triz + toc

1© 2007 A.Y Goldratt Institute

TOCICO 2007 Conference

TOCICO CONFERENCE 2007

TRIZ for Jonahs

Presented By: David Bergland, Avraham Y. Goldratt InstitutePresented By: David Bergland, Avraham Y. Goldratt InstituteDate:Date: November 5, 2007November 5, 2007

*

* pronounced trees

®

2© 2007 A. Y. Goldratt Institute


DeliverProduce

The Need to Speed and Focus Innovation

The Need for Speed:

“If the 1980s were about quality and the 1990s were about reengineering, then the 2000s will be about velocity.”

Business @ the Speed of Thought by Bill Gates, 1999.

Theory of Constraints (TOC) Solutions are already providing SPEED WITH DIRECTION strategies for developing, producing and delivering.

In this talk we will focus on improving the speed to invent.

DevelopInvent



The Product Innovation Dilemma

In order to

We must In order to We must

We must In order to We must

The injection is to use TOC with TRIZ to BREAK THE MARKET CONSTRAINT by “Getting to the market quickly” without

“Accepting design compromises”

Create asuccessful

new product

Get to themarket quickly

Acceptdesign

compromises

Avoiddesign

compromises

Deliversignificant

improvements

== Is in direct conflict with



How can we Break the Product Innovation Dilemma

We will speed and focus innovation by:•

Using the Theory of Constraints (TOC) to focus the Russian Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) to rapidly create new products and services that require:−

Breakthrough Inventions−

Unrefusable, Implementable Offers to the market (UROs)−

Contradiction Analysis / Conflict Resolution−

Innovative Thinking

•

This should help satisfy the “Need for Speed” in the first link of the chain

DevelopInvent Produce Deliver



What is TRIZ?

•

A name for the Russian “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving”

−

The letters T, R, I, Z form an English acronym for the Russian words Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch that means, “Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems”

•

A methodical process for knowledge-based innovation originally developed by Genrich (Henry) Altshuller (1926-1998) in the USSR

−

Classification of inventions was started in 1946 when he was employed in the patent department of the Soviet navy

−

Proved “Inventive problems can be codified, classified, and solved methodically, just like other engineering problems.”



Has TRIZ Been Useful?

“ I believe that TRIZ is the reason the Soviet Union was able to stay as close to the United States as it did during the Cold War even though they had only one tenth the computing resources.” [1]

Eli Goldratt



Today’s TRIZ is Based on the Abstraction of Knowledge from over 3 Million Patents

~3,000,000

~600,000

Some Key Findings

• Definition of inventive problem• Levels of invention• Patterns of evolution• Patterns of invention

PatentsWorldwide (est.) [5]

TRANSFERABLE

General PurposePrinciples

©

Ideation International 2007 [5]



How can the General Purpose Principles help you find a Solution to Your Problem?

TRIZ GeneralProblem

TRIZ GeneralSolution

Your specificproblem

Your specificsolution

The TRIZ tools follow the upper path

Abstraction Specialization

Operators

Trial and Error



Why TRIZ Works for Inventive Problems

Three Key Discoveries:

1.

Problems and solutions were repeated across industries and sciences.

2.

Patterns of technical evolution were repeated across industries and sciences.

3.

Innovations used scientific effects outside the field where they were developed.



When is an Inventive Solution Required?

In TRIZ there are two types of contradictions: technical and physical

In TRIZ there are two types of contradictions: technical and physical

Apply 4 Separation Principles• Separation in time• Separation in space• Separation between the

parts and the whole• Separation upon conditions

Known means to address the problem exist but they require breaking one or more contradictionsNo known means exist to address the problem –we need to come up with something new. [5]

Relate to the 39 ParametersApply the 40 Inventive Principles

Convert



Technical Contradictions

•

An improvement in one system characteristic results in the deterioration of another

−

Example: Acceleration of a car vs. economical operation

•

Traditionally, technical contradictions are resolved by trade-off or compromise

•

Both TOC and TRIZ have techniques for resolving contradictions without the use of trade-offs or compromise

•

The 40 Innovation Principles can augment TOC methods for finding injections that break clouds where there is a technical contradiction



Physical Contradictions

•

A characteristic must be higher and lower (self- opposing)

−

Example: An airplane wing should have large area for easy takeoff but small area for higher speed

•

A characteristic must be present and absent−

Example: Aircraft landing gears are needed for landing but undesired in flight

•

The 4 Separation Principles can often be used to resolve process contradictions as well as physical contradictions.



