|
Problems
of ARIZ Enhancement
by Boris Zlotin and Alla
Zusman
August 1991
Kishinev, Moldova
Translated by Alla Zusman
CONTENTS:
History
Back in 1985, after a set of experimental
versions had been developed, a definitive version of ARIZ (ARIZ-85C) was
introduced. With this, along with the guidance of experienced TRIZ
teachers, the attendees of TRIZ seminars became quite successful in
handling special training case studies (i.e., problems with well-defined
statements). Still, students learning ARIZ had to overcome many
difficulties, so further explanations, comments and illustrations were
needed. Some of the steps in ARIZ required a significant number of
exercises. The most serious problems took place, however, when students
were trying to solve real life (and thus poorly formulated) problems, due
to the absence of a "problem clarification and formulation"
steps in ARIZ-85C. This section existed in previous modifications of ARIZ
(ARIZ-71, 77), but was excluded in later versions due to the lack of
improvement it had undergone compared to other, more rigorous and
quickly-evolving sections of ARIZ.
TRIZ educators from various schools were
looking for the ways to overcome the difficulties mentioned above. Some
educators accumulated fairly extensive lists of recommendations related to
further ARIZ enhancements, including attempts to develop new versions of
ARIZ. By 1989, several TRIZ individuals and groups presented and tested
their own versions, for example, V. Korolev (Belaya Tserkov), Y.
Andrievskiy (Petrozavodsk), a group from Novosibirsk, and others. This
could be considered a dangerous situation, because it could set the stage
for students getting low-quality educational materials and/or cause TRIZ
schools to lose a common educational platform.
Two ‘paths’ toward the enhancement of
ARIZ could be considered. One was arranged by Henry Altshuller, the sole
author of all versions of ARIZ – versions which had been successfully
used over several decades. All recommendations and suggestions for
improvements to ARIZ were sent to Altshuller, who would decide to
incorporate them, if necessary, into the next version of ARIZ recommended
for use in TRIZ schools. This time, however, Altshuller ignored the
requests of TRIZ educators for a new version. He was convinced that
ARIZ-85C was good enough. He also explained that he preferred, for the
present time, to direct his efforts in the area of the Theory of
Development of a Strong Creative Personality (TRTL) rather than involving
himself with ARIZ.
Another of these ‘paths’ included
organizing a group of TRIZ developers to collect all the recommendations,
develop the next version of ARIZ, and submit it to Altshuller and other
TRIZ specialists for discussion and approval. This approach presented a
problem as well: ARIZ was Altshuller’s intellectual property and it was
therefore impossible (or rather, unethical) to work with it. This problem
was eventually eliminated, however. During the first meeting of the Board
of the TRIZ Association in October 1989, Altshuller granted formal
permission for work to be done on ARIZ.
During the 1989 TRIZ Conference in
Petrozavosk, a roundtable discussion was devoted to the enhancement of
ARIZ. The following TRIZ specialists participated, under the leadership of
S. Litvin: K. Sklobovsky (Obninsk), M. Sharapov (Magnitogorsk), M.
Bdulenko (Krasnogorsk), S. Sychev (Rostov-on-Don), V. Kaner, A. Pinyaev,
E. Zlotin, V. Kryachko, V. Petrov, V .Dubrov, A. Lubomorskiy, (all- St.
Petersburg); G. Frenklakh (Gomel), V. Ladoshkin, A. Torgashev (Novosibirsk);
E. Martinova, S. Pernitskiy (Zukovskiy), G. Pigorov, Y. Stupniker (Dnepropetrovsk);
N. Khomenko (Minsk); I. Goihman (Mitishci); A. Zusman, B. Zlotin, Z.
Royzen (Kishinev); V. Korolev (Belaya Tserkov), Y. Andrievskiy (Petrozavodsk),
E. Kagan (Volgograd), and others. Litvin offered the most comprehensive
list of suggestions for improvement; many suggestions were presented by E.
Zlotin, V. Petrov, and TRIZ educators from Kishinev and other schools.
Immediately following the conference,
Litvin, Zusman, B. Zlotin, E. Zlotin and Petrov met in St. Petersburg to
discuss the results of the roundtable discussion. The result was a
decision to begin to work jointly on the new version of ARIZ, with the
following objectives in mind:
- Increase reliability and provide a
higher probability of success using ARIZ to solve real-life problems.
- Improve teaching methods to provide
high-quality education within a reasonable time, taking into
consideration an increasing demand.
- Implement the new developments and
suggestions made over the last five years.
- Prepare ARIZ for effective
computerization.
It was noted that the above objectives
could be achieved by improving the rigorousness of ARIZ and incorporating
additional steps and rules (micro-algorithms).
