u-sit and think news letter 21u-sit and think news letter - 21 1. usit – how to invent: the usit...

Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_21: 17 August 2004 1/3

U-SIT And Think News Letter - 21

1. USIT – How to Invent: the USIT textbook. $44.50

Unified Structured Inventive Thinking is a problem-solving methodology forcreating unconventional perspectives of a problem, and discoveringinnovative solution concepts, when conventional methodology has waned.

Updates and Commentary

1 USIT – How to Invent

2 USIT – an Overview

3 Mini Lecture

4 Classroom Commentary

5 Problem-Solving Tricks

and Related Miscellany

6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture 20 introduced material prepared for a NATO sponsored summer school in Sicily and is continued here. The barhopping problem is completed. And a strategy for invention is introduced.

2. USIT – an Overview FREE

3. Mini USIT Lecture – 21 Continuation of …

“USIT – an Alternative Method for Solving Engineering-Design Problems” Solution by simplification The barhopping problem was analyzed in Mini-Lecture_20 using the simplification . We noted that the problem can be reduced to a repeated pattern (of numbers), solved for one instance, and extrapolated to N instances. In this lecture, I introduce the contrarian and apply it to the barhopping problem. Be a contrarian A contrarian views the world in opposite ways, ways that are opposite to conventional or expected ways. As usual, there are multiple verbalizations of this heuristic. One is to work problems backwards. In the barhopping problem we are given the final state where the bar hopper has no money remaining in his pocket. And we are asked to find the initial state, how much money did he start with. This is an ideal situation for applying the contrarian heuristic by working the problem from the final state to its initial state. Try it, if you haven’t yet solved this problem. Solutions for the bar hopping problem: By now you have probably found the number of dollars needed to enter a first bar and barhop for N bars is 3(2N – 1), which follows from the pattern, 3, 9, 21, 45, 93, etc., for N bars where N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------


How to invent

I want to shift discussion now to the topic of inventing – “How to Invent”. This is a topic on which much has been written (including my first book). Consequently, there are many “how-to” views and ideas that have been expressed. I chose this topic for the abbreviated USIT training module because it provides an overview of USIT while immediately putting it into practice. First I’ll outline the strategy for invention using USIT and then spend some time demonstrating it. A strategy for invention As a well-defined problem must conform to the methodology to be used in solving it, a strategy for invention must conform similarly. In this case it must conform to USIT’s definitions and tools. This requirement is readily translated into the formulation of an exercise to invent as an exercise to solve a well-defined USIT problem. And this condition begins with a single unwanted effect. However, in the case of invention, the unwanted effect may not be as obvious as it is when presented a problem to solve. This is the situation to be addressed. Invention definition I have discussed in earlier mini-lectures how important is problem definition based on a single unwanted effect. And you have seen it used to solve a problem having an extant prototype solution that’s in need of improvement. This requirement for a problem definition provides a convenient and effective strategy for inventing. The initial issue with intentional invention is deciding where and how to start. The intention to invent implies recognition of a need and this implies a problem situation has been recognized. But, recognizing a problem situation and knowing where and how to start solving it are different things. A manufacturer of any product wishing to invent the next generation of the product has a natural starting point. It is the product itself visualized (worded) as having a single unwanted effect. I’ll assume that we are a manufacturer in search of an invention for product improvement that will leapfrog the competition. Our team has been assigned this problem and we recognize that we must first construct an unwanted effect. We will select a particular product momentarily. First, we need a strategy. Ideas spark ideas Perhaps the most powerful tool for the three phases of problem solving, definition, analysis, and solution, as well as for invention, is ideas spark ideas. I like to support that statement with three axioms of problem solving relevant to a team of technologists:

Axiom 1. Put a problem on the table and every person present will try to solve it. Axiom 2. Offer a solution concept and every person present will try to shoot it down. Axiom 3. If unable to shoot it down, every person present will try to improve upon it.

I surmise from these axioms that ideas spark ideas. This suggestive statement is rather terse and lacking of consequence. A more useful form is ideas spark ideas so generate ideas. A very straightforward method for generating ideas is to analyze. Synthesis builds whereas analyze takes apart. Analyze suggests to …


Wherewhere

• separate into constituent parts, • determine elements essential features, • examine critically, • give the essence of, and • identify causes, key factors, and possible results.

The simple process of systematic analysis creates ideas and sparks new ones. This will be demonstrated momentarily. The strategy for invention • Select an artifact (any product of human endeavor). • Analyze it:

o Determine its visual characteristics, o Determine other physical characteristics, o Postulate functions for every characteristic,

I maintain that, “Every artifact has a function”, o Determine attributes that support the functions, o Rank the functions according to their relevance to the perceived value of the artifact, o List functions of similar artifacts produced by our competition.

The purpose of our invention is to improve its value as perceived by a buyer.

o List newly recognized functions for our product that could improve its perceived value. Novelty functions are acceptable.

o Select from ideas generated by this analysis a single function to be incorporated into the chosen artifact.

****** To Be Continued in the next USIT Newsletter ******

We will pick an artifact from the objects visible in the lecture room. What would you pick?

8. Other Interests

• Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to

Ntelleck, LLC, P.O. Box 193, Grosse Ile, MI 48138 USA

Please send your feedback and suggestions to [email protected]

To be creative, U-SIT and think.

5. Problem-Solving Tricks and Related Miscellany

7. Q&A

6. Feedback Questions you would like to have discussed are welcome.








3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture 21 saw the completion of the barhopping problem and began discussion of how to invent a la USIT. This topic will be continued, but only briefly in this edition in order to accommodate a Q&A issue.


3. Mini USIT Lecture – 22

“USIT – an Alternative Method for Solving Engineering-Design Problems” Continuation of How to Invent … In the last USIT Newsletter, I began discussion of inventing using as an example the need to improveour company’s market share for an existing product. Our strategy is to identify and incorporate a new function into the selected product. We need first a model product and then ideas. Ideas spark ideas and so does analysis, so analyze to generate ideas I would like now to demonstrate how analysis of an existing artifact generates ideas, which immediately spark new ideas. As ideas are uncovered you will find yourself generating new ideas (Axiom 3). Looking for a common artifact in the classroom in Sicily, I noted a supply of bottled water and stacks of plastic drinking vessels (I’m tempted to call them “plastic glasses”. I can see the email now!) I suggested that we analyze a plastic drinking vessel, and passed out one to each person present. (*) My approach to its analysis follows. Determine visual characteristics As the students began to toss out descriptive characteristics I made a sketch on the viewgraph. A better one is shown below. Note the pains taken to point out the obvious. A very important procedure in problem analysis is verbal and graphic description. The more detail the better. (**) That comment can get out of hand, however, when analyzing a large system in which object minimization has not yet been applied. I avoided the problem in this demonstration by selecting a simple object.


Drinking vessel

Attributes

• Shape o circular cross-section in plan view o trapezoidal cross-section in elevation view o thin wall o equally spaced parallel bands in the mid

section o rolled-down lip o center of gravity above half-height o “oil-can” bottom o edges of bands have raised ridges o embossed lettering on the bottom

• Material

o polymer o transparent o flexible o large elastic range o brittle (no plasticity) o light weight (relative to other vessels of

comparable volume) o thermally conductive

• Technology

o blow molded

L L/2

At this point we have four goals: determine visual characteristics, other characteristics, functions (including unwanted effects) for the characteristics, plus supporting attributes. These can be approached sequentially, in parallel, or randomly. I find the ramdom approach with iterations to be the more natural. It is also probably the more efficient. For example, as a visual characteristic is recognized, it may spark ideas for fuctions or unwanted effects. So record them and continue. I show a serial start above, but will move to a more random process in the next mini-lecture.

