Lets solve a problem

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr Shankar MV on November 15, 2009 at 10:52am

Let us apply 5 Whys to find the root problem

1. Why does the driver sleep while driving
bcos he is feeling sleepy
2. Why does he feel sleepy?
either bcos he is tired or bcos he is bored
3. Why is the Driver bored?
bcos driving becomes monotonous on long drives
4. Why is nothing done to break the monotony
bcos introducing tea-breaks causes time delay & introducing entertainment (audio, video) distracts driver
5. Why does introducing etertainment distract the driver?

or how can we design entertainment for the driver without distracting him from driving?

- This is the problem that i wish to take up for brainstorming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anoop Kurup on November 15, 2009 at 12:13pm

Thanks Shankar. That is a good problem to solve. Another way to look at the problem

What is harmful effect with the driver sleeping ?
- The vehicle goes out of control
what is harmful effect of vehicle going out of control ?
- accidents can happen.

So the problem statement can be rephrased as, "how to prevent the vehicle from going out of control when the driver sleeps"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prakasan K on November 19, 2009 at 11:09pm

Hi Anoop, Shankar,

Interesting problem and beginning. Let's try to move on this with some TRIZ tools as well;

What is the IFR? (For all the stakeholder, we can consider the driver and the vehicle for the time being)
What is stopping to achieve that IFR? Why is answered

What are the resources around us (Sub system, system, super system around the stakeholder (you can even use the "past" resources!

What are the contradictions we have here?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shree Phadnis on November 20, 2009 at 8:58pm

Hi all,
I would like to look at this problem completely diffrent. As it was stated "Prevent a driver from sleeping while on long drives".Lets us answer some questons and reflect on our answers.
1. What is the purpose of the problem?
The main purpose is that if the driver sleeps then there is a chance that he might create an accident and there can be damage to self, truck of self, others or societal damage.
2. What core question does it answer?
The problem in its current stated form answers teh question that if a driver is awake the likely hood of accidents will be lesser?
3. What information data and facts are used in stating the probelm?
Apparantely we dont seem to have adequate information on % accidents in day V/s Night, V/s twilight etc and is currently based on an assumption that if the driver sleeps it implies that an accident might occur
4. What assumptions were made in the stated problem/
One major assumption was that a person was asleep and that causes accidents, the second assumption made was long drives, we do not have information on the fact whether the accidents on long drives are more or less.
5. What is the conclusion or inference of the stated problem?
If the person is not made to sleep then there is a chance that the accidents specially on the long drives will be reduced
6. What is the implication ?
The implication is lesser accidents and benefits to the society primariliy
7. What concepts and theories were used in arriving at the stated problem?
No apparent concepts or theories seem to be applied other than the fact that when control of the vehicle is lost due to loss in alertness of the driver there is likelyhood of accident and loss to the society.
8. The probelm is stated from whose point of veiw?
The problem seems to be stated from the point of view of the society so that societal losses are minimized.

Revisiting the answers above then indicate that the problem is the loss to the society due to loss of control of the vehicle due to an not alert driver.

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply?

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary, also the problem is from the society hence we should rule it out, then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work, What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting
Of which signals and roadligting will also be minimal on long drives and remote places thus sliminating them too

So in view of the analsysis and the constraints that we have applied the problem can now be stated as

How to use Roads to ensure that a driver wiil not sleep?
eleiminating jargons
How to use surfaces on which things move to ensure that living thing that controls moving object is alert?

Now thinking analogically
Idea: Aeroplanes pilots are alarmed of outside conditions using various alarms, so the thinking about alarms what are human senses, sight, sound, touch, taste,smell
Idea: What makes a living thing alert is danger or Fear, so then how can the surface create such danger or fear?

Pls note i am not doing it complete and only demostrating how TRIZ works

What will be the Most desirable result if we were magicians?
The surface on which moving object moves completely controlls the alertnessof living thing.

What is the barrier?

It is inert
So one of the contradictions is The surface has to be inert so that moving vehicle can move over it and it has to be active so that it controls teh alertness of the living thing

I am not solving completely

So one solution at regular inervals on long stretches the roads have to have a structure such that when tyres move over them they create soundwaves that are known to alert a human ( seperation is space)

Another one can be at regular inetvals on the long stretch intall reflective mirrors so that the truck lights will itself reflect back on the drivers eyes for a flash of a second to keep him alert.

