(The first in a series of three articles describing ASIT and
its uses)
Dr. Roni Horowitz
start2think.com
10 Dov Friedman Street, Ramat Gan
Israel.
Email: Roni.Horowitz@start2think.com
Web site: www.start2think.com
ASIT (Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking) is a creative thinking method
derived from TRIZ. This article describes the four main steps that transformed
TRIZ into ASIT.
The motivation to develop ASIT arose while I was learning TRIZ and started
using it and teaching the method myself. Though I recognized very early the
effectiveness of TRIZ, I also noticed some flaws that I thought could be
adjusted.
My acquaintance with TRIZ started in 1988 when I saw an advertisement in an
Engineering magazine: “40 hour Inventive Thinking course”. I was intrigued.
“If someone can fill 40 hours teaching me how to invent, then there must be
something in it”. I signed up without a moment's hesitation.
After the second lesson I already knew that I had found what I wanted to
spend my life doing. The instructor was Ginadi Filkovsky who had studied with
Genrich Altschuller <http://www.sitsite.com/method/triz.html>, the
originator of the method. From the very first moment, I felt that Ginadi
expressed with clarity and accuracy ideas that had been bouncing about in my own
head for some time, but that I was unable to trap and transform into
communicable knowledge.
Despite my enthusiasm for the method, I remained disturbed by a particular
phenomenon related to it and to the way it was being taught. Before I elaborate,
let me tell you about one of my experiences in the course. In one of the
lessons, we were given the following problem to take home (a TRIZ classic):
metal balls are moving rapidly through a pipe with a bend in it. At the point
where the pipe bends, the balls hit the “walls” of the pipe, scraping
against them and causing damage. The problem we had to solve was how to prevent
this from happening. At home I immediately began trying to approach the problem
according to the method we had been learning.
“It works!” I exclaimed when I arrived at the following solution: Pour
oil into the pipe and cool the pipe at the point where it bends. A thin layer of
the oil will freeze at the bend, thus protecting the pipe. I volunteered to
present my solution on the board at the next lesson, and waited in anticipation
for Ginadi's response.
“Very nice,” he said, “but now let me show you a more elegant solution”.
I could hardly believe my ears - a more elegant solution?
Ginadi presented a solution in which the metal balls themselves, rather than
the oil, could protect the pipe. Creating a niche at the point where the pipe
bends can do this. What happens is that the balls accumulate in the niche and
thus shield the inner wall of the pipe. In fact, what holds the metal balls
inside the niche are actually the metal balls themselves. As they move through
the pipe, they hit the bend and keep the other balls in the niche.
I had to agree that this was truly an elegant solution, but as was the case
many times before, I was left with a problem: I believed in the method, but
failed to understand why we all too often failed to come up with the “text
book solution”.
Step one: From ‘Ideal Final Result’ to the ‘Closed World’ condition
This continued to puzzle me for many years until I finally thought of an
idea, which, as is typical of such cases, turned out to be amazingly simple. One
day I decided to review my collection of inventive solutions (which had greatly
expanded since Ginadi's teaching), seeking new insight. It was then that I
noticed something that almost all the solutions had in common (and most
definitely the most elegant ones!): not one single solution involved the
addition of a new type of component into the problem world.
I continue to examine this new finding, and I did not come across an
exception to this rule. This principle was added to the method, and came to be
known as the “Closed World condition <http://www.sitsite.com/method/inpages/frame_solving_articles.html>”.
Had I been aware of this condition while working on the pipe problem, I would
probably have arrived, along with many others, at Ginadi's solution. (The Closed
World condition would simply not allow me to add oil, as it is a new type of
object).
TRIZ also favors using existing resources for solving a problem. But in
contrast to ASIT, this principle is scattered around the method. It can be found
in the principle of Ideal Final Result (“the best system is when there is no
system” - Altshuller), and in some of the forty principles (e.g. Principle 25
- Self-service calls for using an existing object to work on itself
instead of bringing in a new one).
The difference between TRIZ and ASIT in this respect is that in ASIT the
Closed World condition is THE most important principle. In fact, the first step
in using ASIT is to define the problem world. Once
defined, the problem solver knows that all the building blocks for the solution
are right there in front of him and that the solution simply requires the
reorganization of the existing objects. This adds great focus and power to the
method. It also turns every real problem into an amusing puzzle.
