I was introduced by this book called "Design of Everyday Things" authored by Donald Norman by a friend of mine few years back. I was ignorant to the fact that there is such a great amount of work going on in the concept of User Iterface (UI) design until I read this book, and my further research on the UI arena has really enthralled me about the depth of thinking evolved during the last decade or so. After reading about the concept, I see there has been a subconcious change in my approach to use a product or service, and as a matter of fact, I started criticizing every UI I come across since then, and nothing satisfied me from the User Interface point of view yet. (including iPod).

I think many of us don't pay enough attention to the User Interface of a product we use when the sole purpose of using a product/service is to achieve a function to complete my job. As long as the job gets done even with some difficulties, we as a user tend to compromise on the user interface part, with the exception that some UI's are really ridiculous that people stop using the product itself. Perhaps this approach of giving importance to the functionality than UI slowly started creating a mental model about the perspective of a UI for us, and every other UI we come across incrementally added to the existing mental model of usage scenarios of functions than the UI.

My background and experience as an IT professional helping people to design new software and products and as a customer of various software and hardware products enticed me this line of thinking, what should have come first, the User Interface or Functionality? Designing a new UI in the traditional approach involves understanding the functionality first, thinking about the end customer, their culture, habit, the customer base, and design a UI to cater the different type of such end customers. However, thinking backward from the user perspective, is there way to design an Ideal User Interface?

If you are an extensive MS Office user for the last 5 years, you can probably understand me and the reason about this lingering thought, what should have come first? Work with office 2003 Power point and the 2007 Power Point versions; note the differences in the UI. 2007 packed with more functionality, (and I'm happy with that), but the UI to achieve those common functions that were easy in 2003 became so complicated in 2007 version. Although the UI changes in the 2007 version perceived to be like (how the designer of this product perceived may be) they have simplified for the users, could they have designed the UI first for 2007 for adding more functionality?

I asked the same question to a colleague of mine working as a User Experience Lead, and her answer wasn't surprising. We have always designed the UI for a function that exists. We created the function to satisfy our customer "jobs" and then designed a wrapper around that function to accept the input from them and provide output back, typically known as User Interface. Therefore the role of a UI designer then gets in to the level of making the UI attracting (make it flashy?), reducing the complexity of using it, making it simple to operate, and we are done. Further pushing with my agenda of "UI should come first," my colleague really argued how is it possible to create a UI for a function that do not exist? Fair question, and frankly I didn't have an answer to back up my thinking. It's like creating a roof first for a house before the foundation and the wall.

Ok, if we can't create the UI first for the functionality that does not exist, can we do it other way around, create a function from the UI that I'm working on? To make this possible, can we think about the Ideal user interface? Since every user interface is to achieve some function, can there be an ideal user interface to create an ideal function?

Ideality is a concept within the systematic innovation framework to break the incremental approach in thinking and looking at the ideal scenario we would like to achieve. In other way, ideality is the results of function achieved without any cost or harm. If we can apply this technique for our UI should come first issue, we could ask

What is my Ideal Final User Interface?

An ideal user interface for me as a customer for any product could be that there is no UI. This may sound hypothetical, but the notion here is to bring an idealistic thinking for the functionality.

I would be happy to have my PowerPoint 2007 without any UI at all, but provide me things as and when I needed to do something. For example, if I want to insert a picture in a slide, all that I need is an insert option (only when I need that) where PowerPoint can point me to the place I will load the image from, and more ideally, automatically bringing the best and suitable image for that slide, insert it, change the orientation etc . Well, now I'm talking to a very intelligent Power Point application by Microsoft, because if it to make my ideal UI a reality, a very new intelligent function should be created. By asking the question "what is stopping Microsoft to provide me an intelligent Power Point feature," I may be pushing the ball to the technical guy's court!

Well, ideality does not really exist, so do the intelligent functionality today in the Power Point. Now, if the ideal ideal UI (no UI at all) is not possible, what could be the next IFI (Ideal Final Interface)? Drawing the same Power Point insert example, the next IFI for me should be the insert option UI is so convenient to me that clicking on it would give me a thumbnail view of all "preferred" images, preferably giving me some ratings, also identifying the size, automatically converting them to fit in to my slides etc. Wouldn't that be possible?

The concept of an IFI is more than just for designing the best UI, but also creating a better functionality for the product and overall changing the experience of getting my "job" done as a customer. Now do you agree that UI can come first, what are your thoughts?

In my days as Discovery Research Director at Dow Chemical, I was given a large chunk of money reserved for research and new product projects unrelated to the current business areas. This money was taken from the line R&D budgets of the existing organizations in an attempt to get the organization's attention to focus on something other than commodity chemicals that showed 1% growth rate as far as the eye could see.

Now this wasn't the only way that companies tried to stimulate their organizations into doing something different, but it was an interesting and productive one at the time. Now, of course, it wasn't quite that black and while, but it did set up an interesting dynamic that did in fact force R&D leaders to think about the future and not just the next six months.

This operated like a venture capital fund in that Discovery Research would pay for the research for the first year, 50% the second year, and 33% the last year. At that point there had to be a "home" for the successful product or technology. This didn't necessarily need to be a normal business unit, but there had to be some kind of reasonable answer which might be licensing or a JV.Researchers with all kinds of interesting new ideas came out of the woodwork and pitched for the funding to pursue their causes which could be funded outside the grasp of their current laboratory director. There would be drawings, process descriptions, chemical mechanisms, etc. which made for fascinating and stimulating discussions which went on for quite a while, followed by a question from me having to do with some understanding of why this project could not be supported by the existing business budget. If this hurdle was passed, then the next key question was this:What if everything you imagine might happen actually works?

Fast forward 3 years from now--you are entirely successful with every technical aspect of your work. Then what? If this question could not be answered with some kind of certainty (this did not have to be endorsement of a business unit, it could be a key piece of licensable technology to others or a generic capability useful across many business units that no particular one was willing to support), they why start the project? What if this works? What will we do? What will we need to do? Do we know how to do it? Can we learn? From whom? Do we need a partner? Who? Do we know who to talk to at this company? Let's do it in parallel with the technology development and not serially.

Sometimes we get so fascinated by the innovation and creativity journey that we forget what the end of the road looks like. It needs to be a commercially viable concept to someone (not necessarily to the inventor). In this fascination with what is new to us, we also forget to look at parallel universes and approaches, limiting ourselves to what we know. I have written about this previously, but it's worth harping on again.

There is ALWAYS more than one way to do things or accomplish a goal. If we are not aware of these other approaches, we at least will have the wrong pricing strategy when we go to market with an innovation. The customer could care less about the product or process--they have a FUNCTION to perform. They care about the lowest cost way to achieve this function.Let me be clear--I am not against creativity and innovation. And there are rare incidents like Teflon(R) and Post It Notes(R) where serendipity played a key role, but you don't want to bet the future on how many of these will come from your R&D staff.

Creativity and innovation are the heart and soul of what I am and what I do. But I have seen millions of dollars wasted (and you have too) on technology and concepts that were not thoroughly thought through. The time and money could have been much more productively spent on the ideas that were thought through, greatly increasing the productivity of R&D.

So the next time, you get excited about the kernel of a novel idea, assume total success in its development (100% yield, etc.) and then ask your self these simple questions--What will we do if it works? What will others do in response? What will be required? Who do we need to talk to? About what? If you are totally clueless about answering these questions, DON"T START until you can, and then spend that same amount of money elsewhere.

Joey was like many inventors. He had come up with a great technology that involves a visual process for better organizing massive amounts of information. He was now finding cool ways to apply the technology.