Levels of Invention

Level 5: Discovery (1%)

Level 4: Invention outside the paradigm (4%)

Level 3: Invention inside the paradigm (18%)

Level 2: Improvement (45%)

Level 1: Apparent solution (no innovation) (32%)

Mov

ing

to h

ighe

r le

vels

of

inno

vatio

n

Inventive Solutions

(which break contradictions) are in level 3 and level 4

©




Patterns of Invention

•

Altshuller recognized that the same fundamental problem (contradiction) had been addressed by a number of inventions in different areas of technology.

•

He also observed that the same fundamental solutions were used over and over again, often separated by many years.

•

He reasoned that if the latter innovator had had knowledge of the earlier solution, their task would have been straightforward.

©




•

TOC can:−

Model cause-effect relationships between useful and harmful effects in very focused ways

−

Focus TRIZ on options addressing core problem(s) and key leverage points

−

Clearly verbalize contradictions and their underlying assumptions

−

Verify the completeness and power of a solution

The TRIZ for JONAHS approach: Leverage TRIZ and TOC Knowledge

TRIZ can:−

Model cause-effect relationships between useful and harmful functions, events and conditions in very flexible ways using software

−

Generate a voluminous set of solution directions to explore using standard solutions, principles and scientific effects

−

Suggest injections for breaking contradictions

Focus



The TRIZ for JONAHS Strategy

Leverage TOC and TRIZ to create powerful inventive solutions faster

−

Use TOC to identify the high leverage points of the problem

−

Focus on the TRIZ “Directions for a Solution” related to these leverage points



The TRIZ for JONAHS Tactics

This strategy will be implemented by:•

Restricting the problem model to cause-effect (necessary condition) logic

•

Using focusing techniques analogous to those used in the TOC Thinking Processes to identify core conflicts and key leverage points

•

Converting contradictions from the TRIZ Problem Formulation Diagram to TOC Conflict Clouds

•

Using both TRIZ and TOC to find injections



Step 1 of the TRIZ for JONAHS Basic Process

Step

1

Action

Define the problem

Approach

Write story line of the problem andlist useful and harmful effects



Step 1a: Write the Story Line of the “Plating Metal Parts” Example

•

To plate metal parts with nickel they were placed in a bath of nickel salt. The bath was heated to increase the productivity of the process. However, heating reduced the stability of the salt solution and it started to decompose.

©




Step 1b: List Useful and Harmful Effects

•

Primary Useful Effect−

Productivity increases

•

Useful Effects−

Parts move faster

−

Salt solution is heated

•

Harmful Effects−

Material is wasted

−

Salt solution decomposes

−

Stability of solution is reduced




Step

1

2

Action

Define the problem

Model the problem

Approach


Connect the effects using “produces” and “counteracts” logic



Steps to connect the Effects using “produces” and “counteracts” logic

Harmful Effect

PrimaryUseful Effect

Useful Effect

Harmful Effect

Harmful Effect

Harmful Effect

Useful Effect

Useful Effect

Useful Effect

Useful Effect

1. Connect the “harmful” and “useful” effects

2. Use “produces” and “is produced by” plus “counteracts” and “is counteracted by” logic

3. Stay focused on the real problem(s) and the mechanisms causing those problems

4. At a minimum the model must contain the major “harmful” effects plus the “primary useful effect”

5. This is a focused variant of the Problem Formulation Diagram in TRIZ



Step 2: Connect Harmful Effects to Desired Useful Effects

Salt Solution isless stable

Salt solutiondecomposes

Material is wasted

Parts move faster

Productivityincreases

Salt solutionIs heated




Step

1

2

Action

Define the problem

Model the problem

3 Focus Attention then Formulate Directions

Approach



At contradictions and leverage points formulate directions for a solution



Recognizing Contradictions in Problem Formulation Diagrams

Three of the patterns that generate contradictions

Note that all three patterns have both a green and red arrow coming from the same effect

