very valuable to identify at
what level the problem can be solved. This is not a "classical" way
to define technical contradictions, but appears to be very fruitful since it is
most closely related to system components; and helps to accurately and
quickly explain TRIZ concepts during TRIZ training.

Formulating and solving a physical contradiction is always more preferable.
Because in this way we a) cure the roots of the problem and not the
consequences, b) target ourselves to achieve most ideal solutions within the
problem scope given; c) deal with exact information about a system and not
with ill-defined huge problem definition space, and so on... What is most
difficult, is to localize and identify the right physical contradiction for
the particular situation (to ensure a needed contact between paper and the
roller appears to be easier than to create an ultimate spring). Luckily,
ARIZ and other complementary methods work quite well. The same applies to
non-technical TRIZ applications.

So it was not surprising that Altshuller abandoned evolution of the matrix
so long ago. As a learning or "quick scan" tool, the matrix can be good
since it helps to understand a philosophy of TRIZ and how TRIZ was created.
But as a serious problem solving tool it is weak. Dealing with a fuzzy and
too generic problem model leads to confusion. On top of that, most of large
companies in Europe which I assisted for over a decade already came up with
ideas proposed in the matrix themselves (without any matrix) - and those
were discarded. More deep analysis with ARIZ was required in about 80% of
cases to reveal and solve a core physical contradiction.

This represents my personal view and experience only.

Best wishes to everyone,
Valeri Souchkov.

 -----Original Message-----
From: Ball, Larry K. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: More thoughts on Contradictions and Terminology [triz list]


      I believe that part of this debate hinges on the relative importance
of Physical and Technical Contradictions.  Several books, publications and
algorithms indicate that we must FIRST detect technical contradictions and
THEN find the physical contradictions that flow from them.

      The debate on the relative importance of Physical and Technical
Contradictions becomes more clear when we realize that the forgoing
assumption is incorrect.  TECHNICAL CONTRADICTIONS FLOW FROM PHYSICAL
CONTRADICTIONS AND NOT THE REVERSE.  It is interesting to note that
algorithms for discovering Technical Contradictions involve generating at
least one Physical Contradiction first.  (Please verify this for
yourselves).

      For example:  Let us suppose that we want to improve the electrical
resistance, R, of a wire which is too high.  How would we go about to do
this?  The equation for the dependent variable of resistance is:

  R=q*L/A

  where the independent variables are:
  q=resistivity constant for the material
  A=Cross sectional area of the wire
  L=Length of the wire

  (We could write more involved equations or we could otherwise identify
many more independent variables but this will suffice for the example).

      Many people make the construction of  Physical Contradictions more
difficult than it really needs to be, especially if we have, at least, an
intuitive sense of the physics. The formation of the Physical Contradiction
is as follows.  By observation of the equation R improves if we can make q
much lower, A much larger and L much shorter.  If we try to do any one of
these things, we will immediately discover that many things get worse.

      For instance, q must be low, but since we have chosen a cheap material
with a low resistivity constant, our options may be running low.  We might
choose a material with a lower resistivity constant, but the cost may go up,
the ease of applying insulation with existing equipment may decrease, the
malleability of the material may cause difficulty with winding equipment.
So, q must be high and low.

      L must be short to improve the resistance, but a variety of things may
get worse.  If this were an inductive device there might be fewer turns, or
it may be more difficult for humans to handle the shorter wires.  The
complexity of the machinery might get worse.  Therefore L must be both short
and long.

      The area, A, must be large to reduce the resistance.  Doing this
potentially causes several problems.  The increased real estate for the
conductor may not be available.  The weight of the device may skyrocket.  If
turns are involved, the device to bend the wire may get worse.  In order to
derive the Physical Contradiction, it is sufficient to identify a minimum of
one thing that gets worse.  (Maybe nothing gets worse). Thus we have formed
three physical contradictions:

  L must be long and short
  A must be large and small
  q must be large and small

      Note, however, the MUCH LARGER NUMBER of potential technical
contradictions flowing from these physical contradictions.  It makes little
sense to no form Technical contradictions just so that we may go back to the
contradiction matrix, especially since we have the Physical Contradictions
in hand.  Instead, we would forge ahead and resolve these Physical
Contradictions using the richness of methods which are available for
resolving Physical Contradictions. By ignoring the Technical Contradiction
and driving immediately for the Physical Contradiction, we not only work
FASTER, but create MANY MORE  potential solutions.

