|
Integrating
TRIZ with Value Engineering:
Discovering Alternatives to Traditional Brainstorming and the Selection
and Use of Ideas
Written for and
presented at the 1999 International SAVE Conference, San Antonio, Texas
by Dana
W. Clarke, Sr., TRIZ
Specialist/TRIZ Scientist
Manager of Training and Development
Ideation International Inc.
ABSTRACT
Solving difficult problems is a complex
activity that is governed by the search for knowledge. Problem solving is
affected by a combination of the searching process and by the availability
of the knowledge required to solve the problem. This paper describes the
application of analytical and knowledge-base tools that can be integrated
within Value Engineering to enhance the structured generation and
utilization of ideas. The basis for this work is the Theory of Inventive
Problem Solving (often referred to by the Russian acronym TRIZ), which is
intended to improve the effectiveness of the problem solving process and
the development of implementable solution concepts.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last 50 years, the original
creator of TRIZ, Genrich Altshuller, and his followers have provided us
with the tools to turn anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and
a little desire into an inventive genius. Their work now provides the
ability to take control of the process of innovation at new, previously
unrealizable levels.
TRIZ is a new science – the science of
inventive problem solving. In order to fully understand the paradigm shift
that is occurring today, it is important to look at the evolutionary
trends in the way mankind has performed its work and how other sciences
have evolved.
Throughout history, mankind has evolved
both technological systems and the ways in which the fulfillment of
technological needs is addressed. It is well-known that the creative
process has historically belonged to a combination of individuals and
well-facilitated teams.
To understand the achievements presently
occurring in the area of problem solving, we need to take a closer look at
the creative process itself, as well as how the sciences related to this
process have evolved. In order to solve problems effectively we rely on
education, experience and observation. When a person exhibits an
exceptional ability to solve complex, previously unsolved problems, others
typically interpret this ability to suit their own notions of how the
results were achieved, i.e., attributing it to luck, magic or genius. But
herein lies the rub: luck, magic and genius are very difficult to
duplicate. We therefore need a methodology and tools that are reliable and
repeatable, and which rely on neither luck, magic or genius.
Problem solving is a key component of human
functioning. An analogy can be made to another science – mathematics –
which also touches nearly every aspect of our lives. Indeed, both problem
solving and mathematics are critical to survival in today’s fast-paced
world.
THE
ANALOGY
In early Rome, mathematical calculations
were performed using Roman numerals. This system provided the Romans with
the ability to add and subtract, but not to multiply and divide. Only a
few people were able to mentally process multiplication and division. And
in all likelihood, their peers regarded them as geniuses for their
ability.
Later, the Arabic numbering system was
created, and its "change agents," or "believers,"
caused a paradigm shift. As a result, nearly everyone soon had the ability
to multiply and divide by using a systematic process consisting of new
methods and tools. The paradigm shift was that "genius ability"
was no longer required.
The same thing is happening today with the
ability to be innovative. Historically, only truly unique, highly creative
people could repeatedly come up with highly innovative concepts. But due
to the pioneering efforts of Genrich Altshuller and his followers, we now
have a set of methods and tools with which we can apply our creative
abilities at new levels. Are we geniuses, or are we simply lucky enough to
be at the forefront of a paradigm shift that can make it appear that we
have a higher degree of creative ability?
The mind contains many of the pieces
required to innovate; these pieces are collected over time as a result of
education, experience, and observation. But because of this random-like
accumulation, the mind requires training or some other form of guidance in
order to exploit these pieces. Somehow, this is attained within the
creative mind of a genius. For the rest of us, whether we admit it or not,
a systematic approach is required, along with the appropriate knowledge
that will allow us to take on and resolve the toughest of challenges. It
is this systematic approach that has been missing – until now.