It would be useful if you procede to fill in your own ideas before the next lecture. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) Those of you who teach problem solving may wonder if this choice of artifact is a wise choice. (I do sometimes.) My strategy in selecting something to invent is based on classroom experience and the need to make the exercise efficient and interesting. By choosing a common object no time is lost in making sure everyone present understands the object. Sketches can be very simple. Students are more apt to see the common object as so common as to offer little opportunity for improvement. Thus, they are less apt to waste time using their intuition to come up with a quick solution. Hence, it is easier to establish and maintain focus on understanding the process of invention. It also adds some suspence. Of course, the choice of a common object still begs the question of any significant outcome. Here I would argue that it is more important to teach the process than worry about the results. But I also know from



7. Q&A Exploring Transduction From Switzerland …

“Dear Ed, As one of your attentive readers, once again I would like to thank you very much for your generous contribution to the inventive methodology. Even if my questions don't follow your well thought path through USIT, I would be very interested to know what kind of tools (DB's, software, ...) you prefer -if any- to explore transduction opportunities? Kind regards, Claude Meylan”

Dear Claude, thanks for your nice comments and your excellent query. I’m sure other sagacious readers may have wondered the same thing. I think this is a natural question for readers because we have come to recognize and use so many computer aids in our technical work. It may also be prompted by the fact that some commercial problem-solving methodologies sell software aids. An even more direct association is the technical use of the word transduction, which brings to our minds learned examples such as piezoelectricity, elasticity, and other named tensor properties of solids. The latter may cause wonder about the existence of cataloged transduction phenomena. Firstly, when I learned systematic inventive thinking from Roni Horowitz and associates (1955) I was impressed with its aim. It was noted that SIT is simpler than other problem-solving methodologies and does not require computer aids. The idea of no computer aids caught my imagination. I liked the idea of a mental methodology that required no crutches, one that could be a part of my fundamental way of thinking. So I have intentionally avoided the urge to produce software. (I also encourage students to wean themselves from flowcharts as early as possible.) This is not a putdown of software aids. It is simply my preference.

6. Feedback Questions you would like to have discussed are welcome.

experience that spontenity of this process captures everyone’s imagination and has always produced new ideas. I enjoy this spontenity and the excitement it produces. Consequently, I want to participate in discovery with the class and do not work out the process ahead of the class. But this is not for everyone. Some students prefer to have class presentations “cut and dried”, so to speak, with all details preworked and contained in handout lecture material. Another reason for this procedure is it simulates very nicely the atmosphere of a team charged to improve a product. I think most students recognize this by the end of the exercise. (**) Written and sketched observations are commitments to a current state of thinking. They immediately start the brain challenging the commitments and making improvements through clarification. Uncommited thoughts lead to slow progress amid foggy thinking.



8. Other Interests





Secondly, in my mind I visualize transduction qualitatively in the tensor sense; namely, the association of two attributes within the same object. I argue that in the pre-engineering stage of problem solving we need only identify the associated attributes. Consequently, we can make them up (subject to their plausibility) and then evaluate their role in solving a problem. Later, in the engineering stage we can inquire of their existence. If they don’t exist as recognized phenomena, it does not mean that they are impossible. There must be many transduction phenomena yet to be identified. Since my background is in solid-state physics research, I have always been on the lookoutfor new transduction phenomena. And I am impressed when I read of a new one, which happens frequently in the literature. Also if a particular pair of attributes has not been recognized as being coupled in transduction, it suggests continuing the search for other intermediate attribute pairs to complete the needed A-F-A chain. A final note on transduction is that the pursuit of transduction phenomena forces us to focus on the association of pairs of attributes. I find that this exercise, during the solving of an engineering design problem, can spark unusual ideas. These ideas are sometimes not even transduction but simply associations not previously recognized. Transduction is used as a metaphor. I hope my answer is not too disappointing to you. If this is published in the USIT Newsletter perhaps some readers will respond with other, more useful ideas. Thanks again for the thoughtful inquiry. All the best, Ed (I thank Claude for permission to publish this Q&A.) By the way, does anyone have sources of cataloged transduction phenomena to recommend?


Recap of Mini USIT Lecture 22.

We set out to invent a new artifact based on an existing prototype not of our own design.

o Our goal is to discover multiple new functions from which one or more may lead to an invention – a new product.

o Our strategy is to induce new ideas by analyzing old ideas (existing characteristics of a man-made object).

o Our process is to propose plausible functions for obvious features of the selected artifact. Plausible functions are substituted for originally designed functions since this is (presumably) unavailable information. I believe that plausible functions are more innovative, or thought provoking toward innovation, than original functions. The reason is obvious – imagined plausibility is itself innovative thinking.

o Our basic assumption is that all artifacts were created for one or more purposes – characteristics of artifacts imply functions.

The last bulleted statement might be more accurate if worded as, “– characteristics of artifacts imply functions or unwanted effects (from inadvertent characteristics)”.







3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• In Mini-Lecture 22 a drinking vessel was selected as a prototype of an existing manufactured product to be improved through invention. The USIT process of invention was launched and will be continued here.



“USIT – an Alternative Method for Solving Engineering-Design Problems”

Continuation of How to Invent … Recap of Mini USIT Lecture 22. We set out to invent a new artifact based on an existing prototype not of our own design.


o Our strategy is to induce new ideas by analyzing old ideas (albeit inferred plausibilities from existing characteristics of a man-made object).


o Our basic assumption is that all artifacts were created for one or more purposes – characteristics of artifacts imply functions

The last bulleted statement might be more accurate if worded as, “– characteristics of artifacts imply functions from desired attributes or unwanted effects from inadvertent attributes”. Continuation … In the last mini-lecture, I began constructing a list of obvious characteristics of the selected artifact, a


drinking vessel. The approach was serial beginning with object (its sketch), continuing to attributes, and ending with functions (and unwanted effects). I noted that a parallel method might be more natural in that it allows jumping about between attributes and functions (whichever come to mind first). My attempt at this exercise is shown below.

L

L/2

D1

D2

D2 > D1

# Characteristics Attributes Functions (and associated unwanted effects, •/▪) 1 shape circular cross-

section in plan view (D1 to D2)

• to minimize depth of liquid at sides of mouth preventing dribble while drinking, • to simplify blow-molding tools minimizing cost.

2 trapezoidal cross-section in elevation view (shown above; D1 > D2)

• to ease removal from molding tools reducing defective parts, • to aid stacking, thus, minimizing storage space, • to reduce slippage when grasping (imagine grasping an inverted trapezoidal-shape container (D1 < D2).

3 thin wall • to reduce material cost ▪ if too thin (tooling design and quality control issues) it causes non-uniformity of polymer thickness during blow molding and subsequent weak regions for later failure.

4 equally spaced parallel bands in mid section

• to roughen surface increasing resistance to slippage from grasp, • to strengthen shape against distortion while handling, • to produce an attractive pattern (information) improving an uninteresting appearance, ▪ too narrow bands may allow interlocking of nested containers interfering with single-container removal.

5 rolled-down lip • to increase surface-to-lip contact area lessening dribble, • to prevent sharp-edge contact with lips eliminating contact discomfort.