"Search is cool," Joey thought. "And, in time, I could make a lot of bucks like Google and Yahoo." But boy was he wrong! His long search for a robust and profitable business model was making him realize that "Cool Technology does not mean Cool Money." Building a profitable business model is turning out to be a lot more difficult than he had thought. He found out that Google took about two years to develop its innovative business model and search/advertising platform. Also, there is hardly any book on how to build and innovate on business models. Joey was surprised: an important subject like business model innovation but virtually no book on the topic.

I met Joey at a networking event jointly organized by the local business incubator and chamber of commerce. Joey was chatty and eager to tell his story. He explained that he was looking for someone to help him develop a profitable business model for his new technology. Joey seemed to have decided that he was going to develop a visual search engine and compete with market leaders such as Google and Yahoo. All that he needed was to justify his decision using an explicit business model. However, I advised Joey to take another look at the national landscape of industries and try to determine which industry or domain was in most pain, desperately needed his technology, and could provide the highest Return On Investment (ROI).

The following week, I got a call from Joey. He said that he had prepared a ‘Blue Ocean Map' for a set of industries. The Blue Ocean Map contains a plot of Revenue Potential vs. Pain of Customer.

According to Joey's Blue Ocean Map, the healthcare industry currently has the highest customer pain as well as highest revenue potential. He noted that he had used his own experience and research to rate the various industries. Do you agree with Joey's assessment of the state of the featured industries? Why (not)? From a customer perspective, what are useful and harmful effects as well as technical and physical contradictions of the healthcare industry?

Also, Joey now plans to develop a business model for a visual information organizer that will be used in the healthcare industry. Is that a good direction for Joey? Why (not)?

I look forward to hearing your feedback.

Best,

Rod.

A recent article published by McKinsey (March '09) quarterly shows this interesting (to me at least) study on the increasing US consumer savings in the last couple of quarters. Well, in a time when we see the bad news all around, the tendency for the rest of us earning are naturally towards saving it for the rainy day ahead. Apparently this article also put some lights on the debt Vs income ratio and justifies the reason behind this savings trend.

However, my interest here is abstracting the contradictions which I think are the contradictions (you may find a different contradiction, which is ok, and good) from the two important stakeholder's perspective, especially when the economists pointing the reasons behind the recession is the lack of (or reduced) consumer spending, not just limited to buying a new home or car, but down to the spending on their vacations, purchasing goods, and even food.

I, as a consumer, first want to save money to spend; from a business perspective, they like me to spend money to keep me in the job. (So that I can save). An interesting vicious circle and the contradiction may be;

As a consumer – Improve my savings Vs As a business – Reduced spending

If I, as a consumer focus only on the savings today, the existence of the businesses will be in question. They want me to spend, but I'm too concerned about my future if I don't save.

There is also a physical contradiction for the consumer: I Save Vs Do Not Save – I want to save for the better and make sure that I can survive during this period, but I don't want to save all my money (or want to spend) to make the businesses thrive so that I have my job!

According to TRIZ, when we are in a contradictory situation, there is an opportunity for innovation without compromising both the stakeholders need. I have no idea how my friends actually "Save" money back there, but presume they save using various financial instruments available, including, but not limited to, stocks, properties, mutual funds, pension funds, and even bank savings. (I may be completely wrong for bank related savings since what we have seen in the last few months of abysmal collapse of banking behemoths could have triggered another new trend in the way people save – Still an opportunity for innovation if you can identify that trend).

Translating the above contradictions in TRIZ terms, you have some thinking principles to brainstorm for ideas. I selected the improvement parameter from the classical TRIZ as "Reliability", because I can dependent on my savings for securing my future. The obvious worsening parameter to me here is the "harmful side effects generated", in this case is reduced spending, because I'm keen on saving.

With the following inventive principles, can you generate some ideas for the consumers to save money, and at the same time they spend money so that the businesses can run?
35. Parameter changes
# Change a system's object's physical state
# Change the concentration or consistency.
# Change the degree of flexibility.
# Change the temperature.
2. Taking out
# Separate an interfering part or property from an object, or single out the only necessary part (or property) of an object.
40. Composite materials
# Change from uniform to composite (multiple) materials.
26. Copying
# Instead of an unavailable, expensive, fragile object, use simpler and inexpensive copies.
# Replace an object, or process with optical copies.
# If visible optical copies are already used, move to infrared or ultraviolet copies.

You may select another set of improving and worsening parameter to identify more principles to ideate. The quantity of ideas will certainly lead to quality of your end results. Oh, and do not forget to look at the "resources" available to you if you are serious about coming out with some innovations within your business domain.

Phil McKinney, the chief technology officer of Hewlett-Packard's personal systems group, may not be familiar with the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) - an innovation methodology - but he is talking about a key TRIZ tool in a new interview: the ideal final result.

The article quotes McKinney as saying: "Devices today are always some kind of a compromised device--never...perfect. I want a big screen, but it weighs too much. I want 50 hours of battery life, but I can't pick up the battery. Ultimately, it's how do you build a device that requires the user not to have to make any compromise."

Begin the innovation process by determining the ideal outcome - the best possible of all scenarios. Starting from a position of compromise and concession immediately restricts the creativity and overall potential for new product, process or service development.

Instead, work backward from the ideal. Consider what it will take. And when you run into contradictions along the way - solve them using the inventive principles of TRIZ.

It's all around us. The language of hard times is everywhere, in every journal, every newspaper, in the State of the Union address, in your stockbroker statements, and in your daily conversations. In a short, but insightful article in Chemical and Engineering News on February 2, Melody Voith summarized the dilemma facing industry and how different companies are approaching the situation.

In my last commentary, I described the brute force approach being used by some companies and the huge loss of human energy and resources that result. In Melody's article, some more creative approaches were described. One of the most striking and simple was that used by DuPont, which also saw the signals early and set a plan in motion before a crisis occurred. Each employee was asked to identify 3 things that he/she could do to immediately conserve cash and reduce costs. How much more positive than laying a large number of people off and then asking the rest the same question!

This approach illustrates the use of the TRIZ problem solving principle of "Do it in Advance", as well as that of "trimming". If you recall this simple tool, we just look at a system and arbitrarily remove a part of it and then ask how we can retain the function that was provided with the parts of the system that are left. We are normally applying this thinking in products such as the Michelin Tweel(TM), the toothbrush with the toothpaste in the handle, the cleaning system without a bucket, a fireplace without a fire, and many more.

But the principle works in a business and strategy sense as well. This needs to be done in the right way to pay off big time. We can say we need fewer sales people if customers will come to us on the web. Now that the need for some of the sales force has been eliminated, we could just lay them off. Or we could take them and explore new applications and markets that we always said we didn't have time to look at. We could use them to assist in that long range planning that we know is so important, but never got to. They could look at patents that get in our way and suggest the ones to circumvent.

One of the more interesting innovation tools that can be used is to ask everyone in your organization, "What skill do you have that we are not aware of or are not using to its full potential"? This will generate a very interesting discussion list for you.Layoffs and downsizings are easy. Using resources in a clever and competitive way is not, but far more productive in the long term.

Last week I was in Miami for iSixSigma Live! Summit & Awards. (iSixSigma is a sister publication to Real Innovation.) Innovation made its way into the agenda in a few places. (Readers of Real Innovation and The TRIZ Journal are familiar with TRIZ expert Ellen Domb who joined us for two days – talking about TRIZ in a breakout session and a workshop on the final day.)

Innovation was also a topic for the first day's general session – David Silverstein, President and CEO, Breakthrough Management Group International – spoke about "Six Sigma and Innovation: A Distinction Without a Difference."

