CREATIVE PROCESS

TRIZ: an inventive approach to invention

e have all been faced with problems that seem to be intractable; no matter

wh ow hard you try and how much thinking you do there just doesn’t seem to be a solution. It would be nice to think there is a sure-fire way of finding a neat answer to those knotty problems but I guess we will have to resign ourselves to the fact that some problems, like how to work less and earn more, are going to remain as tricky as ever. Even if you can solve them in theory-get a better job, you might not be able to solve them in practice-getting the offer. But if personal problems like this remain a thorny issue, help might be at hand when it comes to work related matters through an invention with the curious title of ‘TRIZ’.

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

by Alan Webb

JUNE 2002

Initial conception TRIZ is a Russian acronym that stands for

the theory of inventive problem solving: a systematic approach to finding innovative solutions to technical problems. The ideas were actually formulated way back in the 1940s, but remained firmly locked behind the Iron Curtain. With the progressive thawing of the old Cold War climate TRIZ escaped to the West a little over a decade ago when a few American academics began studying its principles and applying them to real situations.

With the ending of the Second World War, Russia was left a war-ravaged country, almost brought to its knees, and a communist system of government that simply did not encourage

117

CREATIVE PR 0 CESS

Ah, but I used T ~ z . . . the entrepreneurial spirit. The USA, on the other hand, had completely re-equipped its factories and, untouched by war, it was ready to turn them over to peace-time production to meet the demands of an increasingly wealthy population. With a growing ideological split with the West, Russia could not expect any help with re-development; instead, it was to be increasingly locked into a technologically driven arms race against the world’s mightiest economy. If Russia was ever going to compete, it could not rely on its industrial base and its economy to underpin its strategy, it would have to capitalise on its brain power to cover the gap.

It was from this foundation that Genrich Altshuller’ started work in 1946 to develop a way to make significant technical break- throughs without relying purely on creative processes, although his progress was seriously hampered at the start. He adopted the premise that most breakthroughs are not really break- throughs at all, but simply the application of a well understood principle in a new way or in a new field. Genuine breakthroughs in terms of discovery, such as Michael Faraday’s discovery of electro-magnetic rotation (1 821), or uniquely inventive ideas, such as Alphonse Beau de Rochas’ four stroke cycle (1862), are comparatively rare and in both cases it was left to others to create useful applications2. The same is true of today’s hailed inventions: Trevor Baylis’ clockwork radio is simply the marriage of two well understood technologies, the only

question is why did nobody think of it before? Answer: no one outside the poor parts of Africa realised there was a problem with the economic supply of power to small radios.

Altshuller worked in a patent office, so perhaps it was seeing so many inventions that led him to a systematic evaluation of hundreds of thousands of patents in order to uncover patterns of invention that might prove useful when it comes to looking at new problems. In time, this work would grow to an analysis of over 2.5 million patents. If the secrets of success in the past could be discovered they could surely be used in the future in a way that would point directly to the solution and cut out the element of chance. Altshuller’s research led to three important principles about the general process of innovation:

I . problems and their solutions tend to be repeated across a range of industrial and scientific situations

2. patterns of technological evolution tend to be repeated across industries and sciences

3. inventions often made use of scientific effects that were developed in unrelated areas.

His fundamental discovery was that most problems that lead to an innovative result stem from some form of inherent contradiction in the requirements of the solution. Furthermore, his analysis showed that there were just 40 ways of resolving a contradiction in a patentable

118 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002

CREATIVE PROCESS

reduce problem to its basic constituents

situation (non-patentable, e.g. social situations may be different). H e also noted that where the contradiction was purely physical, four principles of separation-in time, in space, upon condition, and between parts and the whole-could be used. Taken together, these ideas led Altshuller to develop a general methodology for innovative problem solving that he named TRIZ.

The TRIZ process TRIZ sets out a fairly basic approach to

problem solving that would be recognised by anyone familiar with systems engineering principles, but the strength of the method comes with the analysis tools developed from the patent research. Figure 1 shows a simplified TRIZ flow process. Experience has shown that any problem as first stated is rarely the fundamental problem that has to be solved. Application starts with stripping away the side issues and preconceptions to define the core problem, then conceptualising the character- istics of an ideal solution. This involves breaking the problem down into its most elementary components, understanding each one and expressing the components in the most elementary or fundamental way: as far as possible, freeing oneself from the constraints of the language in which the problem is expressed.