Useful Effect

Harmful Effect

Useful Effect

Useful Effect

Harmful Effect

Harmful Effect

Useful Effect

Harmful Effect

Useful Effect

Type 1

Type 2 Type 3



Step 3a: Focus on Contradictions and Key Leverage Points

Salt solutiondecomposes

Salt solutionis less stable

Material is wasted

Parts move faster


Salt solutionIs heated



Problem Formulation

The formulation of a problem is often far more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill.

- Albert Einstein



Step 3b: Formulate Directions for a Solution from the Contradiction Block

•

1. Find an alternative way to heat the salt solution that lets the parts move faster but does not cause the solution to be less stable.

•

2. Try to resolve the following contradiction: The salt solution should be heated to let the parts move faster, and should not be heated to avoid making the solution less stable.

*

*

See [3,4]



The Beauty of Formulation

Note for Jonahs: In the TOC Thinking Processes, this corresponds to examining possible negative branches of each course of action before selecting the final direction of the solution.

“The beauty of formulation is in obtaining an exhaustive set of possible directions. Ideally we would like to resolve the contradiction. However, there is no guarantee the contradiction can be resolved

given the existing resources and limitations. And even it can be resolved, we do not know in advance if this solution is going to be the best possible.

Resolving contradiction only means that we have found a way to satisfy both original conflicting requirements, but it can have new side effects (consequent contradiction) while a solution to other problem statements might not have side effects or they are negligible…”

-

Alla Zusman




Step

1

2

Action

Define the problem

Model the problem


4 Generate Ideas

Approach



At contradictions and leverage points formulate directions for a solution

Use TOC, clouds, inventive and separation principles, and effects



How to Express a TRIZ Contradiction as a TOC Conflict Cloud

Technical Contradiction Physical Contradiction

In order to have A, we must have B, in order to have B, we must have DIn order to have A, we must have C, in order to have C, we must have D’D jeopardizes C D’ jeopardizes B D is in direct conflict with D’

A

B

C

D

D’Common objective

A

B

C

D

D’

Useful function

Important Needs Actions / Means

ImproveMaintain

TRIZ

TOC



Step 4a: Write the TRIZ Contradiction as a TOC Conflict Cloud

AProductivityincreases

BParts move

faster

CMaterial is not

wasted

DSalt solution

Is heated

D’Salt solutionIs not heated

Common objective



Useful function

TRIZ

TOC

ImproveMaintain



Altshuller’s 39 engineering parameters for expressing Technical Contradictions

Weight of moving objectWeight of non-moving objectLength of moving objectLength of non-moving objectArea of moving objectArea of non-moving objectVolume of moving objectVolume of non-moving objectSpeedForceTension, pressureShapeStability of objectStrengthDurability of moving objectDurability of non-moving objectTemperatureBrightnessEnergy spent by moving object

Energy spent by non-moving objectPowerWaste of energyWaste of substanceLoss of informationWaste of timeAmount of substanceReliabilityAccuracy of measurementAccuracy of manufacturingHarmful factors acting on objectHarmful side effectsManufacturabilityConvenience of useRepairabilityAdaptabilityComplexity of deviceComplexity of controlLevel of automationProductivity

2021222324252627282930313233343536373839

123456789

10111213141516171819



Step 4b: Express each “need” of the cloud as one of Altshuller’s 39 parameters


BIncrease “speed”

CNot cause “waste

of substance”

DSalt solution

Is heated




Altshuller’s Contradiction Table for Resolving Technical Contradictions

•

Altshuller selected several recommended Principles for Conflict Resolution for each combination of the 39 parameters