The above steps to be repeated and strong solutions will be developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anoop Kurup on November 21, 2009 at 12:59pm

Hi Shree

Let me elaborate the problem a little more.
Drivers sleep and the vehicle goes out of control. There are 2 aspects to this problem.
1) The driver can sleep peacefully if the vehicle does not go out of control.
2) The vehicle is completely controlled by the driver and hence he/she cannot afford to sleep

The problem that we are trying to solve is
1) keep the driver awake
2) let the vehicle control itself

From the detailed analysis that you have done, i have uncovered a few biases and assumptions. Quoting from your answer

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply? (TRIZ never teaches you to apply constraints during problem definition or solution stage)

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary (the driver can be a resource that uses the solution, like an alarm clock),
also the problem is from the society (the problem should not be seen from such a broad perspective as "society").... then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work(why not???? if pollution control and speed control can be implemented why not solution in this manner, this is a clear bias), What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting (think about implementation costs here, it is easier to implement solutions on vehicle rather than on roads, also the roads are not of similar quality all over and many places don't even have good roads)

Let me elaborate a little about perspectives and how it screws up TRIZ methodology.
Perspectives are good way to put constraints on the solution. But they are very BAD when used in problem definition stage. Using different perspective we can always narrow down the solutions we have generated, therefore perspectives must be used after solutions are generated. A problem can always be solved from multiple perspectives, solving is not the problem, implementation is the issue. Therefore perspectives come into picture once we think of implementation.

Do not bias yourself with perspectives during the problem definition stage.


Shree P hadnis said:

Hi all,
I would like to look at this problem completely diffrent. As it was stated "Prevent a driver from sleeping while on long drives".Lets us answer some questons and reflect on our answers.
1. What is the purpose of the problem?
The main purpose is that if the driver sleeps then there is a chance that he might create an accident and there can be damage to self, truck of self, others or societal damage.
2. What core question does it answer?
The problem in its current stated form answers teh question that if a driver is awake the likely hood of accidents will be lesser?
3. What information data and facts are used in stating the probelm?
Apparantely we dont seem to have adequate information on % accidents in day V/s Night, V/s twilight etc and is currently based on an assumption that if the driver sleeps it implies that an accident might occur
4. What assumptions were made in the stated problem/
One major assumption was that a person was asleep and that causes accidents, the second assumption made was long drives, we do not have information on the fact whether the accidents on long drives are more or less.
5. What is the conclusion or inference of the stated problem?
If the person is not made to sleep then there is a chance that the accidents specially on the long drives will be reduced
6. What is the implication ?
The implication is lesser accidents and benefits to the society primariliy
7. What concepts and theories were used in arriving at the stated problem?
No apparent concepts or theories seem to be applied other than the fact that when control of the vehicle is lost due to loss in alertness of the driver there is likelyhood of accident and loss to the society.
8. The probelm is stated from whose point of veiw?
The problem seems to be stated from the point of view of the society so that societal losses are minimized.

Revisiting the answers above then indicate that the problem is the loss to the society due to loss of control of the vehicle due to an not alert driver.

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply?

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary, also the problem is from the society hence we should rule it out, then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work, What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting
Of which signals and roadligting will also be minimal on long drives and remote places thus sliminating them too

So in view of the analsysis and the constraints that we have applied the problem can now be stated as

How to use Roads to ensure that a driver wiil not sleep?
eleiminating jargons
How to use surfaces on which things move to ensure that living thing that controls moving object is alert?

Now thinking analogically
Idea: Aeroplanes pilots are alarmed of outside conditions using various alarms, so the thinking about alarms what are human senses, sight, sound, touch, taste,smell
Idea: What makes a living thing alert is danger or Fear, so then how can the surface create such danger or fear?

Pls note i am not doing it complete and only demostrating how TRIZ works

What will be the Most desirable result if we were magicians?
The surface on which moving object moves completely controlls the alertnessof living thing.

What is the barrier?

It is inert
So one of the contradictions is The surface has to be inert so that moving vehicle can move over it and it has to be active so that it controls teh alertness of the living thing

I am not solving completely

So one solution at regular inervals on long stretches the roads have to have a structure such that when tyres move over them they create soundwaves that are known to alert a human ( seperation is space)

Another one can be at regular inetvals on the long stretch intall reflective mirrors so that the truck lights will itself reflect back on the drivers eyes for a flash of a second to keep him alert.

