Surface Complexity, Deep Simplicity- Problem Solving, Innovation and TRIZ

Barry Winkless Innovation Specialist An engineer is a person who possessesknowledge of mathematics and natural sciencesand 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product or process problems are identified and solved, creating an improved or more ideal system over time until it is superseded by a next generation system that can deliver substantially greater functional or critical to quality performance (Figure 1).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 GROWTH

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. 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 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 isnt 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.

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

BIRTH

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 engineers 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 2 analysis of the patent databases (initial study involved the analysis of 400,000 patents) 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 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Conventional solution Small improvements, with company Major Improvement, within industry New innovation using science, outside of industry Major Discovery 32% 45% 18% 4% 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 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).

Most recent estimates suggest that over 3 million patents have now been codified using the Triz approach