NEW
TOOLS FOR STRUCTURIZING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION
It is common knowledge that a well-defined
problem is a problem that is half solved. Because of the state-of-the-art
application of TRIZ, which provides new methods and tools for tackling
even the toughest of challenges, the well-defined problem is closer to 80%
to 90% solved. The methods and tools are embodied in a five-step, easy to
use process – the Ideation Process – which consists of the following:
1. Problem documentation and preliminary
analysis
2. Problem formulation
3. Prioritization of "Directions for Innovation"
4. Development of concepts
5. Evaluation of results
The integration of this process within
Value Engineering can provide new value that enhances the process of idea
generation, as well as the development of these ideas into implementable
concepts.
INTEGRATION
OPPORTUNITIES
Value Engineering is a highly structured
methodology that, like TRIZ, has evolved over the last 50 years. The VE
methodology has produced results in a variety of industries and government
entities. The opportunity for integration between VE and TRIZ exists where
the transition is made from functional diagramming to implementable
solution concepts. The focal point of this integration is the
brainstorming process, which can be enhanced by applying TRIZ-based tools.
Once concepts are fully developed using these tools, the Value Engineering
approach provides the cost analysis required to move newly developed
concepts toward implementation. Value Engineering provides a strong
beginning and a strong ending; TRIZ can be used to provide a systematic,
structured approach to enhance the middle, "brainstorming"
(concept development) function. The starting point is the completion of a
VE-based functional diagram. "Specific functions of interest"
become the target of additional work by applying the Ideation Process.
THE
IDEATION PROCESS
When tackling tough challenges, situation
analysis and problem definition are critical. TRIZ research has shown that
95% of the time, the initial problem statement for a difficult problem is
incorrectly stated. This drives the TRIZ practitioner to develop a more
in-depth understanding of the specific functions of interest, as a means
to comprehend the underlying root problem(s). Improved understanding and
reformulation of the specific functions of interest lead to significantly
higher levels of innovation and, therefore, to more cost effective, robust
and implementable concepts.
STEP 1. PROBLEM
DOCUMENTATION AND PRELIMINARY PROBLEM ANALYSIS
The Ideation process begins with a
questionnaire called the Innovation Situation Questionnaire™
(ISQ™). The ISQ is a template for preliminary problem
analysis, and consists of a set of questions that help one look at the
problem situation from a different point of view. These questions are not
typical engineering- or management-oriented questions, but are innovation
oriented, resulting from years of accumulated research in the
successful application of TRIZ-based methods and tools in the solving of
inventive problems. The questions in the ISQ provide the problem solver
with a systematic way to approach the problem situation, and prompt
him/her to consider things that are typically disregarded or go unnoticed
during problem solving. Interestingly, 10% of the time the ISQ alone is
enough to resolve the problem.
The contents of the questionnaire are as
follows:
1.1 Information about the system.
System name, system structure, functioning, primary useful functions,
reason the primary useful function is performed, system environment
1.2. Information about the
problem situation. Problem to be resolved, undesired
consequences if the problem remains unresolved, mechanism causing the
problem, history of the problem (how and when it occurred), other
problems to be solved if this problem is unsolvable, ideal vision of the
solution
1.3. Changing the system.
Allowable changes to the system, limitations for changing the system
1.4. Available resources. Resources
having to do with substances, fields, functions, information, time,
space, flow
1.5. History of attempts to solve
the problem. Previous attempts to solve the problem, other
system(s) in which a similar problem exists
1.6. Criteria for selecting
Solution Concepts. Desired technological and economic
characteristics, desired timetable, expected degree of novelty, other
criteria for evaluation
STEP 2. PROBLEM
FORMULATION
Problem formulation begins with the
development of a graphical model consisting of the events and conditions
that comprise the problem situation in terms of cause-and-effect
relationships. While this might appear to be similar to functional
diagramming, it differs inasmuch as it provides for a new level of
creativity in the search for (and implementation of) solutions. The
functional language of Value Engineering allows engineers to move beyond
their professional language to a common language that provided a link to
marketing and the needs of the customer. Problem formulation provides a
similar language transformation, one that transforms a functional language
to an innovation language (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Language
of Innovation Model
The process of moving from a functional
language to an innovation language provides additional levels of
refinement and comprehension of the problem situation. The underlying
benefit is that, when a situation is formulated (or, more accurately, reformulated),
the solution often becomes obvious or is more easily obtained than through
the initial statement of the problem situation. The process of Problem
formulation is then continued with the "slicing" of a complex or
unclear situation into a comprehensive set of well-defined problems.