A few key points from his presentation include:

• "Innovation is about information and data."
• "Innovation is about connecting the dots."
• "Innovation doesn't happen without collaboration."

He also discussed the principle of separation in time. (It's something most of us have probably used to solve problems without knowing "it" had a name!) Separation in time can be explained by the following: you're working on a problem, you get stuck, you go to a colleague's office, you explain your problem and you come up with the idea during the explanation.

The collaboration was with yourself – you could have been in anyone's office, whomever was there listening was irrelevant to the solution. The solution came about because you had to re-process and re-state the problem at another time.

If only every problem could be solved so easily...

Ellen Domb posted a commentary about the Holiday TRIZ when the "sub-prime" axes slowly began to uproot the decades old financial institutions like Lehman Brothers. She suggested TRIZ thinking even while you are holidaying to identify innovation opportunities around us. I guess, for many of us the July 4th vacation then was much peaceful and happier than the December holiday when the whole world is reeling under economic crisis and mounting job losses. Come December, I'm not sure how many of us will really enjoy this vacation the way we would like to enjoy by keeping all worries aside.

As a strong believer of "every problem is an opportunity" statement, I see there is a good side of the current crisis we are facing. There is an interesting analogy perhaps relevant here is from the ancient Indian Ayurvedic detoxification treatment (Ancient Indian herbal medical practice), which is suggested by ancient literature. It is said that at least once in 3 years we should undergo a detoxification process to rejuvenate our body and cells to live longer and healthier life by expelling or neutralizing the toxic elements within. During this detoxification period, sometimes lasts up to 4 – 8 weeks depending upon your body condition, you are forced to go through the tough diets and stringent routines and live a life with all sorts of constraints. Drawing the same analogy with a positive frame of mind for today's crisis, we should perhaps consider this as a detoxification package provided by our system to clean up the mess so that our future is better and young.

Now, how can we consider this situation with an opportunistic mindset and enjoy our vacation? What are the possibilities for you as an individual, wanting to do something your own, setting up your own new business, or as a representative of your current organization to develop new innovations, and most importantly HOW can you think out-of-the box and enjoy your vacation?

Extending the "Holiday TRIZ" concept, there are powerful thinking techniques within the TRIZ framework to help you enjoying your vacation by exercising your grey cells and adding some fun, but also generating new ideas for a better future.

Resource thinking: Resource thinking is a very powerful concept in TRIZ considering everything around you as the resources for solving a problem or creating new products or services, which is easily attainable and free of cost (or low cost).
- Resources are Time, Space, nearby systems (product/services), people, and even emotions
- Resources can be found within your domain, the super-system around you
- Even bad things in the system are powerful resource for you

E.g. Do you find people spending maximum TIME inside their houses? Can you create an affordable product or service for them to utilize that time?

Trends: There are nine laws of technological trends in TRIZ. But, look around you; can you identify some MicroTrends? Are people becoming spiritual during the crisis time, how are they spending their money for food items, children education plan, health habits… the lists can go on. The more you start observing small things around you, the better you start thinking about a new opportunity to capitalize the trends.

E.g. Do you see a trend more and more families are gathering to churches, more socialization happening around the church?

It is easier said than done, because we are naturally wired to think about the present worries than future opportunities. Wish you a very happy festival season and a vacation ahead. Hope the New Year will be prosperous with new business ideas, service model and products.

I recently attended a re-certification course in the Kirton KAI™ assessment tool. This is one of many psychological assessment tools designed to measure "style" in a person's behavior or approach to a situation. This one focuses specifically on an individual's problem solving style as opposed to social style (www.kaicentre.com for more information). Other assessments that you may be aware of include Myers Briggs, HBDI, Fyro B, etc. If your favorite isn't listed, no offense intended!

In the orientation to this class and in the accompanying literature a key concept was introduced. Not a new concept but a way of expressing it that I had not heard before and that's worth some thought on all our parts. The concept is Problem 1 vs. Problem 2. Let me explain.

We assemble a team of people together for any number of reasons. Sometimes it's as simple as to schedule a series of meetings or presentations, choose who we want to do certain assignments, etc. These tend to be pretty simple. But more frequently, there are some human relations aspects to the problems, some different styles of approaching a problem, different backgrounds and experiences, biases and prejudices, and any number of other issues. We still have Problem 1 (strategy, serious personnel assignments, organizational or technical problem), but now we also have Problem 2. Problem 2 is the way people analyze a situation, relate to each other, view a problem, or some other biological/psychologically hard wired aspect of how a situation or others are viewed.

We can measure these things but they are typically not changeable by an individual. Coping behavior can help, but some of the group's energy is now spent dealing with Problem 2 and less of the energy is spent dealing with Problem 1. You all know team situations where Problem 2 has become so large that Problem 1 dwarfs in comparison. In some rare situations, a Problem 2 may become so severe that people forget what Problem 1 was! Mergers and acquisitions sometime collapse because of this issue. We often don't take the time to use psychological profile information that team members have or to consider how useful it may be. What is the point of gathering the information if we don't use it?

I once worked with a company where all the Myers Briggs and KAI profile information was on a tent card as you walked into someone's office. You knew immediately, in a very personal way, who you were talking with and now they would approach problems, people, and situations. What would it be like to only have Problem 1? If all the group's energy was spent solving Problem 1 and not dealing with Problem 2? What would that be like? More productive? Would more useful ideas be produced? More serious discussion occur? More understanding of various opinions and why they were held? More use of diverse opinions and viewpoints? No wasted time dealing with hidden agendas and trying to guess where someone was coming from?

I suggest that, no matter what tools you use to analyze behavior and approaches, sharing this information openly and candidly will minimize Problem 2 and allow your team to concentrate on Problem 1. You might even be able to use this information in a pro-active way by utilizing the diversity in styles of behavior in a positive way.Get on with Problem 1 by understanding and dealing openly with Problem 2!

In a recent Sunday papers around the world, a large full page, color (not cheap!) advertisement was shown displaying a new mascara brush from Lancome: http://www.lancome-usa.com/makeup/mascara/oscillation.aspx

When you watch the video at this site, you will hear things like: "Pulls lashes apart" "Coats all sides" "Vibrates at 7000 cycles per minute" "Let the oscillation do the work" "Repeat to improve the results" Now ask yourself--are you listening to a mascara application commercial or an ad for a vibrating toothbrush from years ago? A vibrating sander commercial from 30 years ago? How long have we had vibrating toothbrushes that massage gums, operate at thousands of cycles per minute, replace the work of hand brushing, cleaning all teeth and gum surfaces? What is it about eye lashes that are different than teeth and gums? I would submit not very much.

Why does it take 5+ years for a cosmetic company, whose goods are usually displayed in the same aisle of the store, to make the connection between oscillation and separation? I submit that the answer is that we think that our problem is unique and that no one could possibly have solved it before. We use special words to make us think our problem is special. In this case, mascara (solids coating), eyelashes (flexible fibers), and color (solids).We find it so incredibly difficult to want to admit that maybe the solution to our problems may already exist. We never ask ourselves, "who else has a similar problem?" How do they solve it? What's the FUNCTION we are trying to perform (not put mascara on eyelashes, but coat fibers with solids). Who else does, FUNCTIONALLY, what you need done? How do they do it? What can you learn from them?

Excellent papers in both sessions. As before, I'll report on the ones I hear personally, but encourage our readers to come to next year's meeting, and to read the proceedings of this year's sessions. Today's reports will be shorter, because the papers themselves were at a high level of complexity.

