‘Surface Complexity, Deep Simplicity’- Problem Solving, Innovation and TRIZ

Barry WinklessInnovation Specialist- Altran Technologies

‘An engineer is a person who possesses…knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences…and applies this knowledge to the solution of problems’ Eide 2002.1

1. IntroductionThe solution of problems is a day to day activity for most engineers, scientists and technologists. These problems may be simple, or extremely complex, but fundamentally the solution of problems is at the very core of successful innovation. Innovation, in fact, can be viewed as the solution of problems- simple, difficult or otherwise. According to CSC (2004) ‘All significant innovations embody solutions to complex problems’. If, for example, I want to have a hot cup of coffee to take away, but the coffee cup is burning my hands then a problem exists. The solution of this problem, whether through the use of a corrugated sleeve or a void of air, creates a concept innovation, and one could argue a more ‘ideal’ take away coffee. Throughout the life cycle of any product or process problems are identified and solved, creating an improved or more ideal system over time until it is superseded by a next generation system that can deliver substantially greater functional or critical to quality performance (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Problems over the lifecycle of a product, technology or service

2. Problem Solving- it isn’t easy.

Problem solving is not, however, a simple thing to do. Of course most engineers can develop a number of solutions for a particular problem- by using their own inherent technical expertise, by asking peers, or consulting engineering data (both internal and external information sources). At best this process is generally carried out in an ad-hoc fashion using traditional methods such as brainstorming. In many cases engineers fall back on experience. Several studies have shown however that experience in a given job can actually lead to worse performance in solving problems (Hecht and Proffitt 1995). Frensch and Stenberg (1985) have also noted that specialist knowledge can lead to an impairment in the ability of engineers to incorporate new ways into their thinking.

1 Eide, A.R., Jenison, R.D., Mashaw, L.H., and Northup, L.L. Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002

BIR

THG

RO

WTH

MAT

UR

E

A large number of small problems. Increasing effort and time spent on the problems, diminishing functional and performance gains.Next generation system on the horizon.

A number of intermediate problems. The problems are based around efficiency, optimisation, cost cutting. Better understanding of the system allows large jumps in functionality and performance. Generally low to medium level solution inventiveness is used

A few big problems. The solution of these problems is essential to ensure the proper functioning of a system. Generally high level inventiveness required.

Davidson and Sternberg (2003) have noted that ‘everyone approaches a problem situation with a unique knowledge base’. The utilisation of professional terms and specific knowledge can lead to a psychological inertia where the solution will most likely come from an engineer’s professional field. In many instances this knowledge ‘cage’ prevents identification of the most optimal solution, particularly when confronted with difficult or non-routine problems.

Figure 2: The knowledge ‘cage’

So what are the major qualities that engineers should possess in order to become problem solvers and inventors par excellence? Savransky (2000) cites three:

1. He/She must obtain very high quality solutions with a high level of recognition in a short time.

2. He/She has to know practically all relevant human knowledge3. A good problem solver must ‘turn off’ his/her psychological inertia.

Most engineers would fall somewhat short if measured against the criteria set by Savransky, particularly in relation to knowing all relevant human knowledge! There is an inventive problem solving methodology, however, that is based on the systematic study of inventions from all knowledge fields. Its name is TRIZ- the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. It represents the next competitive advantage for organisations wishing to increase their innovation potential.

3. TRIZ- the next competitive advantageTriz was developed by a Russian Engineer, Geinrich Altshuller. Through a systematic analysis of the patent databases (initial study involved the analysis of 400,000 patents) 2

Altshuller realised that 98% of patented inventions used some already known physical principle and that the same generic engineering problems and solutions occur again and again across diverse technological fields. Alsthuller categorised solutions into 5 levels (Figure 3), known as the levels of invention. At each succeeding level, more knowledge from diverse fields is needed, and more solutions required before an ideal solution can be found.

Figure 3: The five Levels of Invention

3.1 Surface Complexity Deep SimplicityAll technological or scientific inventions at their surface level seem complex- but at their core lie solution and evolution principles that are common across diverse scientific and engineering disciplines. This is the essence of TRIZ and the effective utilization of this methodology requires the transformation of very specific problems into abstract ones. By using this ‘Principles of Solution by Abstraction’ (Kaplan 1996:7) the problem solver can identify analogous solutions from sectors as diverse as pharmaceutical to agricultural and apply these solutions to their particular problem (Figure 4).

2 Most recent estimates suggest that over 3 million patents have now been codified using the Triz approach

Level 1 Conventional solution 32%Level 2 Small improvements, with company 45%Level 3 Major Improvement, within industry 18%Level 4 New innovation using science, outside of industry 4%Level 5 Major Discovery 1%

Figure 4: The abstraction of problems using TRIZ

4. TRIZ Foundations and Philosophy

4.1 Ideality- The evolution of systemsTRIZ encourages problem solvers to break out of the traditional ‘start from the current situation’ type of thinking, and start instead from what is described as the Ideal Final Result (IFR). The simple definition of IFR is that the solution contains all of the benefits and none of the costs or ‘harms’ (environmental impact, adverse side-effects, etc). The basic ‘equation’ for the ideal final result or ideality is:

The law of ideality states that any system throughout its lifecycle tends to become more reliable, simple and effective. The ideal system is exactly as it states- it occupies no space, requires no labour, maintenance and has no weight- it forces the designer to think without compromise. In essence when a system reaches ideality the mechanism disappears but the function is performed.

