‘Surface Complexity, Deep Simplicity’- Problem Solving, Innovation and

TRIZ

Barry Winkless
Innovation Specialist- Altran Technologies

‘An engineer is a person who possesses…knowledge of mathematics and natural

sciences…and applies this knowledge to the solution of problems’ Eide 2002.1

1. Introduction
The solution of problems is a day to day activity for most engineers, scientists and
technologists. These problems may be simple, or extremely complex, but fundamentally the
solution of problems is at the very core of successful innovation. Innovation, in fact, can be
viewed as the solution of problems- simple, difficult or otherwise. According to CSC (2004) ‘All
significant innovations embody solutions to complex problems’. If, for example, I want to have
a hot cup of coffee to take away, but the coffee cup is burning my hands then a problem
exists. The solution of this problem, whether through the use of a corrugated sleeve or a void
of air, creates a concept innovation, and one could argue a more ‘ideal’ take away coffee.
Throughout the life cycle of any product or process problems are identified and solved,
creating an improved or more ideal system over time until it is superseded by a next
generation system that can deliver substantially greater functional or critical to quality
performance (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Problems over the lifecycle of a product, technology or service

MATURE

A large number of small problems. Increasing effort

and time spent on the problems, diminishing
functional and performance gains.
Next generation system on the horizon.
GROWTH

A number of intermediate problems. The problems

are based around efficiency, optimisation, cost
cutting. Better understanding of the system allows
large jumps in functionality and performance.
Generally low to medium level solution
inventiveness is used
BIRTH

A few big problems. The solution of these problems

is essential to ensure the proper functioning of a
system. Generally high level inventiveness
required.

2. Problem Solving- it isn’t easy.

Problem solving is not, however, a simple thing to do. Of course most engineers can develop
a number of solutions for a particular problem- by using their own inherent technical expertise,
by asking peers, or consulting engineering data (both internal and external information
sources). At best this process is generally carried out in an ad-hoc fashion using traditional
methods such as brainstorming. In many cases engineers fall back on experience. Several
studies have shown however that experience in a given job can actually lead to worse
performance in solving problems (Hecht and Proffitt 1995). Frensch and Stenberg (1985)
have also noted that specialist knowledge can lead to an impairment in the ability of
engineers to incorporate new ways into their thinking.

1
Eide, A.R., Jenison, R.D., Mashaw, L.H., and Northup, L.L. Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002
Davidson and Sternberg (2003) have noted that ‘everyone approaches a problem situation
with a unique knowledge base’. The utilisation of professional terms and specific knowledge
can lead to a psychological inertia where the solution will most likely come from an engineer’s
professional field. In many instances this knowledge ‘cage’ prevents identification of the most
optimal solution, particularly when confronted with difficult or non-routine problems.

Figure 2: The knowledge ‘cage’

So what are the major qualities that engineers should possess in order to become problem
solvers and inventors par excellence? Savransky (2000) cites three:
1. He/She must obtain very high quality solutions with a high level of recognition in a
short time.
2. He/She has to know practically all relevant human knowledge
3. A good problem solver must ‘turn off’ his/her psychological inertia.

Most engineers would fall somewhat short if measured against the criteria set by Savransky,
particularly in relation to knowing all relevant human knowledge! There is an inventive
problem solving methodology, however, that is based on the systematic study of inventions
from all knowledge fields. Its name is TRIZ- the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. It
represents the next competitive advantage for organisations wishing to increase their
innovation potential.

3. TRIZ- the next competitive advantage

Triz was developed by a Russian Engineer, Geinrich Altshuller. Through a systematic
analysis of the patent databases (initial study involved the analysis of 400,000 patents) 2
Altshuller realised that 98% of patented inventions used some already known physical
principle and that the same generic engineering problems and solutions occur again and
again across diverse technological fields. Alsthuller categorised solutions into 5 levels (Figure
3), known as the levels of invention. At each succeeding level, more knowledge from diverse
fields is needed, and more solutions required before an ideal solution can be found.