Gaetano Cascini reported on research at the Universities in Florence and Milan, structuring the laws of evolution. He reviewed and critiqued work by others which claimed to be a process for forecasting, but was just hypothetical explanations of the laws of system evolution. Gaetano presented a new model for classification of systems so that the forecasting can be used in a repeatable way. As with Phil Samuel's model from Thursday, he starts with an EMS (energy, material, signal) input output model, then uses the TRIZ construct of complete technical system, applied to flow of energy, flow of material, flow of information, etc. He expanded the system operator with the FBS = Function-Behavior-Structure analysis in each window. (Function of a system is the motivation for its existence. Structure is the entities, attributes, and relations between them. Behavior is the sequential changes of objects states governed by laws of nature; it is the link between functions and structure. The result of this disciplined approach to modeling of the system is an increase in the reliability of the forecasting system.

Dmitry Kucharavy presented his work, done with Roland DeGuio at INSA in France, "Logistic Substitution Model and Technological Forecasting," which started with extensive historical and logistic analysis of the dynamics of competition. They have the same goal of unambiguous, reproducible use of the technology forecasting models. The research treats the economic system as a technical system, model its behavior, and uses that model to modify the forecasts. Over 300 systems were studied and modeled to analyze the periodicity and shape of the curves, to understand the behaviour of the system. Conclusion: competition takes place only in common infrastructure. (and other conclusions that are sub-elements.) REALLY great data! And a plan to do much more once they develop new software for analysis. www.seecore.org to see the depth.

Denis Cavallucci (Past President and founding member of ETRIA, as well as member of the faculty at INSA) addressed the difficult problem of formulating the problem to be solved in TRIZ. Current methods have several limitations:

*TRIZ limited to one contradiction at a time.

*Poorly formalized

*Exhaustivity is not guaranteed

*Two major postulates/axioms not used in conjunction, therefore hard to professionalize/ develop a curriculum …

*Contributing factors are the misusage and no usage of laws, wrong formulation of contradiction, incapacity to identify parameters, incapacity to perceive system beyond parameters, etc.

Their new system, called contradiction clouds, is a graphical display of the importance, universality, and amplitude of the contradictions, so that the researcher can decide easily how to begin the work on the problem. The method is being tested with 85 engineering students in both classroom and project situations, and in industrial application at a continuous annealing furnace. There was distinct improvement in the ability to develop clear problem statements quickly.

The next session was called a TRIZ Masters session—it was our good friends Isak Bukhman and Sergei Ikovenko. Isak showed how a standard project roadmap, with TRIZ as a key element, can be modified easily for many different kinds of projects. Sergei presented a continuation of work he has been doing for many years, applying TRIZ to many kinds of environmental and "sustainability" or "green" problems. These are applications of the general TRIZ problem of creativity in dealing with limited resources, and creating benefit without creating harm, but they are now much more in demand.

The parallel session featured other good friends speaking on other good topics—even TRIZ hasn't conquered the problem of conference participation!

He then asked for an international review of ETRIA associated organizations. These were not official reports, just remarks by those who happened to be at Enschede.

AMETRIZ (Mexico)-me

MATRIZ-(International) Simon Litvin

Altshuller Institute (US) Zinovy Royzen

Japan- Toru Nakagawa

Korea Hongyul Yoon

There was extensive discussion about the activities of ETRIA. Members made many suggestions about improving future conferences, and about the role of ETRIA between conferences, to improve communications and research activities.

The members thanked the officers for their work all year and at the conference, and everyone thanked the conference organizers Dr. Ir. Tom H.J. Vaneker and his committee from the Department of Design, Production and Management of the Faculty of Engineering Technology University of Twente. Thanks, Tom!

"…over the history of software development there have not been that many innovations.." I must have heard this statement elsewhere in some forum, but now this is the base for a new TRIZ for software innovation book recently launched. This is the book written and re-written several times in the last four years by Darrell Mann, and something I personally had been waiting ever since he said the concept of a TRIZ book specific to Software. I must confess though, that the anticipation (for this book) had become oblivious to me at some point of time. (A lot have happened in the last 4 years). Last month Darrell launched his latest book, Systematic (Software) Innovation; I'm almost half done with that.

If you have read his earlier editions of Systematic Innovation for business & Mgmt, and Technology, this is an easy read (hence I could finish half), flipping through the pages will do. However, if you are interested in learning TRIZ for software and new to this concept, consider this as a good reference book (still please do read another primer book to understand the basic concept of TRIZ techniques), and suggest a thorough read, but not a very easy read as Clayton Christensen's books..

First impression – Considerable changes in his style; not difficult to read, usage of nice and catchy words, phrases, simple explanation of the techniques. This is a great improvement considering his previous books.

I'm not intending a complete book review here. I need to read (or flip through) this at least till the 10th chapter to do enough justice to that. But, something out-there-in-my-mind is here:

- Interesting examples used across. However, should have had more detailed examples with "real" software stuffs; data structure, algorithms, architecture design etc. Considering the time he had taken for writing (researching) this book, I can understand how difficult it would be. But certainly there is a great scope for the future editions.

- Has covered lot of UI examples. I'm happy to see the Google search engine in this book

- Using perception mapping for software – I was expecting to see something more of this use in software when we were exchanging notes long time back. I don't see anything more than the original perception mapping technique from the Systematic Innovation for Business & Management book.

- Very good, step-by-step approach to applying it in actual problem (He has justified that the software problems are not necessarily "software" problems, but is in the periphery of software) with loads of templates. Templates should help for the first timers, and especially for the software guys.

- A sole good chapter devoted how to teach this – Well thought through. Will help lot of new people would want to embrace this in their organization

- Last couple of chapters about the fascinating (for me at least) concepts about ToE (Theory of Everything). I'm sure he is writing his next book with this concept.

- Couple of things I'm not impressed a) quality of printing – Pictures are shrunk and nothing readable inside the charts and graph etc. b) cost – one of the costliest paper back edition book I have purchased..  - Around $51.00

Finally – Thanks to Darrell. Last four years of applying TRIZ for software in my company (no book targeting TRIZ for software existed until now) deriving our own approaches from the basic TRIZ, and his previous books have been validated now with his examples, approaches. I can go back and show his book, applications, case studies, approaches to those who weren't ready to listen what I had to say without any "master data"!

If you get a chance to read this book, do share your thoughts, views. I hope this book is possibly a foundation, and many more concepts, application, and books will follow..

This week I'll be reporting from the TRIZ-Future Conference 2008, "The Synthesis of Innovation," presented by the European TRIZ Association, CIRP The International Academy for Production Engineering, and the University of Twente at Enschede in the Netherlands. CIRP has 550 members in 40 countries, so their participation will be significant in spreading the TRIZ message. There will be a special TRIZ session at the next CIRP conference, as well.

I came to Enschede by train from the Amsterdam Schipol airport, so I can't report on the scenery—8 of us from Taiwan, Iran, Japan, US, UK, and Turkey had a great time talking about TRIZ! This is what we have called in the past the "generous definition of Europe." In the morning light, we could appreciate the beauty of the campus and the Dutch countryside.

The Wednesday morning program of tutorials continued the generous definition of Europe:

1. "Introduction to TRIZ for Technological Applications" by Hongyul Yoon, South Korea
2. "Introduction to TRIZ for Business and Management Applications" by Valeri Souchkov, Netherlands
3. "A systematized use of Su-Field Analysis" by Iouri Belski, Australia

All three audiences were quite participatory, and were a mix of university faculty, TRIZ practioners, and TRIZ students. The University of Twente demonstrated new conference communication technology—each visitor got an MP-3 player that functions as a USB memory. When plugged into the computer, it gives a 3-dimensional tour of the campus, it searches for new information and delivers it to the computer—we got the morning tutorials immediately after lunch .

