reptilicas

Define TRIZ Explore the "evolutionary development" of the prime system through cross industry benchmarking. Identify any "new technology" resource through technical benchmarking. Enhance the project (MGP)(Multi Generation Plan) and update the project charter with feedback from TRIZ. Identify a conflict to resolve that will clearly benefit the project, business, and customer. Seek new resources from technology developments and other industries. Consider potential resistance to new innovation from key stakeholders. Measure TRIZ Model potential conflicts using "tool-action-object" and extended process/system mapping. Use "nine screens" and MGP for view of the wider picture. Identify potential "trade-off", working from the interaction roofs of the houses of quality. Locate idle of future "resource." Evaluate the potential for improvement and innovation during conceptual and technical design. Identify all the key issues aroun

Define/Measure TRIZ Identify the blocking "trade-off" or "conflict" and encapsulate with in a short "problem statement." Identify any "new technology" and idle "resources" that could help. Model problem using "tool-action-object" if useful. Identify possible conflict between features that is, or will be, detrimental to process improvement or re-design. Optionally investigate possible idle resources and new technology close to hand. Analyze TRIZ Move rapidly to an "inherent contradiction" and state a workable "ideal final result" for the project. Identify the correct problem to solve and the potential gap for improvement. Set up the final framework for the contradiction busing stage. Improve/Control TRIZ Generate "potential solutions" using the "40 inventive principles." Evaluation and refinement iterations as required. Use all available tools to suggest inventive solutions. Evaluate

The power of the Ideal Final Result or Solution (IFR) comes from its use not only to help solve the "contradiction" but also to "facilitate" evaluation and measurement of the degree of success in any "proposed" solution. Using the IFR to "evaluate" solutions can be formal, based on, exact "measurement" for "benefit," "cost and harm", or informal "against" a check list. We can easily "evaluate" potential "solutions" using a "criteria" list, and such lists will be based on "elements" of our IFR. 1. All harmful features have been removed. 2. All beneficial features are retained, and new benefits can be identified. 3. No new harmful aspects have been introduced. 4. The system is no more complex. 5. The solution proposed removed the main contradiction or dilemma. 6. Idle rather than new resources are used. 7. Any other requirement are met. Contradiction become app

Stage zero - scientists make a discovery (solutions at level 4-5) but typically do not recognize its potential for practical use and commerical gain. [The air pump or blower such as bellows for moving air.] Stage one - a "system" does not exist to use the discovery, but technological infrastructure is gradually being "developed" that will eventually support a "new" system. [Manufacture of pumps, valves and motors.] Stage two - a "new" system appears as a result of "solutions" at level 3-4 but "development" remains slow. [Powered air moving machines of a reasonable size to be easily moved about.] Stage three - "society" at large recognizes the "value" and "potential" of the "new" system and "development" becomes rapid with a great number of patents being issued. [Dust removal by first blowing, then by suction, then a great number of vacuuming machines.] Stage four - the &quo

The formula for the measure of ideality is: Ideality = sum of benefits/(sum of cost + sum of harm). This tells us that ideality can be improved by finding or extending the "benefits" of a "system", typically through "design" and "development" of "new" features, which is certainly a great deal of what innovation is about. *The ideal final solution "delivers" all the "benefits" with "zero" cost and "zero" harm.

Resources open gap Acceptable ideal final result Contradiction appears Solutions close gap Now we have a gap opening between the full use of all available resources and the ideal final result, so we can begin to close the gap and form a new ideal final result, where all resources are used to the full. "Resources" are to be found almost anywhere in or around the "object" OR "system" we want to "improve." Analysis of resources, used or idle, can indeed help with solution generation. By system levels "Tools" (machinery) and things generally that act on objects to affect them in some way. "Objects" (materials) that are acted on by tools. "Environmental" items (environment) surrounding the "system" or "tools" and "objects". At the "macro" level,by "combining" parts or "elements" to form a "higher" state. At the "micro" level,

Think of resources they commonly think of "objects" used as primary raw "components," OR such items as machinery and people used as secondary "facilitators" in typically manufacturing processes. TRIZ makes a fundamental change to the concept of the resources in that it requires us to look for "idle" resources that are not (yet) being used. Truly "inventive" solutions not only solved the inherent contradiction, but did so "without using any further "resources." TRIZ takes a step backwards and consider the "system" when looking for resources. Step from a high level view of high inputs to a view where we list all of the X's that affect the process. List out resources that are "not" bring used rather than those that are!

Having reduced the problem down to a singular contradiction on "one" feature with "two" states, our next aim is to push the "two" states to their very extremes. This helps us to see more clearly the contradiction and to begin to challenge it for a solution. Contradiction - inconsistency, an opposition or conflict. Dilemma - a position where each of two alternatives is equally undesirable. Cup is (too) hot - dilemma is cup is hot and cup is cold.