The above steps to be repeated and strong solutions will be developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anoop Kurup on November 21, 2009 at 1:07pm

Hi Prakash

One of the biggest mistake people make is start thinking about contradiction in the beginning of problem definition stage. Contradictions are arrived at when a solution is proposed. The other side of this argument is that every problem can always be stated as a contradiction. For example we can rephrase our problem as a contradiction thus

"Smooth long roads without distractions and barriers are necessary to allow for faster cross country drive BUT long drives lead to driver boredom and loss of control of the vehicle"

The "BUT" brings in the contradiction. From this phrasing you will see that the problem has gone one level higher, we will again drill down to the root cause to try and solve the problem.

Both the useful and harmful part of the contradiction can be drilled deeper to get to the 39 problems and use of the matrix, it is a good approach to begin with.

There you go, in the same answer i have contradicted myself. I subscribe to both schools of thought based on the problem at hand. After all flexibility is a necessity for creativity. ;)

Prakasan K said:

Hi Anoop, Shankar,

Interesting problem and beginning. Let's try to move on this with some TRIZ tools as well;

What is the IFR? (For all the stakeholder, we can consider the driver and the vehicle for the time being)
What is stopping to achieve that IFR? Why is answered

What are the resources around us (Sub system, system, super system around the stakeholder (you can even use the "past" resources!

What are the contradictions we have here?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shree Phadnis on November 21, 2009 at 1:33pm

I dont want to make any comments on what you said, Your understanding of TRIZ is partially right mostly wrong, read what I wrote carefully, and yesI repeat " How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply?" is the most important Axiom , you can keep working with all your directions But the direction I prompted is the most likely from thE societal perspective, Also perspective is one of the most important thing in TRIZ ANOTHER AXIOM, as perspectives helps bring out the contradictions, never mind.You can keep believeing what is TRIZ.


Anoop Kurup said:

Hi Shree

Let me elaborate the problem a little more.
Drivers sleep and the vehicle goes out of control. There are 2 aspects to this problem.
1) The driver can sleep peacefully if the vehicle does not go out of control.
2) The vehicle is completely controlled by the driver and hence he/she cannot afford to sleep

The problem that we are trying to solve is
1) keep the driver awake
2) let the vehicle control itself

From the detailed analysis that you have done, i have uncovered a few biases and assumptions. Quoting from your answer

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply? (TRIZ never teaches you to apply constraints during problem definition or solution stage)

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary (the driver can be a resource that uses the solution, like an alarm clock),
also the problem is from the society (the problem should not be seen from such a broad perspective as "society").... then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work(why not???? if pollution control and speed control can be implemented why not solution in this manner, this is a clear bias), What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting (think about implementation costs here, it is easier to implement solutions on vehicle rather than on roads, also the roads are not of similar quality all over and many places don't even have good roads)

Let me elaborate a little about perspectives and how it screws up TRIZ methodology.
Perspectives are good way to put constraints on the solution. But they are very BAD when used in problem definition stage. Using different perspective we can always narrow down the solutions we have generated, therefore perspectives must be used after solutions are generated. A problem can always be solved from multiple perspectives, solving is not the problem, implementation is the issue. Therefore perspectives come into picture once we think of implementation.

Do not bias yourself with perspectives during the problem definition stage.


Shree P hadnis said:

Hi all,
I would like to look at this problem completely diffrent. As it was stated "Prevent a driver from sleeping while on long drives".Lets us answer some questons and reflect on our answers.
1. What is the purpose of the problem?
The main purpose is that if the driver sleeps then there is a chance that he might create an accident and there can be damage to self, truck of self, others or societal damage.
2. What core question does it answer?
The problem in its current stated form answers teh question that if a driver is awake the likely hood of accidents will be lesser?
3. What information data and facts are used in stating the probelm?
Apparantely we dont seem to have adequate information on % accidents in day V/s Night, V/s twilight etc and is currently based on an assumption that if the driver sleeps it implies that an accident might occur
4. What assumptions were made in the stated problem/
One major assumption was that a person was asleep and that causes accidents, the second assumption made was long drives, we do not have information on the fact whether the accidents on long drives are more or less.
5. What is the conclusion or inference of the stated problem?
If the person is not made to sleep then there is a chance that the accidents specially on the long drives will be reduced
6. What is the implication ?
The implication is lesser accidents and benefits to the society primariliy
7. What concepts and theories were used in arriving at the stated problem?
No apparent concepts or theories seem to be applied other than the fact that when control of the vehicle is lost due to loss in alertness of the driver there is likelyhood of accident and loss to the society.
8. The probelm is stated from whose point of veiw?
The problem seems to be stated from the point of view of the society so that societal losses are minimized.

