Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Pedagogy in Engineering Education,
Part I
By
Timothy G. Clapp, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
College of Textiles
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
(919) 515-6566
tclapp@tx.ncsu.edu
Michael S. Slocum, Ph.D.*
Principal and Chief Scientist, The Inventioneering Company
2820 Drake Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 641-0677
slocum1946@aol.com
(* Adjunct Assistant Professor
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695)
The tasks of the educator are of supreme importance as the next generation of engineers
relies on the training and skills imparted to equip them for the challenges in the
ever-changing competitive industrial environment. It is with this in mind that the
integration of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) into existing engineering
curriculums was considered. TRIZ problem solving methods are especially suited for
rapidly, identifying innovative solutions that are more robust and more economical than
conventional problem solving methods [1][2][3[4].
Since the introduction of TRIZ methods in the United States in 1991, only limited
efforts have been undertaken to introduce TRIZ into the engineering academic curriculums
[5][6]. The authors sought to develop a system for incorporating TRIZ into the Textile
Engineering curriculum at NC State University in the Fall of 1998 [7].
This paper addresses the first phase of the systematic integration of TRIZ into the
Textile Engineering curriculum in a senior-level engineering design capstone course. An
existing senior design class was selected by the authors to eliminate potential problems
of adding a separate course, which would add additional credit hours to an already crowded
curriculum. Most importantly, the integration enables the student to understand the proper
perspective of this methodology in respect to other traditional engineering methods. TRIZ
and the perception of it as a panacea is avoided and the coordination of the methodology
with value engineering, robust design, Pugh concept selection, failure mode effects
analysis, etc.,
, is clearly defined. Problems from industry assigned to teams of
students provided scenarios for the application of the methodology as it was taught. The
theorys place in the concept generation phase as well as the problem resolution
phase is obviated. Exercises that require the integration of the theory into existing
design practices reduce the theory to practice and reinforce the power of the methodology.
We have found these interrelations to be critical to the success of the introduction of
the theory. The integration is indicated by the curriculum outlined in Table 1.0.
Table 1.0, Outline of Senior Design Curriculum
1 |
Syllabus, Pre-evaluation |
| |
Introduction to Engineering Design |
| |
Information Gathering (Library,
Internet) |
| 2 |
Industrial Problems Presented |
| |
Structure of the Design Process |
| |
Team Fundamentals |
3 |
Understanding the Problem: QFD |
| |
Understanding the Problem: Process
Flow Chart |
| |
Forming the Entrepreneurial Company |
4 |
Defining the Technical Problem |
| |
Team Training Exercises |
5 |
History of Innovation,
Introduction to TRIZ |
| |
TRIZ Continued |
| |
Team TRIZ exercises |
6 |
TRIZ Software: Problem Analysis
Module |
| |
Ideal Solution Generation
(Principle of Ideality) |
| |
Team Idea Generation (Brainstorming) |
7 |
TRIZ Software: Generating
Solutions |
| |
Evaluating Alternatives (Pugh
Analysis) |
| |
Team Performance Checks |
8 |
Proposal Preparation |
| |
Oral/Written Communication in
Industry |
| |
Proposal Preparation |
9 |
Team Presentation Preparation |
| |
Formal Presentation |
10 |
Design Lecture-Detailed Designs |
| |
Presentation feedback |
| |
Anticipatory Failure
Determination (AFD) |
| |
Application of AFD to Team Projects |
| |
Industrial Feedback |
12 |
Business Ethics |
| |
Team Progress Review |
| |
Sensor Technologies |
13 |
Team Progress Review |
| |
Relay Ladder Logic, PLCs, |
| |
Special Individual Project (SIP) |
14 |
SIP Lab Activity |
| |
SIP DUE, Team Activity Report Due |
15 |
Design report/presentation Preparation |
| |
Design report/presentation Preparation |
16 |
Design report/presentation Preparation |
17 |
Exam Week-Presentation |
The curriculum in Table 1.0 reflects the material that will be covered during the first
half of the design engineering course. The lectures given and their respective durations
are listed in Table 2.0.
