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

2013年4月24日星期三

MA TRIZ Certification Level 1 Training (Part 1)

I attended MA TRIZ Certification Level 1 Training on 19, 20, 26 & 27 April 2013 which organized by Institute of Systematic Innovation, Hong Kong. I would like to summarize my study below for sharing.

Dr. Michael YH Li (Certified TRIZ Specialist, MA TRIZ Level 3) was our trainer and he introduced the course schedule as follows.
Day 1 (19 April 2013)
- Introduction of TRIZ
- Multi-screen Thinking - The Nine Windows
- Ideality and Ideal Final Result
- Function Analysis
Day 2 (20 April 2013)
- Cause Effect Chain Analysis
- Trimming
- Technical and Physical Contradiction
Day 3 (26 April 2013)
- 40 Inventive Principles
- Feature Transfer
Day 4 (27 April 2013)
- Function Oriented Search
- Introduction to Standard Inventive Solution
- TRIZ for Patent Strategies

Day 1 (19 April 2013)
In the beginning, Dr. Li introduced The International TRIZ Association (MATRIZ) with 5 levels of certified TRIZ Specialist and briefed the development of TRIZ.

TRIZ is Theoria Resheneyva IsobretateIskehuh Zadach (Theory of Solving Problems Inventively). The father of TRIZ was Genrich Altshuller (1926 - 1998) who was a discovery of a talented patent examiner for the Russian navy.

The innovation Roadmap was separated into three parts including Problem Identification, Problem Resolution and Concept Substantiation. In Level 1 course, we would study the following items: Function Analysis, Cause Effect Chain Analysis, Trimming, Feature Transfer, Function Oriented Search, Contradiction Analysis, Inventive Principles, Su-Field Standard Solutions and Secondary Problem Solving.

Dr. Li mentioned five basic concepts of TRIZ included Functionality, Contradiction, Ideality, Resources and Pattern of Evolution. Then he quoted a statement from Peter F. Drucker (1995) that "Every organization - not just businesses - needs one core competence: Innovation, and ever organization needs a way to record and appraise its Innovative Performance".

During introduction of some successful and failure innovation product. The Segway PT which was a two-wheeled, self-balancing, battery-powered electric vehicle, was mentioned. I have an experience to stand on Segway and took a photo during my EngD Graduate.

Some roadblocks to innovation were discussed such as Historical Mindset, Need for Instant Answers, An Impatient World, Resistance to Change, Change is Threatening, Poorly Defined Problem or Objective, "Not Invented Here" Syndrome, Habits, Past Experiences, Inability to Accept Risk, Peer Influences and Rejection of Past Ideas. But TRIZ would help us to break our Psychological Inertia by seeing things from many different views.

Innovation and Risk diagram demonstrated the higher level of innovation, the likelihood of result was low (indicating risky) but its impact was very high (meaning rewarding if success). There were 5 levels of Invention (with % distribution).
Level 1: Apparent Solution (32%)
Level 2: Minor Improvement (45%)
Level 3: Major Improvement (18%)
Level 4: New Concept (4%)
Level 5: Discovery (1%)

Innovation was not a flash but a connected process. When compared Random methods (e.g. Trial and Error, Brainstorming, etc.) and TRIZ, it was found that TRIZ used patterns and predictive knowledge and structured principles to find out the most ideal ideas in narrower range.

TRIZ process was Analysis Problem, Generation New Ideas and Selection of Best Ideas. TRIZ transferred a specific problem to a general problem and found a general solution.
The 9 Windows model was a tool for multi-screen thinking in Time and Space. Supersystem could be Environment, System was an object and Subsystem was a component.

At the end of Day 1, Dr. Li introduced Function Analysis. Function definition was stated that "An action performed by one Material Object to Change parameter(s) of another Material Object or Maintain parameter(s) of another Material Object which otherwise the relevant parameters will be changed". There were three stages: Component Analysis → Interaction Analysis → Function Modeling. Using the 9 Windows could identified system, system components and supersystem components. Then it need to use a matrix to identify each components interactions (e.g. "+" in the table means interaction component 1 and component 2. If "-", both components were no interaction.) Function modeling provided a functional representative of an system in a simple words such as CAR (Function Carrier) MOVE (Action) PEOPLE (Object of the Function). The goal of Function Analysis was to clearly identify and evaluation functional advantages and disadvantages of the system.

Day 2 (20 April 2013)
We continued the Function Analysis exercise using different product. During specification problem solving, Dr. Li briefed another business approach using TRIZ which raised by Mr. Darrell Mann (Author, Hands on Systematic Innovation for Business & Management).

Mr. Darrell Mann's Book: Hands on Systematic Innovation for Business & Management

Then Dr. Li introduced Cause and Effect Chain Analysis (CECA). After Function Analysis, it usually identified a large number of disadvantages. Therefore, CECA was employed to identify the Key Disadvantages of the System. It was similar to 5 Why to identify the root cause of the problem from target disadvantage to .key disadvantage.

The last topic in Problem Identification was Trimming. Trimming was based on improving a system by reducing the number of components and simplifying the system to achieve Simplicity Design. There were several objectives of trimming, but not limited to, "Eliminate negative functions", "Reduce cost", "Reduce complexity", "Improve performance / throughput" and "Toward increasing Ideality."

Traditionally, there were 3 trimming rules.
Rule A: Function Carrier can be trimmed if we remove the Object of its useful Function. (X - Remove)
Rule B: Function Carrier can be trimmed if the Object of the Function performs the Useful Function itself (O - Self-service)
Rule C: Function Carrier can be trimmed if another Component performs its useful Function ( ↓ - Substitution by existing System Component)
However, Dr. Li and other experts agreed to add one more rule as follow.
Rule X: Function Carrier can be trimmed if its useful function is no longer needed. ( →x No Action Need)

After Problem Identification, Dr. Li discussed Problem Resolution method entitled "Fuction-Oriented Sarch (FOS). It was a problem solving tool based on identifying existing technologies worldwide, using function criteria. Altshuller said "Some basic functions are the same across different industries for different products". So that FOS borrowed idea (through searching solutions from leading industry) to overcome the limitation.

Some knowledge databases were shown below.
Function Database - http://function.creax.com/
Attribute Database - http://attributes.creax.com/
Patent database - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/

The last topic in Day 2 was Contradictions which included Technical Contradiction, Physical Contradiction and Inventive Principles. Since we believed that "Nothing is perfect", it should have contradiction.

Technical contradiction situation, in which an attempt to improve one parameter of an system leads to the worsening of another parameter. In order to solve technical contradiction, the conflicting parameters are generalized to 39 typical parameters and matching to 40 Inventive Principles using Contradiction Table.

One of method named "IF ... THEN ... BUT" could identified the technical contradiction. For example, IF a mobile is larger, THEN it can display in larger screen, BUT it will be heavier. (Screen Size (+) vs Weight (-))

Genrich Altshuller (translated by Lev Shulyak) (1996) And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared – TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, Technical Innovation Center, Inc. (and Chinese Version)