This is where I usually insert my editorial remarks on the indirect benefits of attending TRIZ Conferences—you not only learn the new information, you learn the methods of presentation that a variety of teachers are using, and you learn what other people are interested in, both from their questions in the sessions and from the conversation over coffee and meals and walking between the sessions and the hotels. Start planning now for the 2009 meeting—some people need to request budgets now for meetings throughout the year! And some people can only attend a meeting if they are presenting a paper—start organizing your research and case study work now! End of Ellen's editorial!

Today I mixed papers from sessions 1 and 2 in order to get a mix of theory and practice, and to find out what some of my friends have been doing since the last conference.

Giacomo Bersano, T.Eltzer, and R. Uhl reported on their method of integrating TRIZ with risk management to increase the success ratio for innovation projects. New data from the French ministry of industry showed that 23% of companies stopped innovation projects, 30% were seriously delayed, and only 10% were fully successful. He used the function modeling method from GTI to look at the complex relationships that lead to the failure of innovation projects, which identified the lack of good data as a key issue. TRIZ analysis of the contradiction between the need for precise data (and the requisite time and money) and the need for speed to market led to several suggested methods for resolving the contradictions. These methods have not yet been applied to new innovations—perhaps we can have a paper next year with the results?

Darrell Mann returned to a favorite theme from past papers, with technological updates, in the paper "Smart Materials Solve Contradictions: Connecting the Right Materials Solution to the Right Market Need." Darrell used a wide variety of examples (vacuum cleaners, automobile suspensions, room air conditioning, bullet-proof vests, shin pads for sports) to address the fundamental issue of discontinuous change rather than optimization. Smart materials that are flexible when not stressed, and rigid when stressed resolve the contradictions because they have non-linear response to the impulse. For heat control, Darrell introduced smart conductors that change conductivity (the molecules rearrange themselves) as a function of temperature. Rheo-chromic and mechano-chromic materials change color as a function of stress—there are different applications for reversible and irreversible changes. He organized the stimulus and response fields in a matrix, which can serve as a guide for patent searches to find the materials which demonstrate the needed phenomena.

Simon Dewulf, Vincent Theeten, and Bernard Lahousse use case studies of novelty products to illustrate their thesis that simplicity is an overriding concept in TRIZ. Simon created a cross-index of properties and functions, and build a geometrical device (think morphological matrix with spider charts in the cells) to look at the opportunities for achieving the desired functions in the simplest possible way. More performance, less harm, more convenience, lower price are the 4 criteria that almost all developers want (on behalf of their customers), which can be used to rank the techniques found in patent searches. The audience enjoyed the de-colored beer (de-colored sugar syrup) and the metal foam (bread dough, whipped cream) and the flexible piano and dozens of other examples. Too much time was spent demonstrating features of their software, rather than the basic principles of the paper.

We then reconvened for the second keynote by Zinovy Royzen, "TOP-TRIZ: Theory, Applications, Training and Integration." TOP TRIZ is a further development of classical TRIZ which includes problem formulation and Tool-Object-Product modeling, development of standard solutions into standard techniques, further development of ARIZ, and utilization of resources. Royzen presented six cases that demonstrated the practical applications and the depth and breadth of the method.

The day concluded with a reception, and I'm told that those with fewer time zones travel than I continued drinking and talking late into the night.

The Mexican TRIZ Association (AMETRIZ) is hosting a blog for ideas to solve the global economic crisis: http://blog.ametriz.com/.

Put that TRIZ (and other innovation methods and tools) experience to good use and submit your ideas. (And share them here, too!)

Thanks to Gaetano Cascini and Noel Leon for getting us this abbreviated report on the 2nd IFIP Topical Session on Computer-Aided Innovation, presented in conjunction with the 20th IFIP World Computer Congress (September 7-10, 2008, Milan, IT - http://www.wcc2008.org ), and dedicated to the Integration of CAI systems in the Product Development cycle. IFIP, the International Federation for Information Processing, is a multinational apolitical organization in Information & Communications Technologies and Sciences, recognized by the United Nations; it represents IT Societies from more than 50 countries, covering all 5 continents. Working Group 5.4 deals with Computer-Aided Innovation, http://computeraidedinnovation.net. Frequent TRIZ Journal readers will see that several of our frequent authors were participants and award winners for outstanding papers.

35 papers were evaluated in a double-blind process. Final program was as follows:

- A. ALBERS, N. LEON ROVIRA, H. AGUAYO, AND T. MAIER

Optimization with Genetic Algorithms and Splines as a way for Computer Aided Innovation: follow up of an example with crankshafts

- M. ANNARUMMA, M. PAPPALARDO AND A. NADDEO

Methodology development of human task simulation as PLM solution related to OCRA ergonomic analysis

- G. CASCINI AND M. ZINI

Measuring patent similarity by comparing inventions functional trees

- D. CAVALLUCCI, F. ROUSSELOT AND C. ZANNI

Representing and selecting problems through contradictions clouds

- D. CEBRIAN-TARRASON AND R. VIDAL

How an ontology can infer knowledge to be used in product conceptual design

- G. COLOMBO, D. PUGLIESE AND C. RIZZI

Developing DA Applications in SMEs Industrial Context

- S. DUBOIS, I. RASOVSKA AND R. DE GUIO

Comparison of non solvable problem solving principles issued from CSP and TRIZ

- O. KUHN, H. LIESE AND J. STJEPANDIC

Engineering Optimisation by Means of Knowledge Sharing and Reuse

- V. F. TELES AND F. J. RESTIVO

Innovation in Information Systems applied to the Shoes Retail Business

- A. J. WALKER AND J. J. COX

Virtual Product Development Models: Characterization of Global Geographic Issues

Posters:

- A. AMATO, A. MORENO AND N. SWINDELLS

DEPUIS project: Design of Environmentally-friendly Products Using Information Standards

- R. ANDERL AND J. RAßLER

PML, an Object Oriented Process Modeling Language

- F. BELKADI, N. TROUSSIER, F. HUET, T.GIDEL, E. BONJOUR AND B. EYNARD

Innovative PLM-based approach for collaborative design between OEM and suppliers: Case study of aeronautic industry

- C. CEVENINI, G. CONTISSA, M. LAUKYTE, R. RIVERET AND R. RUBINO

Development of the ALIS IP Ontology: Merging Legal and Technical Perspectives

- B. CRAWFORD, C. LEÓN DE LA BARRA AND P. LETELIER

Communication and Creative Thinking in Agile Software Development

- N. DÖRR, E. BEHNKEN AND T. MÜLLER-PROTHMANN

Web-based Platform for Computer Aided Innovation

- H. DUIN, J. JASKOV, A. HESMER AND K.D. THOBEN

Towards a Framework for Collaborative Innovation

- S. GRAZIOSI, D. POLVERINI, P. FARALDI AND F. MANDORLI

A systematic innovation case study: new concepts of domestic appliance drying cycle

- R. C. MICHELINI AND R. P. RAZZOLI

Product Lifestyle Design: Innovation for Sustainability

- MIN-HWAN OK AND TAE-SOO KWON

A Conceptual Framework of the Cooperative Analyses in Computer-Aided Engineering

- D. REGAZZONI, R. NANI

TRIZ-Based Patent Investigation by Evaluating Inventiveness

The program was enriched by the Keynote speech by Prof. Noel Leon Rovira on "The future of Computer Aided Innovation" and by a roundtable on "The role of computers in Innovation-related activities" (moderator: Gaetano Cascini):

- establishing the differences between innovation, invention and optimization (Roland De Guio);

- identifying the requirements for CAI systems (Rosario Vidal);

- how to integrate CAI systems in the Product Cycle (Noel Leon Rovira);

- how to link CAI tools with existing PLM systems (Marco Taisch);

- how to identify and create collaboration opportunities with other IFIP WGs (Open debate).

