TRIZ Forum:  Conference Participation Report (7)
Personal Report of TRIZCON2003: Altshuller Institute 5th TRIZ Conference (Held at Philadelphia, USA, on Mar. 16-18, 2003)
Toru Nakagawa (Osaka Gakuin University, Japan),    Mar. 27, 2003   [Posted on Apr.  3, 2003]

buttons guides you to the Japanese pages.
Japanese translation of this page is not scheduled.

Editor's Note (Toru Nakagawa, Mar. 27, 2003)

     This is a personal report of TRIZCON2003 held ten days ago.  (See Altshuller Institute's Official Web site.)  About 60 people attended at the conference and presented/discussed a wide range of TRIZ research and applications.   Here I am trying to review the presentations/papers of the Conference and to post it publicly.  Please notice that the description here is my personal view with possible misunderstanding and biases whatever efforts I made to understand them fully and faithfully.  Nevertheless, this kind of report should be helpful for many people in the world to understand current progress and future directions of TRIZ, I hope.  (See my previous reports of ETRIACON2002 and TRIZCON2001.  No report of TRIZCON2002, because I was absent.)

[During the Conference, I was not in a good condition sufforing from Jet lag.  Just before the days of the present unjustifiable US war to Iraq, I made the trip leaving Tokyo on Mar. 16 (cancelling to attend the Tutorial) and returning on Mar. 20 (i.e., while I was on board of the returning flight the war started). ]

  Conference Name: TRIZCON2003: The 5th Annual Conference of the Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies
   Date:             March 16-18, 2003
  Place:               Sheraton Society Hill, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  Held by:          Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies, Inc.
  Supported by:  Ford Motor Co., Boeing, Ideation International Inc., Invention Machine Inc., Wind Chime Group, Technical Innovation Center, The TRIZ Journal, QualSoft, American Supplier Institute.
  Participants:  about 60 people from 10 countries

  Outline of the Agenda:  Tutorial: 2 tracks from 8:00 to 15:00 on Mar. 16
                         Symposium:  2 Keynote Speeches at plenary sessions, 20 presentations in double tracks, and 1 Round Table Panel, from 8:30 through 17:30 on Mar. 17-18.

Agenda:   (In the order of actual presentation.  The number in [  ] stands for the paper number in the Proceedings.  See the table of contents of the Proceedings at the bottom of this report. *: attended at by Nakagawa. )

   Tutorial

Mar. 16    (Sun)   Morning	Introduction to TRIZ    Ellen Domb,    Karen Gadd	Alternative System Design   Sergei Ikovenko
		Application of TRIZ in Non-Technical, Organizational and Managerial Applications   Jack Hipple
Afternoon		Problem Formulation -- Graphical Depiction of Innovation Situation and Formulation of Directions for Innovation    Alla Zusman, Boris Zlotin

  Symposium

 Overview:

     This is the 5th TRIZ Conference annually held by the Altshuller Institute.  The Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies is a not-for-profit organization established in USA in 1998 for wide promotion of TRIZ in the Western world (See its Web site: http://www.aitriz.org/ ).  The Conference, named TRIZCON, has been held at different cities: Novi (near Detroit) in 1999 , Nashua (near Boston) in 2000, Woodland Hills (near Los Angeles) in 2001, Kansas City in 2002, and Philadelphia this time.  Details of the organizing work was carried mostly by Mr. Richard Langevin, Executive Director of the Institute.

     The total number of participants was near 60 according to the list of participants distributed on the third morning.  Participants came from the following 10 countries (according to my counting, with minor uncertainties): USA (39), UK (8), Japan (5), Russia (2), Korea (2), France (1), Canada (1), Mexico (1), and Australia (1).  (The list says 15 other people cancelled the participation, for any reason.)  This year, TRIZCON as well as other academic conferences experienced decrease in the number of participants and in the financial support from industries due to the current severe economic situations in USA.

     On the first day, Tutorial sessions were held in two paralle tracks, one for introductory, and the other for advanced topics.  Tutorials must be helpful for people who are relatively new to TRIZ.  They are not reviewed here, as I did not attend them.

     The second and the third days are for Sympoium.  The schedule was not tight this year. Keynote speeches were scheduled for 90 minutes in plenary sessions while ordinary presentations for 60 minutes in two-track parallel sessions.  Most sessions finished about 10 minutes earlier than the time table, giving much time for private discussions.

     The Proceedings contain 26 papers in about 300 pages.  Keynote Speeches are not printed, and two very interesting papers by Darrell Mann and Simon DeWulf were printed separately.  Altshuller Institute's Journal "Izobretenia", Vol. 4, was also published and handed to the members.

     Topics of the presentations cover a wide range, while the sessions seem not arranged in any clear categorization.  In this report I am going to group them in the following categories:
     (A) Keynote Speeches
     (B) Enhancing and Simplifying TRIZ Methodologies
     (C) TRIZ Case Studies in Industries
     (D) TRIZ and Biology
     (E) TRIZ Applications in Business, Human Factors, etc.

