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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
- 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.
Ideation International Inc.
Phone: (248) 353-1313
E-mail: info@ideationtriz.com
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.
© 2001 Ideation International Inc.