This article is a modified
and expanded version of a paper presented under the title ‘Systematic Innovation
for Business Leaders’ at TRIZCON2000.
Darrell Mann
Industrial
Fellow, Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of
Bath
Bath, BA2 7AY,
UK
Phone: +44 (1225) 826465
Fax: +44 (1225) 826928
E-mail: D.L.Mann@bath.ac.uk
INTRODUCTION
Although initially conceived as a systematic creativity and innovation
methodology for engineers and scientists, TRIZ has recently been recognised as
having much to offer the non-technical, business and management communities.
Indeed, the term ‘systematic innovation’ has as much to do with the improvement
in business processes and services as it ever has to the conception of new
products.
Accepting that the aim of any innovation is to increase ‘value’ to the
receiver, Joe Pine in his book ‘The Experience Economy (1), defined four
elements through which businesses are able to create value. These four elements
are:-
1)
Origination
– generating value from the new
2)
Execution
– generating value from the done
3)
Correction
– generating value from something improved
4)
Application
– generating value from something used
This article discusses TRIZ’s applicability
to the solution of management and business problems in the context of these
four elements, and in the context of a global economic climate in which change
is happening at an ever increasing pace (Figure 1), and competition has never
been more fierce.
Figure 1: Two Change Phenomena
Innovation is seen as the principal long-term business success driver.
Systematic innovation is the route by which organisations effectively mange
risk and thus become business leaders.
This article examines the growing role of TRIZ in the non-technical
dimensions of this systematic innovation arena. The article is split into two
main areas; the first examining some of the main technical TRIZ tools and their
analogous application in a non-technical, business and management environment,
and the second examining case study applications of those tools.
TRIZ TOOLS FOR NON-TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS
Although very much founded on technical
foundations, all of the TRIZ tools have something of value to offer the definers
and solvers of non-technical problems. This section of the article will examine
some of the main TRIZ tools, methods and strategies with respect to the
benefits they present in a non-technical problem context. Specifically, the
following will be discussed:-
·
Inventive Principles
·
Contradictions
·
S-Fields
·
Ideality
·
Trends of Evolution
·
Law of System Completeness
·
Multi-Screen Approach
·
Trimming
·
Subversion Analysis
Inventive Principles
Recent work (2) has begun to demonstrate that the 40 Inventive Principles
currently contained in the most popular versions of TRIZ apply in a
non-technical as well as a technical context. More specifically, a
comprehensive search of the finest published management practises has not
revealed any inventive steps which does not somehow fit into the 40 Principle
framework.
That there are currently just 40 Inventive Business Principles, is
considered to be a significant finding, from the perspectives of both
establishing boundaries on business problems, and further confirming the
universality of the TRIZ findings.
Contradictions
The TRIZ concept of Contradictions is often quite unnatural to
occidentals brought up in an environment dominated by ‘trade-off’ and
‘compromise’. Early applications of the Contradictions tools within TRIZ in a
business context – initially looking at the increasingly important ‘Mass
Customization’ market trend (Reference 3), but also other cases – has
demonstrated that for technical contradictions at least, the TRIZ methodology
is only partially successful in driving problem solvers towards good solutions.
As
far as business related Physical Contradictions are concerned – as will be
shown in the later inventory case-study – the existing TRIZ solution strategies
are rather more successful.
For both Technical and Physical Contradictions, however, it has already
been observed in several instances that merely expressing a problem in terms of
a contradiction – as opposed to using traditional problem definition strategies
– is often enough to provide a sufficiently new perspective that good solutions
begin to appear seemingly automatically.
Definition of business-related problems in accordance with TRIZ
Contradictions principles is thus felt to be an extremely powerful problem
solving strategy.
S-Fields
While perhaps not immediately obvious, the substance-field problem
solving tools contained in TRIZ offer powerful analogies in a business context.
One such analogy – relating ‘substances’ to ‘customers’ and ‘suppliers’, and
‘fields’ to ‘communications’ (Figure 2) – appears to fit extremely neatly with
ideas of two substances and a field making a minimum viable system, and many
of the 76 Inventive Standards associated with S-Fields.
Figure 2: ‘Customer-Supplier-Communication’ S-Field Analogy
As
with the substance-field model, all of the terms in the business analogy need
to be utilised in the most generic sense possible. Thus ‘customers’ and
‘suppliers’ can be both internal and external to the organisation, and ‘communication’
refers to any form of interaction between the two ‘substances’. Such a model
certainly passes the test that all three elements must be present if a system
is to be viable. As will be demonstrated later, the model also holds true with
respect to the Inventive Standards, and hence may be seen as a potentially
potent new business innovation tool.