Figure 3: The five Levels of Invention

Level 1 Conventional solution 32%
Level 2 Small improvements, with company 45%
Level 3 Major Improvement, within industry 18%
Level 4 New innovation using science, outside of industry 4%
Level 5 Major Discovery 1%

3.1 Surface Complexity Deep Simplicity

All technological or scientific inventions at their surface level seem complex- but at their core
lie solution and evolution principles that are common across diverse scientific and engineering
disciplines. This is the essence of TRIZ and the effective utilization of this methodology
requires the transformation of very specific problems into abstract ones. By using this

2
Most recent estimates suggest that over 3 million patents have now been codified using the Triz approach
‘Principles of Solution by Abstraction’ (Kaplan 1996:7) the problem solver can identify
analogous solutions from sectors as diverse as pharmaceutical to agricultural and apply these
solutions to their particular problem (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The abstraction of problems using TRIZ

GENERIC
PROBLEM
SOLUTIONS
ANALOGOU
GENERIC
S
PROBLEM
OLUTIONS

MY MY
PROBLEM SOLUTION

4. TRIZ Foundations and Philosophy

4.1 Ideality- The evolution of systems

TRIZ encourages problem solvers to break out of the traditional ‘start from the current
situation’ type of thinking, and start instead from what is described as the Ideal Final Result
(IFR). The simple definition of IFR is that the solution contains all of the benefits and none of
the costs or ‘harms’ (environmental impact, adverse side-effects, etc). The basic ‘equation’ for
the ideal final result or ideality is:

Ideality = All Useful Effects

All Harmful Effects

The law of ideality states that any system throughout its lifecycle tends to become more
reliable, simple and effective. The ideal system is exactly as it states- it occupies no space,
requires no labour, maintenance and has no weight- it forces the designer to think without
compromise. In essence when a system reaches ideality the mechanism disappears but the
function is performed.

4.2 Functions- The language of Invention

The concepts of functions and functionality are at the very heart of the TRIZ approach. In a
TRIZ based functional analysis the focus is very much on the identification of harmful,
positive and insufficient relationships between system or sub-system parts as a means to
identify contradictions and problems within the system. An example of a simplified Triz
function analysis schema is shown in Figure 5 (Winkless and Mann (2003). Interactions- both
harmful and positive are mapped in order to develop a fully rounded picture of the ‘innovation
space’3.
Figure 5: Simplified Triz Function Analysis schema

3
Winkless, B and Cooney, J (2004) ‘Mapping the Innovation Space One: Novel tools for problem definition in product innovation’ in The Triz Journal, July
2004. Web.
4.3 Contradictions
Royzen (1997)4 states that ‘A situation in problem-solving where improving one parameter of
a system causes deterioration of another is called an engineering contradiction’. Within the
Triz approach any problem must be described by a contradiction generally if there are no
contradictions there are no problems. There are two main types of contradictions

a. Technical contradictions can best be summed up as ‘when something gets better

something else gets worse’. For example, egg packaging gets more robust, but the
weight of packaging increases. Once the problem has been described in terms of a
technical contradiction it is then possible to locate the contradiction solution features
on the Contradiction Matrix, a matrix composed of 39 features, or parameters (Figure
6). This matrix in essence is a collection of optimal solutions gleaned from the patent
databases and one of the basic practical tools of Triz5.
b. Physical contradictions occur when one object requires seemingly conflicting
requirements such as: when pouring hot filling into chocolate candy shells the filling
should be hot to pour fast but it should be cold enough to prevent melting the
chocolate (Domb 1997: 2). In order to solve physical contradiction problems, the
Separation principles are used. Altshuller (1984) highlighted 11 separation solution
methods that can be utilised in order to solve physical contradictions
4.4 Resources- Using what is already there
Within TRIZ, resources and the optimal use of resources by a system or subsystem are seen
as an essential element of the problem solving/innovation process. Savransky (2002:83/84)
highlights 8 groupings of resources:
 Natural Resources
 Time resources
 Space resources
 System resources
 Substance resources
 Energy/field resources
 Information resources
 Functional resources

Discovery and appreciation of such resources reveal opportunities through which the design
of a system may be improved.