Revisiting the answers above then indicate that the problem is the loss to the society due to loss of control of the vehicle due to an not alert driver.

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply?

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary, also the problem is from the society hence we should rule it out, then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work, What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting
Of which signals and roadligting will also be minimal on long drives and remote places thus sliminating them too

So in view of the analsysis and the constraints that we have applied the problem can now be stated as

How to use Roads to ensure that a driver wiil not sleep?
eleiminating jargons
How to use surfaces on which things move to ensure that living thing that controls moving object is alert?

Now thinking analogically
Idea: Aeroplanes pilots are alarmed of outside conditions using various alarms, so the thinking about alarms what are human senses, sight, sound, touch, taste,smell
Idea: What makes a living thing alert is danger or Fear, so then how can the surface create such danger or fear?

Pls note i am not doing it complete and only demostrating how TRIZ works

What will be the Most desirable result if we were magicians?
The surface on which moving object moves completely controlls the alertnessof living thing.

What is the barrier?

It is inert
So one of the contradictions is The surface has to be inert so that moving vehicle can move over it and it has to be active so that it controls teh alertness of the living thing

I am not solving completely

So one solution at regular inervals on long stretches the roads have to have a structure such that when tyres move over them they create soundwaves that are known to alert a human ( seperation is space)

Another one can be at regular inetvals on the long stretch intall reflective mirrors so that the truck lights will itself reflect back on the drivers eyes for a flash of a second to keep him alert.

The above steps to be repeated and strong solutions will be developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anoop Kurup on November 21, 2009 at 1:52pm

Interesting comment. You seem offended by my analysis. I was just pointing out all the biases and assumptions you have ported in to the problem definition. I wonder with so many constraints how many ideas will you generate ? After all ideas get generated by the way problems are defined. I am still talking about problem definition. Think of advanced eye-lid movement technology from Ford or GM, will your problem definition ever arrive at these ideas (because you have eliminated the Automobile manufacturer)

We all have our biases, and this group is supposed to help us share and learn. If we are not willing to come down from the high horse of ego how will we ever learn.

And yes i am still a novice as far as learning TRIZ is concerned.
The only objective of this problem solving session is to learn in collaboration, and not to show off our TRIZ prowess.

Shree P hadnis said:

I dont want to make any comments on what you said, Your understanding of TRIZ is partially right mostly wrong, read what I wrote carefully, and yesI repeat " How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply?" is the most important Axiom , you can keep working with all your directions But the direction I prompted is the most likely from thE societal perspective, Also perspective is one of the most important thing in TRIZ ANOTHER AXIOM, as perspectives helps bring out the contradictions, never mind.You can keep believeing what is TRIZ.


Anoop Kurup said:

Hi Shree

Let me elaborate the problem a little more.
Drivers sleep and the vehicle goes out of control. There are 2 aspects to this problem.
1) The driver can sleep peacefully if the vehicle does not go out of control.
2) The vehicle is completely controlled by the driver and hence he/she cannot afford to sleep

The problem that we are trying to solve is
1) keep the driver awake
2) let the vehicle control itself

From the detailed analysis that you have done, i have uncovered a few biases and assumptions. Quoting from your answer

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply? (TRIZ never teaches you to apply constraints during problem definition or solution stage)

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary (the driver can be a resource that uses the solution, like an alarm clock),
also the problem is from the society (the problem should not be seen from such a broad perspective as "society").... then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work(why not???? if pollution control and speed control can be implemented why not solution in this manner, this is a clear bias), What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting (think about implementation costs here, it is easier to implement solutions on vehicle rather than on roads, also the roads are not of similar quality all over and many places don't even have good roads)

Let me elaborate a little about perspectives and how it screws up TRIZ methodology.
Perspectives are good way to put constraints on the solution. But they are very BAD when used in problem definition stage. Using different perspective we can always narrow down the solutions we have generated, therefore perspectives must be used after solutions are generated. A problem can always be solved from multiple perspectives, solving is not the problem, implementation is the issue. Therefore perspectives come into picture once we think of implementation.