Directly attacking each "slice" is the key to the successful
generation of ideas and, consequently, to the development of implementable
solution concepts.
The notion that a problem situation can be
explicated into multiple problem statements is rooted in Altshuller’s
"multi-screen" model of creative thinking, a.k.a. the systems
approach. This approach holds that any system has a hierarchical
structure that includes subordinate sub-systems and at least one
higher-level system (the so-called "supersystem") to which it,
in turn, serves as a sub-system. Very often the links between the system,
sub-systems and supersystems are rigid enough to ensure that a change in
one part of the system causes substantial changes (either positive or
negative) not only in other sub-systems but in adjacent systems as well.
In particular:
- A breakdown in one part of the system
can cause undesired consequences in other parts of the system, and in
the system as a whole
- An undesired situation in one part of
the system can be eliminated by changing a different part of the
system
As a result, one problem can be addressed
in different, and often greatly diverse, ways. Put another way, the
assertion can be made that there is always more than one way to approach a
given problem.
Problem formulation further differs from
traditional functional diagramming in that it includes harmful events and
conditions as well as useful ones. The developers of the problem
formulation process, Boris Zlotin and Alla Zusman, determined that by
combining functional diagramming, which addresses useful functions, and
Ishakawa ("fishbone") diagramming, which deals with harmful
functions, new benefits could be realized (see Figure 2). These benefits
are revealed through a patented software algorithm (and associated
application) that provides an exhaustive set of Directions for
Innovation, replacing the need for trial-and-error attempts. The
Directions for Innovation are the representation of a single, complex
problem by a set of simple (and more easily solved) problems. In effect,
problem formulation constitutes a "map" of the problem situation
(i.e., the events and conditions that constitute or relate to the problem)
in terms of cause-and-effect relationships.
Problem Modeling and Knowledge
Conversion
What is occurring when we model a problem
situation? For most of us, the knowledge that exists in our minds about a
particular problem (or any situation, for that matter) is not segmented
into precise, orderly units that can be easily represented using pencil
and paper, or even with a computer. Rather, it resembles a monolith of
complicated interconnections and "chunks" of information,
intermixed with an assortment of associations from the useful (possible
solutions, analogous situations, similar problems, etc.) to the
distracting (such as emotional factors or extraneous job-related issues).
Modeling a problem is a process –
sometimes a lengthy one – of converting this mass of mental data into an
ordered collection of sequential "knowledge units," and of
determining the relationships between these units. A reasonably modeled
problem can convey all the necessary information about a problem situation
– and then some.
The benefits of problem modeling as
incorporated in the problem formulation process are as follows:
- Its use provides increased understanding
of a problem situation and thus affirms the TRIZ adage: "A
correctly formulated problem is a problem that is nearly solved."
Moreover, building models that reveal an exhaustive set of Directions
for Innovation is an expeditious way to gain this increased
understanding rapidly, making the modeling process a "quick
learning" tool.
- Within the exhaustive set of Directions
for Innovation generated by the problem formulation process are those
that are non-obvious and, therefore, would likely have been
overlooked.
- The process helps to break down
psychological inertia by providing a means for the user to view the
problem outside of his/her familiar, technology-specific domain.
- An important outcome of this approach is
a set of comprehensive and transferable documents of the situation and
related opportunities for innovation.
