Triz

Abstract TRIZ is known as one of most fruitful methodologies to excavate creative concepts for technical system improvement. But the bottleneck of ‘classical’ TRIZ is its ambiguity of the process to formulate the problem model from the initial situation. To eliminate this obstacle, after benchmarking valuable analysis tools, the SAIT TRIZ team has developed a simple and strong logic to defineTechnical Contradiction, so called Induced Technical Contradiction, even in very unclear stage of project initiation. This logic has been proved simple and strong enough for R&D researchers themselves to analyze valuable problem model sets and create innovative concepts. This logic is designed to be compatible with conventional DFSS roadmap and could be conducted as the submodule of a comprehensive“Design for Six Sigma” (DFSS) project or the subject of an independent activity. We’ve planned to publish a series of articles about the TRIZ logic. The beginning approach of simple logic of Technical Contradiction formulation is presented in this article.

Why we developed this logic?

Since Altshuller and his colleagues had developed TRIZ, this theory has been recognized at present as the mostsuccessful methodology to create innovative concepts in technical field (TRIZ implementation in non-technical field is out of the scope of this article). That’s why Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT) has introduced TRIZ as one of the main tools for the project stage gate process in 2000. Indeed, the idea, “TRIZ can resolve contradiction”, is so attractive for almost all engineers andexecutive boards that many people have wanted to utilize TRIZ for their own problems. Since 2000, TRIZ consultants (Dr. N. Shpackovsky, Mr. V. Leniachine, and his Korean colleague, Mr. H.J. Kim) have shown excellent performance to resolve many bottleneck problems. Their activity has driven engineers and executive board enthusiasm to learn

1

TRIZ. In 2003, SAIT ex-president Mr. Sohn took thedecision to apply TRIZ for planning “every R&D project”. Figure 1 illustrates the time when researchers used TRIZ in R&D management process flow of SAIT from the ‘R&D project initiation stage’ till the ‘critical decision stage’. This situation has forced us to develop a simple but strong logic to extract problem models from very ambiguous initial situation. Very often, at the beginning stage ofproject initiation, everything is unclear: engineers don’t know who are their customers, what they (customers) want to have, why they want it and so on. Many kinds of marketing tools and scenario based roadmap activity are helpful for us to clarify this situation. These activities enable us to define who will be our customers and how high level of properties should be satisfied. It’s bettersituation comparing with absolutely initial situation. But it is still unclear. We don’t know what system should be analyzed; moreover, we don’t know what kind of contradiction should be overcome.

Figure 1. TRIZ in whole R&D Management Process in SAIT
Almost every TRIZ user knows the method to resolve “existing Contradiction”. But when we initiate project at the very first time, we don’t know whatexact problem we have or we will have. Who knows how we can apply TRIZ for initiation project? Some TRIZ experts might say that evolution trend would be helpful enough to generate probable concepts for next technology. But random application of evolution trend is just

2

one of trial-error-methods modification but nothing else. But we need a relatively simple logic to show us what will be mostvaluable problems to resolve which will guide us to most promising concepts. Some groups (3,4) have tried to clarify the formulating process from initial situation to Technical Contradiction (one of mini-problem) but their primary viewpoint is focused on the just “existing problems“. It differs from our situation. It is necessary for us to find out most valuable problem sets that have worth...