•

These recommended principles are shown in Altshuller’s Contradiction Table

•

The rows of the table display the parameters needing improvement

•

The columns of the table display the parameters that need to be protected from degradation as the row parameters are improved

•

The recommended Principles are listed in priority order at the intersection of the rows and columns

•

The table is not necessarily symmetric



Step 4c: Find “Principles” for resolving the conflict from the Contradiction Table*

As shown in Systematic Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ, by John Terninko, Alla Zusman and Boris Zlotin*

Feature to Improve

Feature to Maintain

9

17

39

13 23 31

Speed

Productivity

Temperature

Was

te o

f su

bsta

nce

Sta

bilit

y of

obje

ct

Har

mfu

lsi

de e

ffect

s

28, 33,1, 18

1, 35,32

35, 3,22, 39

10, 13,28, 38

21, 36,29, 31

28, 10,35, 23

2, 24,35, 21

22, 35,2, 24

35, 22,18, 39



Altshuller’s 40 Inventive Principles for Conflict Resolution

SegmentationExtractionLocal conditionsAsymmetryCombiningUniversalityNestingAnti-weightPrior counter-actionPrior ActionCushion in advanceEquipotentialityInversionSpheroidalityDynamicityPartial-excessive actionShift to a new dimensionMechanical vibrationPeriodic actionContinuity of a useful action

Rushing throughConvert a harm into a benefitFeedbackMediatorSelf-serviceCopyingDisposable objectReplacement of a mechanical systemUse a pneumatic or hydraulic constructionFlexible film or thin membranesUse of porous materialChanging the colorHomogeneityRejecting and regenerating partsTransformation of physical and chemical statesPhase transitionThermal expansionUse strong oxidizersInert environmentComposite materials

2122232425262728293031323334353637383940

123456789

1011121314151617181920



Generating Ideas from the 40 Inventive Principles

•

For each principle ask:

-

Is there anything about this that can help me solve my problem?-

What are the analogies between my problem and the examples?

•

List each concept you come up with

•

Develop the best concepts enough to see if any new problems are created.



Step 4d: Apply the Recommended Inventive Principles to the Example

10. Prior actiona. Carry out all or part of the required action in advanceb. Arrange objects so they can go into action in a timely

matter and from a convenient position

13. Inversiona. Instead of an action dictated by the specifications of the

problem, implement an opposite actionb. Make a moving part of the object or the outside

environment immovable and the non-moving part movable

c. Turn the object upside-down

IDEAS? INJECTIONS?:



Step 4e: Apply the Separation Principles to Resolve the Physical Contradiction


BIncrease“speed”

CNot cause “waste

of substance”

DSalt solution

Is heated




Useful function

Common objective



Step 4f: The “Separation Principles” and an example of a Relevant Scientific Effect

The following Separation Principles can address any situation with contradictory actions / needs in the TOC cloud

1. Separate opposite requirements in time

2. Separate opposite requirements in space−

Illustration of a relevant scientific effect: Coating method

3. Separate opposite requirements between the whole object and its parts

4. Separate opposite requirements via changing conditions



Coating Method “Scientific Effect” Illustration

•

Metallic surfaces are chemically coated as follows: the metallic product is placed in a pool filled with a metal salt solution (e.g. nickel, cobalt, etc.). During the ensuing reduction reaction, metal from the solution precipitates onto the product surface. The higher the temperature, the faster the process; however, the solution decomposes at high temperatures, and up to 75% of the chemicals are wasted, settling on the bottom and walls of the pool. Adding stabilizers is not effective, and conducting the process at a low temperature sharply decreases production.

•

Alternatively, the product is heated to a high temperature before it is immersed in the solution, and the process itself is conducted at a low temperature. In this case, the solution is hot where it is near the product, but cold everywhere else. One way of heating the product is to apply an electric current to it during the coating process.

Ideas?