Ideality
The TRIZ concepts of ideality and Ideal Final Result (IFR) are both
directly applicable in the business as well as the originally intended technical
sense. The IFR definition ‘achieve the function without the resource’ has
particular relevance to the likely future evolution of organisation structures.
Trends of Evolution
The evolution trend towards increasing ideality also applies in both
technical and non-technical contexts. As in the technical context, this trend
has a strong influence on many of the other evolutionary trends observed by
TRIZ researchers.
Some of these trends may be seen to possess direct relevance in the non-technical,
business and organisational contexts:-
Figure 3: ‘Substance and Object Segmentation’ Trend
(taken
from TOPE 3.01)
Substance and Object Segmentation – the trend which shows objects transition from the
macro to the micro-scale (Figure 3) applies to business evolution from the
perspectives of both customers (‘mass customization’ again) and organisations
(evolution from ‘blue-collar’ to ‘machinist’ to ‘work team’ to ‘worker’ to
‘person’ for example).
The evolution towards ‘fields’ has relevance in the non-technical
context if the term is considered analogous to ‘emotions’ or ‘feelings’. For
example, thinking of customers, many products are now beginning to be tailored
to be responsive to not just individual customers, but to individual customer moods
– e.g. hotel rooms which allow the occupant to alter the feel of a room through
use of variable colour lights.
Geometric evolution of linear constructions – Figure 4. Another trend with direct
non-technical corollaries.
The trend may be seen to apply in a number of
contexts in connection with both customers and internal organisation and
communication structures – for example the evolution from individual artisans,
to 1D hierarchical organisations to 2D matrix-management structures to the
emerging 3D ‘spherical organisations (Reference 4), to – if ‘time is
interpreted as a fourth dimension – the idea of time-variant organisation
structures.
Figure 4: ‘Geometric Evolution of Linear Constructions’ Trend
Action Co-ordination – a trend with links to various business and
organisational issues, notably, in line with the S-Fields analogy, relating to
communication flows, and interface issues between adjacent parts in a process
flow . The trend is illustrated in Figure 5.
That many current organisational communication and process flows are
still at the ‘uncoordinated’ or ‘partially co-ordinated’ stages in the
evolution path suggests there is still much scope for improvement in these
areas.
Figure 5: ‘Action Co-ordination’ Trend
Mono-Bi-Poly – another trend with direct
applicability in a non-technical system evolution context.
Figure 6: ‘Mono-Bi-Poly’ Trend
The mono-bi-poly trend is
particularly evident in symbiotic marketing applications such as the
integration of film, soundtrack and merchandising in the entertainment
industry, or in a number of multi-media applications.
Collectively, the trends offer much to business developers and managers with
respect to both organisation and business evolution paths but also, used in
their original technical sense, to identify future product, process and service
opportunities. There is much synergy here between TRIZ and, particularly at
the concept definition stage, QFD. Much has been written about the two methodologies
being used in an integrated manner, but little of tangible benefit appears
to have emerged at this time. One area in which the two are beginning to be
used successfully together, however, centres around possible means of overcoming
the usual QFD criticism that the output from the method is degraded by the
inability of most customers to foresee the future evolution possibilities
of a product (no surveyed SLR camera user is going to ask for a digital camera,
for example). The trends of evolution provide powerful means of overcoming
such deficiencies, in that the engineers and marketeers are able to use the
trends to define what the future development possibilities are – in some parlance
‘defining the sales brochure x-years hence’. An outline of the envisaged sequence
of such a process is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Defining The Customer Needs Using QFD and TRIZ
The need for the above process to be iterative can only be speculative
at this point in time. It is difficult to find any organisation willing to
commit the often copious amounts of time demanded by a thorough QFD analysis,
never mind suggesting that there may be a benefit in doing more than one
analysis. The proof will come only through demonstrable success.
Law Of System Completeness
The TRIZ Law of System Completeness states that every technical system
can only be complete if it contains the four elements; engine, transmission, control unit,
and working
unit (Reference 5). In many senses, this model also has
relevance in an organisational context. The Law, in fact, correlates very well
with the organisational study work of Stafford Beer. In Beer’s Viable System Model (Reference 6, 7), there are in fact
shown to be five key elements which must be in place if an organisation is to
be able to operate effectively. The correlation between the TRIZ Law and the
VSM model is illustrated in Table 1.