At this point there are a number. of ways forward, but the most easily used method in the TRIZ ‘toolset’ is the analysis of contradictions. This requires each component of the problem to be classified into one of 39 features or characteristics of technological systems. Each component needs to be examined to see if it contradicts with some other component. Each contradiction is then examined to see if a possible solution to this situation exists.

This process is aided by a matrix of 39 features and 40 types of inventive principle (see Panel for the 40 principles with a brief explanation). Some of these principles are expanded into separate solutions making 76 ‘standard solutions’ in all. For most of the pairs of contradicting features there is one or more inventive principle that has been used in the past to solve the problem. The principles, and their related standard solutions, are not specific in themselves but are ideas that are worth investigating as one or several of them may suggest a possible way forward.

At this point the TRIZ process relies on the problem solvers to actually look at the indicated principles and suggest ways that they

may be applied to generate the ideal solution; here the creative element still has a place. However, TRIZ contains another useful principle that can help in assessing the value of any possible solution and it is one of technology maturity. Knowing where you are on the curve of technical progress can be a guide to what areas of technology might be worth pursuing; conversely, if a technology is nearing the end of its development life some new avenue might be more profitable3. The final part of the process is to evaluate the possible solutions and implement the best one.

Fig. 1 The TRlZ process in simplified form. The TRIZ methodology does contain a solution finding process called A R E (algorithm for inventive problem solving). Some who have tried to apply the full rigours of A R E in the West have found it unnatural and cumbersome

1 define the problem what would be an ideal solution?

contradiction matrix

new solution

simplified TRlZ process

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002 119

3R EATIVE PROCESS

improving feature

I I I

8 15 3 length of a moving object 29 34 1 partial contradiction matrix with suggested inventive principles

Fig. 2 Sample rows and columns from the general contradiction matrix. The numbers in the cells refer to the numbers of the inventive principles given in the panel that have the highest probability of resolving the contradiction. Note that not all combinations have a suggested solution

Resolving the contradictions The contradiction and solution matrix will

be new to most readers and is perhaps the defining feature of the whole approach. Most engineering products are a compromise between competing requirements; the problem that all engineers know only too well is that when we improve one feature we often degrade another. General examples are:

improving the functionality of a system (good), by adding more features, leads to increased system complexity which in turn may lead to reduced system reliability (bad) increasing the power of an engine (good) may lead to an increase in emissions (bad) reducing the weight of an object (good) by making the sections thinner increases the stress in the members (bad).

Thirty-nine basic features have been defined that characterise the behaviour or state of a technological system, examples with their feature numbers are:

1. weight of a moving object 2. weight of a stationary object 9. speed

19. use of energy by a moving object 29. manufacturing precision 39. productivity.

See Panel 2 for a complete listing.

These features are arranged in a ‘contradiction matrix’; at each intersection some inventive principles are indicated that have historically helped to resolve the contradiction. A selection from the general matrix is shown in Figure 2. It will be seen that each of the features can be in either an improving or a worsening situation.

Thus if the improving feature of some system is speed (9), which is being achieved at the expense of a worsening situation with regard to system weight (I), then principles 2 (‘taking out’), 28 (‘mechanics substitution’), 13 (‘the other way round’) and 38 (‘strong oxidants’) might be applicable.

In this case ‘taking out’ might suggest removing those parts that are particularly heavy if they can be done away with-a fairly obvious solution; ‘mechanics substitution’ might indicate changing one mechanical type of power with another or substituting another type of power source; ‘the other way around’ does not suggest anything obvious in this case unless one was to trade-off speed for weight in terms of total system energy, while ‘strong oxidants’ could suggest a more oxygen-rich fuel source or a power source such as a rocket motor that can use a fuel-like liquid oxygen.

Whether any of these suggestions are applic- able depends on the particular situation; they need to be tested for feasibility, and at this point many ideas will fall by the wayside. Any that look feasible will also need to be examined for other effects that may introduce a further contradiction. For example, if liquid oxygen was chosen as a possible fuel that could solve the power-to-weight problem, this could introduce serious handling problems for anyone using it. Feature 33 is ‘convenience of use’ and this potential solution has clearly introduced a new contradiction as now there is one between speed and convenience of use.

By a process of creative thinking and re- evaluation, using the matrix as a guide, it is hoped that a viable new solution will be generated and one that is not simply a trade-off between features. It should be noted that the contradiction matrix does not contain potential solutions for all cases. Sometimes this is because there is an obvious incompatibility in terms of the features such as that between a stationary object and a moving object as the object cannot be both at the same time. However, there are other cases, such as that between the improving length of a moving object (and improvement could be either longer or shorter depending on the situation) and its speed, where no suggestions are made.