Basic
considerations for improvement
During the five years that ARIZ-85C had
been taught, TRIZ educators – including those from Kishinev – had
gained sufficient experience in its use. The most typical difficulties and
mistakes made by students had been documented, and some of them are
described below.
Identifying
the ‘mini-problem’
Singling out the so-called mini-problem
from the innovation situation does not usually represent an obstacle when
dealing with training case studies which have well-defined conditions with
no more than two hierarchical system levels. However, when more than two
levels exist (which is the case in practical situations) it is much more
difficult. The recommendation placed in Note 1 to Step 1.1 (ARIZ-85C), and
which reads as follows: "Everything remains the same or becomes
simplified, while a desired action or feature is provided (or an undesired
action or feature is eliminated)" sounds too vague. It is not clear
which undesired effect to choose – in practical situations there are
usually several of them with complex interconnections – or which desired
improvement to focus on (see Exhibit 1 for details).
Moreover, practical experience in solving
problems stated by an individual with no TRIZ education had shown that the
stated problem statement was incorrect nearly all the time, since it had
been stated "casually." This contributed toward making
the solution process extremely difficult. To transition from such a
problem statement to a correctly defined mini-problem in one shot
was a challenge even to experience TRIZ specialists.
Formulating
the mini-problem
Nearly every novice encounters the
situation where the problem statement does not clearly indicate a
technical contradiction. Special recommendations (Note 3 to Step 1.1) are
introduced to help formulate an artificial contradiction, however,
additional explanations from the trainer are required. Moreover, although
an artificial contradiction allows processing of the problem in ARIZ to
formally begin, it does not provide an opportunity to apply typical
recommendations for eliminating technical contradictions, because it does
not reflect the real situation.
Another difficulty is caused by the absence
of a strict form for the TC by way of a logical clause:
IF [condition] THEN [some positive
statement], BUT ALSO [some negative statement].
Keeping in mind that students in our
traditional schools (editor’s note: non-TRIZ schools) had never
heard of such a subject as Logic, they often formulate the technical
contradiction following the pattern: "My wife is not pretty, but she
is a poor wife." Confusion is even greater because the technical
contradiction may be expressed in terms of parameters (e.g., "While
productivity increases, quality deteriorates") or in terms of actions
or functions as well (such as "The solution, when heated,
degrades." Actually, both types of technical contradiction are
valuable (the parameter for the technical contradiction helps the user to
enter the Contradiction Table, while the functional technical
contradiction helps unveil the interactions and processes taking place in
the system). A lack of accuracy in the definitions, however, negatively
impacts the rigorousness of ARIZ.
Identifying
conflict elements and conflict type
The main problem here is with the selection
of a tool and article when there are more than two elements mentioned in
the problem description. Also, the situation does not become any easier
when the same elements play opposite roles of a tool or article related to
a positive action versus a negative one (e.g., a mill (tool) machines
(positive action) a metal part (article) but the metal part (tool) wears
(negative action) the mill (article)).. Typical mistakes made in Step 1.3
are to indicate properties or parameters as conflict elements instead of
actual parts; forgetting to indicate two conditions of the tool. The
reason for this is the same as that mentioned above – that is, the
absence of a procedure for separating the mini-problem from the innovation
situation. Too many elements result from several problems each having
their own elements simultaneously analyzed. Situations such as these have
a special name in TRIZ – putanka (entangled) – and there was a
recommendation to separate problems in this situation, although there was
no explanation as to how to accomplish this. ARIZ-85C provides that
multi-link conflicts be built and that they be convoluted. All in all, the
procedure is too vague.
Choosing the
Main Manufacturing Process (MMP)
Step 1.4 recommends choosing as the MMP
one, which provides the best performance for the main useful function of
the system. However, Note 13 points on an exception related to problems of
measurement and/or control. In the latter situation, it is recommended to
choose the function of the system as a whole rather than the function of
its measurement sub-system. At the same time, a similar situation may
occur when there is a protecting sub-system. For example, in the problem
with the lightning rod and antenna it is recommended to choose the
reception function of the antenna as an MMP rather than the function of
protecting the antenna from lightning. To summarize the situation, it is
possible to offer a more general recommendation indicating that in both
cases we are dealing with auxiliary functions. In general, auxiliary
functions include correcting ones, that is, actions to correct some
negative consequences in the system’s functionality such as chiseling
out the remaining slag from a ladle. But identifying whether a function is
main or auxiliary is a relative matter and depends entirely on the number
of hierarchical system levels taken into consideration, as well as the
choice of separating a problem to be solved from the innovation situation.
If this level has not been identified, mistakes are possible.