6 center of gravity above half-height

▪ characteristic of trapezoidal design that increases probability of tipping and spillage when grasping/releasing

7 “oil-can” bottom (concave shape)

• to eliminate convex bottom that could increase probability of tipping and spillage when resting on a flat surface.

8 edges of bands have raised ridges

• (see #4), • to produce reflections making thin, transparent, empty container more visible reducing accidental tipping, • to improve attractiveness of design (creating information)


9 embossed lettering on bottom

• to create information

10 material polymer • to improve strength-to-cost ratio, • to reduce manufacturing cost by using blow molding

11 transparent • to make contents visible and identifiable eliminating uncertainty, • to make quantity of contents visible eliminating uncertainty.

12 flexible ▪ consequence of thin wall (#3) that produces distractive buckling noise when an empty container is handled roughly

13 large elastic range • to reduce manufacturing damage during extraction from a mold

14 brittle (no plasticity)

▪ a room-temperature property of the polymer. It has no obvious benefit and is another source of distracting noise during rough handling that causes sudden brittle fracture, ▪ shards have sharp edges producing some risk of injury in accidental contact (e.g., during clean up).

15 light weight (relative to other vessels of comparable volume)

• (see #3), ▪ increases probability of being knocked over or off of a table.

16 smooth surface • to ease removal from molding tool reducing defective parts, ▪ causes tendency to slip from grasp when cold contents induce condensation of moisture reducing friction.

17 imperviousness • to contain liquid without loss through seepage 18 thermally

conductive ▪ causes instant discomfort on grasping when containing hot liquid

19 technology blow molded • to reduce manufacturing cost 20 Nineteen characteristics should produce some useful information. Innovative concepts should have come to your mind as you did this exercise yourself. I got several ideas. However, some of my ideas turned out to be simple recall and modification of concepts I already knew. They came to mind in my initial list of known solutions and as I drew the original sketch of the drinking vessel. My list of known concepts included the following. Known drinking vessel concepts (known to me):

o a lid with a sipping hole to eliminate dribble, o fold-out handles (paper cups) to grasp and prevent contact with a hot cup, o molded handles (plastic cups) for heat protection, o a collapsible, telescoping cup for small storage space (the parallel bars on the prototype drinking

vessel brought this idea to mind), o a thin rolled-down lip that extends along the outside almost to the bottom of the vessel. When

grasped between the fingers the rolled down part bends inwards and makes contact with the inner surface of the vessel providing a double thickness of polymer between the hot liquid and a finger for improved heat protection. I saw this on a plane between Europe and the U.S.A., (see sketch).

rolled-down

lip

finger



7. Q&A Questions you would like to have discussed are welcome.

6. Feedback Suggestions / corrections / etc.

8. Other Interests





o plastic cups with bottoms extended radially forming an attached saucer to prevent tipping, o inverted trapezoidal cups (D1 < D2) with molded handles to prevent tipping when resting in

moving vehicles. Our experience in the Sicilian classroom was that drinking hot coffee from these thin polymer vessels was a bit painful and required using double vessels or sitting the vessel down between uses. Hence, thermal conductivity was the cause of the worst unwanted effect, namely, lack of protection of fingers when grasping the hot container. So as I worked on my list of known solutions this unwanted effect was in my mind. As I thought of the turned-down lip concept it came to mind to put additional material between the turned down lip and the vessel’s outer wall to increase the path for heat and reduce the amount of heat transferred to one’s fingers. I thought of inserting polymer spheres in the space between the turned down lip and the vessel wall but wondered how to blow mold spheres. This led to [solution concept, SC01] blow molding dimples in both surfaces so that the dimples would come into contact when the vessel was grasped. The diameter of the dimples could be smaller than one’s finger making the path for heat transfer even longer. Then I wondered if dimple-to-dimple alignment during grasping would be a problem requiring more precise blow-mold tooling. Another idea came to mind. Instead of circular dimples [SC02] use spiral dimples, then they always make contact when grasped. See sketches.

Where would you go from here?


SC01 SC02

Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_24: 9 September 2004 1/4














3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-lecture 24 continues a discussion of how to invent that was started in NL_21. Our topic is invention needed to improve customer perceived value in an existing product.




Continuation of How to Invent … Recap of Mini USIT Lecture 23 Having completed the table of characteristics, attributes, and functions inferred for our prototype drinking vessel, displaying my list of previously known drinking vessels, and then demonstrating two new concepts, I posed the question, “Where would you go from here?” So, where to next? Methods for inventing My industrial experience brought me into contact with consultants who use various techniques to lead teams in invention exercises. A common method involves telling a story. After seeing it done, I tried it with success. Teams are divided into small groups and assigned the task of composing a story involving objects needed to get from point A, through points B and C, on the way to point D. Each group is given realistic situations for these points, but different for each group: e.g., A = production plant, B = dentist’s office, C = grocery store, and D = home. Each group is assigned a different problem to solve along the route: e.g., a flat tire, a long wait at a railway crossing, etc. Teams are not told what these exercises are for. After reading of each story before the assembled teams they are again divided and each given one of the stories (or original teams work of their own stories). The second exercise is to take the prototype product in need of invention and apply it in as many ways as possible in the assigned story. When it works, and it usually does, new concepts are discovered for the prototype product. An interesting aspect of this method is the sudden break from focusing on the prototype product to a completely unrelated issue – inventing a story for an imagined set of conditions. Then follows the


enlightening exercise of using the prototype product to solve newly discovered problems. This exercise brings out the useful attributes of objects in the prototype product. Once these attributes are discovered, and what about them makes them fit the problem, the teams are on the way to yet newer inventions for the prototype product. There are, of course, other methodologies for inventing. In my mind, the story-telling method succeeds by first finding a wholly new line of thinking to dwell on which also requires creative thinking. It succeeds secondly by bringing the problem solvers to a realization of their product’s attributes that haven’t been exploited. One drawback of the story-telling method is the extended time involved with creating stories, reading them, critiquing them, and eventually inserting the prototype product into them and deducing new ideas. I now exhort the straightforward use of the table of characteristics, attributes, and functions (CAF table) for initiating innovative thinking. As we develop the table with only the prototype product under consideration, each new characteristic, attribute, and function discovered becomes an immediate seed to spark recall and suggest new invention concepts. It is a provocative and efficient process. You have probably noted a basic difference in the story-telling method and creation of the CAF table. The former explicitly searches new product functions intuitively while the CAF table searches functions implied by discerned attributes – an immediate and crucial connection for innovation. Completing the CAF table challenges first creative insight in discerning attributes and then innovative projections for their potential functions. When completed the CAF table presents before us three different classes of prompts, to be taken in any order, to spark new ideas. They are the three columns of inferences composing the table. The CAF tool becomes less time consuming than story telling by assembling immediately useful information from which to seed innovative thinking. Now I’ll try to convince you of what I’ve just said. Continuation of inventing new drinking-vessel concepts With the CAF table in hand we proceed to test every entry for its ability to spark new ideas in our minds. Skipping around the table is acceptable as long as each entry is addressed. Sometimes an entry that was unproductive will produce results on revisiting it after working with others. Some will not. Our goal is to “list newly recognized functions for our product that could improve its perceived value” (p. 3/3, NL_21). References in the following, e.g., CAF1F1, refer to the CAF table, Characteristic 1, Function 1; namely, “to minimize depth of liquid at the sides of mouth preventing dribble while drinking”. SCO3 [CAF1F1]: “preventing dribble while drinking”. Extrude a short mouthpiece in the lid for sucking on. Any air leakage, a sign of potential dribble, would be subconsciously corrected by tightening closure of one’s lips on the mouthpiece. This is similar to a known solution for children’s drinking vessels. In this case, give the concept distinction by adding the feature of being able to fold the mouthpiece down onto the lid (so as to seal its passageway) between usages thus preventing accidental spillage. SCO4 [CAF1F2]: “simplify blow-molding tools”. (Blow molding is already capable of shapes more complex than our prototype product.)