Do not bias yourself with perspectives during the problem definition stage.


Shree P hadnis said:

Hi all,
I would like to look at this problem completely diffrent. As it was stated "Prevent a driver from sleeping while on long drives".Lets us answer some questons and reflect on our answers.
1. What is the purpose of the problem?
The main purpose is that if the driver sleeps then there is a chance that he might create an accident and there can be damage to self, truck of self, others or societal damage.
2. What core question does it answer?
The problem in its current stated form answers teh question that if a driver is awake the likely hood of accidents will be lesser?
3. What information data and facts are used in stating the probelm?
Apparantely we dont seem to have adequate information on % accidents in day V/s Night, V/s twilight etc and is currently based on an assumption that if the driver sleeps it implies that an accident might occur
4. What assumptions were made in the stated problem/
One major assumption was that a person was asleep and that causes accidents, the second assumption made was long drives, we do not have information on the fact whether the accidents on long drives are more or less.
5. What is the conclusion or inference of the stated problem?
If the person is not made to sleep then there is a chance that the accidents specially on the long drives will be reduced
6. What is the implication ?
The implication is lesser accidents and benefits to the society primariliy
7. What concepts and theories were used in arriving at the stated problem?
No apparent concepts or theories seem to be applied other than the fact that when control of the vehicle is lost due to loss in alertness of the driver there is likelyhood of accident and loss to the society.
8. The probelm is stated from whose point of veiw?
The problem seems to be stated from the point of view of the society so that societal losses are minimized.

Revisiting the answers above then indicate that the problem is the loss to the society due to loss of control of the vehicle due to an not alert driver.

One of the most important questions that TRIZ demands from a practictioner is How can I organize my knowledge to narrow the area of analysis what constraints should I apply?

So given the situation analysis above If we try to develop any solution that uses the driver as the resource is useless, as it is not controllable given that every man will vary, also the problem is from the society hence we should rule it out, then the next key solution can be from the perpective of automobile manufacturing who can develop methods to ensure that even if the driver dozes off an accident will not occur, but this solution will come in only future vehicles and from the perpective of the society ( which will be the RTO) this solution is no good as we cannot implement this on all vehicles and mandating any such technological elements on the old vehicles will not work, What is it that the society ( RTO, Goverment) can control is only the roads, traffic light,Road lighting
Of which signals and roadligting will also be minimal on long drives and remote places thus sliminating them too

So in view of the analsysis and the constraints that we have applied the problem can now be stated as

How to use Roads to ensure that a driver wiil not sleep?
eleiminating jargons
How to use surfaces on which things move to ensure that living thing that controls moving object is alert?

Now thinking analogically
Idea: Aeroplanes pilots are alarmed of outside conditions using various alarms, so the thinking about alarms what are human senses, sight, sound, touch, taste,smell
Idea: What makes a living thing alert is danger or Fear, so then how can the surface create such danger or fear?

Pls note i am not doing it complete and only demostrating how TRIZ works

What will be the Most desirable result if we were magicians?
The surface on which moving object moves completely controlls the alertnessof living thing.

What is the barrier?

It is inert
So one of the contradictions is The surface has to be inert so that moving vehicle can move over it and it has to be active so that it controls teh alertness of the living thing

I am not solving completely

So one solution at regular inervals on long stretches the roads have to have a structure such that when tyres move over them they create soundwaves that are known to alert a human ( seperation is space)

Another one can be at regular inetvals on the long stretch intall reflective mirrors so that the truck lights will itself reflect back on the drivers eyes for a flash of a second to keep him alert.

The above steps to be repeated and strong solutions will be developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Valeri Souchkov on November 22, 2009 at 4:59am

Gentlemen,

let me add something to your discussion. First of all, I'd like to note that perception and understanding of TRIZ might differ - even among TRIZ "gurus" since TRIZ is emprical field of study based on heuristics; and in addition, there have been recently a number of different "updates" of TRIZ or its extensions. For instance, axioms mentioned by Shree are not a part of classical TRIZ but parts of OTSM-TRIZ, and certainly those who are not familiar with OTSM might not know about their existence. So let us stick with a classical approach, first of all.