The BEST Paper Awards went to

- G. CASCINI AND M. ZINI

Measuring patent similarity by comparing inventions functional trees

- D. CAVALLUCCI, F. ROUSSELOT AND C. ZANNI

Representing and selecting problems through contradictions clouds

The presenters of the winning papers have jointly agreed to leave the 750 Euro Grant offered by the IFIP TC5 Executive Committee to Sébastien Dubois, co-author and presenter of the 3rd classified paper:

- S. DUBOIS, I. RASOVSKA AND R. DE GUIO

Comparison of non solvable problem solving principles issued from CSP and TRIZ

I'll see many of these same authors next week in the Netherlands at the ETRIA meeting, and hope to have more to report, and we hope to get some of the most TRIZ-oriented papers for publication in future issues.

I'd like to share with you a very simple, but powerful strategic analysis tool that I'll just describe as the "tic-tac-toe" approach to strategic analysis. It comes from my experience with TRIZ, but it's a much broader thinking tool and can greatly support your efforts to think strategically about innovation and where your organization is heading.

Put yourself, your product, or your business in the middle of the 9-Box diagram. Above you is the customer you supply. Underneath are your suppliers and the materials you buy. This box could easily be 12 or 15 boxes depending upon the depth of the supply chain and the steps involved in making your product or the needed raw materials needed for your product or service, but for simplicity we'll just consider 9. To the left of your current box in the center is your past technology. To your right is the future. This same logic applies to the levels above and below you.

I propose that if you cannot complete in some detail all nine boxes, you do not know your business very well. Let's look at a couple of simple illustrations. First the automobile. You are Ford, GM, or Toyota at the middle level. To your left is some aspect of previous car design, say windshield cleaning (note that we need to talk FUNCTION and not how it's done). To the right might be the future of windshield cleaning and how it might be done (variable speed? responsive to auto speed? No wiper?). Above you is the integrated system, in the middle say, the car (of which the windshield is a part). Below you are the raw materials you buy to make a windshield wiper, say rubber strips. In the lower left is a description of a previous wiper raw material, say natural rubber (with little flexibility and a tendency to become brittle). To the right on the bottom are the materials envisioned for the next generation of wiper blades. In the upper left hand corner might be the car of the past with no wiper blades and to the right might be a windshield "cleaning system" (note I did not say wiper blades, I am describing the function needed and not how it's done), possibly not requiring a wiper blade at all (think about how this might be done).

If you cannot complete all 9 boxes to some degree, you do not understand what is going on in your universe. The history of technology evolution clearly tells us that products and systems are integrated upward into their super-system. Said another way, your customer, despite what they might tell you, is trying to figure out how to get the function or value you provide without the use of your product or service.

If you are not thinking the same way, you are in for a rude awakening one of these days. Bank deposit systems that eliminate the need for deposit slips and envelopes are arriving. Want to be in the envelope business? Deposit slip printing business? Wouldn't be a lot better to be in the optical scanning business rather than reducing the cost of envelopes? You've have heard the story of the buggy whip manufacturers who were making better buggy whips when the box above them moved to the right in one of these diagrams and better, cheaper buggy whips were irrelevant. The car provides a transportation service which is occasionally used to meet with other people. Maybe working on better Internet based communication systems is a smarter long term business, but that's hard for GM and Ford to do, isn't it?

To push a bit further, consider a cube and not a one dimensional diagram. Parallel ways of getting the same result. Cars are not the only way to get from here to there. Airplanes are another. If you make airfares low enough, who cares about the comfort factors of a car? Draw a simple tic-tac-toe diagram on a piece of paper and put your product or service in the middle box. To the left write in the past generation of this technology or service. To the right describe what you think future opportunities for improvement and development are. Now, one box below, write in a raw material or service you buy and use. While you are thinking about the path of evolution of this product or service, begin thinking about how your product or service could be performed without using it.

Now look at our customer above. What function does your product or service provide? Where is their product or service heading? How could they get the result they get with your product or service without you? What will their next generation need be? Do you have any idea how to provide?

Couple of years back I was explaining the Ideal Final Result (IFR) concept to our engineers (Computer engineers) using the example of "search". The question we tried to answer; what is the IFR for the function (for consumers) search. Since then I was intrigued by the potential possibilities in the human-computer interaction aspect of one of the most active phenomena on the internet, and search was always a fascinating topic to sell TRIZ concept to computer engineers. Recently Google released their browser (Chrome); before I wanted to install it myself and reading some of the fine prints about Chrome, the concept of IFR with "search" struck me queerly. Before I analyze why, let me try to describe some of the IFR's we used to fantasize about.

In TRIZ Ideal Final Result means achieving the maximum functionality without any harm and increasing the overall cost (significantly). I assume the cost of developing a browser for Google should not be expensive considering the 20% time given to engineers doing something their own!

What is the Ideal Final Result for us in the "search" function?

- We never want to search if we know everything – This one is beyond the science fiction indeed.
- What if my system can understand what I would be searching in another few minutes – Something like a mind reader?
Possibly some commercially viable IFR's
- I get paid for searching. Currently, searching is a free service for me.
- My search engine selects the keyword automatically and searches for me.
- My search engine knows what I need to search the moment I open the browser
- My search engine knows from where (my location) I search and what
- My search engine understands my situation in which I'm searching and giving the results based on that. Example; searching for hospitals for, and I get the results with the hospitals very close to the place I'm searching from.

A search engine does my actual work –I'm writing a research paper on cognitive thinking and emotions, and the moment I hit on the search, I may get the results related to the topic I'm searching, and search engine recommends an extra paragraph. (Hmmm...This is a cool feature for me to finish some pending articles…)
- Browser understands my emotions and search based on that. My blood pressure is so high after a meeting with my boss, and my browser is providing me some tips to cool down myself. (Think about integration with my mouse embedded a blood pressure sensor and browser)
- Searching what I may need tomorrow

The list can go on:

When Google announced their browser Chrome last week, the immediate connection made was – "Search" and "browser", as in a function diagram interacting each other. Naturally, it is pretty evident why Google should develop own browser and enter this market, which is a very competitive from the era of Netscape, and also having partnered with Firefox supporting their browser for sometime.

They may have nicely packaged about their browser capabilities, (I must admit some of them are unique though), however, that doesn't give their browser an edge on what's there already, especially FireFox or Safari for a common user like me.

Illustrating the entire thought process behind launching a browser, what I believe Google's attempt to bring a browser is nothing more than to implement the next generation search feature, indeed a very innovative thinking and an innovative way to achieve the same via their own browser.

Few Ideal Final Result's we discussed above has been implemented in some part of the world, not necessarily specific to the search, but in similar context. Product like Autonomy is already providing intelligence searching, but with a limited knowledge base (internal to the organization). However, bringing intelligence to the search for the mass, like the way Google excelled in the search engine isn't very easy with a restricted user and knowledge base.

How could Google fill this gap? A dedicated browser for using their own search engine should help them understanding the usage pattern, context in which we search etc and add some brain. Browser as an application running in my own PC, can facilitate more actions, record/log the instances, situations, applications I'm running and more to understand me as a user.