4.2 Functions- The language of InventionThe concepts of functions and functionality are at the very heart of the TRIZ approach. In a TRIZ based functional analysis the focus is very much on the identification of harmful, positive and insufficient relationships between system or sub-system parts as a means to identify contradictions and problems within the system. An example of a simplified Triz function analysis schema is shown in Figure 5 (Winkless and Mann (2003). Interactions- both harmful and positive are mapped in order to develop a fully rounded picture of the ‘innovation space’3. Figure 5: Simplified Triz Function Analysis schema

4.3 ContradictionsRoyzen (1997)4 states that ‘A situation in problem-solving where improving one parameter of a system causes deterioration of another is called an engineering contradiction’. Within the

3 Winkless, B and Cooney, J (2004) ‘Mapping the Innovation Space One: Novel tools for problem definition in product innovation’ in The Triz Journal, July

2004. Web.4 Royzen, Z (1997) ‘Solving contradictions in the development of new generation products using Triz’, in Triz Journal, Feb 1997.

www.triz-journal.com/archives/1997/02/b/index.html

MYPROBLEM

GENERIC PROBLEM

MYSOLUTION

Ideality = All Useful Effects

All Harmful Effects

ANALOGOUS

OLUTIONS

GENERIC PROBLEM

SOLUTIONS

Triz approach any problem must be described by a contradiction generally if there are no contradictions there are no problems. There are two main types of contradictions

a. Technical contradictions can best be summed up as ‘when something gets better something else gets worse’. For example, egg packaging gets more robust, but the weight of packaging increases. Once the problem has been described in terms of a technical contradiction it is then possible to locate the contradiction solution features on the Contradiction Matrix, a matrix composed of 39 features, or parameters (Figure 6). This matrix in essence is a collection of optimal solutions gleaned from the patent databases and one of the basic practical tools of Triz5.

b. Physical contradictions occur when one object requires seemingly conflicting requirements such as: when pouring hot filling into chocolate candy shells the filling should be hot to pour fast but it should be cold enough to prevent melting the chocolate (Domb 1997: 2). In order to solve physical contradiction problems, the Separation principles are used. Altshuller (1984) highlighted 11 separation solution methods that can be utilised in order to solve physical contradictions

4.4 Resources- Using what is already thereWithin TRIZ, resources and the optimal use of resources by a system or subsystem are seen as an essential element of the problem solving/innovation process. Savransky (2002:83/84) highlights 8 groupings of resources:

Natural Resources Time resources Space resources System resources Substance resources Energy/field resources Information resources Functional resources

Discovery and appreciation of such resources reveal opportunities through which the design of a system may be improved.

5. ConclusionThis article has introduced the foundations and philosophy of TRIZ- the theory of inventive problem solving. Triz is very quickly becoming an industry standard for ideation, invention and problem solving and is being used by organisations as diverse as Samsung and P&G. In essence Triz is a highly integrated suite of tools and methodologies that can enhance and improve an organisation’s innovation and improvement potential. Triz easily integrates into Six Sigma, Lean, and Value Engineering programs but is also a highly evolved methodology in its own right. Organisation’s seeking the next competitive advantage may find what they are looking for in Triz.

References:Davidson, J, E and Sternberg, R, J (2003) The psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press 2003

Domb, E (1997) ‘The ideal final result: Tutorial’, in The Triz Journal, Feb 1997. Web.

Eide, A.R., Jenison, R.D., Mashaw, L.H., and Northup, L.L. Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002

Frensch, P. A. & Sternberg, R. J. (1985) Expertise and Flexibility: the costs of expertise. Manuscript.

Hecht, H and Proffitt, D.R (1995) ‘The price of expertise: Effects of experience on the water-level task’, in Psychological Science 6, 2, 90.95

Kaplan, S (1996) An introduction to Triz: The Russian Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Ideation International 1995.

Kowalick, J (1996) ’17 secrets of an inventive mind’ in The Triz Journal, Nov 1997. Web

Mann, D (2002) Hands On Systematic Innovation. CREAX 2002

5 For a copy of the matrix please contact Barry Winkless, at Altran Technologies Ireland

Royzen, Z (1997) ‘Solving contradictions in the development of new generation products using Triz’, in The Triz Journal, Feb 1997. Web.

Savransky, S.D (2001) Engineering of Creativity. CRC Press LLC.

Smith, H (2004) ‘What innovation is: How companies develop operating systems for innovation’. A white paper. CSC

Sternberg, R. (1985) (Ed.) Human Abilities: An Information- Processing Approach, New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Winkless, B and Cooney, J (2004) ‘Mapping the Innovation Space One: Novel tools for problem definition in product innovation’ in The Triz Journal, July

2004. Web.

Winkless, B and Mann, D (2002) ‘Changing The Game: Systematic Innovation in Food Engineering Using TRIZ and Function Simulation Tools’, Conference

Proceedings, Foodsim 2002, June 17-18th , Blarney, Ireland

The Altran-Triz Difference

Altran Technologies Ireland, part of the Altran group (16,000 consultants), are currently engaged in the development and improvement of Triz based methodologies and their integration with innovation and improvement methodologies such as Lean, Value Engineering, DFSS and Six Sigma. Altran are the only professional Triz provider in Ireland, and the only organisation within the Triz community with methodological experts in innovation and a diverse range of scientific and technological experts in all fields. Altran Technologies Ireland for the past few years have been involved in the implementation and execution of a number of Triz related projects.Currently Altran offer a number of high value Triz related offerings:Technology Path-finding: Utilisation of Qualitative and Quantitative technology system analysis using Triz Evolution methods and Patent Value metrics as a means to identify current technology status and future improvement and innovation opportunities.Creativity+: High value facilitated, intervention sessions using Triz methods, analogy and creativity to solve difficult problems, identify improvement opportunities, or to change mindsetsAccelerator: Comprehensive three-tier Triz training- Trizbase, Trizsmart, Trizwise, coupled with distance coaching and remote support. Applied to the specific products, service or technologies of the organisation involved.www.altrantech.ie 01 676 2300.