Saturday, November 05, 2011
Day 3 ETRIA TRIZ Futures Conference in Dublin
http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFC2011/252803378101325?sk=wall for photos, thanks to Jeongho Shin, who established the page and invited all participants to post pictures and rememberances of the conference.
Eddie Commins (ooops, Dr. Eddie Commins, manager of the applied innovation department of Enterprise Ireland) did a great keynote talk—really establishing key points about innovation as a systematic process, for organizations, putting the TRIZ elements of innovation into the context of culture, strategy, and leadership.
Ayano Sato started the practioners’ session with her research on “Considering user’s Kando for Conceptual Design on CDSS” (Kando describes several aspects of customer satisfaction/ experience/ emotional reaction. The techniques looked like some that I had seen in Kansei engineering. Sato explained that Kansei deals with a large spectrum of emotions, and Kando is one particular emotional response, particularly related to the customer's willingness to share his experience.
Jens Hammer discussed “Systematic Innovation and Identification of ideas in Siemens.” He showed the training and workshop system, and an example of a workshop that created more than 50 alternate solutions to a specific design problem. The expert participants in the workshop select the ones that they want to develop further, and they frequently become interested in TRIZ as a result of participating in the workshop.
Jeongho Shin did a delightful presentation about the 16 year history of TRIZ at LG, the first company to adopt TRIZ in Korea. He offered us 3 gifts
1. SCM Simple contradiction model diagram, based on ARIZ, that quickly identifies both physical and technical contradiction. His examples were from real teams dealing with everything from sound/vibration to refrigerator design to team behavior improvement.
2. SCM case studies
3. Contradiction Song – for learning 8 of the 40 principles in Korean, Japanese and English—we all sang along and then applauded the video of his children! http://e-triz.com/blog/?page_id=2
My talk (co-authored by Ralph Czerepinski and Joe Miller—many thanks!) about teaching from the learners’ point of view, using the TRIZ concepts of resources as an example, got lots of audience interest, particularly the story about the use of both physical and knowledge resources to create the new growth plan for the city of Payson AZ (see the full story at http://trizrealworld.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html ) I was very grateful for Robert Adunka’s comment that he had taken some of the learner-focused teaching elements from earlier papers and applied them to his teaching TRIZ at Siemens, to very good effect.
Barbara Gronauer gave us her perspective on how to avoid resistance to TRIZ projects, incorporating current research on organizational psychology and on success factors for innovation. Her application of 9 windows to reveal the reasons for employee fears of the changes that a new technology would cause was very useful, and her example of use of function modeling to describe the relationships between people was equally revealing. She catalogued the 8 System Laws of human interactions and showed how ignoring these laws will cause resistance.
Pavel Jirman and Bohuslav Busov concluded the session with “how to improve the evaluation of exhibits with TRIZ” He started with realistically complex function analysis of turbocharger systems and subsystems, then challenged us to think about a much less technically complex system, such as the exhibits at an international engineering fair (which has a gold medal for best exhibit, which should be a high prestige award in Brno, but had fallen into low regard.) This required creating a new concept for the criteria for evaluation. Cause-effect analysis of the low prestige revealed both real and false contradictions, which were addressed by treatment as both physical and technical contradictions. This was an excellent case study for application of TRIZ to a business/management system, and it will be very helpful to other people, since it was so easy to understand.
Wei Yan from INSA-Strasbourg presented “ A Method Of Facilitating Inventive Design based on Semantic Similarity and Case-Based Reasoning. “ She described the problem of semantic inconsistency between parameters that are specific to elements of a problem and the generic parameters of the contradiction matrix. Semantic analysis methods that cannot be summarized in this format (highly mathematical models) were applied to a set of electronics industry cases. 200 users per year are providing data on the usability of the method.
Tiziano Montecchi from the University of Bergamo presented a set of digrams used to analyze a system to support patent search for exploring future development opportunities. The complexity of system description becomes apparent from some well-defined case studies, such as the sterilization of contact lenses (but very few of the patents actually use the word “sterilize.”) For example “parameter” can have any of 3 meanings (description of a relationship between 2 things, description of the state of one thing, or description of the behavior of that thing. Searching for technology transfer opportunities is even more stressing, because of the need to do the semantic process outside the area of the researcher’s familiarity. “Abstraction of the object” is easy to say but very hard to do.
The difficult position of last paper of the conference went to Victor Berdonosov, discussing the TRIZ evolution map of programming systems, then generalizing from that. He finds that the TRIZ logical system is a basis for systemization of knowledge.
Pat Coman and Tom Vaneker brought the conference to a conclusion, and received the thanks of all the delegates.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Day 2 ETRIA TRIZ Futures 2011, Dublin
- gathering the info about the system
- Contradictions: TRIZ solves one, real situations have many
- Contradictions: no methodology to define/disclose the right contradiction, reproducible result
- Glossary, ontology, logical links between triz components missing.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Day 1 European TRIZ Association, Dublin Ireland
The main session of the conference began with welcome from our local organizer Pat Coman and ETRIA president Tom Vanenker, and an address by Eddie Cummins about the Irish government and education system’s new innovation initiatives, and their awareness that the initiatives need to be improved and refreshed. He reported recent success teaching TRIZ to people recently laid off, who then went on to form their own new businesses.