[CAF1A1]: “circular cross-section in plan view (D1 to D2)”. I just noticed an overlooked attribute – that the circular cross-sections are all concentric on a vertical axis of symmetry. In fact, the shape of our prototype-drinking vessel is a surface of revolution about its vertical symmetry axis. This observation sparks two contrarian views: what if D1 < D2, and what if the cross-section circles are concentric but their common axis is tilted or curved? The former was discussed in CAF2F3. Concentric circular cross-sections leads me first to a tilted axis of circular cross-sections (see sketch), then to the thought of circle centers lying on a spiral producing corkscrew-like novelty shapes, and then to all manner of artistic shapes including animals and other novelties with or without geometric lines for circle centers. These are previously known solutions.

The tilted symmetry axis suggests [SC05] a drinking vessel that could also be used as a serving scoop, and [SC06] with graduations a drinking vessel that also becomes a scoop for measuring desired volumes. Handles can be added in all cases. Because the tilted axis brings the center of mass of the vessel closer to an edge of its base, it is more susceptible to tipping. This suggests reducing the tendency to tip by using a lower aspect ratio (height to width). Such a shape has a larger exposed surface-to-volume ratio for its contents than does one with larger aspect ratio. Therefore it enables more rapid heat loss from its contents – a vessel for cooling hot liquids.

It appears that drinking from a tilted, symmetry-axis vessel would be most convenient when lips are placed on its sloping side than on its vertical side. In the latter case the vessel would sooner make distracting contact with one’s nose. This observation leads to the idea [SC07] of using a low aspect ratio vessel for serving small amounts of liquid to hospital patients who cannot lift their heads to a vertical position. Appended CAF Table

# Characteristics Attributes Functions (and associated unwanted effects, •/▪) 1 shape • circular cross-

sections in plan view (D1 to D2) • circles are concentric

• to minimize depth of liquid at sides of mouth preventing dribble while drinking, • to simplify blow-molding tools minimizing cost.

2 • trapezoidal cross-section in elevation view (shown above; D1 > D2) • axis of symmetry is a straight, vertical line • trapezoidal shape is a surface of revolution about the symmetry axis

• to ease removal from molding tools reducing defective parts, • to aid stacking, thus, minimizing storage space, • to reduce slippage when grasping (imagine grasping an inverted trapezoidal-shape container (D1 < D2).

Tilted axis of circular cross-sections

Plan view Elevation view





8. Other Interests





[CAF2F2]: “to aid stacking” (nesting of trapozidal shapes). The prototype vessels we had in the classroom were stacked on the coffee and water service table. However, as a result of their light weight, tall stacks were easily toppled and it was necessary to use several smaller stacks. This brings to mind [SC08] to blow-mold vessels in close-packed groups with thin joining bridges to hold them together. These groups could be stacked higher than individual nested vessels. A top layer would be removed and individual vessels broken off as needed. Grouped vessels would be easier to handle in production than individual ones. [CAF2F3]: “to reduce slippage when grasping”. An idea of closed pores [SC09] comes to mind to roughen the surface and improve grip to reduce slippage. Tiny pores within the thin vessel wall could be produced at blow-molding temperatures by evaporation or reaction of additives within the polymer producing small bubbles. This would have the additional advantage of increasing thermal resistivity making such vessels more comfortable to hold when containing hot or cold materials. You are probably generating your own ideas from the CAF table contents as well as improvements of my ideas, and by new ideas you generate when you read these. -- We will continue this exercise. I wonder what other attributes will be discovered. Perhaps you have discovered some that I have missed.

Note: The CAF table is a relatively recent idea that I am publishing here for the first time. I would be interested in your reactions to it.
















3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• In the last newsletter I asked for feedback on the CAF table. I got it! My good friend Matt Smith, of Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corporation, took me to task for complicating USIT. My response to him is in the Feedback section. This response prompted rethinking of attributes. These thoughts are in the Mini-USIT Lecture section. I am grateful to Matt for his challenging feedback.




Continuation of How to Invent … Recap of Mini USIT Lectures 21 - 24 I look at invention as achievable by at least two routes. Along the route of solving a problem, invention can happen accidentally – serendipity. An example is a method that has been used by cognitive psychologists is to provide a small group of rudimentary elements (simple line drawings) and a target product category. The goal is to use the given elements to produce design concepts in the given category. These are then judged and ranked for relative inventiveness – looking for serendipity. In my opinion the key to finding effective solutions to problems and to invention is in-depth discovery of fundamental principles involved in any problem situation. A judicious search of plausible root causes guides this discovery. Pealing away cause/effect layers in search of root causes generates in-depth discovery. In this process of solving a problem an invention is simply one of the various solution concepts discovered but one that merits special recognition. Invention can also be approached via a direct route. In fact by several different direct routes. The story telling route was mentioned in the last newsletter.


A direct-route strategy, based on USIT, is the topic of the current newsletters. It takes as an example situation that of inventing new concepts for an existing product. It adds the novel complexity of assuming product design history has been lost. Hence, the team addressing this problem has only the prototype object in hand, no history of its existence, and a charge to invent. (Thoughts following Matt’s feedback) My fundamental assumption in this approach is that the only thing of “value” to a customer is functions of a product. Attributes, for the most part, are invisible to a customer and, consequently, of no concern. Of course appearance is visible. Appearance results from functions designed to create information (appearance). The next assumption is that all functions are based on attributes. They are the root causes of all effects. A direct route to invention could start with attributes, pass then to functions they support, and on to recognized novelty – a definition of invention. My third assumption, basic to all problem solving, is that creative thinking is sparked by recall of concepts hidden away in our subconscious storehouse of experience. Once surfaced to the conscious they are immediately tested, modified, and tested again for applicability. Thus, with a prototype “in hand”, the inventor begins to analyze it for the purpose of inventing a better product. A logical procedure is to gain a thorough understanding of the prototype from the original designer’s (inferred) perspective. This is accomplished by assembling a list of evident attributes and their supported functions that can be inferred from the prototype. Along the way new functions for these same attributes may be discovered. Also functions for unused attributes may surface. And functions in need of unrecognized attributes may come to mind. As seen in the ongoing discussion of a drinking vessel, a variety of attributes come to mind along with multiple functions. Keeping track of these and applying some semblance of useful organization for them led to the CAF table. Attributes were seen as a useful key for organization. In the interest of establishing a thorough search for attributes it was seen that a superior level of generic attributes would be useful. It would suggest areas in which to search attributes while also giving them organization. Thus arose “characteristics” in the CAF table. This brings up the similarities of such words as qualifier, characteristic, attribute, and metric. They all distinguish objects. Metric is unique in that it alone introduces numbers for quantification. From my perspective they constitute a possible four-layer tier of “distinguishing features” of which CAF uses the last three.