Step two: From ‘Resolving Contradictions’ to ‘achieving Qualitative
Change’
The Closed World condition deals with the resemblance between the problem
world and the solution world. It is thus obvious that we need another principle,
one that will establish the difference between the two worlds. The idea of
resolving contradictions was a good starting point.
Altshuller’s greatest contribution to the science of invention was, in my
opinion, the idea that inventive solutions overcome contradictions (whereas
routine solutions rely on compromise). Going back to the example of the pipe and
metal balls, we can analyze the contradiction as follows: Increasing the
velocity of the balls improves the system’s throughput but also increases the
wear and tear of the system.
From the way TRIZ defines a contradiction it is easy to identify one, but
TRIZ does not clarify what “resolving a contradiction” means. I have,
indeed, seen many TRIZ examples in which the contradiction was very well
defined, but the solution did not really seem to overcome it. For example,
suppose we use a pipe made of a much harder material, does it overcome the
contradiction? A clear indication of what it means to resolve a contradiction is
important, because otherwise, instead of using TRIZ to find new ideas,
people will use it to justify their old ideas (I’m sure that many TRIZ
instructors know exactly what I mean here…)
In my search for a clear criterion, I once again carefully explored a large
collection of inventive solutions and discovered something interesting: In real
inventive solutions there is a change in the system’s response to the main
problem factor (the main problem factor is a variable determining the intensity
of the problem; for example, the velocity of the balls is the main
problem factor in the pipe problem). Before the problem is solved, the main
problem factor is directly related to the intensity of the undesired effects.
After the solution has been found, the main factor either has no influence or
its influence is reversed (so that this factor actually improves the situation).
The outcome is a robust design insensitive to the value of the main problem
factor.
For example, as regards the case study of the metal balls, in the problem the
damage to the pipe increases with the velocity of the balls. In the solution
(since there is no direct contact between that balls and pipe) the damage to the
pipe ceases to be related to the balls’ velocity at all. (See figure 1).
Figure 1: How the system’s response to the velocity of the
balls changed.
This finding was generalized to become ASIT’s Qualitative Change principle,
which is defined as follows: Look for solutions in which the influence of the
main problem factor is either totally eliminated or even reversed.
This is a good criterion since it is very easy to test whether a specific
solution satisfies it or not.
Step three: From the 40 principles to ASIT’s five idea-provoking tools
Up until this point we’ve seen ASIT’s two rules, the Closed World rule
and the Qualitative Change rule. These rules are very effective in weeding out
old ideas but we still need a mechanism to create new ones. More specifically,
we need tools to help us identify hidden opportunities within the closed world.
The place to look for these tools is, of course, in TRIZ’s 40 principles.
These 40 principles are TRIZ’s main operational tools for developing ideas.
There are, however, some obvious drawbacks to this approach:
- The principles do not operate on a uniform abstract level
: Some of the
principles are very general (e.g. Principle 17 - Another Dimension) and others
are very problem-specific (e.g. Principle 18 - Mechanical Vibration, and
Principle 29 - Pneumatics and Hydraulics).
The frequency of use is not uniform: Some of the principles are used
very often (e.g. Principle 17 - Another Dimension) and some are rarely used
(e.g. Principle 7 - the Nested Doll).
There are too many principles: Since 40 principles are difficult for the
problem solver to follow (because there are simply too many of them) TRIZ
organizes the 40 principles in a ‘contradiction matrix’. Each type of
contradiction, identified by the physical variables involved, is matched with a
small set of principles. The problem with this (sometimes very powerful)
approach is that:
- It is time consuming to identify the variables (leading to frustration
when a solution is not attained)
- The variables are very much tied up with engineering problems (while
TRIZ is powerful enough to be a universal problem solving method)
- Training requires repetitive exercises (e.g. solving 10 problems for
each principle) which cannot be practically accomplished with 40
principles.
To resolve the issues above, TRIZ’s 40 principles were reduced to ASIT’s
five idea-provoking tools by: eliminating principles that are too
problem-specific; eliminating principles that are not used very often; grouping
similar principles together.
The result was the identification of the following five idea-provoking tools:
- Unification
: Solve a problem by assigning a new use to an existing
component (the pipe and metal balls problem is solved by Unification - the
balls are put to a news use, i.e. protecting the pipe).
Multiplication: Solve a problem by introducing a slightly modified copy
of an existing object into the current system.
Division: Solve a problem by
dividing an object and reorganizing it parts.