Here is a classic (?) feature:

When I search for the latest movie and book a ticket through online booking site, my search engine knows that and records it; after few days, I'm enjoying some music on my PC and suddenly remembers this movie I watched and want to check out the option to buy some music and open the browser to search. Bingo, there comes your browser and tells you, dude – here is the best site to purchase this song rated best by your friends (remember I also use my social network) from the movie you watched last week!
Well, perhaps not just fantasies after reading this news I guess – Be sure to read Chrome's fine print . Some of the terms and conditions are very close to achieving the search IFR, like self searching, not searching etc, if they get to know what I do using their browser, the way I described above.

Incidentally, they have amended some of the clause mentioned in the copyright license, but still I believe they are on to something. Let's wait and watch.

The 2008 participants represented Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, US, France, and the Mexican states of Veracruz, Jalisco, Nueva Leon, Mexico, Michoacan, Puebla, Queretaro, Distrito Federal, and Tabasco and there have been past participants from Zacatecas and Baja California Norte in Mexico, and Argentina, Brazil, UK, Iraq, Korea, and Spain.

Photo: R. Marin, Z. Royzen and J. Hipple with mariachis at the reception on day 2.

I will continue to report on my observation of the conference, with short notes on the papers. For the complete program, see http://www.ametriz.com/schedule_third_conference_triz.php.

Noel Leon presented the paper that he wrote with Humberto Aguayo Téllez on the use of Genetic Algorithms with TRIZ. The complementary elements of the two methods have been combined into Evolutionary Conceptual Design. Particularly, the use of biological evolutionary mechanisms in genetic algorithms and of technical evolutionary concepts in TRIZ, were particularly fruitful. They found that the two disciplines had developed similar concepts of ideality and the need to abandon trade-offs to reach the ideal final result (using TRIZ vocabulary) The examples that impressed the audience were both concrete and fanciful: The development of a design for a forged steel machine part that meets multiple simultaneous constraints, and the development of a simulated multi-terrain walking robot. See www.youtube.com/watch?v=oquKOVfzGfk&NR=1 to watch the robot learn! (I like when it starts experimenting with jumping instead of walking –TRIZ ideas of using another dimension to solve the problem!) Later in the day Cesar Villareal showed a case study of design of vertical wind turbines using the combination of the genetic algorithms with TRIZ to solve very difficult technical problems that will be essential for energy production.

Edgardo Cordoba presented the work that he did with Angélica Arellano Palacios on the application of TRIZ in human relations. They have worked with individual, management /administrative and cultural problems, and found that TRIZ makes significant and useful contributions in all areas. In particular, organization leaders increased their creativity and demonstrated ideal solutions at a level that had been inconceivable before their use of TRIZ. Tools that were most useful to the leaders were multi-windows, smart little people, and dimension/time/cost. They looked at the leadership dimensions: transactional, transformational, situational, and visionary, and found that leaders need similar skills in all areas, but they need to know how to apply those skills in a flexible way.

Luz Marina Torres Piñeros presented the work she developed with Oscar Fernando Castellanos Domínguez and others at the National University of Colombia. They studied the relationship between "technological intelligence" and the decision making process in countries ranging from Colombia to India to Ecuador to the US. She has extensive data showing how the state of 3 different industries (tobacco, cacao, and finque) improved as the understanding of the system and the technology developed.

Hilda Del Sagrario Vallín Sánchez and her colleagues Sergio Gerardo Mañón Espinon and Álvaro R. Pedroza Zapata from ITESO (Institute for Advanced Study in the West) in Tlaquepaque, a suburb of Guadalajara, showed a detailed case study of innovative development of battery technology through use of multi-parameter designed experiments.

Avraam Serediski is well-known to the TRIZ Journal readers. He participated in two of the projects that were reported at the conference. He and Gabriel González Molina and

Fidel García Gonzalez (who presented the paper) studied >20,000 graduating students from universities, and received surprisingly negative answers to the question of how the students will impact society. They have formulated a plan which is now in active deployment in the state of Puebla, associated with several universities, for entrepreneurship education and for business incubators, to encourage the students and others to work together for new enterprises.

TRIZ Journal readers are familiar with problems in the construction industry. The conference had 3 very exciting papers on the use of TRIZ to solve problems in materials development for construction to improve strength and life of materials and to reduce cost (both for the producer and for the user, and for society by reducing energy costs.)

1. Sergio Uribe from Cemex showed the TRIZ adoption process, and how Cemex is combining TRIZ with training, software, support, and management systems to increase adoption and accelerate project completion throughout the company
2. J. C. Rubio Ávalos and his colleagues at the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo and with the support of government agencies used TRIZ for breakthrough improvements in phosforescent concrete, flexible window materials, strong membranes, and inorganic foams. In each case they used very basic TRIZ principles (such as the 40 principles and the separation principles) plus the concept of ideality, to make extreme improvements.
3. Alfonso Moreno Salazar and his colleagues in Guadalajara reported on developments in the use of foam panels for both home and industrial construction. The new techniques make very energy-efficient buildings possible with much less labor and use of raw materials, using classical contradiction resolution, applied in a multi-parameter environment.

Professor Rafael Oropeza Monterrubio both entertained and educated the audience—as the last speaker before lunch he had the challenge of keeping people engaged! His study of the failures of leadership in traditional organizations and his recommendations for structural changes, based on the application of TRIZ to management problems, were very well received.

Laura Ponce Garcia presented an extensive study of the opportunities for improvement in the hospitality industry, mostly focused on hotels, and the many possibilities made possible by the methods of understanding of customers' needs and the use of information technology.

Christian Signoret & Avraam Serediski (Mexico and France) revived one of the TRIZ methods developed in the mid-1980s to increase the Ideality of a system: the Integration of Alternative Systems. The process was illustrated with an agricultural case study and a student project in rocket design. It produces very dramatic results very quickly, if the practioner has a good understanding of the relationships of the functions and subsystems of the system that is being improved.

Guillermo Cortes Robles Institute Technologica in Orizaba, Veracruz, MX, did two presentations on the use of Alternative Failure Determination to increase safety of industrial machinery. They were very elegant case studies, using the resources of the system to solve the problem, once the problem was understood. His data on the need to improve industrial safety made a strong case.

Pedro Sariego P showed 3 cases from the Chilean mining industry The case studies illustrated specific TRIZ methods, with considerable Six Sigma thinking in the identification of the problems:

1. Elimination of a contradiction: How to position the elecrolytic process in the chain of cathodes in hydrometalurgical processing of copper
2. Su-Field analysis: Problem of an elbow in the discharge of a lime production process
3. ARIZ: Removing large rocks that get stuck in the jaws of a crushing machine in a copper processing system.

Javier Rivera Ramírez discussed his work with Rosario Vidal Nadal on methods of managing innovation in an environment where science, technology and design have evolved without always being focused on the needs of the customer, and pointed out possible ways to manage both the people and the processes to enhance innovation.

Edgardo Cordoba's fascinating presentation on the seventh generation of quality, presented as a new paradigm of TRIZ, had much new data that traced the evolution of the quality control, quality improvement, and pro-active quality movements, and suggested that the predictive properties of TRIZ would contribute to the future of quality in many ways.

Day 4 was devoted to tutorials. I did a half-day workshop on how to teach TRIZ, focusing on understanding the learning process before trying to do any teaching. Jack Hipple did a full-day program on the integration of TRIZ with many other tools and methods, and Noel Leon did an intensive half-day session for TRIZ beginners. I missed the party that the 4 organizations that were sharing the Expo center for the week of innovation presented on Saturday night (had to run to the airport) but I hope that this report shows the organizing committee of AMETRIZ that their efforts were appreciated!

Photo: Rafael Fargas, Noel Leon, and keynote speakers Andrew Brown and Mansour Ashtiani.