The "Language" of Functions
and Links
The problem formulation model is composed
of two main elements: functions and links. A function
consists of a box that includes text describing something about the
problem or system. Functions represent an event or condition in the form
of an action, component, condition, process step, etc. A link, represented
by an arrow, describes the relationship between two functions.
There are four types of links in the model:
- Provides (a single line arrow)
- Causes (a double line arrow)
- Hinders (a double line arrow with a
crossbar)
- Eliminates (a single line arrow with a
crossbar)
These simple ingredients provide the
"language" necessary to adequately describe any problem
situation for the purpose of developing solution concepts. The problem
situation can be either technical or non-technical; the latter opens the
door to working with business process improvement and re-engineering
situations.
Note: In Figure 2, only two of the above
four links are used: provides (green arrow) and hinders (red arrow with
crossbar). There are four boxes in this diagram (2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) that
provide something good while also hindering something – these boxes have
good characteristics but also produce harmful effects. This situation is
referred to in TRIZ as a contradiction.
Figure 2. Oil Change
Example
Directions for Innovation – What Are They?
One of the reasons complicated problems are
difficult to solve is that they cannot be solved "in a single
shot" – indeed, attempts to do so prove frustrating and fruitless.
The experience of successful inventors shows that complicated problems
require a multi-faceted approach, something that the "normal"
mental process cannot effectively accommodate.
To support the solving of a complicated
problem, the Ideation Process separates them into a set of simple problems
known as Directions for Innovation. Successive tackling of these problems
is the equivalent of the multi-faceted approach used by successful
inventors. This approach consists of looking at a problem situation from
all possible points of view.
The following Directions for Innovation are
based on the oil changing example shown in Figure 2.
Directions for Innovation:
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(draining of oil), that provides or enhances (performing auto oil
change at home).
- Find a way to enhance (draining of oil).
- Find a way to do without (draining of
oil ) for obtaining (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(performing auto oil change at home), that provides or enhances
(maintaining life of engine), and does not require (restoring engine
to operational condition), (preparing to change oil), and (draining of
oil). This way should not be influenced by (properly disposing of old
gasket), (proper containment of drained oil), (properly disposing of
drained oil), and (properly disposing of old oil filter).
- Find a way to enhance (performing auto
oil change at home).
- Find a way to protect (performing auto
oil change at home) from the harmful influence of (properly disposing
of old gasket), (proper containment of drained oil), (properly
disposing of drained oil), and (properly disposing of old oil filter).
- Find a way to do without (performing
auto oil change at home) for obtaining (maintaining life of engine).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(maintaining life of engine), that provides or enhances (maintaining
personal property), and does not require (performing auto oil change
at home).
- Find a way to enhance (maintaining life
of engine).
- Find a way to do without (maintaining
life of engine) for obtaining (maintaining personal property).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(preparing to change oil), that provides or enhances (performing auto
oil change at home), under condition of (proper containment of drained
oil).
- Find a way to enhance (preparing to
change oil).
- Find a way to protect (preparing to
change oil) from the harmful influence of (proper containment of
drained oil).
- Find a way to do without (preparing to
change oil) for obtaining (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(restoring engine to operational condition), that provides or enhances
(performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to enhance (restoring engine
to operational condition).
- Find a way to do without (restoring
engine to operational condition) for obtaining (performing auto oil
change at home).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(avoiding pollution to property), that provides or enhances
(maintaining personal property), and does not require (properly
disposing of old gasket), (proper containment of drained oil),
(properly disposing of drained oil), and (properly disposing of old
oil filter).
- Find a way to enhance (avoiding
pollution to property).
- Find a way to do without (avoiding
pollution to property) for obtaining (maintaining personal property).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(maintaining personal property), that does not require (maintaining
life of engine) and (avoiding pollution to property).
- Find a way to enhance (maintaining
personal property).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(properly disposing of old gasket), that provides or enhances
(avoiding pollution to property). This way should not be in a conflict
with (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to enhance (properly
disposing of old gasket).
