Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices 2011 Part 19 pot

Historically, only a precious fewindividuals, such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Henry Ford, and ThomasEdison, seem to have possessed an innate natural ability for creativity and i

Trang 1

Nevertheless, the whole notion of creativity and innovation mentioned in thecontext of science makes for an unusual pairing Innovation and creativity aretypically thought of as spontaneous phenomena that happen in a capricious andunpredictable way in the vast majority of people Historically, only a precious fewindividuals, such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Henry Ford, and ThomasEdison, seem to have possessed an innate natural ability for creativity and inven-tiveness.

The name, the theory of the solution of inventive problems, implies that vation and creative thought in the context of problem solving are supported by anunderlying construct and an architecture that can be deployed on an as-needed basis.The implications of such a theory, if true, are enormous because it suggests that layindividuals can elevate their creative thinking capabilities by orders-of-magnitude

inno-19.2 THE ORIGINS OF TRIZ

The inventor of TRIZ was Genrich Altshuller, a Russian (1926–1998) Altshullerbecame interested in the process of invention and innovative thinking at an earlyage He patented a device for generating oxygen from hydrogen peroxide at the age

of 14 Altshuller’s fascination with inventions and innovation continued throughStalin’s regime and World War II After the war, Altshuller was assigned as a patentexaminer in the Department of the Navy As such, Altshuller often found himselfhelping would-be inventors solve various problems with their inventions In duecourse, Altshuller become fascinated with the study of inventions In particular,Altshuller was interested in understanding how the minds of inventors work Hisinitial attempts were psychologically based, but these probes provided little if anyinsight on how creativity could be engineered

Altshuller then turned his attention to studying actual inventions and in a sensereverse-engineering them to understand the essential engineering problem beingSL3003Ch19Frame Page 399 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM

Trang 2

400 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices

solved and the elegance of the solution as described in the patent application Itshould be noted that in the former Soviet Union patent applications (called authorscertificates [ACs]) were concise documents no more that three or four pages inlength The author certificate consisted of a descriptive title of the invention, aschematic of the new invention, a rendering of the current design, the purpose ofthe invention, and a description of the solution

19.2.1 A LTSHULLER ’ S F IRST D ISCOVERY

The brevity of the certificates facilitated analysis, cataloguing, and mapping solutions

to the problems As the number of inventions he scrutinized grew, Altshuller uncoveredsimilar patterns of solutions for similar problems This was a remarkable discoverybecause it essentially paved the way for a scientific, standardized way to approach aproblem and to incorporate a latent knowledge base as an integral element of the solutionprocess In other words, Altshuller discovered that similar technological problems gaverise to similar patents This phenomenon was repeated in widely disparate engineeringdisciplines at different periods of time and in geographically dispersed areas

The logical conclusion reached by Altshuller was that the possibility existed ofcreating a mechanism for describing types of problems and subsequently mappingthem with types of solutions This discovery led to just such a mechanism, whichconsisted of the 39 typical engineering parameters, the contradiction matrix, and the

40 inventive principles These tools are covered in more detail later in the chapter

19.2.2 A LTSHULLER ’ S S ECOND D ISCOVERY

Altshuller’s second enlightening discovery was made as he assembled chronologicaltechnology maps Altshuller uncovered an unmistakable, explicit regularity in the evo-lution of engineered systems Altshuller described these time-based phenomena in hislectures and writings as The Eight Laws of Engineered Systems Evolution. The term

laws does not imply that Altshuller defined them as conforming to a strict scientificconstruction, as in the fields of physics or chemistry The laws, though general in nature,are nevertheless recognizable and predictable; more importantly, they provide a roadmap to future derivatives Today, these eight laws have been refined and expanded intomore than 400 sublines of evolution and are useful in technology development, productplanning, and the establishment of defensible patent fences

19.2.3 A LTSHULLER ’ S T HIRD D ISCOVERY

The third truism that emerged from Altshuller’s analytical work was the realizationthat inventions are vastly different in their degrees of inventiveness Indeed, many

of the patents that Altshuller studied were filed simply to describe a system andprovide some degree of protection These patents were useless in Altshuller’s deter-mination to discover the secret of how to become an inventor of the highest order

