Inventive problem

TRIZ is a problem solving method that was developed by Genrich Altshuller over a forty-year period in the former Soviet Union [C-20], it has many devotees, used in many major companies and there is an on-line journal devoted to the topic [C-21], The acronym is derived from the Russian for Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. It is very different from the other creativity techniques described above, in that it operates via a study of patterns of problems and solutions and not by the spontaneous creativity of individuals and groups. It was based on the analysis of over 1.5 million patents, since extended to 2.8 million, to discover patterns that predict breakthrough solutions to problems. 

Altshuller found that each of the most inventive patents primarily solved an inventive problem, which he defined as those which contain conflicting requirements, which he called contradictions . 

The ideal innovation concept is borrowed from the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), which calls this perfect state the ideal final result. As a ratio, the value quotient approaches infinity, or a state where all benefits of a solution are achieved at zero cost and zero harm. In TRIZ terminology, this is called working backward from perfect, which forces the innovator to break through his or her psychological inertia into new, less limiting domains of thinking. 

Use resource optimization when you need to come up with solution ideas that provide higher value than those in existence today—or when you need to refine and optimize a specific solution design. The key is to make sure you list as many resources as possible within and outside your immediate system or sphere of focus. After this, you can use any number of idea-generation techniques to figure out how your available resources can be applied to your inventive problem. 

There are many ways you can predict trends in an industry, and there are numerous trend gurus whose work could be helpful. We like the work of Genrich Altshuller, the founder of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), because it s one of the most empirical approaches. We also favor the work of U.K.-based author Darrell Mann, who has built on Altshuller s paradigm oi systematic innovation to refine it for further use. 

The Structured Abstraction technique comes in handy when you ve identified a functional contradiction that stands in the way of an innovation—and when other ideation techniques have fallen short. Because Structured Abstraction is deeply grounded in science, engineering, and the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), it s best to seek the help of an expert when using this technique. 

The Separation Principles come from the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), and they are defined a little differently by different experts. For simplicity, we characterize the Separation Principles by separating contradictory properties in time, space, scale, and condition. 

This technique comes in handy when the innovation opportunity is (a) well-defined and (b) contains at least one technical contradiction (see Structured Abstraction, Technique 23) or physical contradiction (see Separation Principles, Technique 24). Unless you re well-versed in the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), you will need special assistance from an expert to properly apply this technique. Several U.S. and U.K. organizations can help (see resource list at the end of this technique). 

Contradiction A contradiction in TRIZ is a primary problem model which is used to formulate inventive problems. Contradiction is a main feature which distinguishes an ordinary problem from an inventive problem... 

San, Y. T., Jin, Y. T., Song, C. L. (2011b). TRIZ Theory of inventive problem solving—systematic innovation in manufacturing. Fruits Publication, Malaysia. 

Stratton, R., Mann, D., Otterson, P. (2010). The theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) and systematic innovation A missing link in engineering education www.system-innovation, corn). 

TRIZ is the Russian acronym for the theory of inventive problem solving. The Russian inventor and patent expert Genrich Altshuller originally proposed this theory. Fie began working on it in the 1940s, and today there are many schools established by his followers, who continue to expand on the concept of TRIZ and adapt it for various markets and applications. 

The huge majority of designing problems are routine. Very few designing problems are inventive, but when they occur they are usually unavoidable, very important for stakeholders, and critical for progress in engineering. In Chapter 5.6, TRIZ, we will present a formal classification of inventive problems. We should bear in mind, however, that some inventive problems may be considered wicked. Wicked problems are basically outside the scope of inventive engineering, but this science creates at least an opportunity to tackle them. 

Knowledge is the key to inventive designing. It should be acquired in a systematic way and should be at least sufficient for the inventive problem considered. Working on the innovation situation questionnaire (ISQ) is a relatively simple way to acquire knowledge in a format that makes it easier to comprehend the acquired knowledge and to understand a given designing situation. 

The entire process is time consuming and may require at least a day or more of work. In the case of difficult inventive problems, the process may take up to a week. However, it is not a waste of time the inventive engineer learns about the designing problem and in the process structures the acquired knowledge. In this case, more means more the more is learned about the designing problem, the better chance there is of producing novel results. The ISQ process has three main stages ... 

The concept of field resources is less familiar, but it may be the key to our inventive problems. By field resources we mean all kinds of fields that can be utilized in our project. For example, in our floor structural system, we could use a stress field, that is, we could use stresses to create a prestressed concrete or even rarely used but feasible prestressed steel structures. Also, we could use an electromagnetic field to transport the structural system to its location in the building or even to keep it in its desired position. We will have also such fields available as the temperature field or the gravity field, which both are easily available and eventually could be used. 

Problem identihcation may be understood as the process of the acquisition of knowledge that is relevant to a given inventive problem. This knowledge may be in multiple forms since it is intended for the humans who will use it to understand the problem before they attempt to solve it. This body of knowledge is universal, and it is not associated with any specific inventive design method. 

The objective of this stage is to prepare a definition of a given inventive problem, that is, to transform our inventive challenge into a properly prepared problem formulation. In the case of morphological analysis, this is a four-step process, discussed here. 

Final results should be presented in a report called, appropriately, Final Results Report. It should contain a body of knowledge about the inventive problem and results produced during the entire morphological analysis process. The size of this report will obviously depend on the complexity of the inventive problem, the nature of the domain, the specific expectations of the sponsors of the project, and so on. 

The inventive problem is in the domain of structural engineering, specifically in the area called steel structures. The secondary domain is mechanical engineering. 

The method is the first attempt to acquire and use knowledge in order to produce novel design concepts. When it is properly introduced, it provides a knowledge-based framework for engineering creativity. Therefore, it is an excellent introduction to other more difficult methods that are also knowledge based. Thus, it teaches inventive engineers how to approach inventive problems from the knowledge perspective. 

We have already learned from the history of morphological analysis that inventive problem-solving methods do not simply emerge from an intellectual vacuum. They are usually a product of a long evolution of human thought, which at a specific time becomes articulated by a brilliant scholar and begins its new existence as a method. 

During your inventive hours, only inventing exists all other activities are strictly forbidden. It is only you, your inventive problem, and 2-3 hours... 

This step is also known as formulating the problem. It can be understood as a process of transforming or translating an inventive opportunity into an inventive challenge, that is, into an inventive problem. 

In our case, the students had a brief discussion about the presented inventive situation and of the state of the art in the problem domain. They also carefully analyzed the provided inventive opportunity. After that, the students went through several drafts and finally formulated the following inventive problem ... 

---