Quality = f(speed) Finding the conflict Problem - burn fingers on cups/too thin no handles. Trade-off - thin too hot/thicker too expensive materials. Contradiction - cup must be cool to touch(temperature) but thin and uniform (structure). Singular contradiction - cup temperature needs to be both hot and cold at the same time.

Driven Trade off zone Gap Driver Degree of conflict Trade-offs become conflicts at the point at which we require both states at the same time. Demonstrates a potential measure for the degree of conflict, where two features or parameters of a system or process diverge, and we require both, we have a conflict. The gap between the two features can be measured either as a separation distance at the extremes, or as a angular degree of divergence.

"Quality" Customer desire Quality Trade off in zone of comfort "Fast" Business Speed desire

One feature gets better another gets worse.

Two linked features that oppose so that as one improves the other worsens.

Either to enhance the benefits, or to reduce or eliminate the cost OR harm of previous and imperfect solutions.

Tools act on objects to change features. Items that can act on something and cause a change. acts on Tool------------------------------Object "acts on" part is actions in the system. Actions are useful and harmful. Straight line for good actions, and dotted, staggered or zigzag lines for bad or harmful actions.

Y = f(x) The process that delivers the final Y of critical interest - any critical X as input to this process can be defined as a function gO of the Y's. X critical = g(Y)

DEFINE MEASURE (customer analysis) ANALYZE (concept design) DESIGN (technical design) VERIFY (implement and control)

DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL

1. Individual or community based - one or more people focused on systematic innovation. 2. System focused - evolution of systems, idle resources and patterns of development show direction. 3. Targets technological evolution - a drive towards the ideal solution to any problem. 4. Moves backwards from ideal solution - perfection is the goal with practicality a good option. 5. Contradiction is all important - past history of technological problem solving to remove the inherent conflict. 6. Drives for any evolutionary improvement over the long term. 7. Technology and discovery driven - creates potential for improving the lot of mankind and business revenue though innovative ideas.

1. Team based - uses cross functional team from the heart of the business to drive projets forward. 2. Process focused - SIPOC and process mapping lead the way. 3. Targets business and customer problems - looks for current pain to both or either business and customer. 4. Moves forward toward six sigma - reduction of customer experienced defects, project by project. 5. Variation is all important - statistical tools and focus to identify, reduce and control process variation. 6. Drives for the necessary improvement in the short term. 7. Market driven - makes more profit through better satisfied customers and more efficient processes. Remove the hidden factory of waste (COPQ).

The TRIZ methodology of inventive problem solving - ARIZ - uses the 'nine screens' tool during the early part of problem forming. PAST PRESENT FUTURE MACRO land based wired cell based micro cell network radio network multiple connection fields SYSTEM fixed voice only mobile telephone mobile headset telephone with multiple and anything functionality else that needs the connection MICRO mechanical sub integrated connectivity on systems electronic a chip components The nine screens tool brings together the strong element

Within any process we see the relationship between the x's as inputs and the y as the output. In "systems" we are interested in a broader picture, and here we see that many processes pass their output as y on to other processes, where these become inputs. In a general case, as shown in the figure below, each input x to any given process will be a function of many output y's from other processes. Indeed, in a tightly bounded system each x is described completely by a function summation of many y's. For our critical process- the main process that delivers the final y of critical interest - any critical x as input to this process can be defined as a function gO of the Y's. X critical = g(Y) Xa-------PROCESS----Ya Xb-------PROCESS----Yb +--PROCESS---- Xc-------PROCESS----Yc Resources Multiple processes in a system

From the opposed to just a process viewpoint.Six Sigma angle it is of great importance that we shift our viewpoint from pure "process" to that of the local or surrounding system, as opposed to just a process viewpoint. This requires moving our focus of attention back slightly to the macro level (combine). SIPOC diagram X-----------------------------------Y INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT RESOURCES Y=f(x) A simple SIPOC diagram (Suppliers of Inputs that go through the "Process," and appear as Output used by Customers) tightly bounded by a system enclosure. SIPOC diagrams help us to understand the process and the critical x's and output Y, and define our interest by the start and stop points. In Six Sigma the boundary box is never drawn, and our focus is on the equation Y=(f)X. This highlights that our critical output Y, often the CTQ (Critical To Quality) metric, is a function of the cri

Nobody wins them all. The opposition may just be lucky OR the audience a bunch of complete dimwits. Hence you cannot expect to win them all. Suppose you have counter-attacked as much as you could, and suppose you have tried to win but you simply cannot achieve a decissive and clear-cut victory, then what do you do? You go for a tie! 1. Do not admit defeat. 2. True by definition. 3. Forestalling disagreement opponent agrees 4. Invitation search for truth (opponent)

If you are absolutely convinced that you have overwhelmed your opponent, then you should cut off debate as soon as possible. "I never argue with a man who is wrong!"