Comparisons between the two models highlight a number of points of
interest:-
1)
Co-ordination
– the fifth essential test of viability in Beer’s model has no equivalent in
the TRIZ Law. Specifically in the VSM model, the Co-ordination requirement
refers to the means by which the system communicates with other systems and,
more importantly in TRIZ terms, with the super-system. Beer’s justification of
the need for this fifth element as a test of system completeness is
comprehensive in its organisational context. Further work will be required to
establish whether the Co-ordination parameter also has merit in the technical
context. One suspects that, because any technical system has at some point got
to interface with an outside entity, it must have.
Table 1: Comparison of TRIZ and VSM ‘System Completeness’ Laws
2)
The
idea of recursion in systems is an important idea within the VSM philosophy. In
an organisational context the recursion idea means that the model for each
viable system needs to be repeated at different levels in the system hierarchy
(thus also helping to re-enforce the importance of the co-ordination element
acting between the various different viable systems). The recursion idea
appears to offer much to TRIZ thinking with respect to both technical and
non-technical problems.
3)
The
Corollary to the Law of System Completeness within TRIZ – that to make a
technical system controllable, at least one of its components must be
controllable (Reference 5, pp83) – in turn then offers a useful addition to
both application of the law in a non-technical context (effectively saying that
at least one of policy, intelligence and/or implementation must be variable),
and to the Viable System Model.
The TRIZ law is often utilised only implicitly in an engineering context
– if only because it very quickly becomes apparent that a system fails to
function if it does not possess the four necessary elements. The Law -–and it's
VSM equivalent – is usually far less well understood in an organisational
context.
The common ground between TRIZ and VSM, and their combined significance
in the organisational context justifies further investigation in this area.
Multi-Screen Approach
As with its use in its original technical context, the
multi-screen tool (Figure 8) offers a very powerful method of breaking
psychological inertia, and getting problem solvers to think in terms of time
and space.
Figure 8: Multi-Screen Approach
The
idea of thinking in space has several commonalities with the previously
discussed Viable System Model and the concept of recursion at the various
levels in a system hierarchy.
The idea of thinking in time also has particular significance in terms of
organisational structure definition. Very few organisation structures, for
example, appear to be constructed with any view towards future evolution
requirements. This is a phenomenon discussed at length in Reference 8.
Trimming
The concept of Trimming is perhaps one of the most widely used of the
TRIZ tools in the West. The concept of trimming may be seen to apply equally
well in both technical and non-technical applications when combined with due
consideration of functionality issues.
Related trimming techniques such as the ARIZ ‘x-component’ are also
useful from the perspective of breaking psychological inertia in non-technical
problems – e.g. introduction and trimming of the x-person or x-department.
The trend in which system evolution progresses through a period of
expansion (increase in complexity) followed by a period of trimming as the
system matures beyond a certain point in its S-curve (Reference 9) is seen to
also apply in an organisational context, and as such, also therefore offers
important models for management system improvement.
Subversion Analysis
Few if any of the ‘design for reliability’ and ‘robust design’ tools
developed for use in engineering applications has yet found their way into use
in a non-technical context. Of all these tools, the TRIZ-originated subversion
analysis methods appear to offer the most direct and beneficial application in
a business management and organisational environment. Organisational structures
are often shown to be extremely non-robust systems and thus anything which
forces managers and organisational developers to ask questions like ‘how can I
destroy this system?’ in a structured and positive way has got to be seen as a
step forward in terms of building robust working methods.
CASE-STUDIES
Economic Batch Quantity
This example derives from use of the
Theory of Constraints to help eliminate trade-offs (Reference 10). The article
concerns the trade-offs traditionally associated with the calculation of
economic batch quantities (EBQ) in a production manufacture environment. The
problem scenario highlights a conflict between a desire to minimise machine
set-up times and a parallel desire to minimise inventory carrying cost. The
conflict is illustrated in terms of the relationship with EBQ in Figure 9.
As
described in a more comprehensive analysis of the problem (Reference 11), the
parabolic shape of the net cost curve denotes the presence of a physical
contra-diction in which EBQ is required to be both large and small.
Whereas the traditional approach to the EBQ calculation has involved complex
scientific trade-off analysis:-
TRIZ offers a range of solution options which eliminate rather than accept the
trade-off answers.
Figure 9: EBQ Contradiction
As
discussed in the Reference 11 analysis, the TRIZ solution strategies for
eliminating the physical contradiction:-
Separate in Space –
Segmentation (Principle 1) – splitting of batches into different sizes in
different parts of the manufacture operation – for example segmentation into
‘process’ and ‘transfer’ batches.
Separation in Time – Dynamics/
Preliminary Action – active calculation and re-calculation of EBQ according to
prevailing market conditions, time of week, or even time of day.
