alternative methodology for triz implementation

Iowa State University

From the SelectedWorks of Gül Okudan-Kremer

2013

Alternative Methodology for TRIZImplementationGretchen A. MachtGül E. KremerDavid A. Nembhard, Pennsylvania State University

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/gul-kremer/140/

http://www.iastate.edu

https://works.bepress.com/gul-kremer/

https://works.bepress.com/gul-kremer/140/

Proceedings of the 2013 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference A. Krishnamurthy and W.K.V. Chan, eds.

Alternative Methodology for TRIZ Implementation

Gretchen A. Macht, Gül E. Okudan Kremer, David A. Nembhard Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802, USA

Abstract Inherently, TRIZ is a systematic problem-solving technique that can integrate solution principles from archived patents. It requires representing the technical problem using a standard set of parameters, which are then used to associate design principles to the problem. In many cases, the technical problems are very complex in nature requiring many parameters to be considered. TRIZ methodology suggests sequential consideration of parameters, mostly as technical contradiction pairs, yielding a lengthy process. In this paper, we present an improvement to the typical TRIZ methodology, where an algorithm is presented to systematically reduce the considered parameters into a manageable set. We compare the typical TRIZ methodology to the proposed improved approach using a case study of a robotic hand exoskeleton design problem. Our results show the improved efficiency in the TRIZ implementation process. Keywords TRIZ, problem solving, design decision-making 1. Introduction The technical design of products is a ruthless market in which failure in design decision-making can be costly; thus, the pressure to make the best product possible is always high. Yet, there is no specific combination of methods or processes that consistently result in best possible designs/products. That is why the engineering design process is iterative and consists of five phases: the customer needs assessment (CNA) and problem definition, conceptualization, preliminary design, detailed design, and finally production [1]. In order to make a good design decision in the preliminary design, the proper implementation of possible outcomes in the first two phases is key; for the conceptualization process this means maximizing the design space with potential solution concepts to respond to wants and needs of the customer. There are multiple methods to increase the likelihood of a large design space, such as heuristics, brainstorming, mind mapping, and even the six thinking hat method; all of which require high creativity and either an internal or an external search for information [1, 2]. Another method to increase ideation space during the concept generation is the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, with the Russian acronym “TRIZ”. TRIZ is a method of conceptualization that incorporates both an external search from historical information and an internal search of the best-suited concepts [1]. TRIZ, proposed in 1946 by Generich Altshuller, seeks to increase the design space available while resolving technical contradictions within the design [2]. The TRIZ contradiction matrix has thirty-nine parameters as columns (avoidance of conflict) and rows (improvements), which result in a 39x39 matrix. Within each of these intersections there are multiple numbers that directly correspond to forty TRIZ design principles inspired by research on old patents [2]. Yet, TRIZ is ever evolving based on new patents, the amount of contradiction-pairs to consider during concept generation can be quite overwhelming. Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving (Russian acronym, ARIZ) is a multi-step process that is an inclusive part of TRIZ when solving complex problems through guided problem reformulation [3]. To appropriately implement the advanced technique of ARIZ, the iterative process goes between nine main steps with varying amount of sub-steps [3]. However, ARIZ necessitates extensive practice and requires the user (i.e., experienced users) to systematically go through the different lists of contradictions to ideate using the suggested design principles [4, 5]. This paper attempts to limit this process by drawing a direct connection to the CNA/Problem Definition phase and limiting the process to a more simplified seven-step process. The proposed methodology merges this amount of design decision-making information available through TRIZ with the benefits of a ranked systematic approach to simply it. This paper addresses how TRIZ can by systematically implemented to strategically streamline the process towards a specific design problem.

1114

Macht, Kremer, and Nembhard

2. Background TRIZ is a systematic means of generating innovative solution concepts to seemingly intractable problems [6]. It has been used for many years in Europe and Asia before becoming popular in North America. Its core is an articulation of solution principles distilled from an analysis of thousands of patents covering many diverse disciplines. Researchers worldwide are continually updating the patterns and the tools of TRIZ, for example Dewulf et al., [7].