To differentiate inventiveness, Altshuller devised a scale of 1 to 5 for categorizingthe elegance of the solution (see Figure 19.1)

Note that only level 3 and 4 solutions are deemed to be inventive Within thebody of TRIZ knowledge, inventive means that the solution was one that did notSL3003Ch19Frame Page 400 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM

Trang 3

TRIZ 401

compromise conflicting requirements For example, strength vs weight is an ple of conflicting parameters To increase strength, the engineer will typically makesomething thicker or heavier An inventive solution would increase strength with noadditional weight or even a reduction in weight

exam-19.2.4 A LTSHULLER ’ S L EVELS OF I NVENTIVENESS

19.2.4.1 Level 1: Parametric Solution

A parametric solution uses well-known methods and parameters within an ing field or specialty This is the lowest level solution and is not an inventive solution.For example, the problem of roads and bridges icing over can be solved by usingsalt or sand, or by plowing Calculating stress on a cantilevered structure is accom-plished by using well-known mathematical formulas

engineer-19.2.4.2 Level 2: Significant Improvement in the Technology Paradigm

Level 2 is a significant improvement in the system, utilizing known methods possiblefrom several engineering disciplines Although a level 2 solution is a significantimprovement over the previous system, it is not inventive

A level 2solution of the icing problem would be required if conventional meanswere prohibited This type of solution demands a choice between several variantswhich leaves the original system essentially intact The roadways or bridges, forexample, could be formulated or coated with an exothermic substance that would

be triggered at a certain temperature

19.2.4.3 Level 3: Invention within the Paradigm

Level 3 eliminates conflicting requirements within a system, utilizing technologiesand methods within the current paradigm A level 3 solution is deemed to be inventive

FIGURE 19.1 Levels of inventiveness.

Solution

Number of Trials to Find the Solution

Origin of The Solution

% of Patents

at This Level

1 Parametric None to Few Field of Specialty The Designer's 32%

2 Significant Improvement in Paradigm

Ten to Fifty Within a Branch

3 Inventive Solution in Paradigm

Hundreds Several Branches

4 Inventive Solution Out

of Paradigm

Thousands to Tens of Thousands

From Science Physical/Chemical Effects

-4%

Beyond Contemporary Science

1%

SL3003Ch19Frame Page 401 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM

Trang 4

because it eliminates the conflicting parameters in such a way that both requirementsare satisfied simultaneously

A level 3 solution to the conflicting requirements of strength vs weight has beensolved in aircraft by the use of honeycomb structures and composites

19.2.4.4 Level 4: Invention outside the Paradigm

Level 4 is the creation of a new generation of a system with a solution derived —not in technology — but in science

A level 4solution integrates several branches of science The radio, the integratedcircuit, and the transistor are examples of level 4 solutions

19.2.4.5 Level 5: True Discovery

Level 5 is a discovery that is beyond the bounds of contemporary science A level

5 discovery will oftentimes spawn entire new industries or allow for the ment of tasks in radically new ways The laser and the Internet are examples of level

accomplish-5 inventions

19.3 BASIC FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES

The three discoveries made by Altshuller provided the construct for the formation

of the foundational underpinnings upon which all TRIZ theory, practices, and toolsare built The three building blocks of TRIZ are ideality, contradictions, and themaximal use of resources

19.3.1 I DEALITY

The notion of ideality is a simple concept Essentially, ideality postulates that in thecourse of time, systems move toward a state of increased ideality Ideality is defined

as the ratio of useful functions FU divided by harmful functions FH

Useful functions embody all the desired attributes, functions, and outputs of thesystem In other words, from an engineering point of view, it is termed design intent.Harmful functions, on the other hand, include the expenses or fees associatedwith the system, the space it occupies, the resources it consumes, the cost tomanufacture, the cost to transport, the cost to maintain, etc

Extrapolating the concept to its theoretical limit, one arrives at a situation where

a system’s output consists solely of useful functions with the complete absence ofany harmful consequences Altshuller called this state the ideal final result (IFR).The IFR is not actually calculated; rather it is a tool to define the ideal end-state.Once the end-state is defined, the question as to why it’s difficult to attain flushesout the real (contradictory) problems that must be overcome

Ideality = I = F

FU

H

ΣΣSL3003Ch19Frame Page 402 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM

Trang 5

by the members of a given community.” The danger of paradigms is that they confinethe solution space to the area inside the paradigm An engineer competent in mechan-ics, for example, is unlikely to search for a solution in chemistry; it’s outside hisparadigm.