A question: why do we need to choose the
MMP, and thus a technical contradiction, at all? Of course, when we
formulate two technical contradictions (let’s call them TC1 and TC2) we
get two completely different problems. ARIZ recommends that the most
promising one be selected, but how do we know which is the most promising?
A. Lubomirskiy once indicated that, as a rule, one TC is connected with an
existing system and selecting this one means working in the direction of
improving the system, while selecting the opposite TC usually means
focusing on searching for an alternative way of getting the desired result
(i.e., developing a new system). Because it is difficult to estimate ahead
of time which direction might result in a better solution, it makes sense
to abandon the selection altogether, especially since there is a precedent
in ARIZ-85C for a parallel analysis of resources (Step 3.2). Taking the
above into consideration, we recommend working with both technical
contradictions in parallel up until Step 3.3 (formulation of the Physical
Contradiction) when it is no longer important which conflict has been
chosen.
In our opinion, the absence of the problem
statement formulation chapter was the reason new steps should be
introduced, forcing the user to work with main functions such as choosing
the conflict, convolution of multi-link conflicts, and several others.
Other issues
A large number of mistakes are associated
with the lack of micro-algorithms for helping to formulate steps. However,
micro-algorithms cause a ‘swelling’ of the tool, which is already very
complex, overloaded with rules, notes, examples, etc. It is necessary to
restructure ARIZ to allow its enhancement to remain transparent and to
provide for the main line of analysis being easily understood.
New
requirements for ARIZ
Besides the issue of problem statement
formulation, another impeding factor in the existing ARIZ is the focus on
a single solution that is close to the Ideal Ultimate Result. In real
life, however, it is practical to have options. Such an option would
perhaps be to choose solutions which are less ideal but which are, for
some reason (technical, organizational, legal, personal, etc.), easier to
implement – solutions which, in other words, have a higher local
ideality (see Exhibit 2).
The focus on obtaining an ‘array’ of
solutions dictates changing the approach to ARIZ regarding the integration
of the analytical and solution-generating steps. It has always been
perceived that the line of analysis should not be interrupted. This is why
solution-generating tools such as the Principles or the Standard Solutions
are always addressed after completing a certain portion of the analysis.
At the same time, it is known that each step brings certain changes to our
understanding of the problem, and toward its reformulation. In addition,
if one takes into consideration that the main way to solve a problem is by
using some type of analogy, each step may change the problem such that it
becomes similar to one available in the knowledge base – that is, the
solution may be obtained at any step. Moreover, we know from experience
that attempts to find a solution at each step provide a super-effect,
i.e., they lead to a much better understanding of the problem. Keeping in
mind the need to obtain an array of solutions, it is worthwhile to apply
solution-generating tools after each appropriate step. Again, we have an
example of this approach in existing ARIZ-85C, when the Standard Solutions
are used in three places. All we need is to expand this practice. ARIZ-85C
does not make use of the Innovation Principles for eliminating technical
contradictions, in spite of the fact that we formulate technical
contradictions and therefore the possibility exists for applying the
Principles. At one point in time, the Principles were removed from ARIZ in
anticipation that the Standard Solutions would be much more effective.
However, practical experience has proven that these two tools were
complementary.
In 1985, V. Kryachko (St. Petersburg) noted
that when we formulate two technical contradictions (Step 1.1), we
automatically obtain all the components necessary to formulate the initial
physical contradictions for the tool’s contradictory states or
other conditions (many lightning rods versus a few; a high-speed gas
stream versus a low-speed gas stream, etc.). This means that an
opportunity exists for applying the Separation Principles right away. The
solutions that can be obtained at this stage are not necessarily the same
as those obtained in Step 5.3 – in Step 3.3 the physical contradiction
is formulated for a selected resource which usually differs from the
tool’s conditions. As a result, formulation and resolving of the initial
physical contradiction may contribute toward obtaining multiple solutions.
Special requirements apply to ARIZ as a
‘base’ for computerization. First, micro-algorithms are necessary, as
steps must be accurate and detailed enough so that the next step can be
logically drawn from the previous one in only one way. In the case when a
user must add specific information to the next step, this information
should be available in the form of various menus, i.e., lists of typical
drawbacks (physical or others), macro- and/or micro- conditions, etc.
Typical formulations (templates) are also necessary to allow the user to
introduce specific information related to the problem under consideration
according to an organized scheme. Further, it is necessary to provide
users, which don’t have a comprehensive TRIZ education with the
opportunity to begin working with ARIZ using his/her "natural"
engineering language. These users should be able to transition to typical
problem statements from various original problem statements (that is, to
‘pull’ typical statements in the same way one pulls the whole chain by
picking just one link).