- Find a way to resolve the contradiction:
(properly disposing of old gasket) should exist to obtain (avoiding
pollution to property), and should not exist in order to avoid
hindering (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to do without (properly
disposing of old gasket) for obtaining (avoiding pollution to
property).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(proper containment of drained oil), that provides or enhances
(avoiding pollution to property). This way should not be in a conflict
with (performing auto oil change at home) and (preparing to change
oil).
- Find a way to enhance (proper
containment of drained oil).
- Find a way to resolve the contradiction:
(proper containment of drained oil) should exist to obtain (avoiding
pollution to property), and should not exist in order to avoid
hindering (performing auto oil change at home) and (preparing to
change oil).
- Find a way to do without (proper
containment of drained oil) for obtaining (avoiding pollution to
property).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(properly disposing of drained oil), that provides or enhances
(avoiding pollution to property). This way should not be in a conflict
with (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to enhance (properly
disposing of drained oil).
- Find a way to resolve the contradiction:
(properly disposing of drained oil) should exist to obtain (avoiding
pollution to property), and should not exist in order to avoid
hindering (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to do without (properly
disposing of drained oil) for obtaining (avoiding pollution to
property).
- Find an alternative way to obtain
(properly disposing of old oil filter), that provides or enhances
(avoiding pollution to property). This way should not be in a conflict
with (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to enhance (properly
disposing of old oil filter).
- Find a way to resolve the contradiction:
(properly disposing of old oil filter) should exist to obtain
(avoiding pollution to property), and should not exist in order to
avoid hindering (performing auto oil change at home).
- Find a way to do without (properly
disposing of old oil filter) for obtaining (avoiding pollution to
property).
STEP 3. PRIORITIZATION OF
DIRECTIONS FOR INNOVATION
Once Directions for Innovation have been
developed there are two basic paths that can be pursued to generate ideas.
Path #1: Directed Brainstorming
Each Direction can be utilized for what is
known as "directed brainstorming." This approach leverages
traditional brainstorming by utilizing the Directions for Innovation as a
guideline for the human creative effort. Directed brainstorming helps
ensure that the brainstorming team generates ideas in all directions.
Path #2: Utilization of a Structured
Knowledge Base
As was stated earlier, TRIZ is a science
– one that has resulted from over 50 years of research. This research is
ongoing and, to date, consists of the extraction and structurization of
knowledge from two primary sources: over two million worldwide patents,
and the history of technology itself. The results of this research have
been the identification of principles, methods and patterns that have
recurred time and again throughout history. The extent and complexity of
this accumulated knowledge was the driving force for the utilization of
computer technology in order to efficiently and effectively put it to use.
For technological problems, access to this
knowledge base provides a significant advantage over traditional
brainstorming, which is highly dependent on the talent of the facilitator
and the knowledge of the participants. By integrating the process of
problem formulation (including the generation of Directions for
Innovation) with the use of an extensive knowledge base, we now have the
ability to quickly focus our creative abilities on specific information
directly related to our situation.
Figure 3 shows the structure of the
Innovation WorkBench™ System Software developed by Ideation
International Inc. This software includes the Ideation Process, which in
turn encompasses the Problem Formulation process. In Figure 3, the
rectangular nodes are analytical tools, the oval nodes are knowledge based
tools, the cloud node represents the accumulation of ideas and secondary
problems, and the rounded-corner nodes are components of the software that
support the effective conversion of ideas into implementable concepts. The
final component of the software denoted by the star-shaped node represents
the part of the process where implementation of the final concept(s) is
analyzed and planned.