So a little hint: you can have a lot of discussions regarding where a problem can be solved, from what perspective, at what level, but if we want to follow the "Altshuller's way", then we always have to start with formulating and solving a "mini-problem". (See the first part of ARIZ 85). Yes, a mini-problem imposes serious constraints: a problem should be solved exactly at a place where it emerges, and a system must be limited to components involved to a core conflict created by a negative effect. And in our case, the main problem emerges at the eyelids of a driver. When the eyelids are closed, the driver cannot see the road (but the driver can get rest - another part of a contradiction). That's it. The goal of formulating and solving a mini-problem is to obtain a powerful solution with introducing as little changes in the existing system as possible. That's why when we explore resources when we go further with solving a problem, first of all we investigate system resources, and only then cheap or free resources of a supersystem.

Only when the mini-problem cannot be solved, we can move a step higher. Sure, we can try solve the problem by eliminating a driver at all by designing a fully automated car, or whatever else at the level of supersystem - but the main goal of solving problems with TRIZ (especially those which are formulated as negative effects) is to find solutions which will be as close to IFR as possible. Sometimes people even experienced in TRIZ might say, "oh no, in my case it will not work", even without trying. Wrong! It is psychological inertia in action.

Good luck! : )

PS: A contradiction I've given above is only for an example. Often, we need a more thorough analysis of underlying contradictions since there might be several contradictions acting together to create a problem. There is a technique we developed, called RCA+ to explore contributing contradctions. If you are interested, send me your request to valeri (at) xtriz.com and I will send you a PDF with a guide to the technique.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shree Phadnis on November 22, 2009 at 8:04am

Dear Valeri,
Thanks for putting it down in simple terms. BTW I have worked with your RCA+ and have managed to refine it to contain elements of change, conditions and inactions to improve the chain and then added a logic validation check using Exaggeration and inversion. Would communicate that you seperately
Regards
Shree

Valeri Souchkov said:

Gentlemen,

let me add something to your discussion. First of all, I'd like to note that perception and understanding of TRIZ might differ - even among TRIZ "gurus" since TRIZ is emprical field of study based on heuristics; and in addition, there have been recently a number of different "updates" of TRIZ or its extensions. For instance, axioms mentioned by Shree are not a part of classical TRIZ but parts of OTSM-TRIZ, and certainly those who are not familiar with OTSM might not know about their existence. So let us stick with a classical approach, first of all.

So a little hint: you can have a lot of discussions regarding where a problem can be solved, from what perspective, at what level, but if we want to follow the "Altshuller's way", then we always have to start with formulating and solving a "mini-problem". (See the first part of ARIZ 85). Yes, a mini-problem imposes serious constraints: a problem should be solved exactly at a place where it emerges, and a system must be limited to components involved to a core conflict created by a negative effect. And in our case, the main problem emerges at the eyelids of a driver. When the eyelids are closed, the driver cannot see the road (but the driver can get rest - another part of a contradiction). That's it. The goal of formulating and solving a mini-problem is to obtain a powerful solution with introducing as little changes in the existing system as possible. That's why when we explore resources when we go further with solving a problem, first of all we investigate system resources, and only then cheap or free resources of a supersystem.

Only when the mini-problem cannot be solved, we can move a step higher. Sure, we can try solve the problem by eliminating a driver at all by designing a fully automated car, or whatever else at the level of supersystem - but the main goal of solving problems with TRIZ (especially those which are formulated as negative effects) is to find solutions which will be as close to IFR as possible. Sometimes people even experienced in TRIZ might say, "oh no, in my case it will not work", even without trying. Wrong! It is psychological inertia in action.

Good luck! : )

PS: A contradiction I've given above is only for an example. Often, we need a more thorough analysis of underlying contradictions since there might be several contradictions acting together to create a problem. There is a technique we developed, called RCA+ to explore contributing contradctions. If you are interested, send me your request to valeri (at) xtriz.com and I will send you a PDF with a guide to the technique.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anoop Kurup on November 22, 2009 at 9:09am

Thanks Valeri
Your comments clarify a lot of things.

Valeri Souchkov said:

Gentlemen,

let me add something to your discussion. First of all, I'd like to note that perception and understanding of TRIZ might differ - even among TRIZ "gurus" since TRIZ is emprical field of study based on heuristics; and in addition, there have been recently a number of different "updates" of TRIZ or its extensions. For instance, axioms mentioned by Shree are not a part of classical TRIZ but parts of OTSM-TRIZ, and certainly those who are not familiar with OTSM might not know about their existence. So let us stick with a classical approach, first of all.