System maturity A study of actual systems for accomplishing

any function has shown that over a long enough timescale they tend to evolve along well-established patterns. Altshuller described

120 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002

CREATIVE PROCESS

distinctive patterns associated with four characteristics of products and systems that tend to be followed throughout their lives. Those four characteristics are: i) performance, ii) number of inventions, iii) level (effectiveness) of invention, and iv) overall profitability. These patterns are shown in Figure 3 with respect to four stages in the life of a product: design and development, initial exposure and exploitation, product maturity and obsolescence. These patterns he termed ‘lifelines’: a cross between life-cycles and time-lines.

Of the four features, the patterns for performance and profits are well known but the patterns for the inventive aspects may not be so familiar. Perhaps the most surprising aspect is that the number of inventions tends to increase through most of the life cycle reaching its peak of activity as the system approaches obso- lescence. However, the level of invention, i.e. the overall effect that the invention has on system performance, tends to fall continuously.

Readers will already be familiar with this as the ‘law of diminishing returns’. It means that as a product or system reaches the end of its development potential there tends to be a host of improvements whose effect will be relatively tiny and most will be related to dealing with minor residual problems or inconveniences rather than taking the system forward. From a practical viewpoint companies may be well aware of aspects of profitability from their own product records but observing patent activity can be a good indicator of where a product might lie on the overall life cycle as well as indicating what aspects of the system com- petitors are devoting attention to. If a product is approaching the end of its development life it might well be time to start thinking the unthinkable: looking at radical new inventions

e development maturity

Altshuller’s ‘lifelines’ of technological systems

rather than putting a great deal of effort into relatively small improvements.

In terms of satisfying a total requirement, Altshuller also noticed a long-term pattern that starts with solutions using just a single imple- ment, then progresses to a dual implement, then finally many implements: the ‘mono-bi-poly’ cycle. An example of this is the method of fastening clothes: this started with simple pins in the cave man era, then progressed to a small number of buttons, currently we have zip- fasteners with a large number of small engaging surfaces and finally Velcro with a vast number of hair-like fasteners. Beside this trend other patterns of system development have been noticed; for example, as physical systems mature in terms of functionality there is often a transition from mechanical means to electro- chemically activated means and through to ones that make use of some form of field. Examples of this are shown in Figure 4.

Fig- 3 Altshuller’s four features that tend to show the same characteristics Over a variety of technological systems’ life cycles

powering military projectiles no means mechanical electro-chemical field

slectro-magnetlam

propellants *still experimental

instant communication over distance a1 electro-chemical field

shouting semaphore Morse telegraph wireless transmissions beacons cable networks radio heliograph

electricity transmimion electro-magnetic radiation

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002

Fig. 4 Two examples of the transition from one energy source to another as systems develop over time

121

CREATIVE PR 0 CESS

1. Segmentation Divide an object into independent parts.

2. Taking out Separate an interfering part or property from an object, or single out the only necessary part (or property) of an object.

3. Local quality Change an object’s structure from uniform to non-uniform, change an external environment (or external influence) from uniform to non-uniform.

4. Asymmetry Change the shape of an object from symmetrical to asymmetrical or increase its asymmetry.

5. Merging Bring closer together (or merge) identical or similar objects, assemble identical or similar parts to perform parallel operations.

6. Universality Make an object or structure perform multiple functions; eliminate the need for other parts.

7. ‘Nested doll’ Place one object inside another; place each object, in turn, inside the other or pass through a cavity into the other.

6. Anti-weight To compensate for the weight of an object, merge it or make it interact with other objects that provide lift.

9. Preliminary anti-action If it will be necessary to do an action with both harmful and useful effects, this action should be replaced with anti-actions to control harmful effects.

I O . Preliminary action Perform, before it is needed, the required change or disposition of an object (either fully or partially).

11. Beforehand cushioning Prepare emergency means beforehand to compensate for the relatively low reliability of an object.

12. Equipotentiality In a potential field, limit position changes (e.g. change operating conditions to eliminate the need to raise or lower objects in a gravity field).

13. ‘The other way round’ Invert the action(s) used to solve the problem (e.g. instead of cooling an object, heat it, make moveable parts fixed or vice versa).

14. Spheroidality-curvature Instead of using rectilinear parts, surfaces, or forms, use curvilinear ones, move from flat surfaces to spherical ones, go from linear to rotary motion, use centrifugal forces.