In summary, the following changes should be
introduced into ARIZ:
- Introduce sections related to the
problem formulation process, including one which will facilitate an
attempt to solve the problem as it is stated in the original problem
statement, and then another, which will help restore the complete
innovation situation and provide for the selection of a new (and more
promising) problem statement.
- Provide the possibility for applying the
solution-generating tools as much as possible during the work with
ARIZ.
- Develop various menus with typical
problem statements.
- Make ARIZ convenient to use – i.e.,
structured, with separation between micro-algorithms, examples, and
definitions in separate volumes.
Continuing
the story
The principles and ideas mentioned above
formed the basis for development of the first experimental version of
ARIZ-KE-89/90, which was tested during TRIZ seminars conducted by the
company Progress (five groups of courses, each consisting of 200
hours). The second experimental version implemented the results obtained
from testing the previous one and additional materials provided by Litvin.
Recommendations from V. Dubrov and A. Pinyaev were taken into
consideration (in part) as well. The Kishinev TRIZ school presented the
new version of ARIZ at the meeting organized by the NILIM theoretical
department (St. Petersburg, department head: S. Litvin) in January, 1991.
TRIZ specialists V. Korolev, A. Torgashev, A. Kuryanov, A. Lubomirskiy, A.
Pinyaev, V. Gerasimov, V. Dubrov, and A. Zusman participated as well. As
subjects for discussion, other materials were presented, as follows:
- ARIZ – 85C NE (Novosibirsk)
- experimental ARIZ version developed by
V. Korolev
- paper "Functional approach to
analysis of an innovation situation" by A. Pinyaev
- paper " Revealing main and
auxiliary resources and developing a system of physical contradictions
for ARIZ" by V. Dubrov
- recommendations developed by S. Litvin
(for ARIZ-91)
ARIZ
– SMVA 91 (E) version
Structure
The structure of ARIZ-KE-89/90 was similar
to that of ARIZ -85C. We succeeded in maintaining the same number of
sections, although a section for analyzing the innovation situation was
added. However, implementation of recommendations resulting from testing,
as well as those made by S. Litvin, have blown apart the old structure.
Segmentation of steps often required that some of them be converted into
separate chapters to avoid multi-level numeration, which could hinder
understanding of the ARIZ process. Most importantly, however, was that it
had become obvious that, with such level of detail, ARIZ was more suitable
for execution by computer rather than manually. In other words, what was
supposed to become ARIZ-91 was converted into a platform for a
"machine" version. Taking into consideration that in spite of
introducing new chapters, the main ideas and procedures of ARIZ-85C
remained, it became a platform for the machine version of ARIZ-85C. For
this reason, it was called ARIZ-SMV 91 (E) which meant Scenario (S) of
Machine (M) Version (V) based on ARIZ-85C, Experimental (E) version.
It is clear that conversion to a software
scenario will take a substantial length of time. Furthermore, even when it
is complete, not everyone will have a computer. However, we would be
remiss to ignore the possibility of significantly enhancing ARIZ at the
present time. This is why we have decided to consider adapting the
scenario for manual use. To achieve this, the complexity of the algorithm
had to be substantially reduced. From the main text, definitions, rules,
notes and micro-algorithms repeatedly used have been removed. The
resulting structure now represents ARIZ-SMVA 91 (E), where "A"
stood for Adaptation and included the following volumes:
- Introduction and glossary
- Main steps
- Appendices
- Case studies
The main steps (Volume 2) were divided into
18 chapters as follows:
- Becoming familiar with the problem and
its description in the original statement
- Systematizing information about the
system in which the problem exists
- Restoring the innovation situation and
selecting a problem for solving
- Formulation of the mini-problem
- Formulation and resolution of the
initial physical contradiction
- Conflict enforcement
- Formulation of the problem model
- Applying Substance-Field transformations
and Standard Solutions
- Analysis of the operational zone
- Formulation of the Ideal Ultimate Result
(IUR-1) and preliminary analysis of the ways for its realization
- Formulation of physical contradictions
- Resolution of physical contradictions
- Formulation of the Ideal Ultimate Result
IUR-2
- Solving new physical problems in the
IUR-2 statement
- Changing and/or replacement of the
problem
- Comparative analysis of ideas obtained
and increasing their ideality
- Revealing super-effects (new
opportunities resulting from new ideas)
- Analysis of the solution process
Volume 3 included the following appendices:
- List of typical drawbacks
- List of typical prohibitions for
changing the system
- List of typical problem statements
- Procedure for applying the Innovation
Principles
- Procedure for applying the Standard
Solutions
- Information about competing
(alternative) systems
- Rules for building a functional diagram
of useful and harmful functions
- Recommendations for selecting a problem
for solving
- Rules for building key nodes
- Rules for formulating functions
- Rules for building the conflict diagram
- Rules for formulating physical
contradictions
- Rules for resolving physical
contradictions
- Rules for conflict enforcement
- Rules for identifying the operational
zone and operational time
- General rules for modeling using Smart
Little People
- Rules for mobilization of resources
- Rules for taking a "step back"
from the IUR
- Rules for creating a preliminary
"portrait" of the x-resource
- Recommendations for selecting the main
resource
- Rules for creating a final
"portrait" of a required physical effect
Analysis
of the innovation situation
The first chapters of ARIZ-SMVA deal with
analyzing an innovation situation – formulating the problem statement.