So a little hint: you can have a lot of discussions regarding where a problem can be solved, from what perspective, at what level, but if we want to follow the "Altshuller's way", then we always have to start with formulating and solving a "mini-problem". (See the first part of ARIZ 85). Yes, a mini-problem imposes serious constraints: a problem should be solved exactly at a place where it emerges, and a system must be limited to components involved to a core conflict created by a negative effect. And in our case, the main problem emerges at the eyelids of a driver. When the eyelids are closed, the driver cannot see the road (but the driver can get rest - another part of a contradiction). That's it. The goal of formulating and solving a mini-problem is to obtain a powerful solution with introducing as little changes in the existing system as possible. That's why when we explore resources when we go further with solving a problem, first of all we investigate system resources, and only then cheap or free resources of a supersystem.

Only when the mini-problem cannot be solved, we can move a step higher. Sure, we can try solve the problem by eliminating a driver at all by designing a fully automated car, or whatever else at the level of supersystem - but the main goal of solving problems with TRIZ (especially those which are formulated as negative effects) is to find solutions which will be as close to IFR as possible. Sometimes people even experienced in TRIZ might say, "oh no, in my case it will not work", even without trying. Wrong! It is psychological inertia in action.

Good luck! : )

PS: A contradiction I've given above is only for an example. Often, we need a more thorough analysis of underlying contradictions since there might be several contradictions acting together to create a problem. There is a technique we developed, called RCA+ to explore contributing contradctions. If you are interested, send me your request to valeri (at) xtriz.com and I will send you a PDF with a guide to the technique.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Raghavendra Kulkarni on November 22, 2009 at 1:26pm

Hi There,

Let me take a small baby step in attempting this by trying to find IFR. I have assumed that the problem is already defined and below is the problem statement I have picked. Please note I am novice in TRIZ and am just commenting(may be right or wrong from TRIZ point of view) on whatever I can think without evaluating the feasibility or reality.

Problem Statement: Vehicle goes out of control when the driver sleeps
IFR : I am considering IFRs from two perspectives : 1)Driver and 2)Vehince

1)IFR from driver's perspective - Driver does not sleep at all
I want to divide this into two categories:
i) Driver as a human being does not get sleep at all for the duration of journey
-Driver has taken medicines which keeps him awake throughout the journey
-Selective set of human beings(as drivers) who can be awake for long hours(Got this by birth itself)
-Driver does something addictive or which he loves to do(apart from driving) which overrides his
sleepiness and and is hence awake(Like listen dialogues of favorite movie, songs of their folk culture or
something which is very close to their heart. This would be unique for every driver and needs to be
identified)
ii) Driver tends to get sleep during the journey but external factors ensures he does not sleep
-He can wear a sensor fitted device using which device will capture signals(of sleepiness) from brain
and trigger an alarm or warning. The same device(system) can send notification to nearest vehicle
office or centralized office who can then get in touch with him/her, have a word or if feasible,someone
from nearest vehicle office visit the vehicle in motion(identified using GPS)
-Similar sensory device can also do self-waking up by vibrating or even massaging if the accelerator &
brake pedal, seat are fitted with massaging device.
-If there is additional person(cleaner, another driver) in the vehicle, he can wake up the driver!

2)IFR from vehicle's perspective
i) Vehicle should take over driving(auto-drive) once driver sleeps
-Once vehicle identifies driver is asleep through device, it should be put in auto-mode, should know the
destination, exact path of road(like where it is uphill, downhill, turn, signal etc) and automatically change.
Basically, a robot driver and vehicle itself should be robot driver
-Once driver is alseep, vehicle can be controlled remotely from centralized or nearest vehicle office
-Vehicle should not allow driver to sleep - Basically, it should keep reminding him of regular intervals of
how far is the destination, how long will it take and anything that is interesting to him(like his past history
of driving, will he break previous record time and stuff like that)
-Vehicle being operated by driver in another vehicle(Once driver in vehicle in question goes asleep, another
vehicle(within range) should capture this and again use remote control mechanism or one vehicle
automatically following another vehice concept(if it is possible). Just on the lighter side, the vehicle whose
driver is asleep can be towed away by another vehicle to it's destination if it's on the way.

I have not considered IFR as a function of time(i.e not yet attempted to consider IFRs in each of the 9 windows, especially the 3 Future ones). I will be out of city for next two days and will follow this only after I am back.

Happy problem solving.
Raghavendra

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page