Dr Stephen Covey in his best-selling book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, offers a similar concept in habit 2, “Begin with the End in Mind.” Dr Coveystated, “To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding ofyour destination It means to know where you’re going so that you better understandwhere you are now and so that the steps you take are always in the right direction,”The notion of ideality also postulates that a system, any system, is not a goal

in itself The only real goal or design intent of any system is the useful function(s)that it provides Taken to its extreme, the most ideal system, therefore, is one thatdoes not exist but nevertheless produces its intended useful function(s) (seeFigures 19.2 and 19.3)

In the illustration above (Figure 19.2), the supersystem has not reached a state

of ideality because the useful interaction between A and B is accompanied by sometype of unwanted (harmful) functions

An ideal system A, on the other hand, is one that does not exist; yet its designintent is fully accomplished

In the abstract, this notion might at first blush seem fantastical, impossible, andeven absurd There is, however, a subtle yet powerful heuristic embodied in ideality.First, ideality creates a mind-set for finding a noncompromising solution Second,

FIGURE 19.2 Typical system function System A interacting with system B and producing

a useful output but also creating harmful consequences.

FIGURE 19.3 Ideal system function System A does not exist, its function, nevertheless, is carried out.

System A

System B

F U

F h

System A

System B

F U

Trang 6

it is effective in delineating all the technological hurdles that need to be overcome

to invent the best solution possible Third, it forces the problem solver to findalternative means or resources to provide the intended useful function The latteroutcome is similar to an organization reassigning key functions to the individualswho have been retained after a reduction in force

“in paradigm” methods, whereas a level 4 solution would incorporate technologiesoutside the current paradigm In both cases, however, speed and precision would beachieved at a quality level demanded by the contextual parameters of the situation

In TRIZ, two distinct types of contradictions are delineated, technical contradictionsand physical contradictions Methods for solving technical contradictions are dis-cussed later in the chapter

19.3.2.1 Technical Contradictions

A technical contradiction is a situation where two identifiable parameters are inconflict When one parameter is improved, the other is made worse The two previ-ously mentioned, weight vs strength, and speed vs precision, are examples (seeFigure 19.4)

19.3.2.2 Physical Contradictions

A physical contradiction is a situation where a single parameter needs to be inopposite physical states, e.g., it needs to be thin and thick, hot and cold at the sametime This type of contradiction has, at least to the author’s knowledge, never beenarticulated prior to the arrival of TRIZ in North America

FIGURE 19.4 Technical contradiction As parameter A improves, B is worse and vice versa.

B A

I M P R O V E M E N T SL3003Ch19Frame Page 404 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM

Trang 7

TRIZ 405

A physical contradiction is the controlling element or parameter linking theparameters of the technical contradiction Figure 19.5 shows the pulley (C) uponwhich parameters A and B rotate as the physical contradiction

The physical contradiction lies at the heart of an inventive problem; it is theultimate contradiction When the physical contradiction has been found, the process

of generating an inventive solution has been greatly simplified It stands to reasonthat when a physical contradiction is made to behave in two opposite states simul-taneously, the technical contradiction is eliminated For example, if by some means,pulley C could rotate in opposite directions at the same time, both A and B wouldincrease, hence eliminating the technical contradiction