Table 2.0, Lecture Outline
| Lecture |
Sub-lecture(s) |
Duration |
Applicability |
| Introduction and Overview |
History of Innovation Psychological Inertia
Ideality
40 Principles |
2 hours |
used these principles in senior project |
| Contradiction Matrix Theory |
Physical contradiction (PC) Technical contradiction (TC)
TC-to-PC conversion
Separation principles (SP)
40 Principles and reversibility
39 Parameters
Contradiction matrix |
2 hours |
used this theory to formulate problems associated with senior design
project |
| Function Analysis |
Function analysis Su-Field introduction |
2 hours |
performed function analysis using TOPE 3.0 of senior design project |
| Introduction to Directed Evolution |
S-curve Trends of Evolution
Maturity mapping |
2 hours |
|
| Review of previous 4 lectures |
|
2 hours |
|
| Anticipatory Failure Determination |
Failure Analysis Failure Prediction |
2 hours |
performed AFD on existing designs of senior project to eliminate and
mitigate failure modes |
The lectures were supplemented by assigning tasks designed to reinforce material
presented in a format that was directly related to the engineering projects assigned the
class. This series of lectures will be augmented by several additional series to complete
the presentation of the basic body of TRIZ knowledge. The use of the theory will also be
expanded from the concept development stage (the primary goal of the first half of the
course) to the reduction to practice stage. Many insights are expected during this
transition from theoretical application to experimental activity.
The reactions of the class were positive in the following senses: 1) questions were
asked to elucidate portions of the theory that needed further elaboration, 2) many
technical contradictions and physical contradictions were presented that were applicable
to assigned design projects and discussions concerning proper framing were very active
(real-world concerns were addressed), 3) the function analysis lecture was followed by the
creation of a function model as a team (the synergy of the team coupled with the
complications associated with function diagram creation were ideal for a thorough
understanding of the processes involved), and 4) many side-bars were experienced after
lecture completion for students who evidenced advanced curiosity. We consider these
activities to be indicators of successful delivery. Table 3.0 indicates the performance
increases in solution generation realized post lecture delivery. Table 4.0 indicates team
performance on their senior projects in the areas of component reduction, cost reduction,
number of solutions generated, and potential patents.
Table 3.0, Individual Student Survey
question |
percent |
solution increase using TRIZ |
30 |
solutions more innovative |
>70 |
TRIZ will be used in other fields by student |
>85 |
TRIZ relevant to project |
>85 |
used Ideal Final Result to improve design |
>60 |
Table 4.0, Team Project Performance
| |
Component reduction |
Cost reduction |
Solutions generated |
potential patents |
| Group I, 6 students |
35% |
40% |
37 |
1 |
| Group II, 6 students |
35% |
44% |
13 |
2 |
| Group III, 7 students |
40% |
11% |
21 |
1 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Average |
37% |
32% |
24 |
1.33 |
In conclusion, Tables 3.0 and 4.0 reflect several important issues: student acceptance,
student application (increase in number of innovative solutions, project component
reduction, project cost reduction, and potential patents), and realization of relevancy. A
number of the students have expressed interest in taking a course dedicated to TRIZ. Phase
II of this project is comprised of detailed design of their respective (Groups I-III)
projects. The usage of Anticipatory Failure Determination (failure prediction) will be
presented in the next report. The detailed design activity will reveal additional problems
that will be addressed using the material presented to date. These secondary problems will
be reported on as well.
REFERENCES
[1] Altshuller, G.S., Creativity as an Exact Science, Gordon & Breach Science
Publishing House, 1984, New York
[2] Kamm, L.J., Real-World Engineering, IEEE Press, 1991, Piscataway, NY
[3] Terninko, J., Zusman, A., Zlotin, B., Systematic Innovation, St. Lucie Press, 1998,
Boca Raton, FL
[4] Terninko, J., Zusman, A., Zlotin, B., Step-by-Step TRIZ: Creating Innovative
Solution Concepts, Responsible Management Inc., 1996, Nottingham, NH
[5] Rivin, E., "Use of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) in Design
Curriculum," Innovations in Engineering Education, 1996 ABET Annual Meeting
Proceedings, pp.161-164
[6] Fey, V., Rivin, E., Vertkin, I., "Application of the Theory of Inventive
Problem Solving to Design and Manufacturing Systems", Annals of the CIRP, 1994,
volume 43/1, pp. 107-110
[7] Clapp, T., "Integrating TRIZ-Based Methods into the Engineering
Curriculum," 1998 IMC Users Group Conference Proceedings