Figure 1: Generation of design solutions using TRIZ (Adapted from Michalko [8]).

TRIZ has been recognized as a concept generation process that can develop clever solutions to problems by using the condensed knowledge of thousands of past inventors [12]. It provides a step-wise procedure for design teams to avoid the “psychological inertia” that limits them to common, comfortable solutions. As shown in Figure 1, a design team using TRIZ translates their specific design problem to a general TRIZ design problem. The general TRIZ design problem helps connect the problem to corresponding general TRIZ design solutions from which the design team can derive solutions for their specific design problem. The power of TRIZ is then its inherent ability (problem translation, and problem to solution principle mapping) to infuse knowledge distilled from successful ideas (as documented in patents) from diverse and seemingly unrelated fields to bear on a particular design problem, potentially yielding unique solutions. One of the major contributions of Altshuller is that classification of general (TRIZ) parameters, summarized in Table 1, which is the most coherent list to describe engineering systems [2]. His outcome was not only a composed 39x39 TRIZ contradiction matrix, but also a convergent set of forty design principles that designers and engineers alike could utilize to help expand the design space of concept generation. Therefore the TRIZ contradiction matrix has three parts: avoidance of conflict, improvements, and design principles. The same thirty-nine TRIZ parameters are labeled on the rows and columns of the matrix with the improve section as the header for the rows and the avoidance of conflict as the column header. Within each of these intersections there are multiple numbers that directly correspond to the forty TRIZ design principles. The idea is to use the TRIZ matrix to help improve one idea by utilizing the design principles while avoiding conflict with another parameter. The TRIZ contradiction matrix has been updated since 1946, but with more iterations of improvement the more information there is to comprehend and take in when utilizing the process.

Table 1: TRIZ Parameters [2] 1. Weight of Moving Object 14. Strength 27. Reliability 2. Weight of Stationary Object 15. Duration of Action Generalized

by Moving Object 28. Accuracy of Measurement

3. Length of Moving Object 16. Duration of Action Generalized by Stationary Object

29. Manufacturing Precision

4. Length of Stationary Object 17. Temperature 30. Harmful Action Affecting the Design 5. Area of Moving Object 18. Brightness 31. Harmful Actions Generated by the

Design Project 6. Area of Stationary Object 19. Energy Consumed by Moving Object 32. Manufacturability

1115


Table 1: TRIZ Parameters [2] 7. Volume of Moving Object 20. Energy Consumed by Stationary Object 33. User Friendliness 8. Volume of Stationary Object 21. Power 34. Repairability 9. Velocity 22. Energy Loss 35. Flexibility 10. Force 23. Substance Loss 36. Complexity of Design Object 11. Stress or Pressure 24. Information Loss 37. Difficulty 12. Shape 25. Waste of Time 38. Level of Automation 13. Stability of Object’s Composition

26. Quantity of a Substance 39. Productivity

Despite the success of TRIZ in helping solve complex, industrial problems, one salient complaint has been the difficulty of its use. Even now there exist processes for assisting with TRIZ, (e.g., ARIZ), many of them end up requiring an experienced user to systematically go through the different lists of contradictions one by one and attempt to implement these design principles. The proposed method in this paper responds to this difficulty in the use of TRIZ and narrowing down of its design principles. 3. Proposed Alternative TRIZ Methodology TRIZ seeks to increase the design space available during a brainstorming activity while resolving contradictions within the design. Yet, even though TRIZ does provide options to inspire design ideas through old patent ideas, the amount of contradictions to consider during brainstorming can be quite overwhelming. The proposed methodology merges this amount of design decision-making information available through TRIZ with the benefits of a ranked systematic approach to simply it. The Alternative TRIZ methodology has seven steps, seen in Figure 2, within the two main components of design decision-making: Customer Needs Assessment (CNA) / Problem Definition and Conceptualization. The proposed methodology has seven stages: 1) starting with the Problem Definition and the development of the CNA’s Augmented Hierarchical Objective List (AHOL), 2) match the AHOL with the TRIZ parameters, 3) create a subset of the TRIZ parameters specific to that problem, 4) create a mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix, 5) count up all TRIZ design principles within the mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix and determine the overall frequency, 6) determine what TRIZ design principles are qualified above the top 5%, and 7) use these design principles that exceed a 5% use rate to help expend the design space.