5. Conclusion
This article has introduced the foundations and philosophy of TRIZ- the theory of inventive
problem solving. Triz is very quickly becoming an industry standard for ideation, invention and
problem solving and is being used by organisations as diverse as Samsung and P&G. In
essence Triz is a highly integrated suite of tools and methodologies that can enhance and
improve an organisation’s innovation and improvement potential. Triz easily integrates into
Six Sigma, Lean, and Value Engineering programs but is also a highly evolved methodology
in its own right. Organisation’s seeking the next competitive advantage may find what they are
looking for in Triz.

4
Royzen, Z (1997) ‘Solving contradictions in the development of new generation products using Triz’, in Triz Journal, Feb 1997. www.triz-
journal.com/archives/1997/02/b/index.html
5
For a copy of the matrix please contact Barry Winkless, at Altran Technologies Ireland
References:
Davidson, J, E and Sternberg, R, J (2003) The psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press 2003

Domb, E (1997) ‘The ideal final result: Tutorial’, in The Triz Journal, Feb 1997. Web.

Eide, A.R., Jenison, R.D., Mashaw, L.H., and Northup, L.L. Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002

Frensch, P. A. & Sternberg, R. J. (1985) Expertise and Flexibility: the costs of expertise. Manuscript.

Hecht, H and Proffitt, D.R (1995) ‘The price of expertise: Effects of experience on the water-level task’, in Psychological Science 6, 2, 90.95

Kaplan, S (1996) An introduction to Triz: The Russian Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Ideation International 1995.

Kowalick, J (1996) ’17 secrets of an inventive mind’ in The Triz Journal, Nov 1997. Web

Mann, D (2002) Hands On Systematic Innovation. CREAX 2002

Royzen, Z (1997) ‘Solving contradictions in the development of new generation products using Triz’, in The Triz Journal, Feb 1997. Web.

Savransky, S.D (2001) Engineering of Creativity. CRC Press LLC.

Smith, H (2004) ‘What innovation is: How companies develop operating systems for innovation’. A white paper. CSC

Sternberg, R. (1985) (Ed.) Human Abilities: An Information- Processing Approach, New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Winkless, B and Cooney, J (2004) ‘Mapping the Innovation Space One: Novel tools for problem definition in product innovation’ in The Triz Journal, July

2004. Web.

Winkless, B and Mann, D (2002) ‘Changing The Game: Systematic Innovation in Food Engineering Using TRIZ and Function Simulation Tools’, Conference

Proceedings, Foodsim 2002, June 17-18th , Blarney, Ireland

The Altran-Triz Difference

Altran Technologies Ireland, part of the Altran group (16,000 consultants), are currently engaged in the development and improvement of Triz
based methodologies and their integration with innovation and improvement methodologies such as Lean, Value Engineering, DFSS and Six
Sigma. Altran are the only professional Triz provider in Ireland, and the only organisation within the Triz community with methodological experts
in innovation and a diverse range of scientific and technological experts in all fields. Altran Technologies Ireland for the past few years have been
involved in the implementation and execution of a number of Triz related projects.
Currently Altran offer a number of high value Triz related offerings:
Technology Path-finding: Utilisation of Qualitative and Quantitative technology system analysis using Triz Evolution methods and Patent Value
metrics as a means to identify current technology status and future improvement and innovation opportunities.
Creativity+: High value facilitated, intervention sessions using Triz methods, analogy and creativity to solve difficult problems, identify
improvement opportunities, or to change mindsets
Accelerator: Comprehensive three-tier Triz training- Trizbase, Trizsmart, Trizwise, coupled with distance coaching and remote support. Applied
to the specific products, service or technologies of the organisation involved.
www.altrantech.ie 01 676 2300.