6. Feedback C-A-F Table feedback

MBS writes: “The CAF table seems to me to add another layer of complexity that isn't fully tied in or integrated to the basics. I'll buy into the OAF tables, because objects, attributes, and functions are the basic building blocks, so the table relating them makes sense. But where did the term "characteristics" come from? In your sample CAF table, you have things like "shape" listed. I thought shape was an attribute. The qualifier ("what shape") like "circular" or "concentric" would be metrics describing the attribute of shape. So maybe I'd be more comfortable if it was a AMF table - attribute, metric, function.”

(This quotation is only one paragraph of MBS’s provocative letter. Printed here with Matt’s permission. Thanks, Matt.) ENS response: I’ll define the C-A-F table and then respond to specific issues raised. The execution of USIT is “structured”, as indicated in its acronym. Thus, when solving a problem we construct such things as OAF statements, closed-world diagrams, qualitative-change graphs, and CAF tables. These are simply worksheets that we lay before us and study to spark recall. As we use them we iterate their contents for more depth and scope. There is no point in wasting time to memorize their contents, so we post them in view while continuing the USIT process. The general layout of USIT, with its focus on a single unwanted effect, is ideal for problems having prototype solutions. After applying it a few times on routine “fix-it”-type problems, students show some inertia toward using it to invent. The CAF table helps. It is a worksheet loaded with pertinent cues for invention. The key to the utility of the CAF table worksheet is that it was created using in-depth analysis of a prototype object. It was done to infer as many attributes as possible and from them to infer plausible functions – the order, attributes then functions, is selected intentionally to inspire fresh thinking. Note that plausible functions may turn out to be original ideas. Characteristics, as used in the CAF table, are simply a generic level of attributes; they provide some ordering of the inferred attributes. Recall that the words function, effect, unwanted effect, cause, and root cause have equivalent roles in USIT (see USIT NL_19). On the other hand, the words attribute, causal attribute, and (attributes with …) metrics are all attributes but of differing distinction. (I can’t bring myself to say, “Attributes having different attributes”. ☺) Yes, shape is an attribute. And attributes of shape are square, rectangular, circular, ellipsoidal, etc. And attributes of circles are diameters, coaxial, concentric, coplanar, etc. A metric of square is a side equals 1.1 mm. A metric of circle is a radius equals 2 in. The USIT definition of attribute is that it characterizes or distinguishes objects. Similar objects, but not equal ones, may require multiple attributes and/or specialized attributes to distinguish them. Dissimilar objects may be distinguished with fewer or less specific attributes. I simply introduced characteristics as a superior level of attributes for the convenience of tabulating observations of the prototype vessel. However, I don’t wish to introduce metrics for any constructive purpose. This is still pre-engineering where metrics do not belong. Regarding simplicity of USIT, note that the CAF table eliminated objects.



8. Other Interests



















3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-lecture 25 digressed from the ongoing topic of a USIT strategy for invention. Here we continue the discussion and begin a few requested sessions of classroom commentary.




Continuation of How to Invent … Recap of Mini USIT Lecture 24 In mini-lecture 24 we were systematically working our way though the CAF table generating new concepts for a drinking vessel. We reached [SC09]. This lecture continues from that point. CAF table update

Claude Meylan, Switzerland, has an excellent suggestion for another characteristic type of attribute, ecology. “We could consider the whole life cycle of this drinking vessel and especially its life after use. In that sense, the attribute could be the durability … The associated unwanted effect is obvious: it’s pollution. We could consider its energy input as an attribute or other ecological parameters.”

The CAF table has been appropriately appended to include Claude’s recommendations. # Characteristics Attributes Functions (and associated unwanted effects, •/▪) 20 ecology • durability

(*recyclability) ▪ pollution

21 • energy input ▪ reduction of natural resources

I remember examining the bottom of the drinking vessels in the classroom in Sicily, looking for advertising information. But I don’t recall seeing a recycling icon. I don’t think the idea crossed my mind. The addition of ecology broadens our search for functions and unwanted effects.


* After making the above additions to the CAF table and then mulling on recyclability of a drinking vessel I wondered if “durability” could be elaborated in some useful sense? For example, durability is needed from the point of blow-molding fabrication to the end of user’s need for the drinking vessel. After that it needs to be non-durable for recycling. Nothing better comes to mind so I’ll insert it as the parenthetical note in the CAF table and move on. Methods for inventing … Continuation of inventing new drinking-vessel concepts [CAF3F1]: “thin wall – to reduce material cost”. Reducing material cost by using less material begs the question of what drives material cost (charged by a supplier)? Obvious answers from the supplier’s perspective are raw material costs, material formulation, processing, packaging, shipping, and warranty costs, as well as volume-of-sales cost discounts, and desired profit. Each broadens the opportunity for invention. But we are not consulting with our company’s suppliers. At the moment we are still in the closed world of our company’s environment. Thin wall has implications relevant to several material and fabrication attributes related to thickness: 1. material continuity during blow molding (too thin may produce holes and separations), 2. stiffness for reacting applied force of grasping (too thin would allow deformation tending to

displace vessel contents to overflowing), 3. decreased resistivity to transverse heat flow (across the thin wall), 4. increased resistivity to longitudinal heat flow (along the thin wall), 5. decreased transverse electrical resistance, 6. increased longitudinal electrical resistance, 7. decreased buckling strength, and 8. less (destructive) impulse when a lighter vessel is dropped to the floor.

Notice that each of these implications, except the first two (continuity [CAF3F2] and stiffness [implied in CAF4F2]), contains an attribute not introduced in the CAF table. How did this happen? It happens because we begin constructing the CAF table by listing obvious attributes of a drinking vessel and their inferred functions or unwanted effects they support. During the subsequent process of examining each tabulated attribute for new ideas we begin to discover unused attributes. These are “unused” in the sense that we did not recognize a potential use or related unwanted effect during construction of the table. In this way, the CAF table becomes a tool for discovery.

SC10 [CAF3F1]: “thin wall – to reduce material cost”. Thinness can be optimized and artistic value increased by introducing imaginative patterns of vertical and circumferential convolutions in wall contour. SC11 [CAF3F2] Thinness leading to holes brings to mind to blow mold in two steps. The first step intentionally creates a thin wall and resultant holes. The second step applies a second, inner layer of different color to produce a two-tone artistic product having adequate continuity and stiffness. SC12 [CAF4F4] “Equally spaced parallel bands in mid section – produce too narrow bands allowing interlocking of nested containers and interfering with single-container removal.” First, design slope of


vessel and radial width of narrow bands to produce slight positive interference with a neighboring vessel on stacking. Thus a small, applied axial pressure will engage the bands and provide vessel-to-vessel stiffness for stacking. Second, design each circumferential band with periodically spaced gaps having no protruding band structure. Successive bands on the same vessel are staggered in angular positions. Stacking is done (by machine for packing) with bands stacked having their gaps out of phase with each other. Then on applying a small angular twist, that aligns a band section with a gap on the next vessel, an end-most vessel can be removed easily from a stack without toppling the stack. SC13 [CAF5] “Rolled-down lip – increases surface-to-lip contact area lessening dribble. Divide the lip into narrow circumferential sections separated by very thin material, or even parted, to reduce dribble and produce a very flexible rim for comfortable compliance to lip shape.


4. Classroom Commentary Professor Toru Nakagawa has requested discussion on several questions relevant to the practice of USIT. They strike me as being of general interest to this newsletter readership. I would like to address these questions but do so individually in separate USIT newsletters. The first one follows. Nakagawa Query #1 (In reference to the “messy newspaper ink” problem discussed in USIT NL_01 to NL_18.)