Chapter 1 helps address the problem in its original statement. A problem
randomly picked up in the occasional problem statement is converted into a
typical problem statement, thus allowing the following main TRIZ tools to
be applied: the Contradiction Table and the Standard Solutions. To achieve
this, the user chooses an appropriate item from a list of typical
drawbacks. Then, depending on the situation (i.e., if known ways to
eliminate a drawback are not available or they cannot be utilized for some
reason), ARIZ helps in choosing the typical problem statement as well as
an appropriate tool to deal with it (Principles, the specific group of
Standard Solutions, Value Engineering or Scientific Problem solving
methodology, or Anticipatory Failure Determination). Besides this, the
user documents limitations with the help of the list of typical
limitations. Also documented are the expected economical, technical and
other effects (some of these steps existed in the version of 1977). In
some cases, promising ideas can be generated at that time, however,
continued use of the tool is encouraged.
Chapter 2 includes a procedure for becoming
acquainted with the system in which the problem emerged, in detail: the
main elements, their structure and functioning. The purpose here is to
prepare the background for Chapter 3 (restoration of the innovation
situation). However, after assessing additional information, a second
attempt to solve the problem as it appears in the original problem
statement may be performed. Along with the recommendation of S. Litvin,
information about alternative systems to the one under consideration is
included. Whatever the results obtained at this stage, the analysis should
be continued.
The main purpose of Chapter 3 is to build
cause-and-effect chains of useful and harmful functions and effects, and a
combined graphical ‘tree’ based on these chains. The cause-and-effect
relationships can also be represented in a matrix format (A. Pinyaev’s
recommendation), however, even a rather simple innovation situation may
have multiple branches and in our opinion the tree format provides much
more visibility than the matrix. The purpose of building a graphical tree
is to reveal key nodes – places where the same factor or function
provides useful results and at the same time is the reason for the harmful
one. It is quite obvious that it is better to eliminate a cause rather
than its consequences – that is, to solve a key problem. However, there
may be many key problems in the situation.
Building chains of useful effects is
similar to developing FAST diagrams ("Reference Book on Value
Engineering" by M. G. Karpunin and B. I. Maidanchik, Moscow, Finances
and Statistics, 1988). In fact, for each known function, two specific
questions are applied:
- What is the purpose of performing this
function?
- What is necessary to perform this
function?
Answering the first question allows the
chain to be continued to the right while the second question helps
continue the chain to the left. For harmful chains, two different
questions require answers:
- What is the result of this harmful
factor (action)?
- What is the cause of this harmful factor
(action)?
Following these questions, two separate
chains (useful and harmful) can be built. To reveal key nodes, it is
necessary to combine them, that is, to find the places they connect.
Actually, they connect in the following situations:
- A harmful effect is caused by a useful
function
- A useful function is introduced to
correct an existing harmful effect
As a result, for each link from a useful or
a harmful chain two additional questions should be asked. For a link from
a useful chain:
- Does this useful function cause a
harmful function?
- Is this useful function introduced to
correct a harmful factor?
Accordingly, for a link from a harmful
chain:
- Is this harmful factor caused by a
useful function?
- Is any useful function introduced to
correct this harmful factor?
Answers to these questions help connect
useful and harmful chains, and add new chains that were not obvious from
the beginning.
Once the tree is built, for every link a
typical problem statement may be formulated as follows:
- Correcting problem: Eliminate a harmful
factor (action)
- Alternative problem: Find an alternative
way to realize a useful function
- Refusing problem: Find a way to forgo
the useful function
- Key correcting problem: Eliminate a
harmful effect without giving up a connected useful function (this
problem statement can be used as a basis for formulating the
mini-problem)
- Key alternative problem: Find an
alternative way to perform a useful function so the harmful factor
disappears
- Key refusing problem: Find a way to
forgo the useful function together with a connected harmful factor.
Once all adequate problem statements have
been formulated they are placed in hierarchical order, taking into
consideration how drastic are the resulting possible changes to the
system. Having done this, the user can prioritize the list based on
recommended criteria and the specifics associated with that user.