19.3.3 R ESOURCES

The third foundation principle of TRIZ is the maximal utilization of any availableresources before introducing a new component or complication into the system.Resources are defined as any substance, space, or energy that is present in the system,its surroundings, or in the environment The identification and utilization of resourcesincrease the operating efficiency of the system, thereby improving its ideality It isunderstandable that in the former Soviet Union where money was scarce necessitydid in fact prove to be the mother of invention In the West, on the other hand,system problems were often engineered out by the proverbial means of throwingmoney (and complexity) at the system The utilization of resources as an “X” agent

to solve the problem was and still is not widely practiced

A practiced TRIZ problem solver will marshal any in-system or environmentalresource to assist in solving the problem It is only when all resources have beenexhausted or it is impractical to use one that the consideration of additional designelements comes into play The mantra of a TRIZ problem solver is never to solve aproblem by making the system more complex More on this when the algorithm forproblem solving (ARIZ — Russian language acronym) is discussed Table 19.1 liststhe types of resources used in TRIZ

I M P R O V E M E N T

C

Trang 8

Asked to explain specifically how they invent, most are unable to provide a repeatableformula Through his work, Altshuller has codified the amorphous process of inven-tion Altshuller’s great contribution to society is that he made the process of inventivethinking explicit, thus making it possible for anyone with a reasonable amount ofintelligence to become an inventor

What Altshuller did for inventive thinking is not unlike what happened in ematics with the invention of place values and the zero Prior the modern(Hindu–Arabic) form of mathematics, the civilized Western world used Romannumerals This system of numbers was written from left to right and used letters todesignate numerical values The number 2763, for example, is written MMDC-CLXIII The system, although somewhat awkward, was sufficient for doing simpleaddition and subtraction It was nearly impossible, however, to perform calculationsrequiring multiplication and division These mathematical functions were understood

math-by only a few highly capable math wizards

The Hindu–Arabic numbering system that used symbols and incorporated placevalues based on 10 was far superior and easier for the average person to learn andunderstand Furthermore, the flexibility and robustness of the system allowed forthe invention of algebra, statistics, calculus, differential equations, and scores ofother advancements TRIZ is the inventive analog of the Hindu–Arabic numberingsystem TRIZ makes it possible for people of average intelligence to access a largebody of inventive knowledge and, through analogic analysis, formulate inventive

FUNCTIONAL — possibilities of the system or its environment to carry out additional functions, unused specific features and properties, characteristics of a particular system, such as special physical, chemical,

or geometrical properties For example: resonance frequencies, magneto susceptibility, radioactivity, and transparency at certain frequencies

SYSTEM — new useful functions or properties of the system that can be achieved from modification of connections between the subsystems, or a new way of combining systems

ORGANIZATIONAL — existing, but incompletely used structures, or structures that can be easily built

in the system, arrangement or orientation of elements or communication between them

DIFFERENTIAL — differences in magnitude of parameters that can be used to create flux, that carry out useful functions For example: speed difference for steam next to a pipe wall vs in the middle, temperature variances, voltage drop across resistance, height variance

CHANGES — new properties or features of the system (often unexpected), appearing after changes have been introduced

HARMFUL — wastes of the system (or other systems) which become harmless after use

Trang 9

TRIZ 407

19.4.1 H OW TRIZ W ORKS

The general scheme in TRIZ is solution by abstraction In other words, a specificproblem is described in a more abstract form The abstracted form of the problemhas a counterpart solution at the level of abstraction The connection between theproblem and the solution is found through the use of various TRIZ tools Once thesolution analog is arrived at, the process is reversed, producing a specific solution.Figure 19.6 illustrates the process of solution by abstraction, and Figure 19.7 appliesthe process to an algebraic problem

Assume that we were given the task of solving the problem found in theEquation, 3x2 + 5x + 2 = 0 Without a specific process, we would be reduced to theinefficient process of trial and error An even more absurd method would be to try

to arrive at the answer by brainstorming Yet, brainstorming is often applied toproblems that are much more complex than that shown above This is what makesTRIZ so compelling — it provides a roadmap to highly creative and innovativesolutions to seemingly impossible problems Figure 19.7 shows the principle ofsolution by abstraction applied to the algebraic equation

FIGURE 19.6 Solution by abstraction process.