15. Dynamics Allow (or design) the characteristics of an object, external environment, or process to change to be optimal or to find an optimal operating condition.

16. Partial or excessive actions If 100% of an objective is hard to achieve using a given solution method then, by using ’slightly less’ or ‘slightly more’ of the same method, the problem may be considerably easier to solve.

17. Another dimension Move or re-arrange an object in two or three-dimensional space (e.g. use a multi-story arrangement of objects instead of a single-story arrangement).

18. Mechanical vibration Cause an object to oscillate or vibrate, change the mode of vibration or the source of vibration.

19. Periodic action Instead of continuous action, use periodic or pulsating actions, change the frequencies or use gaps in the pulsations.

20. Continuity of useful action Carry on work continuously; make all parts of an object work at full load, all the time.

21. Skipping Conduct a process, or certain stages of a process (e.g. destructive, harmful or hazardous operations) at high speed.

22. ‘Blessing in disguise’ or ‘turn lemons into lemonade’ Use harmful factors (particularly, harmful effects of the environment or surroundings) to achieve a positive effect possibly by using them to counter other harmful effects.

23. Feedback Introduce feedback (referring back, cross-checking) to improve a process or action.

24. ‘Intermediary’ Use an intermediary carrier article or intermediary process.

25. Self-service Make an object serve itself by performing auxiliary helpful functions or use waste (or lost) resources, energy, or substances.

26. Copying Instead of an unavailable, expensive, fragile object, use simpler and inexpensive copies.

27. Cheap short-living objects Replace an expensive object with a multiple of inexpensive objects, compromising certain qualities (such as service life, for instance).

28 Mechanics substitution Replace a mechanical means with a sensory (optical, acoustic, taste or smell) means, change to electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields or use field-activated substances.

29. Pneumatics and hydraulics Use gas and liquid parts of an object instead of solid parts (e.g. inflatable, filled with liquids, air cushion, hydrostatic, hydro-reactive).

30. Flexible shells and thin films Use flexible shells and thin films instead of three-dimensional structures.

31. Porous materials Make an object porous, add porous elements (inserts, coatings, etc.) or make more use of the pores.

32. Colour changes Change the colour or transparency of an object or its external environment.

33. Homogeneity Make objects interact with a given object of the same material (or material with identical properties).

34. Discarding and recovering Make portions of an object that have fulfilled their functions go away (discard by dissolving, evaporating, etc.) or restore consumable parts of an object directly in operation.

35. Parameter changes Change an object’s physical state (e.g. to a gas, liquid, or solid) or its physical properties.

36. Phase transitions Use phenomena occurring during phase transitions.

37. Thermal expansion Use thermal expansion (or contraction) of materials.

38. Strong oxidants Replace common air with oxygen-enriched air, pure oxygen, ionised oxygen or ozone.

39. Inert atmosphere Replace a normal environment with an inert one, include inert additives.

40. Composite structures Change from uniform to composite (multiple) structures.

122 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002

CREATIVE PROCESS

Still evolving TRIZ practitioners aim to use the inventive

principles combined with their knowledge of system evolution to seek new and innovative solutions to current problems in technology and some, particularly in the USA are claiming clear successes through its application. There can be little doubt that the stored wisdom of over two million inventions should hold the key to solving many future problems and the systematic approach that is inherent in TRIZ has obvious intellectual and practical appeal.

The knowledge base combined with the fixed methodology has inevitably attracted the software developers and TRIZ packages are now available that aid the practitioner to go through certain initial steps of problem analysis and definition, culminating in the function to be addressed. Once the practitioner has accomplished this, the algorithm takes over offering either generic, inventive solution prompts, or suggestions that ‘steer’ the practi- tioner along a specific creative path.

Besides the purely technical aspects, other practitioners are taking the whole concept further and claiming that the 40 inventive principles still hold good in social and business situations even if the contradiction matrix does not.

Final analysis This has been a very brief explanation of a

rather complex discipline that has many more rules and techniques than have been described here. As an overall methodology, TRIZ can claim, through the contradiction matrix and the inventive principles, to be something new that breaks out of the currently popular methods of value engineering and systems engineering.