    I am reviewing almost all the papers below.  However, since I attended only half of  the presentations and read all the papers only after the conference, please purdon me if I do not understand some of them in their heart.

(A) Keynote Speeches

     The first Keynote Speech [A] was given by Dr. Geoff Evans, Director, New Business Development, Boeing, on the topic of "The Role of Innovation at Boeing".  After mentioning some common difficulties in incorporating innovations in big businesses like Boeing, he talked about Boeing's latest trial.  Since September 2000, Boeing has been operating a business called Boeing Ventures as an incuvator of innovative ventures.  Boeing employees are encouraged to propose innovative work and actually start ventures by obtaining the support from Boeing Ventures.   Successful teams can "spin out" or "spin in" (i.e. being incorporated as a new project in Boeing).  For these 2 years and half, about 800 projects have been actually carried out in this framework...  (Sorry but no handout was availabe and I did not take a note.)

     Dr. Denis Cavallucci, France, gave the second Keynote Speech [B] with the title of "About Difficulties to Diffuse TRIZ within a Corporate Structure: From Method Acquisition to Cultural Change".  First he discussed the big difference between the current corporate culture and the TRIZ culture, and suggests the needs of changing these cultures on both sides.  Then he presented the latest systematic approach for doing research, transfer, and education of TRIZ in Strasbourg and in France.  It was announced that ENSAIS in Strasbourg was now renamed as INSA (i.e. National Institute of Applied Sciences, Strasbourg) and the laboratory LRPS as LICIA (i.e. Laboratory of Industrial Engineering & Artificial Intelligence).  This group has nearly 30 members in total, including Dr. Nikolai Khomenko, a TRIZ Master.  They currently have 8 PhD students working on applications of TRIZ in various fields.  INSA is preparing to start their Master Course of Innovative Design based on TRIZ and OTSM-TRIZ in coming September.

      They recently convinced the authorities in French Ministry of Education about the necessity to modify curriculums in design and creativity and to teach TRIZ fundamentals to younger generation.  Thus, French national project is going to start to teach the teachers of highschools and junior colleges about TRIZ.  The goal of the project is: in 10 years 17,000 teachers in highschools and junior colleges will teach TRIZ fundamentals to young generation, over one million students!  The pedagogical model which was developed and experienced earlier in Minsk will serve in France in a nation-wide scale.  (Nakagawa asked a question about the gap in the talk between the current difficulties in the diffusion of TRIZ in industries and the large-scale plan of teaching TRIZ fundamentals in schools.  I ment that TRIZ itself needs to be changed for diffusion in industries prior to teaching TRIZ to younger generation.  See the presentation by Nakagawa et al. [20].)

(B) Enhancing and Simplifying TRIZ Methodologies

     In this category, I am going to review a few approaches to strengthen the TRIZ methodology by rebuilding its strong foundation, by integrating some other methods, and by simplifying and unifying the methods, etc.

      The two papers by Darrell Mann and Simon DeWulf (CREAX, Belgium) [27], [28] are the most important accomplishment in the present Conference.  Ref. [27] is "Updating TRIZ: 1985-2002 Patent Research Findings".  It is well known that TRIZ was founded and extended by Altshuller through his intensive analysis of patents.  However, such patent analysis was done mostly in 1970s to around 1985, and newcomers of TRIZ often complain that various examples in TRIZ are somewhat old-fashioned.  In this context, CREAX company started a large researcch program to analyze all the US patents granted during the period from 1985 to the present, with the aim of re-establishing the whole TRIZ principles and knowledge base.  They operate a laboratory in India with 25 full-time patent analysts and have analyzed about 150,000 patents so far since 2000.

    Professional patent analysts of various specialty fields were trained with TRIZ concepts and the framework of the present analysis.  Then they reviewed the patents one by one, to evaluate its Level of Invention (according to Altshuller's criteria), and (after excluding the lowest-quality patents) to clarify the following items in parallel.
   (1)  Contradictions identified/solved by the Inventor, and Inventive Principles used for solving the problem.
   (2)  In a single composite evolutionary potential radar plot, the status of the problem and the status of the solution.  Any emerging new trend, if identified.
   (3)  Physical, chemical, or biological effects employed to solve the problem.
   (4)  Inventive Standards used in the solution generation, or any new candidate of Inventive Standards.
All these findings were recorded in a fixed format in PC, together with the identification of the patent and its human extracted abstract.  The quality of this progam certainly depends on the analysists' consistent understanding of TRIZ concepts, program framework, and individual patents.  About 10 patents can be processed by one researcher per day, the Author says.

    Accumulation of the findings of this program has been reflected partly in Darrell Mann's textbook "Hands-On Systematic Innovation" (CREAX, 2002), and will be published in various other forms in the near future.

