Quality Alchemist (品質煉金術師): MA TRIZ Certification Level 2 Training (Part 1)

2015年5月19日星期二

MA TRIZ Certification Level 2 Training (Part 1)

I attended MA TRIZ Certification Level 2 Training on 18, 19, 25 & 26 May 2015 which organized by Institute of Systematic Innovation, Hong Kong from 9:00am to 9:00pm and instructed by Prof. D. Daniel Sheu. I would like to summarize my study below for sharing.

Dr. Michael YH Li (Certified TRIZ Specialist, MA TRIZ Level 3) introduced our trainer Prof. D. Daniel Sheu (Certified TRIZ Specialist, MA TRIZ Level 4) and some logistics arrangement.

Then Prof. D. Daniel Sheu briefed the course outline and he said the original course duration was 5 day. We concentrated into 4 days and elements as follows.

Day 1 (18 May 2015)
- Level 1 Key Points Brief Review
- Overview of Level 2 Tools
- Feature Transfer
Day 2 (19 May 2015)
- Resources Searching
- Modeling Problems and Solutions
- Standard Inventive Solution
Day 3 (25 May 2015) (original Day 3 & 4)
- Introduction to ARIZ (Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving)
Day 4 (26 May 2015) (original Day 5)
- Pragmatic S-Curve Analysis
- Key-point Review
- Summary & Exam

Day 1 (18 May 2015)
In the beginning, Prof. Sheu briefed the hierarchical view of TRIZ from Philosophy to Methodology/Process and Tools. Then he reviewed the 5 Pillars of TRIZ included “Ideality”, “Resources”, “Functionality”, “Contradiction” and “Space/time/interface (Domain)”.

Prof. Sheu introduced that TRIZ++ (like C++) was improved from TRIZ contain ~30 tools and synergized which was sub-set of Systematic Innovation (SI) where contained ~200 tools and not coordinated; moreover, SI was also sub-set of Innovation Methods. The application of TRIZ++ included:
i) Identifying Innovative Products & Services
ii) Solving Engineering Problems (TRIZ)
iii) Management / Service Applications such as Innovation Strategies and solving organization conflicts
iv) Combine with other tools to solve problem such as QFD, FMEA, Six Sigma, Lean, etc.
He also added TRIZ had a number of tools to help us to break our Psychological Inertia.
The following diagram demonstrated the Model of Problem (Red color bar) to Model of Solution (Green color bar) which was the TRIZ Model of Problem Solving that “Like Problem, Like Solutions”.

Then Prof. Sheu mentioned 8 stages of systematic Process of Systematic Innovation below.
i) Opportunities Exploration and Identification
ii) Opportunities Selection
iii) Problems Identification
iv) Problems Selection
v) Solutions Generation
vi) Solutions Selection
vii) Project (Engineering Design, Manufacturing, Sales, usage & Reverse Logistics)
viii) ApplicationsExploration

Prof. Sheu also reviewed Function Analysis (FA) and discussed the useful and harmful (H) functions. The Ranks included Basic (Function point to target), Addition (Ad - Outside component) and Auxiliary (Ax - Point to component within system). He also introduced the Human Perceived Level (HL) against Component Perceived Level (CL), where HL was easier to understand for laymen and CL was better for problem identification and solving. It was because CL was micro level investigation to break-up into more details narrowing down the scope and easier to find that someone somewhere had already solve similar problems. Albert Einstein’s saying was quoted that “If I had one hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining & analyzing the problem and only 5 minutes finding the solution.”

After that Prof. Sheu introduced his developed Cause-Effect & Contradiction Chain Analysis (CECCA), which added Contradiction into Cause-Effect & Chain Analysis (CECA). It was found more useful to identify the Engineering/Technical Contradiction and Physical Contradiction. Where “A” stand for “And”, “O” means “Or” and “C” was “Combined”; “+” was advantage, “-” was disadvantage and “x” was non-changeable cause within current capability or project.

“Chains of Disadvantages in a System” was used to find the critical key disadvantage from the surface disadvantages. Once solved the critical key disadvantage, others were also eliminated. If you were not able to solve the critical key disadvantage, you could solve upper level of disadvantages until the target disadvantages were solved.