There is no more effective technique for assuring your audience how much better your position is when compared to your opponent's than by pointing out the dire consequences that will follow the adoption of his proposal. Here you are appealing to fear.

In this form of attack on your opposition you accuse your opponent of clinging to principles or beliefs that he (a) accepts uncritically, (b) refuses to debate, and (c) offers no criteria for refutation or falsifiability. The last criterion, falsifiability, is a critical one. It is almost a definition of rationality to say that a man is rational to the extent that he will tell you under what circumstances he will change his mind. To know when a belief will be considered false is to know how to reason with someone who holds that belief. It is a mark of psychosis that someone will not under any circumstance change his mind. To expose your opponent as one who holds this kind of belief is to undermine the audience's tolerance of him as a rational person. Most people,of course if given enough time and help, could specify when they would consider their beliefs dis-confirmed. However, most people never really think about this point. You should take advantage of this lapse in atten

In this version we argue that because the opposition cannot prove its case, our case must be true by default. THIS TECHNIQUE IS ESPECIALLY USEFUL AGAINST ANY NEW IDEA OR SUGGESTION TO ADOPT SOME POLICY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE. IF AN IDEA HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE, THEN OBVIOUSLY NO ONE REALLY KNOWS IF IT IS OR WILL BE A GOOD ONE. THEREFORE, SINCE WE CANNOT PROVE IT IS GOOD, IT MUST BE BAD.

This most useful technique seems to appear everywhere. Instead of attacking the specific points of an argument, you attack the man . The specail version to be used here is a way of making the audience believe that you have already successfully repulsed every part of your opponent's attack and now it is time to finish him off.

Any shortcoming of your position that cannot be defended can still be justified by pointing out the errors or shortcoming of the opposition. The difference between this technique and the one described below is the following. In the case of damning the alternative, you are claiming that on balance your position is better. In the case of "two wrongs make a right" you are claiming that certain apparent liabilities are really justified or caused by the errors of the opposition.

The first procedure in the move to win is called damning the alternative. There are three possibilities here: (a) if your opponent explicitly offers an alternative, attack it; (b) if your opponent only has an implicit position, bring his case out into the open AND (c) if he fails to offer any kind of alternative, then argue that there is no acceptable alternative to your position because if there were one then your opponent would have offered it. Thus you win by default.

THE FIRST STAGE OF A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE IS THE REPULSION OF SPECIFIC CHARGES AND ASSAULTS ON YOUR INITIAL PRESENTATION. THE SECOND STAGE OF DEFENSE IS AN ATTACK ON THE ALTERNATIVES. MOST ARGUMENTS ARE WON ON SHOWING THAT ONE SIDE IS BETTER ON BALANCE, THAT IS, HAS MORE ASSETS AND FEWER LIABILITIES.

Just as in your presentation you point out some residual benefits of accepting your point of view, so in defense of your presentation against your opponent's attacks you may repeat the appeal. However, here there should be a difference. In the presentation you appealed to some general interest shared by the whole, but here your appeal should be the very narrow self-interest of the immediate audience.

There are three ways of handling a dilemma, but before we discuss them let us remind ourselves what a dilemma is. A dilemma supposedly offers you two alternately undersirable consequences. It is an argument having two premises and a conclusion. If...S1...then S2...and if ...S3 then S4 S1 OR s3 __________________________ Therefore, S2 OR S4 The first way of answering a dilemma is to grasp one or the other horn. We do this by rejecting the truth of one or the other conditional statements (a conditional statement is a statement of the "if... then" form). The second way of refuting a dilemma is to go between the horns, that is, to reject the second premise as not providing mutually exclusion alternatives. The third way of rejecting a dilemma was a very effective rhetorical device to end a series of objections, so a counter-dilemma is a beautiful and effective way of dismissing the whole case of the opposition. A simple change below provides a foolproof formula for constructing

A variation of the call for perfection is the simple articulation of objections. The problem is not whether my proposal is perfect, but whether it would be better to do nothing or even whether there is an alternative. There are two versions of the defense against nothing - but objections. We might call version one the "less sincere" version. Here we argue that even though our proposal is not perfect we should all adopt it anyway because no one can think of a better one. The second version should be called the "more sincere" version. There, as is so often the case in life's great moral dilemma(s), we must choose between two evils and hope that we choose the lesser. It is very important in cases like this that they involve two clear and evil courses of action with no other alternatives.