Theory of Inventive Problem Solving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luJBtDB6ZjE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L2hHIla5UM

The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS or TRIZ) was developed by Genrikh S. A1tshuller in the former U.S.S.R., beginning in the late 1940s (Sushkov, Mars, and Wognum 1995; A1tshuller 1984; Domb and Slocum 1998). The basis of this theory is the discovery that patterns exist in patent claims, many of them based on the same working principles. Building on this discovery, A1tshuller collaborated with an informal collection of academic and industrial colleagues to study patents and search for the patterns that exist (Sushkov, Mars, and Wognum 1995). Hundreds of person-years were devoted to this effort, and thousands to millions of patents have been studied, resulting in the insight that patents may be classified into five categories. The first two categories were designated as "routine design;' meaning that they do not exhibit significant innovations beyond the current technology. These categories are "basic parametric advancement" and "change or rearrangement in a configuration." The last three categories, on the other hand, represent designs that included inventive solutions. These three categories are "identifying conflicts and solving them with known physical principles;)«identifying new principles;' and "identifying new product functions and solving them with known or new principles."

Based on these categories and patent studies, Altshuller observed a number of trends in historical invention. Some of the key observations, in the context of product design, include the following:

• Evolution of engineering systems (products) develops according to the same patterns, independent of the engineering discipline or product domain. These patterns may be used to predict the trends of future evolutions in a product domain. They may also be used to direct the search for new concepts.
• Conflicts (or contradictions) are the key drivers for product invention. Principles for eliminating conflicts are universal across product domains. Application of these principles implies that compromise is unacceptable.
• The systematic application of physical effects aids invention, since a particular product team does not know all physical knowledge.

These observations lead to the structure of TIPS for solving inventive problems. A number of components comprise this structure. For the purpose of this text, we consider three primary components: (1) laws of engineering system (product) evolution, (2) physical effects, and (3) solution (design) principles. The laws of product evolution (nine in number) indicate universal trends of a product's advancement over time. Physical effects, on the other hand, document the knowledge of the physical world from many diverse fields. Design principles, in turn, are heuristic rules for eliminating conflicts in a design task, creating a high-level concept that is a possible inventive solution.

Using these three TIPS components, a straightforward process may be developed for generating concepts. The process begins with a functional model (Chapter 5). From the functional model (in addition to benchmarks, engineering specifications, product architecture, and other data), conflicts are identified in the design task. These conflicts are then stated as contradictions in generalized parameters or engineering parameters, where a generalized parameter is a controllable variable or set of variables that embody a physical effect in a product. Design principles are then applied to suggest ways in which the conflict may be resolved. The resulting concepts are refined with known physical effects and analogies to existing solutions. The final step is to refine the concepts, from the principles and effects, into a concrete geometry.

Table 10.8, Table 10.9 and the relationship matrix in Appendix C provide necessary data to execute this process. Table 10.7 lists the 39 generalized parameters for describing product performance metrics. Tables 10.8 and 10.9 list the TIPS design principles with corresponding definitions. The generalized parameters and design principles are derived from the large quantity of patents studied as part of TIPS. Appendix C shows a correlation matrix of generalized parameters to design principles. The rows of the matrix represent "What should be improved" versus the columns that represent "What deteriorates." Up to four principles are listed in each cell of the matrix according to the order of applicability. Table 10.10 presents examples of products that utilize design principles to solve engineering conflicts. These example products provide analogies for applying the principles during product development. Finally, Table 10.11 lists a subset of physical effects (Altshuller 1984). These effects may be applied to product conflicts in order to resolve conflicts and seek inventive solutions.

TIPS Example I

Let's consider the evolution of an iron product for smoothing the wrinkles from clothing. An important function of an iron is to transfer force to the clothing to aid in removing wrinkles. It is equally important to import the human hand and reduce the force on the user (comfortable use). The conflict is straightforward; we desire a heavy iron to remove wrinkles, but we do not want a heavy iron due to the impact on ergonomics.

Stated in generalized parameters (Table 10.7), the conflict is with regard to the force (#10) versus weight of moving object (#2). Referring to Appendix C, the correlation of force to user friendliness shows that the TIPS principles of"8, 1,37,18" apply directly to the problem. Reviewing each of these design principles in Tables 10.8 and 10.9, it is suggested that a counterweight be added, the design be divided into independent parts (mass of iron versus user interface), thermal expansion be added, or mechanical vibration be added to the concept. These suggestions may lead to a levered counterweight in the first case, a foot-operated sandwich iron in the second case, and water spray in the third case.

For the last design principle, mechanical vibration may be added with an eccentric weight that would increase the force into the clothing, while reducing the carrying weight of the iron. This solution creates a conflict, however, since the user, during the operation of the iron, will also feel the vibration forces over the clothing. Adding a vibration absorber between the hand and the vibration source in the clothing may solve this conflict. Alternatively, a different vibration source can be applied that may vibrate the clothing near its resonance frequency using low input amplitudes. The feasibility of this later concept would need to be investigated.

TIPS Example II

As another TIPS example, consider the design of a piping system to transport metal shot. Figure 10.13 shows the configuration under consideration. The conflict for this design task arises due to the shot wearing down the turn in the pipe. This conflict states that a coating is desired to avoid wear, whereas a coating is not desired due to the increased expense and short life of the coating. To resolve this conflict, a search through the design principles shows a number of possible inventive resolutions. For example, using the principle of universality (#6) and the replacement of mechanical patterns principles, a magnetic field may be added to the system so that the one of the objects (the shot) performs an additional function (preventing wear). Figure 10.14 illustrates this solution, where, as shot elements are forced off the wall of the pipe by collisions, other shot fill their holes. The system is thus continuously replenishing and does not compromise the needs of the design.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 1216