Barry Kennedy, from Intel and from 2 new ventures supporting Irish industry gave the first keynote, on the strong TRIZ theme of “Somebody, someplace, has solved this problem before…” and applied it to manufacturing and to the sustainable issues of modern manufacturing. The unique approach of the manufacturing research center is that it is based on the manufacturing “floor” in local companies, not in universities, which are invited to join the industries in research. (Principle 13 applied to cross-industry research?) A fascinating current project is predictive maintenance – capturing the tacit knowledge of experienced technicians and turning it into algorithms that can be applied throughout the industry. Then energy research center is oriented to efficiency and sustainability, specifically in manufacturing. Their early work is looking at recapturing and using low-grade heat, which is most commonly wasted, and another project on managing power use in a dynamic re-pricing environment. Water and compressed air will be two significant areas for energy efficiency research; specific comparison with other EU countries show why Ireland needs aggressive management of energy costs. The EU goals of reducing greenhouse gases, increasing recyclables, and reducing energy use (20-20-20 for the goals) are not being met, or not being met –this creates a TRIZ opportunity. Astonishing statistic: 45% of CO2 emissions come from buildings, and 85% of those buildings will still be standing in 2050.
Vigorous audience questioning – great dialog, not just Q&A. Thanks, Barry.
Second keynote was Mi Jeong Song, Ph.D. from Samsung, with a history and context of TRIZ in Korea and TRIZ in Samsung. She is the director of the Chief Technology Office within Samsung Electronics in the Samsung Advanced research center, and has played a major role in product development and TRIZ deployment as an engineer and as a research director. The 4 aspects of SAIT are Future IT & Convergence, New materials & devices, Bio/Medical and improvement in sustainable business practices. Dr. Song graciously handled the problem of talking about TRIZ in Samsung without getting into proprietary issues of products and processes. Her “Themestream” was First impact, cautious proof, use, and “shooting future”
Using TRIZ to explain TRIZ, she showed us 9 windows as a view of the implementation stage of TRIZ (subsystem, system and supersystem levels) They constantly modified what they learned from their Russian mentors to make it compatible with both the Korean culture and the Samsung internal culture, then modified what they had done as the business environment changed. Their education and software and internal consulting are continuously modified, to support Samsung’s long term strategies, now migrating from “ownership” by a TRIZ expert group to ownership in the business divisions, with platform changes to support the mobile eco-system of many of the people who need TRIZ.
Song concluded with the metaphor of neurons, and the strength of the network depending on the number of interfaces and intersections, and her perception that the network of TRIZ users will increase in strength.
We then split into 2 sessions for technical papers. I’m in the “practioner” session, first paper “Main parameters of value analysis as a cornerstone of innovation” by Andrey Efimov from Gen3, building on the MPV concepts that we have seen from Sergei Ikovenko and others at previous meetings. He had some novel ideas about using social media and company customer contacts as sources of data to reduce the fuzziness of the “fuzzy front end” of the product development cycle. His case study was a very accessible story about insulation and the adhesive used to attach it needed in an aircraft application, that was in conflict with burn-through resistance. They used “voice of the product” before “voice of the customer” to understand the jobs being done by the insulation and the adhesive in each phase of the lifecycle (non-emergency use as well as in fires) of the system, to avoid wasting resources on solving the wrong problem.
Rony Mann presented the “TRIZ – TOC marriage delivers improved products” written with my friend Gregory Frenklach. The TRIZ audiences benefited from the TOC introduction, and from the practical recommendations about team formation, emphasizing that the decision makers should be the team members, to avoid wasting time/energy/effort on the adoption of the decisions by people who were not part of the process of creating them. His case study of a major communication system failure showed the TRIZ audience the power of the TOC current reality tree method to find problems that are hiding behind/inside other problems. Then they use the examination of the assumptions that link the (perceived) conflicting requirements, to find the possible solutions, using either the separation principles for the physical contradictions or the inventive principles for the trade-off contradictions.
“2A2CI: a systematic approach to implement TRIZ innovation in SME” was presented by Xavier Lepot, who explained that he left research at a large company, and used TRIZ to create a business, which aids small/medium enterprises to move product/service ideas through the process of going from idea to development to market. I have a history of criticizing self-promotional papers, but this was done with such charm, including the derivation of their method from the academic system at INSA Strasbourg, that the promotional aspects can be forgiven. He gave enough detail of the method that the audience had a clear idea of how they work with their customers, and which TRIZ-related systems/tools (and which other tools from strategic planning, market research, etc.) they use with real companies. Key to success is use of resources, and finding the right partners—don’t try to be the expert on everything. The audience picked up on the partnership idea, and discussed why this may be easier for small companies than large ones. This evolved into discussion about whether an innovation assessment method is necessary (analogy to quality assessment) -- my point was that the market will tell us if they need one, consultants don’t need to push the assessments.
Q&A for all 3 speakers focused on details of their models and methods.
We then to the evening’s relaxation – informal dinner and reunions with old friends and meeting new friends and talking about TRIZ (until the music started…lovely Irish tenor but too loud to keep talking, so I sneaked away to finish writing this.)
Tomorrow: multiple technical sessions and another Keynote, and Irish dancers at dinner….