The Ideal Result

There could be several reasons you are reading this book. The first is that you are beginning to use TRIZ and are reading several publications to get a better understanding, from varying viewpoints, of what TRIZ is and how to use it. Mine is only one perspective on this and I encourage you to read others’ as well. A second is that you may have read something else I have written on TRIZ or on the general subject of innovation and find my perspective useful. A third is that you have been exposed to TRIZ in some way and find it confusing or complicated. I hope this book assists you in better understanding of this valuable and unique process. TRIZ is a very rich tool kit within an overall algorithm, similar to mathematics, and it is important to know how to use the various pieces. It is not necessary to use all the pieces all of the time any more than it is necessary to use algebra to add and subtract simple numbers. We learn to add and subtract before we learn to multiply or divide because we need to know these processes to use the others. Lastly, you might have experience with other creativity tools that have their basis in psychology as opposed to science and found them lacking in value or productivity in many challenging situations. These types of tools include simple brainstorming, structured brainstorming processes such as Creative Problem Solving, mind mapping, Lateral Thinking,^® and Six Thinking Hats^®. Most of these types of processes are relatively easy to learn, but lack the depth of a science-based approach to creativity and innovation that can be used for difficult or complicated problems. Any process that helps to change our perspective on problems is valuable. The difference between TRIZ and these other tools is that TRIZ provides a serious, science-based structure to accomplish this. It is possible to combine parts of the TRIZ tool kit with these other processes and ways to do this with some of these processes will be discussed later in Chap. 16.

How many times have you seen a graph like the one in Fig. 2.1? What does it imply to you? You can’t have it all, it says. These thoughts occur to you even without labeling either axis or describing the system we are talking about. We see this kind of graph so often that we don’t realize that there are at least two lines on this graph condensed into one curve. There is some function, attribute, or characteristic that is improving, while another one is getting worse and the graph in Fig. 2.1 is the net sum of the two, showing the “optimal” point in the system. In my days as a chemical engineer, and in the training I do for the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, this curve is commonplace in training and analysis when describing many chemical process unit operations.

The second step in changing your mind set about innovation (after we start thinking about breakthrough as opposed to “optimizing”) is to get rid of the idea that the problem you are trying to solve is unique and special, and that no one has ever encountered a similar problem. Now I realize that there are truly challenging problems out there, but in my years of TRIZ work I have seldom seen a problem that, in a general sense, has not already been solved in a parallel universe. I don’t mean that an engineering drawing for the solution exists. I mean the general concept of the solution exists. This general concept then needs to be applied to the specific problem at hand. This is the same observation that Altshuller made when he started to review the patent literature. The exception I will make to this assertion is the discovery of new science or a new scientific law or principle.

When we look at some significant inventions, we often see not breakthrough new technology but applications of very simple concepts in unique ways. These are the kind of inventions that, after you see them you say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” Or “Why wasn’t that invented decades ago?”

We need to take a little side journey at this point to discuss in more detail something we alluded to earlier in our discussions about the Ideal Result. In that discussion we raised the issue that might arise in a medical care situation, that all the stakeholders may not have the same view of the Ideal Result. It is very rare that in the real world everyone will agree on the Ideal Result’s definition. Bosses and subordinates will not. Parents and teenagers will not. Functional representatives on a team (manufacturing, research, marketing, etc.) will not. Corn growers and corn consumers will not. Oil producers and oil consumers will not. Using TRIZ requires that we have a definition of the Ideal Result. In a case where there may be differing views of this, it may be worthwhile to use the tools directed at the various end results and see where we end up and see what commonality there might be. Unless we are talking about a situation where someone’s view of an Ideal Result violates some law of physics, this discussion is significant and important to have as the discussion itself will generate new concepts of approach.

