|
| |
The History of TRIZ
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
Courtesy of:
http://www.mazur.net
There are two groups of problems people face: those with generally known
solutions and those with unknown solutions.
Those with known solutions can usually be solved by information found in books,
technical journals, or with subject matter experts. These solutions follow the
general pattern of problem solving like this:
My problem >> Analogous
standard problem >>
Analogous standard solution
>> My solution.
Here,
the particular problem is elevated to a standard problem of a similar or
analogous nature. A standard solution is known and from that standard solution
comes a particular solution to the problem. For example, in designing a rotating
cutting machine (my problem), a powerful but low 100 rpm motor is required.
Since most AC motors are high rpm (3600 rpm), the analogous standard problem is
how to reduce the speed of the motor. The analogous standard solution is a gear
box or transmission. Then, a gear box can be designed with appropriate
dimensions, weight, rpm, torque, etc. can be designed for my cutting needs.
The other type of problem is one with no known solution. It is called an
inventive problem and may contain contradictory requirements. As long ago as the
4th century, an Egyptian scientist named Papp suggested there should be a
science called heuristics to solve inventive problems. In modern times,
inventive problem solving has fallen into the field of psychology where the
links between the brain and insight and innovation are studied. Methods such as brainstorming and trial-and-error are commonly suggested.
A problem with these methods is that if the solution lies
within one's experience or field, such as mechanical engineering, then the
number of trials will be fewer. But if the solution is not forthcoming, then the
inventor must look beyond his experience and knowledge to new fields such as
chemistry or electronics; the the number of trials will grow large. A further
problem with psychological tools like brainstorming,
intuition, experience, and creativity is that it is difficult to transfer them to other people in the
organization.
This leads to what is called psychological inertia, where the solutions being
considered are within one's own experience and do not look at alternative
technologies to develop new concepts.
When we overlay the limiting effects of psychological inertia on a solution map
covering broad scientific and technological disciplines, we find that the ideal
solution may lie outside the inventor's field of expertise. This is seen where
the ideal solution is electromechanical but is outside the experience of the
mechanical engineer and so remains untried and may even be invisible. If problem
solving was a random process, then we would expect solutions to occur randomly
across the solution space. Psychological inertia defeats randomness and leads to
looking only where there is personal experience.
 A better approach, relying not on psychology but on technology was developed by
Genrich S. Altshuller, born in the former Soviet Union in 1926. His first
invention, for scuba diving, was when he was only 14 years old. His hobby led
him to pursue a career as a mechanical engineer. Serving in the Soviet Navy as a
patent expert in the 1940s, his job was to help inventors apply for patents. He
found, however, that often he was asked to assist in solving problems as well.
His curiosity about problem solving led him to search for standard methods. What
he found were the psychological tools that did not meet the rigors of inventing
in the 20th century. At a minimum, Altshuller felt a theory of invention should
satisfy the following conditions:
-
be a systematic, step-by-step procedure
-
be a guide through a broad solution space to direct to the
ideal solution
-
be repeatable and reliable and not dependent on
psychological tools
-
be able to access the body of inventive knowledge
-
be able to add to the body of inventive knowledge
-
be familiar enough to inventors by following the general
approach to problem solving.
In the next few years, Altshuller screened over 200,000 patents looking for
inventive problems and how they were solved. Of these (over 1,500,000 patents
have now been screened), only 40,000 had somewhat inventive solutions; the rest
were straight forward improvements. Altshuller more clearly defined an inventive
problem as one in which the solution causes another problem to appear, such as
increasing the strength of a metal plate causing its weight to get heavier.
Usually, inventors must resort to a trade-off and compromise between the
features and thus do not achieve an ideal solution. In his study of patents,
Altshuller found that many described a solution that eliminated or resolved the
contradiction and required no trade-off.
Altshuller categorized these patents in a novel way. Instead of classifying them
by industry, such as automotive, aerospace, etc., he removed the subject matter
to uncover the problem solving process. He found that often the same problems
had been solved over and over again using one of only forty fundamental
inventive principles. If only later inventors had knowledge of the work of
earlier ones, solutions could have been discovered more quickly and efficiently.
In the 1960s and 1970s, he categorized the solutions into five levels.
Level one. Routine design problems solved by methods
well known within the specialty. No invention needed. About 32% of the
solutions fell into this level.
Level two. Minor improvements to an existing system,
by methods known within the industry. Usually with some compromise. About 45%
of the solutions fell into this level.
Level three. Fundamental improvement to an existing
system, by methods known outside the industry. Contradictions resolved. About
18% of the solutions fell into this category.
Level four. A new generation that uses a new
principle to perform the primary functions of the system. Solution found more
in science than in technology. About 4% of the solutions fell into this
category.
Level five. A rare scientific discovery or
pioneering invention of essentially a new system. About 1% of the solutions
fell into this category.
He also noted that with each succeeding level, the source of the solution
required broader knowledge and more solutions to consider before an ideal one
could be found.
What Altshuller tabulated was that over 90% of the problems engineers faced had
been solved somewhere before. If engineers could follow a path to an ideal
solution, starting with the lowest level, their personal knowledge and
experience, and working their way to higher levels, most of the solutions could
be derived from knowledge already present in the company, industry, or in
another industry.
For example, a problem in using artificial diamonds for tool making is the
existence of invisible fractures. Traditional diamond cutting methods often
resulted in new fractures which did not show up until the diamond was in use.
What was needed was a way to split the diamond crystals along their natural
fractures without causing additional damage.
 A method used in food canning to
split green peppers and remove the seeds was used. In this process, peppers are
placed in a hermetic chamber to which air pressure is increased to 8
atmospheres. The peppers shrink and fracture at the stem. Then the pressure is
rapidly dropped causing the peppers to burst at the weakest point and the seed
pod to be ejected. A similar technique applied to diamond cutting resulted in
the crystals splitting along their natural fracture lines with no additional
damage.
Altshuller distilled the problems, contradictions, and solutions in these
patents into a theory of inventive problem solving which he named TRIZ.
Visit:
http://www.mazur.net/triz/,
for a complete version of this article with figures and tables, including QFD
and TRIZ.
To inquire about more training
opportunities and introductory workshop on TRIZ and QFD, contact
QFD Institute
|