Satisfying the Contradiction – Strong
Oxidants (Principle 38) (‘Boosted interactions’ in a non-technical sense –
Reference 2) – elimination of ‘batches’ altogether in favour of a much more
active manufacture setup in which successive parts of the line communicate
effectively with each other – in many senses, much in common with the
TOC-founder, Eli Goldratt’s ‘Critical Chain (Reference 12) recommendation.
Alternative Ways –
Transition to Sub-system – Segmentation – operation of split-batches.
Food Manufacture Evolution
Most if not all manufacture operations face a conflict resulting from
the ideality equation in which the desire to increase customer benefit
contradicts with the desire to minimise costs and harms. In many arenas,
because reduced cost is seen by many customers as a ‘benefit’, the conflict is
usually resolved in the direction of reducing costs and harms. This usually
results in large, centralised manufacture operations. Conversely, taking
customer benefits in the mass customization context to mean giving each
individual customer exactly what they want, the ideality conflict is
predominantly solved by having many, distributed manufacture operations –
Figure 10.
Figure 10: Divergent Evolution In Manufacture Operations
The centralised mass-production versus distributed,
flexible manufacture debate is particularly evident in the food industry at the
present time in Europe and the US.
In
relation to the TRIZ observed trend towards ever increasing ideality, and the
IFR, it appears clear that ultimately, the conflict must be resolved in favour
of increased benefits (IFR = achieve the benefits without cost or harm), and,
in turn, therefore, in the direction of small, flexible distributed manufacture
operations. This conclusion fits nicely with the work of Schumacher (Reference
13), albeit being derived from a very different perspective.
Evidence to support the direction comes through the evolution in the
steel industry of distributed mini-mills, and, even more so, in the brewing
industry by the growing popularity of micro-brewery produced beers.
The observed trend from macro- to micro scale also supports the market
direction. Taking into account the evolution from the ‘individual’ to the moods
of the individual suggests even more profound evolution towards local
manufacture set-ups which are flexible enough to cope with a customer who’s
needs change in the space of a day or even hours. This is becoming apparent in
the case of food manufacture, and particularly so in the area of fast products
like burgers (‘how would you like your burger cooked?’), ice-cream and
beverages.
3-Day Car
The Japanese motor industry was the first to recognise the importance of
an effective car delivery supply chain. The time from a customer ordering a car
from a dealer to delivery of the car in the US today is typically 60-90 days, in the EU it is 40-60 days and
in Japan it is 3-21 days. In the UK the delivery statistic masks the additional
problem of a 75% likelihood that a customer will not be able to get the desired
options in the quoted delivery time.
There are two basic routes by which car manufacturers might
improve their order to delivery performance; the first involves a rigorous
functional analysis of an existing system and a subsequent use of trimming
techniques; the second involves a more radical IFR based approach. The trimming
approach is actively being pursued in a number of projects around the world,
including the work summarised in Reference 14.
The IFR approach, on the other hand opens up a similar debate
to the one discussed for food manufacture above. Defining the IFR car delivery
process as ‘delivery of exactly what the customer wants, when they want it’
appears to lead to two very different deployment strategies. The first –
eliminating the dealer totally, and making use of virtual sales and a lean,
flexible, centralised production capability – is currently being operated by
Daewoo too potent effect. The second route involves a considerably greater role
for the dealer, in that much of the individual customer specific options are
installed at the dealership rather than the factory. The ongoing debate centres
around just how far this local production capability should extend.
The issues involved in the ‘3-Day Car’ debate are clearly
complex – particularly so when attempting to take into account the
(multi-screen) time effects associated with ensuring adequate responsiveness to
future market evolution patterns. TRIZ offers much to help quell the complexity
and to help define the ‘right’ problems to solve, but it would be fair to say
that ongoing analyses are also necessitating use of other tools and techniques
(Figure 11) in order to ensure the integrity of the conclusions.
The case for integration of TRIZ with other problem definition and
solving tools and methods is forcibly made by the complex issues associated
with this problem.
Figure 11: Integration of Systematic Innovation Tools
Improving Communications
Achieving effective communications between different parts of an
organisation is a perennial problem. Group 2.2 (‘Evolution of an S-Field
model’) of the 76 Inventive Standards, when interpreted in a non-technical
context, offer a number of useful triggers to help improve such communications.
For example – 2.2.1 - replacement of an
uncontrolled field (word of mouth) with a controlled one (Intranet) is becoming
very common. Similarly, increasing the degree of fragmentation (2.2.2), increasing
dynamisation (2.2.4), shifts from uniform fields with unordered structure to
non-uniform fields with ordered structure (2.2.5) (e.g. virtual brainstorming),
etc have all been used to good effect.