Both methods include aspects of requirements capture, problem formulation, functional analysis (referred to in TRIZ as ‘substance field analysis’), free-thinking solution generation and final evaluation. There is clearly an overlap and some examples of TRIZ successes may just as easily have been obtained by other means.

weight of a moving object weight of a stationary object length of a moving object length of a stationary object area of a moving object area of a stationary object volume of a moving object volume of a stationary object speed force (intensity) stress or pressure shape stability of the object’s composition strength

duration of action by a moving object duration of action by a stationary object temperature illumination intensity use of energy by a moving object use of energy by a stationary object power loss of energy loss of substance loss of information loss of time quantity of substance reliability measurement accuracy

manufacturing precision object-affected harmful factors object-generated harmful factors ease of manufacture convenience of use ease of repair adaptability or versatility device complexity difficulty of detecting and measuring extent of automation productivity

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002 123

CREATIVE PR 0 CESS

However, practitioners will certainly claim that application of TRIZ principles is a significant aid to the creative process. Whether this is true in its absolute sense is open to debate but viewing any problem from a new aspect while freeing the mind from preconceptions and the constraints of language may well trigger

is hard to say, but one suspects not as it deals in a rather more abstruse area and the British are well known for scepticism about ready-made solutions. Furthermore, some TRIZ practi- tioners in the USA are already beginning to ask if TRIZ will be succeeded by new analytical and creative techniques and are suggesting ways

creative thoughts that might not otherwise have occurred, particularly if one has the stimulus of a set of successful principles.

As for the contradiction matrix and the inventive principles, this actually posed something of a problem for

Freeing the mind

ff rom preconceptiooss

and tome coonslraints off

nanguage may wsnn

forward. In the meantime, there is growing interest among some of the largest companies in the UK about this method and some are already indicating they have generated innovative solutions to some thorny problems. We may well hear

me as one of the most f&iggSi‘ WeatiWe 8hOUghtS more of it over the next few powerful stimulants for years. invention is economics, yet that might not o t h e ~ ~ i s s

Notes the economics of a system does not appear as a feature in 1. Genrich Saulovich Altshuller hawe occurred the mat& Perhaps this reflects the fact that TRIZ was largely conceived during the reign of communism when such an idea might not have been politically correct and Altshuller may have been mindful of the power of the State.

If we consider Baylis’ acclaimed clockwork radio, the stimulus for that was purely economic; it was recognised from the start that there would be no demand, as yet, for it in developed countries. The form of the solution could be described as ‘energy substitution’ yet this does not appear as one of the 40 inventive principles although ‘mechanics substitution’ does. Given the growing demand for energy and a world that is sure to face increasing costs of energy from fossil fuels, the use of alternative energy sources (and there are a number, such as wind, wave, solar, hydro-static, stored mechanics, electro-chemical etc.) might be a major route down which inventors may choose to go. Energy substitution may even prompt further advances in physics along such lines as anti-gravity systems and zero-point energy fields; this would certainly accord with Altshuller’s pattern of progress towards field based systems and away from electro-chemical sources.

Over the last ten years, TRIZ has become popular in the USA; its prescribed approach combined with an implied promise of short-cut solutions has an obvious appeal in that country. Until recently it was hardly known in the UK. Whether it will take hold in the way that value engineering became so fashionable in the 1960s

(1926-1998) was an inventor and later a patent officer in post-war Russia. His original research was carried out in a purely private capacity during the late 1940s but it led to imprisonment in a Gulag under Stalin’s regime. After Stalin’s death he was released to continue his studies and generated his income through much of the 1950s as a science fiction writer. Acceptance of his ideas spread through Russia during the 1960s and 70s culminating in the founding of the TRIZ Association in 1989 with Altshuller as President. 2. In the case of scientist Michael Faraday, his discovery of electro-magnetic rotation and later electro-magnetic induction (1 831) was inspired by Hans Christian Oersted’s discovery in 1820 of electro-magnetism. The first internal combustion engine was made by Etienne Lenoir in 1860; Alphonse Beau de Rochas, a locomotive engineer, appears to have conceived the four-stroke cycle independently of Lenoir but never attempted to build an engine. Dr Nikolaus Otto developed his engine from Lenoir’s ideas, without knowing of Beau de Rochas’ work but arriving at exactly the same result. 3. James Dyson achieved great success with the application of the cyclone dust separation principle to the domestic vacuum cleaner. His application of mechanical principles to washing clothes may be less successful as other manufacturers are currently pursuing ultra-sound as a way of shaking the dirt out. Fields tend to replace mechanics as systems advance in terms of maturity and this could be another example.

0 IEE: 2002 Alan Webb is an independent consultant. He can be contacted on tel +44 (0)1403 262166, email ajwconsult @aol.com.

124 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT JOURNAL JUNE 2002