Physical Contradictions were reviewed and I found that methods of separation included Space, Time (or Condition), Relation and System Level were same as Level 1 but Separation between Parameters was new in Level 2. Moreover, we learnt Transition to Super-system and Sub-system. Two more systems were introduced and they were Transition to Alternative System and Negative System. The corresponding Inventive Principles were showed in the following tables.

I also found there were two more rules when we reviewed the Trimming Process compared with Level 1 study (Only Rule A, B, C & X). The priority of trimming rules was showed as follows:
i) Rule A (Remove object of function)
ii) Rule X (Make function not needed)
iii) Rule B (Make object self-serve)
iv) Rule C (Find an existing carrier to replace the carrier to be trimmed)
v) Rule D (Find a new market for degraded system)
vi) Rule E (Improve performance and/or reduce cost by alternative part.)

The last part of day 1 was Feature Transfer that was defined as “Feature Transfer is an analytical tool for improvement of the Base Engineering System by transferring relevant features from the Alternative Engineering system. Base system was selected because it was simple and less expensive. The alternative system was perceived to be better feature. There were two ways of Feature Transfer below:
i) Transfer the component(s) which were responsible for the desirable feature.
ii) Transfer only the features (attributes) not the components.

Finally, we separated into different team and done the exercise as well as performed the presentation.

Day 2 (19 May 2015)
In the beginning, Prof. Sheu showed a video about robotic to help elder walking and people to load heavy goods. And then Prof. Sheu briefed the Patent/Knowledge Search.

Prof. Sheu started the Part II of MATRIZ Level 2 course and introduced one of 5 pillars named “Resources”. Resources in TRIZ were defined as “Anything in or around the system (e.g. Substance, Fields, Atributes/Parameters, Time and Space) not being used to its maximum advantage including the harmful things. Two key concepts are “Turning waste to Wonderful (W2W)” and “Turning Harm to Help (H2H)”.

Then Prof. Sheu briefed the problem solving process and started from problem definition, Function Analysis and the last 2nd step was Resource Searching. We needed to identify the function required for success through “Function/Attribute/Value Comparison”. Firstly, we asked the Resource Questions such as “How to make Resource (R) perform Effect (E)?” or “How to make Resource (R) provide Function (F) / Attribute (A)?” in the Resources Searching Table. After identified relevant attributes, value range of it and available resource, then we formed the matching table for resource.

Prof. Sheu also demonstrated how to match function/effect to resources through “TRIZ Effect Database”. Our function demanded to move liquid/gas (http://www.triz.co.uk/cp12.php)

The second part was to introduce Su-Field Analysis. Su-Field stands for Substance-Field and means a system formed by the interaction of Substances and Fields in the engineering system.
There were several approaches of using Su-Field Analysis and Standards below:
- Belski’s Approach and exercises
- Altshuller’s 76 standards and exercises
- Mann’s of S-Field classifications
- Victor Fey process

There were three types of Field and showed as follows.

Belski’s approach was structure approach with 8 fields. The interactions in each field were showed in the following table. The 5 steps of Su-Field Analysis were:
i) List all the substances involved. (Component Analysis)
ii) Draw the model of the situation, identify the Conflict Triads. (Model of Problem)
iii) Formulate problem-specific model solutions for each conflict triad. (Model of Solution)
iv) Translate the model solutions into ideas by means of the field of MATCEMIB
v) Combine the ideas into concepts and choose the best practical solution. (Specific Solution)

In addition, Prof. Sheu introduced Belski’s 5 Rules and added one more as Rule 0 below.
Rule 0 – If the problem SF model an incomplete SF model, add missing substance and/or field to make the SF model complete.
Rule 1 – Replace substance S2 by new S3, and generate a new field F2.
Rule 2 – Add an extra substance S3, and generate a new field F2 which interacts S2.
Rule 3 – Add an extra substance S3, and generate a new field F2 which interacts S1.
Rule 4 – Add an extra substance S3 between S1 and S2, and the new S3 generates a new field F2.
Rule 5 – Add an extra field F2 between S1 and S2.

Then we done several exercises and I presented one of them using Su-Field Analysis to solve a problem.

Prof. Sheu briefed another classification based on Mann’s Approach and we found that it could be used together with Belski’s approach together.

Finally, Prof. Sheu explained the original Altshuller’s 76 Inventive Standards and introduced a clear explanation website from Korea at http://triz.co.kr/TRIZ/frame.html .