If for any reason the first problem
statement chosen is not a "key correcting" problem, it is
recommended that the user return to Chapter 1, select an appropriate
typical problem statement, and apply the recommended tools. If a key
correcting problem is selected, a transition to the next chapter can be
made.
New
features related to other chapters of ARIZ
Chapter 4 is devoted to the formulation of
the mini-problem. The difficulties mentioned above are overcome because
all necessary elements are drawn from fairly rigorous transformations of
the key node, representing the key problem. These transformations are made
with the help of pre-formulated precise frames (templates) for useful and
harmful functions (actions), technical contradictions, and the
mini-problem as a whole. For example, the typical frame for a function
looks like this: "A tool [indicate the tool] impacts [indicate how]
an article [indicate the article]." It forces the user to identify a
tool and article from the very beginning, and to do so separately for a
useful and a harmful function. These elements may be (partially or
completely) the same for both situations – otherwise there would be no
conflict. An unambiguous meaning of the choice of conflict elements is
determined by the prior choice of the key node. A special operator to
eliminate special terminology (Litvin’s suggestion) and micro-algorithms
for building graphical conflict diagrams have been introduced.
Because we do not select a preferable
conflict to continue analysis, its enforcement (Chapter 6), a problem
model (Chapter 7), and the application of Substance-Field Transformations
and Standard Solutions (Chapter 8) are made for both conflicts. Instead of
"x-element" we use the term "x-resource," which
enforces the focus on IUR.
A distinguishing feature is that
identification of the operational zone and/or the operational time is now
separate for useful and harmful functions. As a result, one can estimate
right away the possibility of separating the conflict in space or in time.
Resources unveiled during study of the operational zone are placed in a
special table. Besides substance- field resources, processes, substance
flows, energy and information are identified and separated into useful and
harmful resources.
In ARIZ-SMVA 91 (E), a set of physical
contradictions is formulated. First, the initial physical contradiction
mentioned above is formulated (Chapter 5, immediately after technical
contradictions have been identified). Then, physical contradictions for
process, macro- and micro- conditions, and flow have been identified
(Chapter 11). To facilitate formulation, special lists of typical macro-
and micro- conditions, flows and processes are offered. The analysis of
physical contradictions begins from formulating an auxiliary one for a
parameter. (G.S. Altshuller and others. Search for new ideas: from insight
to methodology. Kishinev, Kartya Moldovenyaska, 1989, p. 36). A suggestion
made by V. Dubrov related to the same subject was taken into consideration
as well.
IUR-1 (Chapter 10) is formulated for both
technical contradictions. In this chapter, the following steps must be
made:
- An attempt to solve the problem in the
IUR statement using the "step back from the IUR" approach
- Developing a "portrait" of an
"x-resource" (Litvin’s suggestion) and a search for a
suitable resource from them ones unveiled in Chapter 9 and with the
help of the Innovation Effects Guide
- An attempt to consider the possibility
of achieving a compromise (Z. Royzen’s suggestion)
- Identification of the "main
resource" – a candidate for solution to be developed from the
Innovation Effects Guide
IUR-2 is formulated for each physical
contradiction (Litvin’s suggestion). As a result, a block of new
physical problems is developed which it is recommended be solved with the
use of the Standard Solutions and/or the Innovation Effects Guide (Chapter
14).
Chapters 15 through 18 do not differ
considerably from the corresponding chapters of ARIZ-85C. (They will be
elaborated ahead.)
Continuing
. . .
As was mentioned above, the following three
complete versions of ARIZ were presented at the meeting held in St.
Petersburg, together with the list of suggestions from S. Litvin:
- Version prepared by V. Korolev
- Novosibirsk version
- ARIZ – SMVA- 91 (E) (Kishinev)
The main discussions took place regarding
the basic concept for the new version of ARIZ, which could be submitted to
the Board of the TRIZ Association for approval and recommendation for use
in all TRIZ schools. Ms. Zusman made a suggestion to use the Kishinev
version because ARIZ SMVA 91 (E):
- Is the only one that contains sections
for the analysis of the innovation situation and problem formulation
- Incorporated the most complete set of
recommendations from other TRIZ schools
- Has been tested in TRIZ seminars with
satisfactory results: students were learning it with minimal help from
the trainers and in less time (36 hours instead of 50).
Other meeting participants did not accept
this suggestion. Mostly, they didn’t like the fact that the ARIZ
structure had changed considerably. Explanations that structural changes
were inevitable because numerous suggestions had been implemented did not
help. The following decision was made: to recommend that Mr. Litvin make
an attempt to develop another version which would incorporate useful
suggestions within the existing structure – that is, that would again be
without the formulation sections. The Kishinev school was allowed to
continue working in the direction chosen.