“So far you have developed a large number of conceptual solutions. Could you please show us some way to make a system of such solutions? Can we review them quickly in some systematic way?”

Now that we are well into the drinking vessel problem, I’ll use it as an example. This way the discussion will fit into the current topic. I recognize the utility of the tool being requested. It would be especially useful for individuals and problem solving teams to track their progress and for reporting to their management. Such a summary is a straightforward extension of the CAF table, as shown here.

CAFS – Summary of Solution Concepts # Class Attributes Functions, •/, and associated unwanted effects, /▪) Solution Concepts

I have changed the name of the second column from “Characteristics” to simply “Class”, as suggested by Matt Smith, where class refers to a superior level of attributes. Classes are selected for convenience of organization for each particular problem being summarized. Our current state of progress on the drinking vessel is illustrated below. To correlate columns for ease of reading, bullets have been changed to letters. Thus CAFS1F2 becomes CAFS1Fb. But this notation is becoming cumbersome, so I’ll drop the CAFS part. Then 1F2 becomes 1Fb. It may be convenient to use succinct notes in the Solution Concepts column (as in illustration) and include backup explanatory material for details.


CAFS – Summary of Solution Concepts for a Drinking Vessel # Class Attributes Functions •/, and associated unwanted effects, •/▪ Solution Concepts 1 shape • a) circular cross-

sections in plan view (D1 to D2) • b) circles are concentric

• a) to minimize depth of liquid at sides of mouth preventing dribble while drinking, • b) to simplify blow-molding tools minimizing cost.

a) SC03: extruded mouthpiece; collapsible when not in use b) SC04: capability of blow molding not yet exceeded (don’t count as 4th concept)

2 • A) truncated-cone cross-section in elevation view (shown above; D1 > D2) • b) axis of symmetry is a straight, vertical line • c) conical shape is a surface of revolution about the symmetry axis

• A) to ease removal from molding tools reducing defective parts, • b) to aid stacking, thus, minimizing storage space,

• c) to reduce slippage when grasping (imagine grasping an inverted trapezoidal-shape container (D1 < D2).

b) SC05 Contrarian solution – tilted axis: shape forms a serving scoop. b) SC06 Contrarian solution – tilted axis: scoop for measuring desired volumes. b) SC07 Contrarian solution – tilted axis: low aspect ratio for serving hospital patients b) SC08: blow mold in groups with joined tops for more stable stacking c) SC09: pores (bubbles) in wall to roughen surface for grasping; reaction of additives may produce bubbles

3 thin wall • a) to reduce material cost ▪ b) if too thin (tooling design and quality control issues) it causes non-uniformity of polymer thickness during blow molding and subsequent weak regions for later failure. ▪ c) too thin makes vessel too hot for grasping

a) SC10: patterned convolutions to strengthen thinner walls and add artistic value b) SC11: two-layer thin walls using 2nd layer to close holes in 1st and add artistic value c) SC01: roughen surface with dimples to reduce path for thermal conduction c) SC02: spiral dimples to guarantee alignment of dimples

4 equally spaced parallel bands in mid section

• a) to roughen surface increasing resistance to slippage from grasp, • b) to strengthen shape against distortion while handling, • c) to produce an attractive pattern (information) improving an uninteresting appearance, ▪ d) too narrow bands may allow interlocking of nested containers interfering with single-container removal.

d) SC12: broken circumferential bands with positive interference for stacking and twist release for removal


8. Other Interests

Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to




APOLOGIES APOLOGIES APOLOGIES to my readers. While attempting to send requested back issues of all USIT Newsletters, I inadvertently resent the last newsletter. … sorry about that, ED (A request has been made to translate these newsletters into Korean. I’ll let you know when it happens.)











3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-lecture #27 continues concept generation for the drinking vessel using the CAF table and addresses query #2 from Professor Nakagawa.




Continuation of How to Invent … Recap of Mini USIT Lecture 26 In mini-lecture 26 we were systematically working our way though the CAF table generating new concepts for a drinking vessel. We reached [SC13]. This lecture continues from that point.

[CAF6]: Center of gravity above half height is characteristic of a truncated-cone design and increases probability of tipping.

Inverted cone shapes, for lower centers of gravity, are used for drinking vessels resting on dashboards of cars. These have flared lips at the narrow end. This type of shape, having a neck with a re-entrant angle, reduces probability of tipping but prohibits nested stacking. This shape brings to mind an idea for an easily rotated tumbler.

Notes and corrections Several notes were inadvertently omitted from the last newsletter (#26) that belong in the Classroom Discussion section. In preparing the Solution Concepts column of the CAFS table I made some corrections: #1b, “SCO4” was grayed (or should have been), “SCO4”, because it introduced no new concept. #2a, “trapezoidal” was changed to “truncated-cone” for a three-dimensional shape description. Also I just noticed in writing this edition that the sketch of the drinking vessel in NL_23 is mislabeled. The comparative diameters should be labeled as D2<D1. (Nobody noticed?)


SC14 Move the neck of a double truncated-cone-shaped vessel to its center. This enables easy rotation between the hands for agitating and warming its contents without loosing grasp of the vessel. This shape also sacrifices nested stacking.

SC15 A two piece set of truncated cone shapes will reduce probability of tipping by using one for drinking and the other for supporting the drinking vessel when not in use. These two pieces can be separately nested for stacking. SC16 The two pieces could be designed to fit together for nested stacking. When used, they would be separated and one used as the support.


4. Classroom Commentary Nakagawa Query #2 (In reference to the “messy newspaper ink” problem.)

Suppose the Team of engineers worked on this problem solving are now going to report their results to their boss, probably some intermediate manager taking care of engineering issues. I think the Team should select a few good solutions, which are worthy of trying. What kind of solution evaluation procedure do you recommend? In many cases the problem solving Team is responsible to conduct the experiments/trials/prototyping. Thus they have to evaluate their own proposals and to select most promising solution concepts. This selection may often be a preliminary, and some steps before the final decision by the management. In this case, the Manager who ordered to solve this problem would not like to listen to proposals nor intermediate trial results; he just wants clear and clean newsprints.

Evaluation procedure When a USIT exercise has been completed the problem solver (individual or team) has an unfiltered list of solution concepts. The next step is to deliver these to the owner of the problem and explain each concept in detail. From the onset of this event both parties will instantly question the technical plausibility, implied trade-offs, cost, timing, manufacturability, and many other issues of acceptability of the solution concepts. This is filtering. It is as an essential step. The owner can be any knowledgeable person who has or is assigned responsibility for solving the problem or getting it solved. This person must be linked to the appropriate management decision-making level. This linkage is essential for establishing a credible problem-solving effort, committing resources, setting timing, and establishing a review process. (In small companies the whole combination of solver, owner, and decision maker may be a single individual. But the question raised regards solver and management relationship.) Both the solver and the owner must participate in filtering. The owner can’t do it alone for lack of knowledge of the thinking that went into creating each concept. Good ideas can be culled erroneously.




