TRIZ for problem solving

Comment

Comment by Bala Ramadurai on August 28, 2009 at 1:55pm

Hmmm.. Well, divergence and convergence steps of the idea->innovation process are contradictory, but separated by time.

We want to be open and accept wild ideas, at the same time we want idea generator to think about practicality and constraint their thinking.

If we force them together at the same time, you get a contradiction and we should be able to squeeze out a brilliant solution.

Now, this is a physical contradiction separated in time, so 9, 10, 11, 15 and 34 can be applied.

preliminary anti-action: IFR or assume that the project is done, product is manufactured and work from there.
preliminary action:
in-advance "cushioning":
dynamics:
discarding and recovering:

any ideas?

Comment by Prakasan K on August 28, 2009 at 11:47am

Shankar, Bala,

You guys are keeping this thread really interesting. Reading your comments, I'm thinking changing the problem, such as "How can we make people giving creative ideas that are only implementable?" Can TRIZ help?

Shankar's view on using IFR may be an excellent way to achieve this; if we could look at the IFR on an ideation session, and work backwards, you will hit the "Resource" thinking. As Bala said, if I'm the idea generator, I, could think about the resources both known and unknown, I'm not only giving ideas, but also how to make use of the resources to implement the ideas. Another aspect here is to make them also think about the value of that idea. This is where a 9-Windows could work on that idea. Drawing a 9-Windows for the idea as the system-present, you as an idea generator may be hitting the spot you will realize the value idea yourself.

To summarize my point, an idea generator should go through the following steps, consciously or subconsciously and look at the implement-ability, and value.

- IFR coupled with resources
- 9-Windows for the ideas

Another dimension of idea generation is by putting constraints. This is not an easy task by the way. Even before you start the idea generation facilitation, you could draw a 9-Windows on constraints. Now that you have defined a "barbed-wire" fence, you are forced to create ideas that are within the constraints, and most of the ideas here are implementable and valuable.

One very natural push back from a facilitator for this is, if we restrict people think about the implement-ability (Even I used to say this), then the creativity can not flow easily. The solution could be, how can we make them creatively think about the implement-ability..?

Comment by Shankar MV on August 28, 2009 at 11:01am

Bala, i agree that the real catch is in the implementation of the Idea - who will bell the cat = who will implement the IFR.

A practical approach is to start with the first level IFR and then sowly move towards the higher level IFRs. The 3 levels of IFR - the first level allows you to introduce one extra element , the second asks you to manage with existing resources and the third one challenges you to convert the zone of conflict itself into solution.

If you look at the age old problem - how to clean, from inside, the exterior of the glass windows of tall buildings - an idea at IFR1 is to use two wipes one on the inside and the other outside - but these two are magnetically coupled - whever you move the inside wiper, the external wiper also moves. An idea at IFR2 is to use a movable split window moving on two parallel rails - each window frame cleans teh otehr as tehy move across each other. The IFR 3 Idae is the self-cleaning window - where photoactive nano TiO2 gets excited by sunlight & splits the dirt particle that get washed away easily. Interestingly all three are readily available products.

The CREAX link (http://www.creax.net/) that i sent you recently is very helpful - it gives info on physical phenomena & recent innovations that you can exploit to implement your idea. You can also subscribe to their email alert to learn about more recent innovations - http://www.moreinspiration.com/Search.aspx.

Comment by Bala Ramadurai on August 28, 2009 at 8:14am

this is a good thread!!! people love giving out ideas, particularly when the idea is for others to act on. "Why dont you close the door?" "Why dont you put a sensor there?" "They should put more policeman to prevent traffic jams".

so, my point is can we get the idea generator herself to consider the implementation details. "will you do it without any resources or recognition?"rather than just trust and thrust the experts with the tough job of selecting ideas. I know this sounds like pushing the buck back on the idea generator.

Comment by Shankar MV on August 27, 2009 at 10:44am

Prakash, great Idea - lets do an IFR on Return on Innovation

IFR of an Ideation exercse is an Idea that becomes an Innovation

What is stopping us - when the Idea is new, it is difficult to assess its real potential & judge whether it will lead to Innovation or not

Why is it stopping - If we get 100 Ieas at the end of Ideaton session and we have resources to support only 10 Ideas - how do we select the top ten Ideas?- how do we make sure that we dont miss out any of the potentially good ideas? We are stuck with a situation where many people have given us ideas and we have not acted on them. This can discourage folks from contributing to future Ideation sessions.

I am looking at using the TRIZ 5 levels of invention to systematically classify all the Ideas. The feedback, to the person who has given the idea, should tell (a) first what is good about the Idea and (b) then identify what has to be done further for the Idea to become an Innovation.

Comment by Prakasan K on August 27, 2009 at 8:17am

Shankar, you have posted this a while ago, but I'm actually thinking about this as a "problem" now after a similar thought struck me.
The number of ideas to innovation ratio is challenging for certain industries, and it makes all the more sense to look at the effort spent on innovation - ideas to money-

Now considering this problem, can we use Ideal Final Result technique?
- What is the IFR of an ideation session itself?
- What is stopping us to achieve that IFR in an ideation session?
- Why is it stopping?

Perhaps we can take this problem and further work upon using IFR and few other techniques.

Comment by Shankar MV on August 18, 2009 at 5:27pm

The fundamental problem that i am working on is the poor conversion of technical Ideas / Inventions into Technology Innovation. Typical statistics looks like this - If we start with a well-defined problem (!), for every 100 "reasonably good" Ideas generated (through conventional brainstorming techniques), 10 are patentable and one enables an Innovative product or solution.

I introduce trigger questions based on TRIZ Inventive principles in brainstorming sessions and find that very effective in generating fresh "out of the box" ideas (even if the participants are relatively new to TRIZ).