    Ref. [28], "Updating the Contradiction Matrix", introduces the first aspect of the results obtained in the above program.  Altshuller's Contradiction Matrix has been completely remodelled with improved framework and modern data!  The parameters of the matrix are re-defined and extended into 50 (as the results of intensive discussions with user community).  The results of the patent analysis reported above in [27] are expressed in the familiar format of Altshuller's Matrix with updated data and also in a new format called Matirx Explorer.  It is announced that a new book "Matrix 2003: Updating the TRIZ Contradiction Matrix" (coauthored by D. Mann, S. DeWulf, B. Zlotin, and A. Zusman) will be published in April, 2003.

    Changes in Matrix contents are demonstrated in some examples in the paper.  It is also demonstrated that the Contradiction Matrix is readily customizable to any specific field of application.  Thus, for example, the Matrix specifically for software development problems will be made as a 22x22 Matrix and will be published in a booklet.

    These papers [27, 28] are based on so much eraborate work and important for modernizing and proliferating TRIZ.  They will be posted in CREAX Web site, in TRIZ Journal, and soon in this "TRIZ Home Page in Japan" both in English and in Japanese translation under the author's permission.
    [Note (Apr. 16, 2003): These two papers are now posted in this Web site.  See the Reference list at the bottom of this page.]

    Ref. [10] by Michael Slocum, Ellen Domb, and Catherine Lundberg is the same with paper reported in ETRIA2002.  They found that the solutions developed through both of Technical Contradictions and Physical Contradictions are better in the quality than those developed though either one type of the contradictions.

    Manabu Sawaguchi (SANNO, Japan) [22] has developed a method for predicting/developing inventive new technical systems.  The method is based on the Directed Evolution(DE, develope at Ideation International) and incorporates approaches of Value Engineering (VE) and marketing. For planning a new product, the Author proposes the following two phases:
   Phase 1:  Analyze an target system and forecast and direct its future.  The output of this phase is a new product scenario.
   Phase 2:  Develop a new product proposal for the target system.  The output of this phase is a new product proposal.
The paper describes the Phase 1 in detail. Its framework seems to be a refined form of the 9-Window Method.  Super-system in a broader sense (e.g. society), super-system in a narrower sense, target system, and its sub-system are considered.  Future of these levels of systems are considered on the basis of historical trends and TRIZ laws of evolution of technical systems. The method, named Future Navigation Method (FNM), has been developed and already applied to 23 product themes in 3 Japanese industries, the paper says.  This is supposed to be one of the most important approaches in Japan for introducing TRIZ into Japan's strong basis of quality improvement activities in industries.

    Yoshiki Nakamura (SANNO, Japan) [23] has tried to combine one of Japan's invention methodologies with TRIZ.  The methodology was developed by Masakazu Nakayama in 1970s and is well known as "NM Method" after his initials. Nakayama emphasized his method as a training for activating the right-half of brain, and the NM Method is formalized as the following 5 steps for generating ideas for solving a problem.
   (1) KW (Key Word): Define the function or the main feature of the required technical system in a short clause including a verb.
   (2) QA (Question Analogy):  Look for an event that meets with the Key Word among natural phenomena and mon-made systems.
   (3) QB (Question Background): Clarify the principles/mechanisms working in the analogous phenomena/systems.
   (4) QC (Question Conception):  Generate ideas on the basis of the principles/mechanisms.
   (5) ABD (Abduction): Combine ideas and brush up into new concepts.
Nakamura [23] proposes to integrate the NM method as a step into the ARIZ procedure (especially ARIZ92).

     It should be remarked here that in Japan a number of Creativity methods emerged in 1960s - 1970s and were widely used in industries and in governmental offices.  They formed one of the bases of the QC movements in Japan.  Three most important ones among them are the "KJ Method" by Jiro Kawakita, the Equivalent Transformal Thinking by Kikuya Ichikawa, and the NM Method by Masakazu Nakayama.  They have emphases on understanding deep verbal meanings of pheomena/observations or on analogies and understanding of mechanizms.  Translating their methodologies and examples from Japanese is so delicate that they have been rarely published in English by the developers and their associates, unfortunately.

      Rodney King (UK) [26] is an approach to integrate TRIZ with a wide range of Creativity methods.  He points out that the current difficulty in the slow penetration of TRIZ into the Western world primarily stems from the "Simplicity vs. Sophistication" contradiction.  Organization of classic TRIZ tools is inadequate, especially for easy integration with other methodologies of problem solving, creativity, and innovation as well as with tools for visual idea management, he says.  In his presentation and in halls afterward, he demonstrated his method for 'everyday problem solving' using three A3 panels.