8. Other Interests

Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to


The solver can’t do it alone for insufficient knowledge of system, product, manufacturing, business and other issues. Bad ideas could be put forth to the embarrassment of the solver. My preference, from my Ford Motor Company experience, is to involve the owner, or a knowledgeable representative, as a problem-solving team member from the beginning of the USIT exercise (even though the owner may know nothing about USIT). Then end the USIT exercise with the entire team, plus the owner and experts he/she may want present, sharing in the filtering exercise. The results are recorded and the record presented to the owner, and his/her, management. Feedback to the team regarding final ranking of concepts and next-step decisions are requested from management to the team in two to three weeks. This final ranking is added to the record. Typical owners and owner representatives are involved engineers who are experts in the technology of concern. Although they may not know USIT, they watch the USIT process and are invited to participate in idea generation at every stage of the process. This involvement commits them to ownership of the problem-solving process and its results as well as the problem. Involved owners are a key to successful adaptation of new ideas generated by the team. It also creates return customers. Management need of results Never surprise management. No matter how busy the problem-owning manager may be time must be committed up front to a problem-solving team (or individual) for setting initial goals, resources, reviews, and drop-dead timing. If this is not done, the team can waste corporate time and resources. And so can management. Furthermore, it’s management’s fault. (Tell ‘em I said so! ☺) Without such commitment a solver is soon forgotten. Without such commitment management too easily decides, “I’m too busy to be bothered with less than final results – and successful ones at that!” This situation invites unwelcome surprises to management. A good procedure is to institute a brief, weekly email progress note to management. Monthly, 15-minute meetings between solver (or team leader), owner, and owner’s manager are recommended. Never surprise management. Team participation in experiments/trials/prototyping is a common need. It is also a reasonable expectation when their ideas are being evaluated. The team is a corporate resource. Management must use this resource efficiently. Uninvolved management can’t do it. (If I sound too negative, I’ll try to improve with Professor Nakagawa’s next query.)

Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_28: 4 October 2004 1/4







3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-lecture #28 digresses from the ongoing discussion of the drinking vessel using the CAF table and addresses query #3 from Professor Nakagawa.




Continuation of How to Invent …

4. Classroom Commentary Professor Nakagawa’s Query #3

“Could you also make an overall view of this case study, to show what kind of consideration is essential in USIT. In a sense every lecture of yours shows such essential consideration. But since there are nearly 20 lectures already, please make us confirm the essence of your USIT procedure.”

This is a timely query. On reading it I suddenly had the feeling that I naively started off on a problem-solving excursion without letting my passengers know where we were headed. For that I am sorry. I will stop here and try to rectify the situation. Two similar problems So far I have addressed two example problems. The first dealt with the messy ink, the second is addressing inventions for a drinking vessel. The first I refer to as a “fix-it” problem. The second I refer to as a problem of “invention”. Note that I put “invention” within quote marks. In the current problem, finding drinking-vessel inventions, the team was charged to produce new


“inventions”. Whereas the former problem, “fix-it”, only incremental improvements are needed and expected. The reason I called attention to “invention” within quote marks is that we should consider inventions as results obtained by filtering solution concepts for every problem we solve. Management wants “inventions”, problem solvers want “inventions”, stockholders want “inventions”, everyone wants “inventions”, but what are they? Do you know what an invention is? Inventions probably start out as ordinary solution concepts until they are recognized as unusual, not obvious, curious, clever, simple, cheap, profitable, “competitive edge”, and on and on. Solution concepts become “inventions” by passing certain ad hoc filters. Ad hoc filters are filters that change in time. What is inventive today may not be inventive next month. I have had many solution concepts that I instantly recognized as inventive. However, for the most part, save a dozen or so patents, they were short-lived as inventions. With “invention” relegated to the end game of USIT, we are free to resolve any and all problems in the form of solution concepts. However, “fix-it”-type and “invention”-type problems are common designations used in problem-solving assignments. This distinction can be a stymie to USIT students –they seem not to know how to start. Hence, for illustration, I have elected to call attention to fix-it-type problem solving and then to invention-type problem solving to show their similarities. As a result of these similarities we have no need to change the USIT process. We simply convert “invention” into an “unwanted effect” and solve it. “Fix-it” has an implied unwanted effect. Strategy Most of the time when we begin to solve a problem, any kind of problem, we formulate in our minds some kind of strategy for progressing from the problem to the solution. There are exceptions. On occasion I have faced mathematics or physics problems for which I had no idea how to begin. No plan of attack was evident. When this happens I usually play around with pencil and paper jottings of the numbers involved, or sketches of the objects, or portions of text, whatever are the obvious elements of the problem. At first it is merely mental play having no rational objective. At some point an idea eventually comes to mind that recognizes a key need in the problem, a potential route to collect other components, and a goal. My first clue often arises as I begin to cull useless information. This is usually the needed break in foggy thinking that gets the job going. This “getting the job going” is not problem solving. It is problem definition. My problem-solving experience has taught me that the most important part of getting the job going is problem definition. In USIT the flow chart is a standard (to-be-memorized) strategy for problem solving. It is brief, simple, and made up of powerful metaphors that are intentionally ambiguous to be broadly provocative. Having the “standard” strategy in the form of a flow chart accelerates our progress through a potentially foggy start up. Once we have defined the problem clearly, and have expressed it in the language of USIT (objects, attributes, and functions) the flow chart becomes functional and so does our mental procedure. At the highest level the flow chart leads us through three strategic stages: define > analyze > solve. Each of these consists of heuristic tools. The strategy of USIT, as we progress through the flow chart, is to isolate a single unwanted effect, express it with appropriate ambiguity, pry into the depths of its


root causes, open new perspectives, and spark unusual recall. The strategy is accomplished by using the heuristic tools. I have also learned from my problem-solving experience that flow charts guide logical, linear, thinking, but illogical, scattered thinking may spark solution concepts. The former is manipulated fully at the conscious lever. The latter occurs in the subconscious without the benefit (a questionable word) of logical manipulation. It is this idea that justifies the emphasis on ambiguity in objects names, for example, in order to allow the subconscious to make unusual (illogical) object-object associations. The most important conclusion I draw from this observation is that encouraging the subconscious to work is more important than belaboring a flow chart. And the consequence of this statement is that I often follow a fresh, unexpected idea right to the solution stage, which diverts me from the flow chart to which I eventually return. This kind of flexibility requires, or produces, valuable iterations between the three stages of problem solving. Each stage improves with iteration. However, having said all of the above have I answered Professor Nakagawa’s query – “What is the essence of your procedure?” I’ll pause here to review the earlier lectures. So what is my strategy in the messy ink problem? Here’s a synopsis. NL_01

o begin by constructing a well-defined problem. o reduce the problem situation to a single, unwanted effect.

NL_02 o minimize objects

NL_03, 04 o identify plausible root causes o examine points of contact between the objects o identify and remove filters

NL_05, 06 o record solution concepts as they occur

NL_07 o begin problem analysis

o construct a closed-world diagram of how the errant design was intended to work (no unwanted effect here)

NL_08, 09, 10 o construct a qualitative-change graph associating the unwanted effect with causal

attributes of specific objects NL_11 thru 18

o apply solution techniques NL_19

o Clarification of causes and effects (also published in the TRIZ Journal)

*** At this point, I think it would be instructive to ask you to construct an up-to-date synopsis of the lectures on inventions for a drinking vessel.




8. Other Interests

1. Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to


2. USIT newsletter readership is growing weekly. Multiple readers are registering from many companies. Thanks for spreading the word. 3. A temporary newsletter auto-mailing snafu caused some multiple mailings. I think I have corrected this problem. 4. The USIT newsletter is being translated into Japanese and Spanish. Now I learn that a Korean translation is in the making. 5. My new book on heuristics is in the final review stage. I’ll keep you posted on publication timing.