Figure 3. The
Ideation Process as implemented in the Innovation WorkBench™
System Software
The cloud-shaped node in the figure
represents a significant point of differentiation between the Ideation
Process and traditional brainstorming. Traditional brainstorming (which is
based on the work of Alex Osborn) separates idea generation from the
critique and evaluation of the ideas. Extensive psychological research by
TRIZ scientists has revealed that this is effective for solving low-level
problems, but not for solving complex technological problems. These
findings are based on two factors:
- It is "natural" for humans to
critique ideas as they occur – efforts to block this natural
tendency has a psychological effect on the individual that hinders the
natural creative process.
- By stating and documenting secondary
problems we accomplish two things; first, we clear the mind to think
freely about new ideas; and two, we "charge" the mind with
secondary problems. This process of "charging the mind"
prepares us to solve problems which, in many cases, are easily solved
(in fact, secondary problems are often easier to solve than the
primary one to which they relate). When working with TRIZ, we are
continuously reformulating problems and solving both primary and
secondary problems. This process allows for the development of a broad
cross-section of ideas and, when necessary, a nearly exhaustive set of
ideas can be developed into an exhaustive set of concepts.
STEP 4. DEVELOPMENT OF
CONCEPTS
It is rare that one idea resolves a
complex, multi-faceted problem. Complex situations are split into a set of
different Directions for Innovation, where each Direction represents only
one point of view rather than the entire complex "picture." As a
result, each idea does not represent the solution of the entire problem,
but rather, the set of ideas does indeed cover all possibilities.
Because each idea resolves a different
aspect of the problem, the ideas must be combined into new, innovative
concepts. An analysis of the ideas that have been generated supports
classification of ideas based on certain "combination criteria,"
of which there are two options:
1. Combining ideas that perform the same
function in different ways
2. Combining known systems
xx 2a.
Combine systems having the same functions
xx 2b.
Combine systems having opposite functions
xx 2c.
Create a system from homogeneous elements
Each of the above options can be explained
in more detail, as follows:
1. Combining ideas that perform the same
function in different ways
The approach of combining ideas that
perform the same function in different ways assumes that each idea has its
own advantages and disadvantages. As a result of this combining, the new
idea should have all of these advantages and no disadvantages. Achieving
this entails the following steps:
- Select two ideas that resolve the same
problem in different ways.
- Compare these ideas; each has its own
advantages.
- Consider the idea that has better
functional features as the "source of resources"; the other
idea is the "recipient of resources."
- Determine the elements that provide
better functionality of the source idea.
- Apply these elements to the recipient.
- Consider if some elements of the
recipient can perform functions of the newly-applied elements, and
simplify the system.
- As the best result, the new system
should consist of elements of the recipient and have features of the
source.
2. Combining known systems
This option is used when we know at least
two other existing systems that perform the same (or opposite) function,
or which have been designed for the same (or opposite) purpose. To utilize
this option, consider the following pathways:
2a. Combine systems having the same
functions
In most situations, more than one
existing system has been designed for the same purpose, but the systems
have different principles of operation. Usually, these two situations
have different (sometimes opposite) advantages and drawbacks. Quite
often it is possible to combine two systems in a manner that allows for
the maintaining or adding of advantages, while compensating for the
drawbacks.
To find a way to combine two systems,
consider the following principles:
- Bi-system composed of competitive
systems
- Compensating bi-system
- Bi-system with shifted characteristics
- "Towing" bisystem
- "Compensating" bisystem
2b. Combine systems having opposite
functions
Consider integrating two systems which
have opposite functions (i.e., serve opposite purposes). The functions
of the new system can often be more precisely controlled.
2c. Create a system from homogeneous
elements
Usually, several similar elements have
the same features as one element. If, however, these elements are
combined to form a new system, new features appear. In the new system,
none of the elements have these features – only the system does. Two
types of such a system can be created:
Increased Complexity then Simplification
When combining ideas, functions, and
systems the result is often an increasingly complex (sometimes
monstrous) design concept. The next natural step is to go through a
process of simplification, which might incorporate one or more of the
following recommendations:
- Apply disposable objects
- Apply a model or copy
- Make an object dismountable
- Integrate the system into a polysystem
- Change the principle of operation
- Specialization
- Improve reliability
- Idealization
STEP 5. EVALUATION OF
RESULTS
The evaluation of results is the
culmination of the five-step process. This step is designed to ensure that
the concept(s) have been thoroughly thought out and is implementable.