Specialization

Abstract Solutions Category

Your Specific Inventive Solution

Your Specific Inventive Problem

Abstract Problem Category

Abstraction TRIZ Tools & Techniques

Trial & Error

Trang 10

Figure 19.6 provides the general schema for how TRIZ works The fundamentalidea in TRIZ is to reformulate the problem into a more general (abstract) problem andthen find an equivalent “solved” problem These analogs, in theory, define the solutionspace that is occupied by one or several noncompromising alternative solutions.The advantage of increasing the level of abstraction is that the solution space isexpanded Solving the equation in Figure 19.8 is relatively simple, assuming knowledge

of algebra The correctness of the solution is also easier to verify because the solutionspace is very small, i.e., there is only one right answer! Inventive problems pose a muchgreater challenge than the one shown because the solution space is very large

Figure 19.8 shows what happens when solving inventive vs noninventive problems

An inventive problem is often confused with problems of design or engineering, or of

a technological nature For example, in constructing a bridge, the type of bridge to bebuilt is largely an issue related to design A cantilever bridge provides known designadvantages over a suspension bridge in specific contexts, and vice versa This is anexample of a noninventive design problem Calculating the load and stress the bridgewill have to withstand is an engineering problem Coordinating the construction andassuring that materials meet specifications and the job is on time and on budget is atechnical problem Although these problems are not insignificant by themselves, theyare not inventive within the context of TRIZ because they are solvable by using knownmethods, formulas, schedules, etc Furthermore, the path to the correct solution isdefined and direct and, because the solution space is very small, verification of theanswer is straightforward This is not the case with inventive problems

An inventive problem in the context of building a bridge would to be to makethe bridge lighter and stronger, larger and less expensive, longer and more stable.These problems are inventive because they often have to overcome many contradic-tions To reiterate, a problem is an inventive one if one or several contradictionsmust be overcome in its solution, and a compromise solution is not acceptable.Several distinguishing characteristics of an inventive vs typical problem areshown in Figure 19.8 First, the entire solution space can be quite large, containing

FIGURE 19.7 Solution by abstraction example.

X = 1 2a -b ±±±± b 2 - 4ac [

[

Abstract Solutions

Specific Solution

X = -1, - 2 3

Trang 11

TRIZ 409

both noninventive and inventive solutions The two inner concentric circles represent

level 3 and level 4 inventive solutions, while the larger outer circle represents an

area of noninventive solutions Just as it is harder to hit the bullseye when shooting

an arrow, so it is with hitting on an inventive solution Why is this so?

The initial factor often driving one off the mark is psychological inertia PI, as

defined previously, presupposes a solution path as defined by a person’s individual

paradigms The route to a solution is often one of trial and error and is strewn with

several unacceptable solutions arrived at along the vector of one’s psychological inertia

In a sense, the process of defining the current problem and then driving to a solution

can be considered a “push” method for finding a solution TRIZ is very different because

one of the initial steps of the TRIZ process is to define the ideal state, i.e., the solution

space found in level 3 or level 4 solutions The articulation of the ideal solution acts to

orient the problem solver and “pulls” him or her in that direction Furthermore, TRIZ

guides a person to the ideal solution through the process of abstraction and finding

analogs, as discussed previously These two fundamental elements of TRIZ serve as a

powerful magnet to draw or pull one to an inventive solution, in part by providing an

example of how this has been accomplished by a previous inventor

19.4.2 F IVE R EQUIREMENTS FOR A S OLUTION TO BE I NVENTIVE

Within the context of TRIZ, before a proposed solution is labeled as inventive, it

must meet all of the stringent requirements outlined in Table 19.2

FIGURE 19.8 Solution space for inventive vs other problems.