Figure 2: Summary of the Proposed Alternative TRIZ Methodology

1116


STEP 1. Customer Needs Assessment & Problem Definition It is key that the CNA/Problem Definition section provides benefit whether it is the design, development, or purchasing phase of a project, yet it should go before the conceptualization to ensure the correct problem is being solved [9]. Typically the CNA process has three types of needs: new design that solves a particular problem space, redesign of an exciting idea, and technology-push based on evolving needs of human-technology interaction. In order to do this, a problem definition goes hand-in-hand with the needs assessment that requires: 1) problem statement, 2) design constraints, 3) ranked customer needs, and 4) criteria to evaluate the design [1]. There are numerous CNA methods that are either un-weighted or weighted. For the purpose of the proposed TRIZ methodology, an un-weighted method of the Augmented Hierarchical Objective List (AHOL) will be utilized within the CNA/Problem Definition section. Before an AHOL is created the foundation of this work must be established through a Hierarchical Object List (HOL). A traditional HOL was established by listing objectives into four main categories: objectives, constraints (annotated by C), and functions (annotated by F), which are then organized into a coherent list but on multiple levels. The reason for the AHOL selection is based on the fact that it combines all the information such as function, constraints, and objectives in a tiered Hierarchical Object List (HOL) into one complete list. STEP 2. Matching CNA AHOL with TRIZ Parameters Based on the AHOL, certain TRIZ parameters can be matched up with the various objectives, functions, and constraints that exist within all aspects of the tiered list. This step could potentially be subjective; therefore the collaboration amongst the design team is necessary to solidify the appropriate TRIZ parameters. If there is more than one parameter per AHOL item, list the additional items within reason. In conjunction, a stipulation exists that if there is an item on the AHOL that does not match a TRIZ parameter to not include it unnecessarily. STEP 3. Subset of TRIZ Parameters By matching the CNA AHOL with the entire TRIZ parameters list, this naturally pared down the list to a smaller more reasonable number. In the example given in Figure 2, the original 39 principles were reduced to 10. However, multiple connections were made to the same parameter. This duplicate becomes important in the weighted section in Step 5. STEP 4. Mini-TRIZ Contradiction Matrix Since the TRIZ contradiction matrix has both the columns and rows exactly the same thirty-nine parameters, the improvements are going to conflict with other improvements. Thus, limiting which improvements are going to be required from the CNA then allows the user to improve all these options while still avoiding any potential conflicts with these parameters. Hence the reductions of the original 39x39 matrix to the 10x10 matrix (from Step 3), while maintaining the TRIZ design principles that apply to these interactions within their appropriate cells. STEP 5. Calculate and Rank Frequency Results Based on the TRIZ design principles that are within the appropriate cells in the mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix count the occurrence per principle. While calculating the count, make sure to implement the multiplication of the duplicate measures found in Step 3. For example, there are two #2’s, three #10’s, three #12’s, and two #22’s as duplicates in the TRIZ parameters. Yet these duplicates were not included in the Mini-TRIZ Contradiction matrix due to simplicity purposes. However, it is important to remember these duplicates when counting up the design principles from the interactions in the matrix. This establishes a natural weight to the TRIZ parameters that occur most frequently and in turn increasing the count for the TRIZ design principles. Once all the weighted calculations are complete, rank all forty design principles based on their relative frequency. STEP 6. Qualification Even after all forty design principles are ranked based on their relative frequency, it is important to apply a cut off of what design principles to include and exclude. The cut off restriction is the top 5% of the design principles relative frequency. STEP 7. Use Design Principles in Concept Generation Now that the top 5% of relative design principles are known, utilize each of their individual requirements to help aid in the idea creation and expansion of the design space.