There are three stages to this process:
1. Meet criteria for evaluating concepts
2. Reveal and prevent potential failures
3. Plan the implementation
These stages are designed to provide
criteria guidelines (through the use of a checklist of possible secondary
problems) which include the following:
- Productivity should not be reduced
- Cost should not increase
- Energy consumption should not increase
- Weight should not increase
- Overall dimensions should not increase
- Object complexity should not increase
- Reliability should not be reduced
- Speed of action should not be reduced
- Mechanical strength should not be
reduced
- Composition stability should not be
reduced
- Convenience should not be reduced
- Manufacturing accuracy should not be
reduced
The second part of the results evaluation
step provides a means for predicting possible failures that could occur
when the new concept is put to use. This process of revealing hidden
harmful conditions is based on a proactive approach of inventing
the harmful conditions, and is known as Anticipatory Failure Determination™.
Lastly, we are concerned with potential
problems related to the actual implementation of the concept. This
includes the identification of roadblocks to implementation, of
verification tests, and of R&D needs. It also includes the use of
Anticipatory Failure Determination™ to predict potential
failures that can occur during the implementation process.
SUMMARY
TRIZ provides a structured, systematic
approach that can be used to augment or replace traditional brainstorming
as currently applied in Value Engineering.
The utilization of structured
questionnaires, and of a software-based problem formulation process that
reveals an exhaustive set of Directions for Innovation, will enhance the
creative efforts of even the best brainstorming sessions by ensuring that
all possible Directions are considered. Further benefits can be realized
by utilizing the results of extensive research and its structurization in
the form of an extensive database of easy-to-use knowledge extracted from
the world’s patent fund and the history of technology.
REFERENCES
- Ideation International Inc. Innovation
WorkBench™ System software, version 2.2.3, 1999.
- Altshuller, Genrich. Creativity as an
Exact Science. Translated by Anthony Williams. Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, 1984.
- Ideation Methodology course material,
1995, 1998, 1999.
- Kaplan, Stan. An Introduction to TRIZ:
the Russian Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Ideation
International Inc., 1996.
- Terninko, John, Alla Zusman and Boris
Zlotin. Systematic Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ (Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving). 1998.
- Ideation Methodology TRIZ Specialist
course material, 1998.
- Clarke, Dana. TRIZ: Through the Eyes
of an American TRIZ Specialist. 1997.
- TRIZ In Progress. Ideation
International Inc., 1999.
- Tools of Classical TRIZ. Ideation
International Inc., 1999.
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Dana W. Clarke, Sr., TRIZ
Specialist/Scientist
Manager of Training and Development
Ideation International Inc.
Phone: (248) 353-1313
E-mail: info@ideationtriz.com
About
the Author:
In April of 1995, Dana W.
Clarke, Sr. became the first American to be certified as a TRIZ
Specialist. He is actively involved in the development and advancement of
the Ideation/TRIZ Methodology, interacting extensively with the world’s
leading TRIZ experts. He currently has over five years of practical
application and facilitation related to solving industry problems using
TRIZ, and is the author of the book TRIZ:
Through the Eyes of an American TRIZ Specialist.
His expertise encompasses the practical application, consulting, and
training of such methodologies as: Taguchi Methods, Value
Engineering/Analysis (VE/VA), Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA),
Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Quick Setup Techniques (SMED), Work
Simplification, and FAST Cycle Time. His seasoning and education span the
areas of product development, industrial engineering, manufacturing
engineering, computer science, and tool design.
[back to top]
|
Printer-friendly version