©





Step

1

2

Action

Define the problem

Model the problem


4 Generate Ideas

5 Develop Concepts

Approach



At contradictions and leverage points formulate directions for a solutionUse TOC, clouds, innovation and separation principles, and effects

Select a set of injections that “flip” harmful effects into useful effects



Step 5a: Develop Solution Concepts

Idea:Most of the parts of the "coating method illustration" are directly useful. This approach breaks the physical conflict by separating opposite requirements in space.

Idea:The Prior Action and Inversion principles suggest heating the metal parts before putting them in the bath instead of heating the bath before the metal parts are put in. When this is done, the solution touching the metal parts will be hotter than the rest of the solution in the bath. As in the “coating method illustration”

this maintains the stability of the salt solution.



Step 5b: Create injections that will “flip” the harmful effects into useful effects

•

The metal parts are heated before being placed in the solution

•

The metal parts heat only the solution touching the parts

•

The temperature of the rest of the solution is not increased

•

The injection for the Problem Formulation Diagram is therefore:

−

Parts heat only the solution touching the parts



Step 5c: Connect injections to “flipped” harmful effects and original useful effects

Parts heat onlythe solution

touching the parts

Salt solution touching the part

Is heated

The salt solution isstable

Parts movefaster

The salt solutiondoesn’t decompose


Material is notwasted




Step

1

2

Action

Define the problem

Model the problem


4 Generate Ideas

5 Develop Concepts

6 Evaluate Results andPlan Implementation

Approach



At contradictions and leverage points formulate directions for a solutionUse TOC, clouds, innovation and separation principles, and effects

Select a set of injections that “flip” harmful effects into useful effects

Go back until “harmful effects” are all “flipped” then develop project plan



Summary of “Plating Metal Parts” Problem

•

To plate metal parts with nickel they were placed in a bath of nickel salt. The bath was heated to increase the productivity of the process. However, heating reduced the stability of the salt solution and it started to decompose.

Parts are heated by the liquid

©




Summary of “Plating Metal Parts” Solution

•

In the nickel plating of parts, increased temperature is necessary only in proximity to the parts. To accomplish this, the parts themselves may be heated, rather than the salt solution.

The liquid touching the parts is heated by the parts

©




TRIZ for JONAHS Helps Satisfy the “Need For Speed” in Innovation

Starting Point

Knowledge Required to

Make a Good Decision

PracticalKnowledge

Time

Gradual Accumulation of

Practical Knowledge

ConfidentDecision Point Focused Development of

Practical Knowledge versus Time

DevelopInvent Produce Deliver



References

1. Goldratt, E., (private communication), 2000.

2. Self Sufficiency in Inventive Problem Solving Workshop Notes, Ideation International Inc., Southfield, MI, 2000.

3. IWB Software, Ideation International Inc., Southfield, MI, 2000.

4. Terninko, J., Zusman, A., Zlotin, B., Systematic Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ, St. Lucie Press, New York, 1998.

5. Zusman, A., (private communication), 2005, 2007.



About David Bergland

••Advisory TOC Consultant at AGIAdvisory TOC Consultant at AGI

••AGI JonahAGI Jonah’’s Jonah certified in all of the s Jonah certified in all of the TOC application areas.TOC application areas.

••Founder and Partner of TOC Solutions, Founder and Partner of TOC Solutions, LLCLLC

••First Stanley Chair of Interdisciplinary First Stanley Chair of Interdisciplinary Engineering at Iowa State University Engineering at Iowa State University teaching TOC and TRIZ teaching TOC and TRIZ

••Head of the Executive Consulting Head of the Executive Consulting Department at AT&T Bell LaboratoriesDepartment at AT&T Bell Laboratories

••Honorable Mention as Eta Kappa Nu Honorable Mention as Eta Kappa Nu Outstanding Young Electrical EngineerOutstanding Young Electrical Engineer

••PhD in Electrical Engineering with PhD in Electrical Engineering with minors in Math and Physicsminors in Math and Physics

••Attended inAttended in--house AT&T MBA programhouse AT&T MBA program

[Color Photo of Presenter][Color Photo of Presenter]