We "followed" this
recommendation. ARIZ-SMVA 91(E) did a good job for another four groups
with good results, especially in solving practical problems. The number of
case studies doubled, detailed teaching plans were developed. New
additions have been made as well. Lastly, a new system of Standard
Solutions adapted for use with the new version of ARIZ is in development.
What’s
next?
We are continuing our work on enhancing the
analytical and solution-generating components of ARIZ in the following
directions:
- Consider the Administrative
Contradiction introduced earlier by Mr. Altshuller and not used in
ARIZ. An Administrative Contradiction is defined as a situation where
performing an action is required but impossible due to some limitation
or prohibition (such as a violation of natural laws, economic or
social conditions, etc.). Depending upon the nature of the limitation
and the particular details, appropriate principles similar to the
Separation Principles can be applied.
- A new approach to resolving physical
contradictions. Dealing with a set of physical contradictions has
proven that the general Separation Principles can be specialized
because some work better than others do with physical contradictions
for flows, initial physical contradictions, etc. New tables for
resolving different physical contradictions are in development.
- Development of a new system of Standard
Solutions, partially incorporating the Innovation Principles and
Patterns of Evolution. In particular, working with the modeling
processes for dynamic substance-field structures in accordance with
the Patterns. Another feature is the extension of resource
nomenclature focusing on products resulting from the processes that
take place in a technological system.
- Development of the closing chapters of
ARIZ, in particular, procedures for enhancing the obtained solution
concepts (this is of increasing importance given our integration into
the worldwide economic system), which will possibly be separated in to
a special algorithm. Introduction of a new chapter that allows one to
reveal and prevent potential implementation problems ahead of time
(based on subversion analysis).
- Development of a special educational
section with typical recommendations for teachers, Q&A, etc.
- Bringing ARIZ into a close relationship
with applications other than those for problem solving, such as TRIZ
forecasting, AFD and TRIZ Value Engineering
We asked our students not to disclose the
version ARIZ-KE-89/90 they received (including the one copy deposited in
the Chelyabinsk Scientific Library), as it was an experimental
intermediate version with certain deficiencies. The SMVA version is
complete (though still experimental) and, in general, is ready to be used
for self-learning. Expansion of the testing base will also be helpful. For
those reasons, we distributed 15 copies of this version between leading
TRIZ schools and specialists during the Second TRIZ Association Conference
in Petrozavodsk. Since August, 1991 the SOTEC from Ekaterinburg has been
distributing ARIZ-SMVA 91 (E). We appreciate any response, critique and
recommendations.
Exhibit 1
About
the mini-problem. It is
well known that the parts of technological systems are firmly linked and
that a failure in one part (even a part of minimal importance) can cause
the whole system to fail. At the same time, this provides the opportunity
to correct the situation by changing other parts of the system rather than
fixing the part that is causing the problem. As a result, many problem
statements can be formulated for a given innovation situation – and for
this reason selection of the mini-problem is necessary. The selection
criterion is formulated in Note 1 of Step 1.1 (ARIZ-85C): "Everything
remains the same or becomes simplified, while the required action or
property emerges or the undesired action or property disappears." The
main reasons for addressing the mini-problem are the following:
- There is usually only one mini-problem
so it easier to "separate" it from the innovation situation
- Formulating a mini-problem means
focusing on achieving the desired results with minimal changes –
that is, achieving higher ideality.
- Minimal changes to the system generally
make the process of implementing the solution easier.
The main difficulty is that this formula
can produce more than one mini-problem. In his notes to ARIZ-77,
Altshuller wrote: "The mini-problem can be obtained from an
innovation situation following the principle: the existing situation minus
the drawback or plus a desired advantage (new quality)." (H.
Altshuller. "Creativity as an Exact Science." Soviet Radio,
Moscow, 1979, p.44). However, even in this format there may be several
problem statements because it is not clear at which level of the system
hierarchy we should "freeze" changes. For example, in the
situation with transporting slag, the following problem statements can
exist:
- The problem of the high cost of removing
the hardened slag from the ladle; in this case we should improve the
slag removal system and leave slag transport system as it is
- The problem of reducing waste while
keeping the existing system of slag removal
- The problem of reducing wasted time (it
is necessary to wait to remove the slag while the hot ladle is
cooling), etc.
In ARIZ-82 an extended formula for the
mini-problem has been introduced with the added clause "or
simplifies." This allows for the selection of a mini-problem at any
level of the system hierarchy. So then, which level in particular?
Obviously, the level at which the required changes are minimal. But is it
possible to identify this level at the onset?
It is also well known that a high level of
ideality can be achieved by utilization of the resources available in the
system for resolving contradictions. Obviously, each level has its own
resources and contains unique possibilities for using them (see Exhibit 2
for more on this). Is it possible to evaluate the resources before the
problem statement is selected? In general, the answer is yes, however, it
means substituting analysis with the random exploration of resources, and
this is not that far from the usual method of trial-and-error.