  In conclusion :
  1)  Technical Contradictions flow from Physical Contradictions
  2)  Forming Physical Contradictions is much easier than forming Technical
Contradictions
  3)  Resolving Physical Contradictions is much easier than resolving
Technical Contradictions
  4)  Discovering and resolving Technical Contradictions may be skipped
altogether

  Larry


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Eduardo C. Moura [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
    Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:57 AM
    To: [log in to unmask]
    Subject: Re: More thoughts on Contradictions and Terminology [triz list]


    1) Use of the Contradiction Matrix: I agree that running over the 40
principles is much better than trial and error. And it is also feasible in
real life  situations (I have done it sometimes). But that should be done
only after having tried to use the matrix the way Altshuller devised it.
Because there is great benefit from the discussion to identify the technical
contradiction and applicable matrix parameters, since it considerably
clarifies the typically confusing inventive situation. Besides, I think that
is a good first step that helps to start ARIZ from a much clear point of
view.

    2) TRIZ terminology: I don't see any problem with the current, accepted
and established terms "physical contradiction" and "technical
contradiction", since technical contradiction is a (at least apparent)
conflict between technical parameters, and physical contradiction is (at
least at first sight) a physical impossibility or a violation of a physical
law, like a single object being something and also its opposite. Even when I
was a novice to TRIZ, I had no problem at all understanding those concepts.
So I favour maintaining the original work by Altshuller. What the
engineering world really needs are people more interested in learning,
applying, spreading and expanding TRIZ, rather than trying to "innovate" its
solidly established rational foundations. This world is sick of so many
"gurus"....

    Eduardo C. Moura
    Qualiplus/ASI Brasil
    Tel. 55(11)4538-6603, 4534-3914
    [log in to unmask]
    www.qualiplus.com.br

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Brian Campbell
    To: [log in to unmask]
    Sent: Domingo, 9 de Fevereiro de 2003 02:48
    Subject: Re: More thoughts on Contradictions and Terminology [triz list]


    Pentti:

    Sorry for taking so long to reply.  Here are my comments on your message:

    On Principles and the Matrix

    I think we have to agree to disagree on this one.  However, working
through the 40 principles is way better than trial and error- if there were
100's of principle the argument would be valid.  Also the initial look
through might take an hour at most - hardly something only the very rich
could consider.  Further, many of the principles would clearly not apply
leaving say 10 or so for closer study.  Many times, deciding which of the 39
parameters might apply can take a considerable time.  What if the initial
intersection yields 4 principles that after hours of trying to apply yields
no routes forward?  Back to the 39 parameters and choose again?

    I believe it much better to study the 40 principles than the 39
parameters.  After all it is the inventive principles that solve the
contradiction/trade off.

    Finally, the matrix offers no help in combining a number of the
principles to achieve a better solution.

    Terminology

    Using physical and technical contradiction terminology - does not in my
opinion- aid "simplicity and clarity" ; it only confuses.  Physical
contradictions are not physical, technical contradictions not technical.
There is no basis for using either of these terms in the english language.
How much better to use words that do describe the phenomenon.

    I believe that the most rewarding target within TRIZ is to encourage its
uptake by the maximum number of people.  Simple terminology that does not
confuse is essential.

    I am much happier confuses TRIZ experts than TRIZ novices or even more
importantly prospective TRIZ users.

    Many thanks for your reply.

    Regards Brian


    Brian Campbell

    Brighouse Green Farmhouse

    Plough Lane

    Nr Ormskirk

    L40 6JL

    01695 723921



     Pentti Soderlin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

      In the December issue of TRIZ-Journal Brian Campbell put some thoughts
about the Contradictions. I am aware that he did it on purpose to provoke
discussion. Here are some more thoughts.