U-SIT And Think News Letter - 29Unified Structured Inventive Thinking is a problem-solving methodology forcreating unconventional perspectives of a problem, and discoveringinnovative solution concepts, when conventional methodology has waned.




3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• This USIT News Letter is a major digression from previous issues, but only a temporary one. I hope you will not be disappointed.

• I have just completed a new book on heuristics and am using this issue to announce the book. The title page, table of contents, preface, and an explanatory page are presented here.

• The book will be available as soon as I complete some supporting PHP script. Watch the USIT website: www.u-sit.net

8. Other Interests

New book: This book is dedicated to all who enjoy the intellectual challenge of solving

technical problems. Those who are familiar with structured, problem-solving

methodologies should find it readily understandable. Those new to such methodologies

will, I hope, enjoy a learning excursion.

USIT News Letter translation:

Park Yong-Taek sent me a note that the USIT newsletter is now available in Korean:

“I have translated the USIT-LN02 and posted it on my Web (www.ktriza.com).”

Mr. Yong-Taek is a graduate student in Gyeongsang National University, Korea and is

studying structured, problem-solving methodologies. I wish him the best and trust that

Korean technologists will appreciate his efforts on their behalf.


Title Page Heuristics for Solving Technical Problems

– Theory

Derivation Application

Ed Sickafus

Ntelleck, LLC Grosse Ile, MI USA


Heuristics for Solving Technical Problems - Theory, Derivation, Application

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................vii Heuristics for solving technical problems in Three Parts ............................................................ix PPaarrtt II Theory for Derivation of Heuristics Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1

Heuristics in mathematics.................................................................................................1 Definition of heuristics and intuition................................................................................2 Examples of heuristics used by technologists in problem solving, Table 1. ....................2 Heuristics seed the subconscious......................................................................................3 The use of heuristics in problem solving..........................................................................4 Unstructured brainstorming .............................................................................................5

Background....................................................................................................................................6 Structured, problem-solving methodologies.....................................................................6 Origin of heuristics ...........................................................................................................6 A simple model of cognition ............................................................................................7 Perspectives and biases in problem solving......................................................................7 Abstraction of heuristics ...................................................................................................9 Comments on the method ...............................................................................................10

The Method for Derivation of Abstract Heuristics ......................................................................12 Application of heuristics to a physical-world problem...................................................12

Problem-definition phase...................................................................................12 Problem-analysis phase .....................................................................................15 Problem-solution phase .....................................................................................20

Summary of heuristics used, Table 2..............................................................................24 Abstract heuristics – no physical-world references .....................................................................25

Application of heuristics to an abstract problem ............................................................26 Problem-definition phase...................................................................................26 Problem-analysis phase .....................................................................................27 Problem-solution phase .....................................................................................27

Summary of new graphic heuristics for an abstract problem, Table 3 ...........................33 Abstract heuristics for abstract problems .......................................................................33 Graphic representation of heuristics ...............................................................................34 Comments on the adaptation of derived heuristics to other fields..................................35

Object ...............................................................................................................37 Information as an object ...................................................................................37 Attribute ............................................................................................................38 Function ............................................................................................................38 Object abstraction ..............................................................................................38


Note on Mathematical Heuristics................................................................................................ 40

Comparison of twelve mathematical heuristics with known and derived heuristics, Table 4 ............................................................................................. 40

Conclusion of Part I .................................................................................................................... 41

PPaarrtt IIII Derivation of Heuristics Derivation of heuristics ............................................................................................................... 43 Definitions................................................................................................................................... 43 Axioms ....................................................................................................................................... 44 Known Heuristics........................................................................................................................ 46 Abstraction .................................................................................................................................. 46

Problem state ................................................................................................................. 47 Problem-state – to – Solution-state strategies ................................................................ 48 Problem State graphic model ......................................................................................... 49 Solution State graphic models........................................................................................ 49

Characterization of attributes ...................................................................................................... 50 Analysis of solution states.............................................................................................. 53 Solution by utilization .................................................................................................... 54 Solution by A-F-A linking ............................................................................................. 58 Solution by nullification................................................................................................. 60 Solution by elimination .................................................................................................. 63 Graphic metaphors as solution heuristics....................................................................... 64 Spatial and temporal heuristics ...................................................................................... 66 Solution by transposition................................................................................................ 68 Paired spatial | temporal attributes, Table 3 ................................................................... 69 Summary of heuristics for problem statement, analysis, and solution........................... 71 Phraseology in words and graphics................................................................................ 74

Conclusion of Part II ................................................................................................................... 75

PPaarrtt IIIIII Application of Derived Heuristics Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 77 Inventing a belt – a problem to be solved using the newly derived heuristics ............................ 78 Deduction of problem definition information ............................................................................. 78 An unwanted effect as a strategy for invention........................................................................... 79

Graphic problem statement ............................................................................................ 81 Solution by utilization .................................................................................................... 83 Solution by utilization using A-F-A linking .................................................................. 85 Solution by nullification................................................................................................. 87 Solution by elimination .................................................................................................. 88

Conclusion of Part III.................................................................................................................. 89 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 91 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... 93 Bibliography................................................................................................................................ 97 About the Author......................................................................................................................... 99


Preface Heuristics used by engineers and scientists in solving design-type problems are the non-algorithmic,

empirical tricks, tools, and techniques learned academically and from experience. They do not solve

problems. Instead they give pause to look at problems in different ways for new insights. An axiomatic

basis consisting of six assumptions, inferred from the physical world of interacting objects, is used for a

first-time derivation of heuristics. The derivation leads to a surprising number of heuristics.

As the axioms are couched in generic terms, independent of a particular field’s argot, the resulting

heuristics are also generic. Hence, a particular derived heuristic can be adapted to a specific field by

wording it appropriately. This allows personalization of derived heuristics. Conversely, it provides a

unified system for cataloging personal heuristics in a generic classification.

These derived heuristics and their underlying strategies constitute a new problem-solving methodology.

The resulting methodology presents problem solvers an attribute-centered methodology in contrast to

conventional object-centered methodologies.


Heuristics for Solving Technical Problems in Three Parts This discourse is in three parts. It is a somewhat theoretical discussion aimed at problem solvers experienced in,

or just interested in, the use of heuristics for structured-type problem solving. This includes experience such as

gained using TRIZ, USIT, SIT, and/or ASIT. Please read Part I if you are unfamiliar with this type of problem

solving. The derivation of heuristics in Part II is directed toward discovering new heuristics and using them to

embody new focus for structured, problem-solving methodology. They are designed to provide alternative

perspectives to problems and thus serve as tools for innovative inspiration. Their application is demonstrated in

Part III.

Part I Theory

Part I covers a background of heuristics, describes examples, demonstrates their use in solving technical

problems, and explains how selected heuristics are used in Part II to derive new heuristics. The goal is to lay a

theoretical basis for derivation of abstract heuristics.

Part II Derivation of Heuristics

Part II is devoted to the derivation of heuristics at an abstract level. An attribute-centered approach to problem

definition is described in a graphic model. Three solution strategies are found and given graphic models. Their

application is demonstrated.

Part III Demonstration of Derived Heuristics

Part III demonstrates the application of heuristics derived in Part II to a problem of invention. While it uses

USIT heuristics for problem definition and analysis, it uses the newly derived heuristics for problem solution.

u-sit and think news letter 21u-sit and think news letter - 21 1. usit – how to invent: the usit...

Documents