1117


4. Case Study The proposed alternative TRIZ method was tested on a medical device design problem. In traditional physical therapy, each patient requires medical personnel in order to assist him/her during rehabilitation treatment. This one-on-one treatment philosophy is quite costly due to the loss of time for the physical therapists and the high cost to the patient. Teams of engineers and medical professionals have been developing a robotic exoskeleton to remove costs while assisting patients with their motions. Costs are decreased through the use of a mechanical device replacing the one-on-one requirement for the physical therapist, while still providing adequate rehabilitation treatment and unnecessary cost to the patient. This particular exoskeleton for this design problem focuses on hand and must require the ability to interchange between four fingers, excluding the thumb, on both hands [10].

Figure 3: Current Version of the Robotic Exoskeleton

[10] Figure 4: Prototype Version of the Robotic Exoskeleton

[10] Within the current design, Figures 3 and 4, there are three rings that correspond to wrapping around the patient’s phalanges. The rings must house the finger without slippage and transmit the motor generated motion to the finger in order for the design to be successful. To accommodate various anthropometric variances amongst individuals, the rings are presented in different sizes to fit most people. The design team is targeting to improve the design of these rings. The goal of this design problem is to improve the exoskeleton to both perform its major functions while maintaining a sensible level of comfort [9]. After much research on the project, the HOL and the associated AHOL were created.

Figure 5: HOL for the Exoskeleton Design Figure 6: AHOL for the Exoskeleton Design

1118


Once the AHOL was established the next step was to match the list to both the title and number of the thirty-nine TRIZ parameters, illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2: AHOL Matched with TRIZ Parameters 1. Adaptable [Adaptability, #35] 1.1 Customizable Shape [Shape, #12] F.2 Fits to Exoskeleton 1.2 Flexible 1.3 Replaceable Holders F.6 Adjusts for Thumb 2. Usefulness [Convenience of Use, #33] F.1 Finger Holder’s Attaches to Exoskeleton F.3 Finger Holder Secures Tightly to Finger F.4 Precise Force Transmission [Force, #10] 2.1 Manufacturability [Manufacturability, #32] 2.2 Assembly to Machine C.2 Number of Parts ≤ 4 [Complexity of Device, #36] 2.3 Fasten Securely and Fast [Waste of Time, #25] 3. Sustainable [Reliability, #27] 3.1 Life Time of Finger Holder Parts [Duration of Action of Stationary Object, #16] 3.2 Able to Withstand Motion [Duration of Action of Moving Object, #15] 3.3 Reusable [Stability of Object, #13] 3.4 Minimal Maintenance [Reparability, #34]

4. Comfortable [Uncomfortable: Other Harmful Effects Generated by System, #30] 4.1 Light Weight [Weight of Moving Object, #1] 4.2 Skin Sensitivity [Other Harmful Effects Generated by System, #30] 4.3 Resistance to Sweat F.5 Padded User Interface 5. Ease of Use [Convenience of Use, #33] 5.1 Low Noise 5.2 Easy to Operate [Waste of Time, #25] C.1 Setup Steps ≤ 3 [Waste of Time, #25] 5.3 Decrease Cycle Time Between Patients [Waste of Time, #25] 6. Safety [Unsafe: Harmful Side Effects, #31] 6.1 No Harm to Customer [Unsafe: Harmful Side Effects, #31] 6.2 Able to Sterilize [Unsafe: Harmful Side Effects, #31] 7. Cost Effectiveness

Matching the CNA AHOL with the entire TRIZ parameters list naturally pared down the list to a smaller more reasonable number. Table 3 demonstrates that the paring from the original 39 principles was reduced to 15, in which four of them were duplicates.