     His three panels form a set of templates/guidelines: They consist of diagramatic and functional presentation of the problem system, a set of inquiries for clarifying the problem, tabular sheet for recording elements of ideas in the functional framework of the system, tables of innovative principles and prompters, flowchart of the thinking process, etc.  The problem solving procedure in his paper (as well as in his Web site) mentions a very wide range of problem solving/creativity methods including TRIZ tools.  He claims that the three panels are quite universal for various applications, cover a wide range of methodologies, and is easy to apply. -- However, I personally feel that his framework and his panels are the results of much aggregation and not enough simplification nor unification.  We should better teach our creativity method to newcomers in a much simpler language and as a much simpler process.

     I made a presentation Nakagawa et al.[20], coauthored with Hideaki Kosha and Yuji Mihara of Fuji Photo Film, Co., Japan.  We presented USIT (Unified Structured Inventive Thinking) as "A Simple and Unified System of TRIZ".  Our understanding is that TRIZ is now faced with the contradiction of complexity as the result of its expanding development for half a century and that (according to TRIZ Laws of Evolution) the simplification and unification of TRIZ must take place for the emergence of new generation of TRIZ.  We reported in the last ETRIA2002 Conference about reorganization of TRIZ into USIT in the Solution Generation Stage.  Reorganization of TRIZ into USIT in the Problem Definition and Problem Analysis Stages were already achieved by Ed Sickafus.  In USIT, we make a clear focus of the problem to solve in the Problem Definition Stage, and then clarify the mechanism of the system in terms of Objects, Attributes, Functions, Space, Time, and Ideality in the Problem Analysis Stage.  Then we generate multiple solution concepts by applying five operators repeatedly: Pluralization onto Objects, Dimensional change onto Attributes, Distribution onto Functions, Combination onto Solution pairs, and Generalization onto Solutions.  The whole USIT procecure, especially the application of the Solution Generation Operators, has been demonstrated with a sample problem.  Our paper is now posted in this Web site "TRIZ Home Page in Japan" both in English and in Japanese .

     Let me briefly mention four other papers which were published in the Proceedings but not presented orally:

    Linde et al. [1] is an overview of the INNOWIS and WOIS methodolgy developed by a German group (Linde started working on TRIZ in 1975 in the former East Germany).  See ETRIA2002 as well.

    Tan Runhua et al. (P.R. China) [4] proposes to use a diagram (in the reversed form of Fishbone diagram) for listing up the functional elements in an existing system. Then the functional model among these elements is drawn, and the functional relations are tabulated for locating the Mini-problems.  This can be a systematic way to finding the Mini-problems, the authors say.

      Jack Hipple (USA) [8] advises TRIZ promoters/practitioners to learn more about existing psychological tools and problem solving tools used in industries so as to introduce TRIZ in a way cooperative and integrated with them.  Endless debate about which tool is better and a tendancy of a 'winner take all' attitude are fruitless, he says.  His suggestions how to introduce elements of TRIZ into the existing cultures of CPS/'Brainstorming', Six Hats, Lateral Thinking, etc. are quite instructive.

     Denis Bridoux (UK) [21] introduces an emerging methodology called "Neuro-Semantics" which will be able to enhance TRIZ much.  The author writes: "We introduce the Mind-Lines Neuro Semantic model, initially designed to identify, clarify and resolve contradictions in human intra- and interpersonal relationships, and show how dovetailing it with TRIZ further enhances TRIZ' effectivieness by opening out many unexpected avenues where contradictions may not exist".  Neuro-Semantics apparently has a wide scope and deep insights.  The following figure, an extended presentation of the Ideality concept in TRIZ, demonstrates this point clearly:

Though not orally presented, this paper must be an important contribution to future TRIZ development.

(C) TRIZ Case Studies in Industries

     Joe Miller and Ellen Domb [3] demonstrate a case of Canadian agricultural problem, where the time dependency is the important factor in the problem.  They recommend to use time-dependent modeling and simulation tools.  This paper is a slightly refined version of their paper presented at ETRIA2002.

    Vladimir Proseanic and Svetlana Visnepolschi (Ideation International, USA) [5] discuss about the Failure Prediction process in the Anticipatory Failure Determination method (AFD).  Failure Prediction (FP) is useful as a process for developing safe and reliable systems.  For doing so in the AFD method, the cause-effect diagram is built for the particular system (i.e. product, equipment or manufacturing process) and then for every node in the diagram a few recommendations are given by the AFD software tool for considering any possible failure.  Since the number of recommendations becomes several tens or hundreds, the examination process is too time-consuming to accomplish the FP procedure in its entirety.  In [5], the authors have found a practical method to find most critical zones:  namely, in the cause-effect diagram, the nodes having highest number of incoming and outgoing links are found typically most critical.  Such nodes, called Focal Points, are clearly visible in the diagram.  Concentrating the efforts of FP to such Focal Points has been emperically found to result in "Practically Safe Systmes", the paper says.