In the next two chapters we are going to discuss two TRIZ tools that, in a general sense, are contradictory to each other. They are both part of a long-term TRIZ analytical principle that says that products and systems oscillate between simplicity and complexity. We start with a simple, possibly not particularly special or unique, product or system. We discover that adding parts, options, appendages, and choices (technical or nontechnical), adds complexity. In many cases, we find that these added features are ones that consumers need (or think they need) and are willing to pay for. Then, at some point, we have a product, system, or service that is fancy, useful, complicated, and possibly relatively expensive. We may have maximized profits in the short term but we are on dangerous ground as we have created a complex, but useful, system which is begging to be replaced (Similar to a very sturdy, corrosion resistant paint tray just prior to the introduction of the Pivoting RapidRoller^™). Now it’s time to look at simplifying.

When someone says, “That’s a good idea, but…” they are expressing a contradiction. Now if this is said by someone in authority at a meeting the idea may die just because of organizational barriers and TRIZ thinking can’t solve that problem. But if it’s an expression of frustration, we have a major opportunity. Remember the optimization graphs we looked at in Chap. 2? They are graphical representations of contradictions. If we try to go beyond a certain point in improving one parameter, the other parameter gets worse. We get so comfortable with this approach that we don’t think about moving the curve (Fig. 9.1):

The first form of TRIZ is what we call the “contradiction table,” consisting of a listing of a matrix of 39 parameters of physical and engineering systems. From the study of the most inventive patents, it was possible to map contradictions between these parameters and identify the most frequently used inventive principles that were used to resolve these contradictions. This was the basis for identifying the 40 inventive principles discussed in Chap. 9.

Frequently, there is an underlying physical property which is the root cause of the contradiction between the two different parameters as illustrated in the contradiction table. For example, let’s consider the contradiction of wanting to improve “speed” (parameter #14) and seeing a resulting “loss of energy” (parameter #27). There are some very good suggested inventive principles at this intersection such as principle #19, “periodic action” (do we need the speed all the time?), principle #35, “parameter change” (can we store some of the excess energy in a phase change material?), or principle #1“segmentation” (do we need the required speed at all points in the process or machine?), and finally principle #14, “curvature” (can we redesign the body to reduce wind loss?). We need to ask the question, “What is the underlying physical conflict that is causing this loss of power. It might be friction. We want friction to be there at certain times or under certain conditions, but not at other times or under other conditions.

In the study of the patent literature, we not only see common trends in the repeated use of the same general inventive principles, but also common trends in how products and systems evolve. These “lines of evolution” allow us to qualitatively, forecast how products and businesses will evolve. We need to emphasize that these lines are qualitative not quantitative. These lines do not tell us in what time frame these changes will occur. Another aspect of these lines is that they contain many discontinuities that are not natural extensions of current products and businesses. This fact forces organizations to consider how they will handle these discontinuities. This may require substantial changes in the type of people hired, the schools where recruiting is done, and what groups and societies are of interest and are supported. This can be a difficult challenge for many organizations.

We have discussed the use of the various TRIZ tools for specific problems and needs. We have also discussed how the TRIZ lines of evolution can be used to plan and forecast product and system evolution. Now let’s combine these thoughts with some of the previously discussed concepts that have strategic as well as product specific uses.

There are a few unique TRIZ tools, not often used, but may resonate with you and be useful in special situations. They are “Smart Little People” modeling and using TRIZ “in reverse” when the problem we are trying to solve is one relating to a failure within a system. Let’s take a look at each briefly.

After Altshuller and his colleagues developed the contradiction table and inventive principles, work continued on ways to assist in the definition of problems in a general sense and to be able to graphically model problems as opposed to solely by contradictions. The first of these is what is commonly known TRIZ as Su-Field (“soo-field”), meaning substance field modeling. It is possible to graph a problem that has multiple contradictions and relationships in graphical form, the simplest of which would look like this (Fig. 15.1):

It is rare that an organization does not have some process for improving creativity and innovation, even if it’s as simple as elementary brainstorming. On the sophisticated side, this could mean Six Sigma, Design for Six Sigma, QFD, and sophisticated consumer analyses. Assuming this, TRIZ entering an organization could be seen as competition or a complement to an existing process. Individuals who have been “certified” in these other tools and having invested a great deal of time and money in using and implementing these other tools and processes will justifiably ask, what is special about TRIZ? This sensitivity must be considered when trying to implement or evaluate TRIZ (or any other new innovation tool for that matter).