Table 3: Subset with TRIZ Parameters #1 - Weight of Moving Object #10 - Force #12 - Shape #13 - Stability of Object #15 - Duration of Action of Moving Object #16 - Duration of Action of Stationary Object #25 (4x) - Waste of Time #27 - Reliability

#30 (2x) - Other Harmful Effects Generated by System #31 (3x) - Unsafe: Harmful Side Effects #32 - Manufacturability #33 (2x) - Convenience of Use #34 - Reparability #35 - Adaptability #36 - Complexity of Device

Using the subset of TRIZ parameters in Table 3, a mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix can be created. The reduction of the original 39x39 matrix went down to a the 15x15 matrix, less than 14% of the original information space, while maintaining the TRIZ design principles that apply to these interactions within their appropriate cells. The full mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix for this case study is demonstrated in Table 4. Note that within each of the cells intersection, there is a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 4 design principles specifically relevant to these TRIZ parameters.

1119


Table 4: Mini-TRIZ Contradiction Matrix

Avoidance of Conflict

1 10 12 13 15 16 25 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1 8 10 10 4 1 35 5 34 10 35 1 11 18 22 22 35 1 28 2 3 2 27 5 8 26 36 18 37 35 40 19 39 31 35 20 28 3 27 21 27 31 39 27 36 24 35 11 28 15 29 30 34

10 1 37 10 34 10 21 2 19 10 37 3 35 1 18 3 24 1 18 1 3 1 15 15 17 10 18 8 18 35 40 35 36 13 21 35 40 13 36 15 37 25 28 11 18 20 26 35

12 8 10 35 37 1 4 9 14 10 14 10 40 1 2 1 1 17 32 26 1 2 1 15 16 29 29 40 10 40 18 33 25 26 17 34 16 22 35 35 32 28 15 13 29 1 28

13 21 35 10 16 1 4 13 27 3 39 35 35 30 35 40 35 32 35 2 35 30 25 2 35 2 39 21 35 18 22 10 35 35 23 27 24 18 27 39 19 30 10 16 34 2 22 26

15 19 5 19 16 14 26 13 35 20 10 2 22 33 21 39 1 27 12 10 29 1 35 10 4 34 31 2 28 25 3 28 18 11 13 15 28 16 22 4 27 27 13 15 29

16 3 35 28 20 34 6 1 33 22 10 35 1 1 2 39 23 16 10 27 40 17 40

25 10 20 10 5 4 10 35 3 20 28 28 10 10 30 18 18 22 4 34 4 10 1 32 35 6 35 37 36 37 17 34 22 5 10 18 20 16 4 34 35 35 39 28 35 28 34 10 28 29

27 3 8 8 3 1 35 2 3 6 40 10 2 27 2 26 40 17 1 13 35 1 13 10 40 28 10 11 16 25 35 27 34 30 4 35 40 35 40 27 11 8 24 35

30 21 22 13 35 1 3 35 30 22 15 1 17 34 18 27 2 2 35 2 25 2 10 11 31 22 40 27 39 18 39 22 35 24 18 28 33 33 40 35 24 40 24 28 39 35 22 35 19 29

31 19 22 1 28 35 35 40 15 22 21 22 1 24 40 19 31 15 39 35 40 1 27 39 31 33 16 39 22 2 39 1

32 28 29 35 12 1 13 1 11 1 27 35 35 34 2 2 5 1 9 2 13 1 26 15 16 27 28 13 4 16 28 4 24 13 16 11 35 15 27

33 2 25 28 35 15 34 32 35 3 8 1 16 4 28 17 8 2 28 2 5 1 12 1 16 12 17 13 15 13 29 28 30 25 29 25 10 34 27 40 25 39 12 32 26 15 34 26 32

34 2 27 1 10 1 2 2 35 11 29 1 32 10 11 16 2 16 1 10 1 15 1 4 1 13 35 11 11 4 13 27 28 1 25 10 1 10 35 11 35 12 26 7 16 11 35