    Svetlana Visnepolschi and Vladimir Proseanic [6] report the verification procedure in Failure Analysis in AFD.  The Failure Hypotheses should be verified with the following criteria:  (1) presence of components necessary to the hypothesis within the system or its environment, (2) presence of all the Localizing Elements (i.e., Last Event, Concurrent Event (if any), and/or Specific Conditions) in the hypothesis as its necessary components, and (3) higher likelihood of occurring the mechanisms of the phenomenon than others.  Then the analyst should provide the recommendations for testing such hypotheses as simple as possible.  All these criteria, even though you might think them obvious, should be helpful to clarify the Failure Analysis process.

    Lev Pevzner and Roman Tcheskidov (Russia) [11] discuss about industrial methods for separating air into its components.  Comparing the liquefied gas method (cryogenic technology) with the molecular sieve method (adsorption/membrane technology), they suggest combining these competing methods.  Figures are not printed in the Proceedings.  Usage of TRIZ is not clear to me in this report.

    Noel Leon and Oscar Martinez (ITESM, Mexico) [2] demonstrate the usage of TRIZ in the CAD/CAM environment.  As a case study, they deal with the design improvement of a railroad brake beam.  It is well known to use simulation software for the strain and stress analysis and to optimize the parameters in the structure.  TRIZ, on the other hand, can introduce qualitative/drastic change in the design, for example in the shape of the components/assembly.  Inventive Principles that may be applied during the design process are listed in three application scopes, i.e. parts, assembly, and systems.  Any new concept suggested by the use of TRIZ should be examined and optimized again.  With this style of integration of CAD/CAM and TRIZ, the authors propose steps towards a "Computer Aided Inventing" Environment.  They are going to organize IFIP TC5 Workshop on Computer Aided Inventing in 2005 in Mexico.  This must be an important approach for industrial use of TRIZ.

     Darrell Mann and Ellen Domb [25] present useful guidelines how to exceed apparent "fundamental limits" in technology.  Technical systems often seem to reach their fundamental limits in their development.  Is it a real limit or a false, apparent one?  The authors mention three cases:  true maturity, false maturity (i.e. the organization just stopped spending money on development), and stalled progress (due to unresolved conflicts at the sub-system level).  Distinguishing them and overcoming an apparent limit is very important.  The authors recommend three approaches:  (1) Application of TRIZ to solve any contradictory problem is certainly one important appproach.  (2) Examining the system by drawing its "evolutionary potential radar plot" is also a useful trigger to realize the possibilty of big jumps.  (3) Studying the ideas in "Self-X" patents should also give us new viewpoints and insights.  The authors suggest that these recommendations are the clues to break the "4.5 Sigma Wall" to reach Six Sigma level of products/processes.  These recommendations, though not so concrete in their examples, are helpful for us in industrial applications.

    Michael Slocum, Ellen Domb, and Catherine Lundberg [9] report the overall approach of using TRIZ, Robust design, and Entreprenuerial spirit in a venture business, Ontro Inc., to develop an inventive product.  The product that the company has been developing is "Self-heating Container" for beverages, food, etc.  The container is illustrated in the following figure.  The container, placed bottom-up at first, is pressed at the bottom center to break the inner water package, and after a few seconds is reset up-right, and is left for several minutes (or up about an hour) to be heated by itself.  Calcium oxide reacts with water and generates heat.

As a part of the technology development of this type of container, the hermetic package of the calcium oxide is discussed in this paper.  The package wall is required to transfer heat efficiently and to prevent oxigen ingress into the beverage (for not spoiling it).  As the basic material of the package, polypropylene (PP) was chosen first.  But for keeping oxigen from passing through the wall, a layer of poly-Ethyl Vinyl Alcohol (EVOH) is found necessary (as a result of using TRIZ).  This resulted in making a five-layer wall, namely PP - adhesive - EVOH - adhesive -PP.  By use of the Taguchi Method, various parameters in the wall configuration were examined and optimized for the performance.  The optimum solution thus obtained, however, was found less than ideal because of its high thermal resistance and high production cost.  Solving a technical contradiction with TRIZ, an idea was obtained to develope a mono-layer structure, where graphite flakes are held inside the polypropylene layer with malaic anhydride.  The idea is now examined and refined with the Taguchi Method for better properties and easier manufacturing.  Efforts for making the technology successful as a business are continuing.  The process diagram for this case study is summerized in the following figure.

     Ed Sickafus (USA) [14] reports his experiences of applying USIT in a quick and informal way, with the name of "Structured Brainstorming".  His intention is to make team work for technical idea generation as productive as possible, in terms of generation of useful ideas per man-hour.  He recently had two cases of being invited for USIT training and real problem solving in industries.  In Case A, a group of 12 engineering managers received a half-day pesentation of USIT and then carried out a half-day application to their own problem.  In Case B, another group of 12 technologists (including 2 managers) received 2.5-day USIT training (i.e. a standard USIT training shortened by half a day) and applied USIT for half a day to their own real problem.  In both cases, the problem was set by the organizer of the training but was not announced to the members and to the instructor until the application session.  Those problems are real ones, i.e., solutions to them are really wanted in the companies.  The application practices were carried out in three 50-minute sessions (corresponding to the three main USIT stages, i.e. Problem Definition, Analysis, and Solution Generation stages) with 10 minutes intervals.  Flowchart of USIT was posted on the wall.  The Instructor (i.e. Sickafus) did not direct the sessions but made comments at the end of each session.