Group 2.3 Standards – Evolution by Co-ordinating Rhythms – have likewise
been seen to be effective, especially in instances where the customer and
supplier making up the S-Field are remotely situated. The idea of matching the
frequency of the field (communication) with the natural frequency of the
customer (Standard 2.3.1) is used in many Just-In-Time supply operations for
example. Similarly matching of the frequencies of customer and supplier (2.3.2)
or performing of actions during intervals (2.3.3) are effective strategies when
customer and supplier are separated by several time zones.
Group 3 Standards – Transitions to
Supersystem and Micro-Level – also contain a number of useful communication
improving triggers when seen in relation to either multi-partner collaborative
activities or different levels of an organisation hierarchy.
Standard 3.1.3 – ‘efficiency of bi- and poly
systems can be increased by increasing the difference between system
components’ was recently used to good effect in a recent, high risk, high value
R&D project in which two parallel running project teams were formed. The
first project team was sized along very traditional project team lines in
accordance with the perceived task size, and contained a traditional balance of
different skill types. The second team, on the other hand, was deliberately and
significantly under-staffed and was assembled along very non-traditional lines
with known ‘maverick’ types. The results from the project demonstrated an
extremely effective (and, incidentally unanticipated) level of two-way idea
transfer between the two teams.
FUTURE WORK
Use of TRIZ in a business and organisational context is still at a
relatively unexplored stage in its evolution. During the course of using and
researching the method, a number of areas requiring further development have
been identified. These include:-
a)
means
to improve the solution of non-technical problems – probably through a new
version of the Contradiction Matrix
b)
means
to improve the problem definition process - through integration with Axiomatic
Design methods (Reference 15) in a non-technical context
c)
means
to improve the problem definition assumption challenge, and problem constraint handling processes –
through integration of TRIZ and the various tools contained within the Theory
of Constraints
d)
means
to improve the solution down-select process – most likely through integration
of TRIZ with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods (Reference 16)
e)
better
integration of TRIZ and VSM methods.
Several of these – including a project to generate a non-technical
Contradiction Matrix – are presently underway at the University of Bath.
CONCLUSIONS
1)
TRIZ
provides a powerful framework from which to systematically define and solve
business, organisational management and human relations type problems.
2)
Most
if not all of the TRIZ tools, methods and strategies originally configured for
use in solving technical problems have direct or analogous application in a
non-technical context.
3)
In
combination with other management problem definition and solving methods, TRIZ
offers already offers a uniquely powerful systematic creativity and innovation
methodology.
4)
A
significant amount of work is still required to develop and deploy the
methodology.
REFERENCES
1)
Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H., ‘The Experience Economy’, Harvard Business School Press,
1999.
2)
Mann, D.L., Domb, E., ’40 Inventive (Business) Principles With Examples’, TRIZ
Journal, September 1999.
3)
Mann, D.L., Domb, E., ‘Business Contradictions: 1) Mass Customization’, TRIZ Journal,
November 1999.
4)
Stephenson.
D., ‘Buckyball Management’, article Network World, Collaboration, March/April
1995.
5)
Salamatov,
Y., ‘TRIZ: The Right Solution At The Right Time’, Insytec BV, The
Netherlands, 1999.
6)
Beer,
S. ‘Diagnosing the System for Organizations’, Wiley, Chichester (1985)
7)
Espejo,
R., Harnden, R., ‘The Viable Systems Model - Interpretations and
Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM’, Wiley, Chichester (1989)
8)
Davis,
S., Davidson, W., ‘20/20 Vision’, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991.
9)
Mann, D.L., ‘Trimming Evolution Patterns For Complex Systems’
TRIZ Journal, February 2000.
10)
Jackson, G.C., Stoltman, J.L., Taylor, A., ‘Moving Beyond Trade-Offs’,
Intnl. Jnl. of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.24, No.1, 1994.
11)
Stratton,
R., Mann, D.L., ‘Physical Contradictions and Evaporating Clouds’, TRIZ Journal,
April 2000.
12)
Goldratt, E., ‘Critical Chain’,
North River Press, 1997.
13)
Schumacher, E.F., ‘Small Is Beautiful
: Economics As If People Mattered’, HarperCollins, 1989.
14)
Mann, D.L., ‘Solving Management Problems
With Invention Machine’, Invention Machine 3rd European User Group
Conference’, Munich, October 1999.
15)
Suh, N.P., ‘The Principles Of Design’, Oxford University Press, 1990.
16)
Mann, D.L., ‘TRIZ Solution Down-Select Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis’, TRIZ
Journal, to be published.
©2000, D.L.Mann, all rights reserved.