35 1 6 15 17 1 8 35 14 1 35 2 16 35 13 8 11 35 1 13 1 16 1 4 15 29 8 15 20 15 37 30 13 28 24 35 32 31 31 15 34 7 16 37 28

36 26 34 26 13 29 2 22 10 4 6 1 13 22 29 19 1 13 27 26 1 15 29 30 36 16 28 15 17 19 15 28 29 35 19 40 1 26 27 9 24 13 28 37

Now that the mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix is established while maintaining the integrity of the original matrix, the summation of the design principles is calculated. While adding up all the design principles individually, the facilitation of the weights for the redundant TRIZ parameters in Table 3 were included. For example, imagine instead of only having one column and row of parameter #25, there are four. Thus, when looking at the improvement of parameter #1 and the avoidance of conflict #25, instead of counting design principles as one of #10, #20, #28 and #35, in reality there are four of each. This redundancy in a natural method of weighting the line items found in the AHOL. Once these calculations were complete, each design principle was ranked based on their individual frequency of occurrence. The top 5% were acceptable which narrowed down the original forty design principles to four. The top 10 options and resulting top 5% of relative frequency (in bold) are displayed in Table 5.

Impr

ove

1120


Table 5: Top 10 Design Principles Based on the Design Principle Frequency

TRIZ Design Principle Number

Frequency of Principle in Mini-TRIZ Matrix

Percentage of 40 Design Principles

35 173 9.72% 1 128 7.20%

10 124 6.97% 28 89 5.00% 2 81 4.55%

22 77 4.33% 34 63 3.54% 18 62 3.49% 39 51 2.87% 4 49 2.75%

Out of originally 40 design principles, this alternative method has reduced the total number to four. These principles are then utilized to increase the design space of this particular exoskeleton design. The following TRIZ design principles along with their definitions are listed below:

1. Segmentation: “divide, disassemble, or increase fragmentation of object.” [11]

10. Preliminary Action: “perform an action before required or pre-arrange objects.” [11]

28. Mechanics Substitution: “replace mechanical with sensory, electric, magnetic, ferromagnetic, etc. or change static parts to moving part.” [11]

35. Parameter Changes: “alter the physical state, concentration, degree of flexibility, or temperature.” [11]

5. Advantages & Disadvantages The original purpose of the ARIZ was to help assist users of TRIZ to solve complex problems that could arise throughout the design process. ARIZ has nine main steps that then break down into multiple sub-steps that requires extensive practice to obtain a level of comfort for the individual implementing the process [3]. However, this does limit the individuals who could use ARIZ and thus the potential for TRIZ to be used amongst all levels of users (e.g. experienced users and beginner users) where various levels of brainstorming can occur [4]. Thus the proposed method attempts to provide an alternative, less cumbersome avenue that stems from the customer and availabe to any level of TRIZ experience to use. Beyond reducing ARIZ from a potential 100 step process to this seven step process, there are some additional clear benefits to implementing the alternative TRIZ methodology. Firstly, this method is directly tailored to the customer needs (e.g. CNA) and its idea is completely carried throughout the process. The propagation of the customer’s needs and wants allows for the technical design team to naturally adhere to these desires, such that the resulting product is in line with customer satisfaction. Along with maintaining to the customer needs during brainstorming, it could align with the possibility of less rework within the design decision-making process. Next, the mini-TRIZ contradiction matrix is easier to assess the implications of all the potential interactions amongst improving specific parameters. Clearly demonstrated in Table 5, there is a majority of TRIZ design principles that are more frequently occurring that others. Thus the mini-TRIZ was able to breakdown the naturally overwhelming nature of the matrix into a ranked list that distinctly calls out the exact TRIZ principles to focus on. Lastly, the mini-TRIZ was concise enough to produce a more concentrated representation of these design principles, while still maintaining the integrity of the original matrix. There are some distinct disadvantages to the implementation of the proposed alternative TRIZ methodology. The first disadvantage is the fact that the entire premise of the alternative methodology is the foundation of the CNA. Therefore, if the CNA or the AHOL is established incorrectly then this TRIZ methodology will also be implemented