In Case A, the problem was explained and discussed actively in the first session.  Sickafus pointed out that the problem was not well defined yet because no focus of what to solve was set.  Spending the three sessions, the team listed over-20 unwanted effects and then made the focus of the problem clear, and evaluated the training a success for themselves.  Sickafus thinks this kind of nonfocused discussion is typical in management but quite unsatisfactory for problem solving.

In Case B, the problem was presented clearly with a hardware demonstration and was understood through discussions by the team.  Nevertheless, Sickafus had to point out at the end of the first session that the single, unwanted effect was not identified yet. The team then succeeded in defining the single problem and in finfing plausible root causes.  In the second session for the Analysis, the team began to show more coordinated effort and followed the USIT process.  In the third session for Solution Generattion, members were stimulated to posit new concepts by applying USIT techniques.  New ideas popped up quickly and in rather disordered way.  The ideas are recorded on the board in front of the team.  At the end of the session, the list of the ideas was reviewed for eliminating redunadancies, trivialities, and absurdities.  More than 40 solution concepts were thus obtained at the end of the half-day real practice, the Author says.  -- Nakagawa feels this a success achieved through the preceeding 2.5-day USIT training.  This paper is vivid in describing the team practice and useful for understanding the know-how of applying USIT.  Nakagawa's experiences of 3-day USIT Training with solving real company problems were described in my TRIZCON2002 paper.

      Ref. [7] by Zhao Xinjun (P.R. China), though not presented orally, reports a case of improving the design of plough, the commonly used agricultural tool.  Friction between the soil and the share (i.e. blade) of plough causes the wear of the share.  By attaching a magnetic piece at the back of the share, the friction is reduced, the paper says.  Design of the plough, usage of S-Field model, and result of DOE experiments are shown, but the mechanism of the effect is not described.

(D) TRIZ and Biology

     Professor Julian Vincent and his group in the University of Bath, UK, are reporting actively about their research to link TRIZ with biology.  It is remarkable in their research that TRIZ not only contributes to the understanding of biology but also receives much from findings in biology.  Please refer to their works reported in ETRIA2001 and in ETRIA2002 as well.

    Olga Bogatyreva, Anja-Karina Pahl, Adrian Bowyer, and Julian Vincent [18] is the overview report of their project, "Data Gathering for Putting Biology in TRIZ".  It says: "Our goal is to make biological information available for engineers via a 'biological patents' database".  The database under development will run on the server at the University of Bath and will be accessible world wide by using Web browsers to search and input the data.  The most important feature of the database is its 'engineering friendly' classification of biological functions (See ETRIA2002 paper).  The way of using the database is briefly introduced.

    Anja-Karina Pahl and Olga Bogatyreva [15] discuss complex structure of contradictions observable in living and non-living systems.  One example of such a complex structure of multiple contradictions is the case that a solution to a contradiction encounters a new contradiction again to form a sequence of contradictions.  In this paper, a typical case of multiplex contradictions is discussed:  Main contradictions in forming a society are the contradiction between competition and cooperation among the members and the contradiction between specialization and generalization of individual members.  The authors observe typical solutions in (not human but) ant societies:  they are 'activators to help newcomers', 'control over other members', 'coordination of actions of the team', and 'government of the society'.  As the increase of the number of ants in the nest, the ants society is obserbed to choose these alternative solutions.  It is amazing to learn that the ants can tell us a lot when we are prepared to listen!

    Olga Bogatyreva and Julian Vincent [17] is also an interesting paper.  The authors discuss about four basic types of development in animals and humans and another type of development in technical systems.  Those types are:
   (1)  at the level of the individual:  Ontogenesis
   (2)  at the level of a single species:  Social evolution or History (in case of human)
   (3)  at the level of an assemblage of species:  Succession in an ecosystem
   (4)  at the phylogenetic level over long periods of time:  Evolution (or Morphological (Darwinian) Evolution)
   (5)  Altshuller's "Evolution of Technical Systems"
The basic question is how to characterize the Evolution of Technical Systems (5) in comparison with others, i.e. (1) to (4).  For characterizing these different types of development, the authors have introduced several viewpoints:
   (a) Developmental paths:  linear with/without fixed end, circular, and helical
   (b) Reversibility:  reversible, partly reversible, completely irreversible
   (c) Degrees of complexity:  towards a simplicity, towards a complexity, with alternation of generation, towards high adaptiveness
   (d) Sensitivity to innovation: insensitive, sometimes harmful, often harmful, always harmful
   (e)  Independence from environment:  independent, adapted, adaptable, no need to respond
   (f)  Energy:  taken from environment, have an energy source, can produce energy for itself
   (g) Developmental uniformity of parts:  uniform, partly non-uniform, non-uniform
   (h) Direction of evolution:  convergent, divergent
Viewing with these characteristics, the authors say that the technical systems (5) developes mostly like social transformation (2) but partly like morphological evolution (4).  They expect further investigation on this interesting topic.

