 |
 |
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/