      On Principles and the Matrix

      Brian Campbell is a little witty when he has an indifferent attitude
towards the Matrix. The reasonings concerning the contradictions by Brian
Campbell are not valid ones. If you have no choice you are simply in Level 1
problem.  So it doesn't matter, you are just doing an engineering task:
everything (rules) have been stated and given, no degrees of  freedom. Every
player has similar products. To try each of the Principles in turn for a
problem situation is that of applying trial and error, which as we might
agree is the worst method of all. Such advice should be neglected because
only the very rich or desperados can afford it. The apparent easy of the
Matrix is in fact deceptive. Maybe Brian fell to this hollow and gave up?  A
"correct" choice of contradictory characteristics is not necessary at all
clear. The advice is to use pencil and paper and write down your thoughts
for the situation. This seems to be very difficult task because people are
so hasty.
      We all know that the Principles are based on patent survey made mainly
in the 1950's and 1960's. So the characteristics might not match today's
products. Some people notably Yevgeny Karasik claim that Altshuller
abandoned the development of Matrix and continued the research elsewhere (in
Substance-Field and Standards?).  Whatever the truth is the Matrix still
works well with some imagination at least in Level 1 and 2 innovative
problems. An attempt to widen the use of Matrix to other types of problems
e.g. administrative will probably fail, but the Principles might
occasionally even work. Some attempts have been made to add new
characteristics and principles, like the ones proposed by Savransky .  In
addition there is a common need to develop further separate Matrices for
Electronics and Software development. Some work is currently ongoing.

      Back to Basics in Contradiction terminology

      I understand the eagerness to develop or to contribute to such a good
methodology like TRIZ.  However it is a very common phenomenon that the
recent attempts have not been very substantial as pointed by Vertkin in
keynote address at TRIZ Future 2001 conference. He claims that TRIZ is no
different from any other money making entrepreneurial venture. In fact it is
not very surprising because TRIZ has no "owner" like many other management
techniques where the licensors keep the method in firm hands, train and
"authorize" the people, and make money with a very tightly controlled
method. TRIZ is free, free to develop, free to practice and also free to
incremental or none development.
      This is the case with the new terminology used in a recent book where
the basic concepts like Technical and Physical Contradictions were renamed.
I would have understood if there had been some real benefit of the new
terminology. I couldn't see any. Nor can I agree with Brian.

      In a recent TRIZ-Journal article the author of the said book explains
the new terminology by quoting correctly the Cambridge Dictionary of English
(but then he misinterprets the content):

      "She said that she´d  had to make a trade-off between...".

      To me this means there was something in the past, somebody had at
first a contradictory situation and after that she made a trade-off
decision. This is something quite different than the explanation given by
the said author. The situation was not an unsatisfactory compromise but
rather a contradictory situation. The end result might be an unsatisfactory
trade-off. See the difference?

      A contradiction  in product planning is very common: manufacturers
have to make up their mind what kind of a product they will offer for the
different needs of people. The end result is normally called and known as
"product differentiation" or "product segmentation". It is in this context a
choice (a solution/  separation  on time or condition) between contradictory
requirements. An engineer faces the contradiction typically in the design
phase. To be smart and innovative means that you realise the presence of a
contradiction. But if you don't you will most likely end up in a trade-off
or compromise the routine way.
      One can see products, which had contradictory requirements everywhere
you look at around you. Any man made product is a choice between possible
product characteristics. Let alone e.g. a recent car: a contradiction
between capacity to carry people versus capacity to carry some baggage or
equivalent load. How is this solved the innovative way? Simply by applying
the principle of solving the Contradiction by separation on time and
condition: the back seats can be removed or folded to give more load space.
The trade-off solution would have only steady seats and fixed baggage room
with no possibilities for change at all.

      By the way, Altshuller used already in his book "Creativity as an
Exact Science" the term "inherited contradiction" as an explanatory
statement for Physical Contradiction.  So let's for the simplicity and
clarity keep the original terminology as an established practice.
      Unnecessary new terms do nothing but cause additional mess. There is
no use or benefit of these kinds of definitions. To prove this you might
start e.g. by renaming colours and find out what kind confusion you will
cause in your family not to speak of other people.
      There are more rewarding targets to develop than merely to rename the
terminology.
      The pearl of Altshuller, the Substance - Field Analysis and related
Standards are good ones. No doubt there are too many standards to learn them
all by heart. Additional simplification or regrouping and housekeeping are
needed as pointed by Savransky.
      The same applies to current ARIZ, which is a far too complicated and
tedious for a person.
      I call all TRIZniks to change views and ideas to rework both of these
most important topics.

      Regards

      Pentti Söderlin
      Puistokatu 9 A 9
      FIN-00140 HELSINKI

      email: [log in to unmask]
      www.netlife.fi/users/pentti.soderlin

      tel : +358 - 9 - 631 542
      fax:  +358 - 9 - 622 80 161
      mobile: +358 - 400 - 409 683




==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: [log in to unmask]