     See Ref. [16] and [19] also from the same group (published but not orally presented).

(E) TRIZ Applications in Business, Human Factors, etc.

    Jack Hipple and Stan Caplan (USA) [24] discuss the ways to apply TRIZ in the areas of Ergonomics and Human Factors engineering.  Human Factors and Ergonomics is the science of designing efficient, effective, and safe systems and products which are compatible with the human users of those system or product.  After summarizing the guiding principles in this research area, the authors point out two TRIZ principles, i.e. Ideality and Resources, should be introduced further.  Examples of typical contradictions encountered in this area are shown.  In an abstract level, such contradictions can be formulated in the scheme of the Contradiction Matrix, e.g., 'ease of operation' vs. 'loss of time', and 'ease of operation' vs. 'complexity'.  TRIZ Inventive Principles suggested by the Contradiction Matrix may be helpful to consider solutions in practical designing problems.

    Lev Pevzner et al. (Russia) [12] discuss about the ways of applying the Laws of Development of Technical Systems (LDTS) depending on the business start-up situations.  They consider three typical cases of business start-up in the market:  (a) marketing pioneer systems, (b) marketing new systems with known function, and (c) marketing as a new venture in competitive business.  Depending on these  cases, the authors recommend different tactics in applying Laws of Development of Technical Systems to the technical systems that the business is going to produce and maket.  As an example, 'Wagon-house' business starting up in Russia is discussed.  Though this topic seems interesting, the paper is somewhat abstract and not easy to follow for me.   See Ref. [13] as well.

Miscellaneous/Concluding Remarks:

     On  the afternoon of Mar. 17, Round Tabel Panel was held on the topic of "Altshuller Institute Certification Program".  Victor Fey, Chairman of Education Committee of the Altshuller Institute, explained the current preparation for initiating a Program for certifying qualified persons as TRIZ specialists.  After some discussions, it is advised to the committee to review similar programs in other academic societies.  Though this Panel was scheduled as a part of Symposium, it should better be set as a part of AI members' business meeting.

    On the early morning of Mar. 18, AI Business Meeting was held.  It is reported that Richard Langevin, Executive Director, has been applying to a number of funding organizations for getting grants.  This effort will result in wider recognition of TRIZ, better financial position of AI, and more capability for promoting TRIZ (such as new publications), we wish.

    In conclusion, as reported above, TRIZCON2003 has made much progress and fruits of developing and proliferating TRIZ.  We wish to express thanks to all the people who organized, supported, presented, and participated the Conference.

    TRIZCON2004 is announced to be held at Seatle, USA.  The dates are expected to be late March, 2004, but not fixed yet.  We are looking forward to meeting many of you at TRIZCON2004.  (BTW:  ETRIA TRIZ Conferece is announced to be held in Aachen, Germany, on Nov. 12-14, 2003.  Due dates of Abstract, etc. will be announced soon.)

 List of Papers in the Proceedings        [--:  Not presented orally.]

[1]  INNOWIS and WOIS: Challenging Development Structures for Companies
 --       Hansjuergen Linde, Gunther Herr  (WOIS Institute, Germany)

[2]  Product Optimization vs. Innovation:  Steps toward a "Computer Aided Inventing" Environment
         Noel Leon and Oscar Martinez (ITESM, Mexico)

[3]  Case Studies of Functional Modeling for Complex Systems: New Ways to Apply TRIZ
         Joe A. Miller (Quality Process Consulting, USA), Ellen Domb (The PQR Group, USA)

[4]  The Functional Model for Existing Product Using Reverse Fishbone Diagram
 --      Tan Runhua, Cao Guozhong, Zhang Ruihong (Hebei Univ. of Technology, P.R. China)

[5]  Focal Points of the System, SEOR Principle and Their Contribution into Creation of Practically Safe System
         Vladimir Proseanic, Svetlana Visnepolschi (Ideation International, Inc., USA)

[6]  Improvement of Verification Procedure in Failure Analysis and Scientific Research
        Svetlana Visnepolschi, Vladimir Proseanic  (Ideation International, Inc., USA)

[7]  Develop New Kind of Plough by Using TRIZ and Robust Design
 --     Zhao Xinjun (Northeastern University, P.R. China)

[8]  The Integration of TRIZ Problem Solving Techniques with Other Problem Solving and Accessment Tools
--      Jack Hipple (Innovation-TRIZ, USA)

[9]  Robust Engineering, TRIZ, and the Entreprenuerial Spirit
       Michael Slocum (Ontro, USA), Ellen Domb (PQR Group, USA), Catherine Lundberg (Ontro, USA)