Given the above, we conclude that the
criteria imbedded in the formula of a mini-problem do not allow only one
to be unambiguously defined. Moreover, it can be shown that the following
two criteria: "Everything remains the same" and "everything
becomes simplified" can lead one in opposite directions. For example,
imagine that we have a minimal standard innovation situation with two
system levels: a system with a drawback D1 where an attempt to remove this
drawback causes another drawback, D2. If we want to "keep everything
as it is" we must solve the problem of removing D2. If, however, we
select "becomes simplified" we must to address the drawback D1,
because if we find a satisfactory solution for this problem statement we
do not need an existing means for eliminating the drawback D1 and we can
expect some simplification as a result of that.
About
the psychological aspect of seeking minimal changes to the system.
It is true that this function of formulating the mini-problem is
usually performed successfully. However, one may fail to recognize that
the system did in fact change, and that these changes could affect any
system level in a positive and/or negative way. ARIZ-85C includes a
procedure for revealing the necessary changes that must be made for
implementing the solution and looking for new solution applications. This,
however, is not enough. V. Gerasimov believes that the situation must be
made even "stronger" such that the statement "Everything
has changed" can be made after the solution is obtained. Today we
have ways to reveal both positive changes (super-effect) (Gerasimov and
Litvin. Basics of the method of conducting Value Engineering.
Manuscript, 1991), and negative (subversion analysis) (Zlotin and Zusman. Searching
for new ideas in science. Collected articles "Solving Scientific
Problems." Kishinev, "Progress," Kartya Moldovenyaska,
1991).
All of the above provide for the conclusion
to be made that, so far, there is no objective criteria for identifying
the mini-problem from an innovation situation. This does not mean,
however, that any preliminary (or at least probabilistic) estimation of
the most promising directions is impossible. Some criteria may be
elaborated, but they are fairly subjective (see ARIZ-SMVA 91(E), Chapter
3, Exhibit 8).
Exhibit 2
About
Local Ideality. Besides
general ideality, which reflects the level evolution, there is local
ideality determined by the specific resources of a given system and
situation. For this reason, a solution with high general ideality may not
be all that ideal from the local point of view. Typical illustration: a
problem concerning a circuit breaker (Zlotin
and Zusman. "Come to a firing range," Part 2. Collected articles
"How to Become a Heretic," Technology – Youth –
Creativity: Petrozavodsk, Kareliya, 1991).
Reviewing the situation, we note that the
problem solved by Zlotin’s student B. Lyarskiy (Electrosila, St.
Petersburg) related to the following situation: It was necessary to
protect a thermal bi-metallic plate from rupturing. The rupture resulted
from the large amount of heat released due to an extremely high level of
electrical current. The destruction mechanism was as follows: Each layer
of the bi-metallic plate had its own coefficient of thermal expansion.
Because of the strong heat, the difference between the actual expansion of
each layer was so high that it caused the plate to rupture. The obtained
solution recommended the use of an electro-dynamic breaker (another
mechanism of the system under consideration) for shunting the circuit.
Implementing this solution required very small changes to the system –
that is, making several holes in the existing design.
Later, Altshuller was working with this
problem in front of TRIZ educators during the First TRIZ Conference in
Petrozavodsk in 1980. Two additional solutions were obtained:
- make one layer of the bi-metallic plate
from "shape memory" material to compensate for the excessive
expansion of the other layer under extreme current
- bend the plate ahead of time in the
direction opposite the one that results from overheating. This will
double the temperature range of safe operation of the plate.
Let us compare the solutions described
above. It is obvious that the solution, which uses the shape memory
effect, possesses the highest ideality, since it doesn’t require any
changes to the design. The solution with preventive bending has lower
ideality while the first solution (shunting) has the lowest ideality.
However, if we reconsider ideality from the local point of view it becomes
clear that the shape memory solution is practically useless – the plant
cannot purchase this material. Moreover, this plate is a part provided by
a supplier, who will not like any changes. At the same time, making a
couple of holes in the existing design to implement the first solution is
not a problem at all. Given the above, this solution has the highest local
ideality.
The concept of local ideality leads to a
requirement that ARIZ must provide an array of solutions rather than only
one solution. Once a set of solutions is obtained, the one with the
highest local ideality can be selected. It might also be necessary to
return the 40 Innovation Principles back to ARIZ. Although the Principles
usually produce solutions on level 2 (for Standard Solutions, level 3), it
can very well be that the level 2 solutions have higher ideality, which
means that the Standard Solutions cannot replace the Principles.
Delivered August 30, 1991
|