1121


incorrectly. However this issue of dependency does occur whether utilizing this specific method of TRIZ or not, due to the nature of the error and how it starts the technical design process. Another disadvantage of this method ties into the AHOL through the implementation that the list itself is not weighted, therefore knowledge of what is more important to the client is not taken into consideration. For example, “adaptability” was listed as number one in the AHOL, meaning that it’s of the highest priority. Yet, there was only one time it was mentioned throughout the AHOL, which significantly limited the probability of its design parameters becoming significant enough to use. This alternative methodology was initially proposed due to the fact that sometimes the implementation of TRIZ is cumbersome and hard to maximize its potential in accordance with a specific design. Even though the number of steps from ARIZ to this method are going from a possibility of 100 steps to 7 steps is indeed an improvement; however, there were no time studies done to truly test if one method is faster than the other. In addition, there is no guarantee that the method does indeed increase ideation further into the design space, because that it the purpose of TRIZ. However, it does allow the user a more tailored set of information. Experimental testing should proceed to understand if the method does indeed work more effectively than ARIZ and that it does include a more user-friendly design. 6. Conclusion In light of the naturally overwhelming amount of information in the original TRIZ table and the number of steps of ARIZ in-order to use it, this alternative methodology is proposed. The methodology includes seven consecutive steps that can be done in various stages of collaboration with the design team and in preparation separately. This methodology merges this amount of design decision-making information available through TRIZ with the benefits of a ranked systematic approach to simplify it. The contribution of this work is that it not only strategically streamlines the TRIZ process, but also specially customizes the TRIZ process to a specific design problem and to the needs of the customer. The alternative method was applied within this one particular case study of design decision-making. Thus, a limitation of the proposed methodology is its ability to apply in all situations. A future body of work should investigation the expansive nature of its applications both internal and external to design decision-making. Furthermore, the alternative methodology was not necessarily created to replace ARIZ, but to provide an additional avenue for determining what principles of TRIZ to focus on during brainstorming. The relationship between these two methodologies should be compared and contrasted on multiple case studies on various criteria such as, time, easy of use, contribution viability of results, etc. Even with these limitations and future work required, this methodology begins the conversation on alternative approaches of utilizing TRIZ beyond ARIZ. References

1. Ogot, M. and Okudan-Kremer, G. E., 2004, Engineering Design: A Practical Guide, Trafford, ISBN 1-4120-3613-5.

2. Okudan, G.E., Ogot, M., and Shirwaiker, R., 2006, “An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Design Ideation using TRIZ,” ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, September 10-13, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

3. Marconi, J., 1998, “ARIZ: The Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving - An Americanized Learning Framework”, The TRIZ Journal, May.

4. Cascini, G., Rissone, P., Rotini, F., and Russo, D., 2011, “Systematic design through the integration of TRIZ and optimization tools,” Procedia Engineering, 9, 674-679.

5. Orloff, M., 2003, Inventive Thinking through TRIZ: A Practical Guide, Springer, Berlin, Germany. 6. Altshuller, G., 2002, 40 Principals: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation, Technical Innovation Center,

Worcester, Massachusetts. 7. Dewulf, S., Mann, D., Zlotin, B., and Zusman, A., 2003, Matrix 2003, Creax, Leper, Belgium. 8. Michalko, M., 1991, “Thinkertoys,” Ten Speed, Berkeley, California. 9. Kremer, G. E., 2010, “Design Decision Making (Customer Needs Assessment) Design Information,” Class

Notes, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 10. Kremer, G. E., 2010, “Exoskeleton Design Project Summary Information,” Class Notes, The Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 11. “TRIZ," 2004-2012, “Matrix / 40 Principles / Contradictions Table,” SolidCreativity. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. 12. Ogot, M. and Okudan, G.E., 2005, “Integrating Systematic Creativity into First-Year Engineering Design

Curriculum”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21, No.3.

1122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.

alternative methodology for triz implementation

Documents