[10]  Solution Dynamics as a Function of Resolution Method (Physical Contradiction vs. Technical Contradiction)
        Michael Slocum (Ontro, USA), Ellen Domb (PQR Group, USA), Catherine Lundberg (Ontro, USA)

[11]  Using Theory of Technical Systems Development in Strategic Planning of JSC "Uralkriotechnika" Business
       Lev Pevzner, Roman Tcheskidov (PM Consulting, Russia)

[12]  Impact of Market Development Level on LDTS Application During Business Start-Up
         L. Pevzner, D. Boguslavskiy, Y. Katsman, M. Lakhovskiy, L. Rapoport, S. Ryasonov (PM Consulting, Russia)

[13]  Peculiarities of Transition From the First to the Second Stage for Technical Systems with Different Market Capacity
  --     L. Pevzner, Y. Katsman (PM Consulting, Russia)

[14]  Structured Brainstorming for More Efficient Innovation
         Ed Sickafus (Ntelleck, USA)

[15]  Nested, Chained and Intersecting or 'Complex' Contradictions
           Anja-Karina Pahl, Olga Bogatyreva (The Univ. of Bath, UK)

[16]  Complexity in Living and Non-Living Systems
 --        Olga Bogatyreva, Nickolaj Bogatyrev (The Univ. of Bath, UK)

[17]  Is TRIZ Darwinian?
           Olga Bogatyreva, Julian Vincent (The Univ. of Bath, UK)

[18]  Data Gathering for Putting Biology in TRIZ
           Olga Bogatyreva, Anja-Karina Pahl, Adrian Bowyer, Julian Vincent (The Univ. of Bath, UK)

[19]  TRIZ and Biology: Rules and Restrictions
 --        Nickolaj Bogatyrev, Olga Bogatyreva (Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia, and The Univ. of Bath, UK)

[20]  Usage of USIT Solution Generation Methods: A Simple and Unified System of TRIZ
          Toru Nakagawa (Osaka Gakuin Univ., Japan), Hideaki Kosha, Yuji Mihara (Fuji Photo Film, Co., Japan)  (posted in "TRIZ Home Page in Japan, on Apr. 3, 2003)

[21]  Enhancing TRIZ' Mapping of the Structure of Problem-Solving by Incorporating Neuro-Semantic Approaches: How to Think Better Outside & Inside the Box
 --      Denis Bridoux (UK)

[22]  The Prediction of Inventive New Technical System Through the Patterns of Technical Evolution -- Future Navigation Method --
         Manabu Sawaguchi (SANNO Institute of Management, Japan)

[23]  Combination of ARIZ92 and NM (Nakayama, Masakazu) Method for the 5-th Level Problems
         Yoshiki Nakamura (SANNO Institute of Management, Japan)

[24] The Use of TRIZ Problem Solving Tools in the Areas of Ergonomics and Human Factors Engineering
        Jack Hipple (Innovation-TRIZ, USA), Stan Caplan (Usability Associates, USA)

[25]  The 4.5 Sigma Wall: Using TRIZ to Exceed Fundamental Limits
        Darrell Mann (CREAX, Belgium), Ellen Domb (The PQR Group, USA)

[26]  TRIZ for Every Business, Household, and Activity:  Eliminating Contradictions in TRIZ Using Ultimate-Ideal Innovation, the Strategic Innovation-Map, and Universal Thinksheet
          Rodney K. King (SuperSmart Network, UK)

[27]  Updating TRIZ: 1985-2002 Patent Research Findings
          Darrell Mann, Simon DeWulf  (CREAX, Belgium)    [Printed separately];
          Reposted in this site "TRIZ Home Page in Japan"  , also in Japanese translation  (Apr. 16, 2003)

[28]  Updating the Contradiction Matrix
          Darrell Mann, Simon DeWulf  (CREAX, Belgium)    [Printed separately]
          Reposted in this site "TRIZ Home Page in Japan"  , also in Japanese translation  (Apr. 16, 2003)

[A]  Keynote Speech:  The Role of Innovation at Boeing
         Geoff Evans (Boeing, USA)

[B]  Keynote Speech:  About Difficulties to Diffuse TRIZ within a Corporate Structure: From Method Acquisition to Cultural Change
         Denis Cavallucci (National Institute of Applied Sciences of Strasbourg, France)
 

General index	New Information	Introduction to TRIZ	TRIZ References	TRIZ Links	TRIZ News & Activities	TRIZ Software Tools	TRIZ Papers and Tech Reports	TRIZ Forum	General index
Home Page	New Information	Introduction to TRIZ	TRIZ References	TRIZ Links	TRIZ News & Activities	TRIZ Software Tools	TRIZ Papers and Tech Reports	TRIZ Forum	Home Page

Last updated on Apr. 16, 2003.     Access point:  Editor: nakagawa@utc.osaka-gu.ac.jp