Breaking Symmetry: Solve a problem by turning a symmetrical situation
into an asymmetrical one.
Object Removal: Solve a problem by removing an object from the system
and assigning its action to another existing object.
Here are a few examples of how ASIT techniques were formed from the 40
principles:
- Principle 3 - Local Quality (e.g. Change an object's structure from
uniform to non-uniform), Principal 4 - Asymmetry, and
Principle 17 - Another Dimension, were grouped together under
ASIT’s Breaking Symmetry technique.
- Principle 15 - Dynamics is achieved under ASIT’s Division
and Breaking Symmetry techniques.
- Principle 6 - Universality (e.g. Make a part or object perform
multiple functions; eliminate the need for other parts) is achieved by using
ASIT’s Object Removal and Unification applied one after the
other.
- Principle 7 - Nested Doll, and Principle 8 - Antiweight,
Principle14 - Spheroidality: Curvature eliminated due to it
being too specific.
One interesting aspect of ASIT’s five idea-provoking tools is that each can
be related to a specific mental block. For example the Unification technique
helps overcome Functional Fixedness while the Division Technique help us deal
with Structural Fixedness.
Note: The next article in this series will supply detailed examples for the
use of the five tools.
Step four: Eliminating other TRIZ elements
In addition to the contradiction matrix, the 40 principles and the ideal
final results were transformed into ASIT’s two rules (Closed World and
Qualitative Change) and five tools (Unification, Multiplication, Division,
Breaking Symmetry and Object Removal). In TRIZ there are many elements that were
excluded from ASIT’s framework.
Here is a list of some of them and an explanation for why they were excluded:
Standard solutions and physical effects
One of TRIZ’s tools is a collection of ready-made, highly domain-specific
standard solutions and physical effects. This collection represents invaluable
knowledge and can definitely assist an engineer in trying to solve tough
problems. Moreover, a collection of knowledge units such as standards and
effects lends itself easily to computerization, and in fact some products do
already exist (see for example www.cobrain.com). To keep ASIT as a pure thinking
(as opposed to knowledge) tool these elements were eliminated.
Evolution of systems
This TRIZ tool is used to make forecasts as to the future development of an
existing product. One of the uses for this capability is to invent new products.
ASIT can also be used for the same purpose.The third article in this series will
report, in detail, on how ASIT can be used to invent new products.
The little man method
The “little man” is a TRIZ tool that is used to model ideas on an
abstract level. Although it is certainly a powerful approach it is, once again,
a specific approach useful mainly for problems in the physical world in which
geometry plays an important role.
Summary
I tried to depict in this article the main steps that transformed TRIZ to
ASIT. The move was motivated from the desire to create a method that will be
easier to learn and retain (achieved through a smaller number of rules and
tools), more universal in application (achieved through elimination of
engineering-specific tools) and tighter in keeping the problem solver within a
real inventive framework (the closed world principle does the job here).
ASIT should be viewed more as complementing TRIZ than a replacement. Some people
would find it easier to start their problem solving experience through ASIT and
then move to TRIZ especially if they are more into mechanical type problems.
Other people may start with TRIZ then decide ASIT is more suitable for them.
Next month I will bring some examples and case studies demonstrating the
application of ASIT’s five idea provoking techniques.
(move to references)
Editor’s note: To see a review of Dr. Horowitz’s on-line ASIT training
class, See the July 2001 issue of the TRIZ Journal. To take the on-line ASIT
training class, http://hop.clickbank.net/?ellendomb/star2think
References
- Altshuller, G. S., 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation,
Translated by Lev Shulyak, Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MA. 1998
- Horowitz R., Maimon O., “Sufficient Conditions for Design
Inventions" IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics, part C, Ahugust 99.
- Horowitz R., Maimon O., “Creative Design Methodology and the Sit Method”,
Proceedings of DETC’97: 1997 ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conference, Sacramento, 1997.
Horowitz, R. http://www.start2think.com
About the Author:
Dr. Roni Horowitz has been working on ASIT development in the past 12 years.
Roni got his Ph.D. form the Engineering Faculty of Tel Aviv University in the
field of creative problem solving and design; B.Sc. in Aeronautical Engineering
(the Technion, Haifa), and M.Sc. in Industrial Engineering (Tel-Aviv
University). Roni has extensive experience in conducting inventive thinking
workshops and full credited academic courses in Israel and worldwide.