Level 4 Inventive Solution Space Level 3 Inventive Solution Space

Psychological Inertia Unacceptable Solution

Unacceptable Solution

3x 2 + 5x + 2 = 0

X = -1, - 2 3

Inventive Problem

Compromising Solution

Solution Space Typical Problem

Trang 12

19.5 CLASSICAL AND MODERN TRIZ TOOLS

In the course of his analytical work, Altshuller amassed a vast body of knowledge

and invented analytical methods on how to access it The subsequent evolution of

TRIZ followed logical parallel paths The creation of a body of “inventive”

knowl-edge gave rise to various analytical tools making it easier to catalogue and create

more inventive knowledge that, in turn, spawned more sophisticated tools and so

on The end result after more than 50 years of work is a complete set of sophisticated

tools and an immense knowledge base of inventive ideas, methods, and solutions

that can be mobilized to attack any inventive problem To date, to name just a few

applications, these tools have been used to solve problems related to product design

and development, quality, manufacturing, cost reduction, production, warranty, and

prevention of product failures

The tools of TRIZ are subdivided into two major categories The first division

is by the nature of the tool, e.g., analytical vs knowledge base The second

differentiation is chronological, e.g., classical TRIZ vs I-TRIZ The classical TRIZ

tools span those derived from 1946 to 1985, with Altshuller as the primary

inventive force Altshuller, for reasons of health, stopped his work in 1985

There-after, a protégé of Altshuller, Boris Zlotin of The Kishnev School (of TRIZ)

continued developing the methodology, which for purposes of differentiation is

called I-TRIZ I-TRIZ is software based and is therefore able to automate some

of the analytical work and provide graphical representations of solutions I-TRIZ

adds two additional new tools, anticipatory failure determination (AFD) and

directed evolution (DE) Given length limitations, I-TRIZ is beyond the scope of

this chapter I-TRIZ is the service mark of Ideation International

19.5.1 C LASSICAL TRIZ – K NOWLEDGE -B ASED T OOLS

19.5.1.1 The Contradiction Matrix

The first of the classical TRIZ tools invented by Altshuller is the contradiction matrix

The objective of the matrix is to direct the problem-solving process to incorporate

an idea that has been utilized before to solve an analogous “inventive” problem The

contradiction matrix accomplishes this by asking two simple questions: “Which

element of the system is in need of improvement?” and “If improved, which element

of the system is deteriorated?” This is, as has been pointed out, a technical

contra-diction A portion of the 39 × 39 matrix is shown below (Figure 19.9)

TABLE 19.2 Requirements of Inventive Solutions

• Solution fully resolves the contradictory requirements

• Solution preserves all advantages of the current system

• Solution eliminates the disadvantages of the current system

• Solution does not introduce any new disadvantages

• Solution does not make system more complex SL3003Ch19Frame Page 410 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM

Trang 13

TRIZ 411

The matrix is constructed by juxtaposing 39 engineering parameters along the

ver-tical and horizontal axies At the intersections Altshuller filled in from one to four

numerical values hinting at ways to solve the problem The numerical values identified

one of the 40 inventive principles that were culled from the knowledge base as ways in

FIGURE 19.9 The contradiction matrix.

-15,8 29,34

6, 2 34,19

7, 2 8,15

29,34 35,28 40,29 14,15 18,4 2,17

29,4 30,2 14,18 1,7 35,4

7 ,15 13,16 2,26

29,40

1,17 13,12

2,19 13

25, 2 13,15 2,27 35,11 1,28 10,25

15, 1 32,19 2,27

35,11 19,15 29,16 35,1 29,2 1,6

15,8 2,36 35,39 1,19 26,24

10,35 13,2 26,30

34,36 6,13 28,1 16,17 26,24

35,3 15,19 27,26

28,13 28,26 35,10 14,13

28,26 18,35

18,4 28,38

28,10 29,35 35,26

24,37

6,13,

1, 25

28,27 15,3

18, 19

28, 15

6, 28

15, 17 30,26

17, 7 30

18, 15 1

Deteriorated Feature

38 Level of automation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 34 35 36 37

39 Productivity

Complexity of control

Complexity of device Adaptability Repairability Convenience of use

Volume of moving object

Area of a non-moving object

Area of a moving object

Length of a moving object

non-Length of a moving object

Weight of a moving object

non-Weight of a moving object

Feature to Improve Weight of a moving object Weight of non moving object Length of a moving object Waste of Energy

Định dạng
Số trang	27
Dung lượng	2,66 MB