Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Monday afternoon part 2
I kicked off part 2 with a new version of the paper that Joe Miller and I presented at the IberoAmerican meeting on the use of the Complete Technical System definition to make it easy for beginners to develop a problem definition. This paper will be in the December issue of the TRIZ Journal.
Next paper was by Iouri Belski from Melbourne, Australia, who is simultaneously a professor and consultant. His simplification of Su-Field analysis has 5 steps and 5 rules, with the same goal as the Domb-Miller paper—getting beginners started.
Step 1,2, then repeat 3 &4 for each of the 5 rules. Modification by Len Kaplan for rule 3
1.list substance
2 draw the model, find the conflict
3 formulate the problem-specific model solution for each conflict
4 idea generation, applying the fields list to look for opportunity (adding information and biologic fields to the traditional MATCEM list)
5 choose the most practical (the one that meets your needs) and implement
The 5 rules are simple—such as add something that strengthens S1, or add something that interferes with a harmful effect, …His case example was a detection system for corrosion on an airplane. Find a field generated by corrosion that can be detected by S2. The ideal result is that there is no system, but everything is detected. Corrosion develops many fields, use the table—find one that makes it visible to the naked eye so that no “detector system” is required. Iouri’s casual presentation, drawing the diagrams as he talked, was very effective for the audience.
The same modeling logic is presented for human communication and for other non-engineering applications.
Anna Boratynska-Sala from the Cracow University of Technology presented “Three Set Method” as a modification of ARIZ,
Set A: Costs of modeling Technological Quality of Product
Set B: Costs of rationally declined or exaggerated quality
Set C: Pro-Quality decisions
She considers this to be a much more limited, and therefore easier set of methods, for use only when looking for quality solutions. A,B, and C have multiple contradictions, but the solutions are extremely accessible to quality improvement engineering specialists. This was a very short paper with very few details of the method.
Toru Nakagawa gave the concluding paper of the afternoon, on a 6 box system for USIT, with emphasis on the different levels of abstraction required for different kinds of solutions. Since Toru always posts English versions of his paper on the TRIZ Home Page in Japan, http://www.osaka-gu.ac.jp/php/nakagawa/TRIZ/eTRIZ/ I will not try to summarize it here.
The parallel afternoon session was called Scientific Contributions but it looked to me like a similar group of applications and methods, but presented by academics. Despite that cavail, several papers looked very useful, and I look forward to hearing more about the ideas.
Joost Duflou - On the complementarity of TRIZ and axiomatic design: from decoupling objective to contradiction identification
Pascal Crubleau - Using TRIZ in the forecasting of the computer role playing games evolution
Simon Dewulf: Directed Variation (we’ve had papers on this method over the last year in the TRIZ Journal.)
Conall Ó Catháin - Towards a rhetoric of TRIZ—a truly novel review of the Aristotelian principles of rhetoric, and a mapping from the principles of rhetoric to the concepts of TRIZ.
Victor Berdonosov – (Komsomolsk-na-Amure University) Fractality and knowledge of TRIZ. Biological fractal models are expanded and applied to the hierarchical and iterative models of the organization of knowledge in order to make it accessible for TRIZ applications.
Nikolai Khomenko - OTSM-TRIZ problem network technique: Application to the history of German high-speed trains
Roberto Nani (University of Bergamo, Italy) “Practice-based methodology for effectively modeling and documenting search, protection and innovation.” Extensive graphical techniques are coupled with patent search models to identify the unique aspects of various intellectual property information “objects.”
To the party… by means of the excellent walking tour through the historic sites of Kortrijk
I kicked off part 2 with a new version of the paper that Joe Miller and I presented at the IberoAmerican meeting on the use of the Complete Technical System definition to make it easy for beginners to develop a problem definition. This paper will be in the December issue of the TRIZ Journal.
Next paper was by Iouri Belski from Melbourne, Australia, who is simultaneously a professor and consultant. His simplification of Su-Field analysis has 5 steps and 5 rules, with the same goal as the Domb-Miller paper—getting beginners started.
Step 1,2, then repeat 3 &4 for each of the 5 rules. Modification by Len Kaplan for rule 3
1.list substance
2 draw the model, find the conflict
3 formulate the problem-specific model solution for each conflict
4 idea generation, applying the fields list to look for opportunity (adding information and biologic fields to the traditional MATCEM list)
5 choose the most practical (the one that meets your needs) and implement
The 5 rules are simple—such as add something that strengthens S1, or add something that interferes with a harmful effect, …His case example was a detection system for corrosion on an airplane. Find a field generated by corrosion that can be detected by S2. The ideal result is that there is no system, but everything is detected. Corrosion develops many fields, use the table—find one that makes it visible to the naked eye so that no “detector system” is required. Iouri’s casual presentation, drawing the diagrams as he talked, was very effective for the audience.
The same modeling logic is presented for human communication and for other non-engineering applications.
Anna Boratynska-Sala from the Cracow University of Technology presented “Three Set Method” as a modification of ARIZ,
Set A: Costs of modeling Technological Quality of Product
Set B: Costs of rationally declined or exaggerated quality
Set C: Pro-Quality decisions
She considers this to be a much more limited, and therefore easier set of methods, for use only when looking for quality solutions. A,B, and C have multiple contradictions, but the solutions are extremely accessible to quality improvement engineering specialists. This was a very short paper with very few details of the method.
Toru Nakagawa gave the concluding paper of the afternoon, on a 6 box system for USIT, with emphasis on the different levels of abstraction required for different kinds of solutions. Since Toru always posts English versions of his paper on the TRIZ Home Page in Japan, http://www.osaka-gu.ac.jp/php/nakagawa/TRIZ/eTRIZ/ I will not try to summarize it here.
The parallel afternoon session was called Scientific Contributions but it looked to me like a similar group of applications and methods, but presented by academics. Despite that cavail, several papers looked very useful, and I look forward to hearing more about the ideas.
Joost Duflou - On the complementarity of TRIZ and axiomatic design: from decoupling objective to contradiction identification
Pascal Crubleau - Using TRIZ in the forecasting of the computer role playing games evolution
Simon Dewulf: Directed Variation (we’ve had papers on this method over the last year in the TRIZ Journal.)
Conall Ó Catháin - Towards a rhetoric of TRIZ—a truly novel review of the Aristotelian principles of rhetoric, and a mapping from the principles of rhetoric to the concepts of TRIZ.
Victor Berdonosov – (Komsomolsk-na-Amure University) Fractality and knowledge of TRIZ. Biological fractal models are expanded and applied to the hierarchical and iterative models of the organization of knowledge in order to make it accessible for TRIZ applications.
Nikolai Khomenko - OTSM-TRIZ problem network technique: Application to the history of German high-speed trains
Roberto Nani (University of Bergamo, Italy) “Practice-based methodology for effectively modeling and documenting search, protection and innovation.” Extensive graphical techniques are coupled with patent search models to identify the unique aspects of various intellectual property information “objects.”
To the party… by means of the excellent walking tour through the historic sites of Kortrijk