AMETRIZ (The TRIZ Association of Mexico) changed the dates of the III Congreso Iberoamericano de Inovacion Tecnologica to participate in the inauguration of the new (Magnificent!) Expo conference center of Guadalajara with simultaneous meetings of Universitronica 2008, Creanimax (animation and video games) MexEEDev (Mexico Electronics and Embedded Developers Forum), and honoring the International Week of Learning, Innovation, and High Technology (my translation!)

Because of the date change, I was unable to participate in Day 1. Zinovy Royzen's tutorial on the TOPS method of function analysis had 50 very active participants in the morning, who then learned to apply TRIZ to processes in Edgardo Cordova's tutorial in the afternoon.

Day 2 is the plenary session, which opened with greetings from the officials of the state of Jalisco, the conference center, and the organizers. We were represented on the podium by Rafael Farga, the local organizer of the Congreso. Thanks to Rafael, and to Noel Leon and Edgardo Cordova who organized the technical program, for a great meeting. As always in these commentaries, this will be a personal report—if readers want the full program, see http://www.ametriz.com/schedule_third_conference_triz.php. The conference proceedings will be available for purchase from AMETRIZ after the conference.

Randall Marín, Senior Test Engineer from Intel in Costa Rica delivered the kickoff speech for our session. He presented the history of the semiconductor industry and Intel's place in the industry, and the development of TRIZ at Intel. This is the same story that Amir Roggel has presented to audiences in Japan, the US and Europe, but Randall made it fresh with new stories from the Intel user conferences--applications of TRIZ to solve problems and to prevent problems in the most stressing manufacturing environment now in use. Randall's slide show tour of the Costa Rica Innovation Center made a lot of people jealous—a great environment for TRIZ, both the physical place and the problem-solving orientation of the culture. The match between the Intel culture and the TRIZ emphasis on removing problems, not just making trade-offs has helped TRIZ propagate rapidly throughout the manufacturing sector of the company.

Photos: Marin, Hipple, Royzen, Brown

Jack Hipple is well-known to the TRIZ Journal and Real Innovation audiences. His talk on "Parallel Universes" got the audience involved in several case studies. He showed how the air traffic control display developers greatly improved the ability of a controller to notice a bad situation in time to do something about it (hey, this is important to me—I'm a pilot and a passenger!) by studying what is done in chemical plant control systems, nuclear power control, and computer game design. Jack's illustration of the key skill of translating jargon into general language, so that you can look for the parallels in other technological "universes" was both helpful and entertaining. Thanks, Jack!

Mansour Ashtiani is the President of the Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies and the TRIZ advocate at the Delphi company. He gave the audience a very concise history of the development of TRIZ and the work of the Altshuller Institute to promote TRIZ, and suggested some future North-America wide collaboration with AMETRIZ.

Margarita de la Fuente y Xavier Gonzalez is an expert in many areas of innovation, including the de Bono and Goldratt thinking systems. Today she talked about the process of administration of innovation programs in business, based on the experiences that she and her co-authors have in the food and food processing industries (KFC, Frito-Lay, Nabisco and other big brands.) A key finding from their study is that organizational culture and organizational alignment are essential to innovation, seen as 2 legs of a stool. The third, essential leg, is the realization that innovation applies to all aspects of the company—service and product delivery, production, business processes, understanding non-users as well as users, regulatory requirements, and many others.

Zinovy Royzen gave an abbreviated paper on the TOP model, which he introduced several years ago and has continued to develop. (TOP= Tool, Object, Product) and showed how to use it to define problems. He injected much interesting historical information about the development of function analysis in TRIZ by many researchers (other than Altshuller). Zinovy's case study on the transformer was a great introduction to the idea of trimming, both for experienced practioners and beginners alike.

I presented my new thinking on teaching TRIZ to beginners (to be published in the TRIZ Journal in December—be patient). What's new? It isn't about TEACHING—it is about LEARNING. And while many of us are teachers, all of us are learners, so learning about how people learn will help everybody. Good news, TRIZ is right: somebody someplace has already solved this problem, and I bring a lot of education research together and show how to apply it to TRIZ learning.

Concluding speaker of the day was Dr. Andrew Brown from Delphi, who has been a spectacularly popular speaker at TRIZCON meetings, and who is a member of several international study commissions on the future of the transportation industry. The audience left in a state of high excitement about the future of transportation, the future of technology, and the future of the world.

Paul Filmore is reporting from The Third TRIZ Symposium in Japan.---------

I have arrived to my second Japan TRIZ conference near Kyoto. The official title is ‘The 4th TRIZ Symposium in Japan'. After a 12 hour flight, three trains; I have finally arrived. And ‘arrive' is the operative word, because to arrive in Japan is like few other countries. Immediately one is aware of ‘contradictions'. A land very flat with sudden dramatic mountains, beautiful forests and dense industry, frantic activity and inner peace, modern architecture and ancient temples, to name but a few i.e., a TRIZ practitioners paradise!

Out my bedroom window I see Lake Biwa; a lake as big as a sea. In the foreground are long sticks appearing from the water in regular patterns. What is the ‘function of these I wonder?

My Japanese friends here tell me these are to guide fish to a small area where nets can be placed. This system works by the knowledge that when fish find their way blocked they tend to always swim towards deeper water. As one can see from the photos the sticks are often further apart than a fish's dimensions, but work I assume because when the fish starts to swim from a blockage, they keep going in one direction. This approach seems to be symbolic of a key area of TRIZ, that of really understanding the underlying functionality (or physical principle) in any process. Please get back to me if I have missed something here! I was also wondering if the heights of the sticks allow transmission of vibrations from the wind to produce an acoustic fence underwater, enhancing the fish channelling effect?

The day started with an exquisite breakfast (with hardly any food I recognised). A warm greeting waited at registration for the pre session delegates. The choice (?) was to learn about TRIZ in Japanese or for a detailed discussion of sharing individual TRIZ experience. The second option proved to be interesting not least in catching up with colleagues' developments from a year ago. It also developed into interesting speculation of where TRIZ is going.

The formal opening was after lunch, by Toshihiro Hayashi, chairperson of the Japan TRIZ Society Board. He presented an interesting analysis of the growth in participants over the last four years to this conference. Although the total number of participants was lower (167) this year (due to a number of reasons), those presenting had increased from 34 to 46. The first Keynote was from Amir Roggel who gave a presentation of Intel, innovation and the TRIZ developments at Intel worldwide. Two significant points stood out. Firstly that Intel has recognised that TRIZ has made Intel ‘many millions', far offsetting ALL the costs associated introducing TRIZ. Secondly that TRIZ is being significantly ramped up with over 1000 employees having gained level 1 (5days), over 200 at level 2 (another 5 days) and ~40 at level 3 (20 days).

After the Keynote, there followed a number of sessions in parallel. All presentations were dual projected in English and Japanese, with translation provided for question sessions. I gave a paper which followed on research from last year's presentation of identifying indicators associated with highly effective engineers and then linking these to TRIZ tools. This year I presented the results of associating Lean and 6Sigma tools with the same indicators. What I found from initial analysis was that Lean, 6Sigma and Lean Six Sigma had ‘less rich toolsets' associated with these indicators. This rather implying that TRIZ has some significant advantages over traditional approaches! One other session of note was from Dr Toru Nakagawa reporting on the latest developments of USIT. This approach is gaining strength in Japan, judging on the number of papers to be presented using this. I rather liked Toru's ‘Six Box' overview of the USIT procedure developed using Data Flow Diagram visualisation (see diagram). I have always felt that the ‘four boxes' representation of ‘general' TRIZ, used often to promote TRIZ, trivialised TRIZ in the minds of new comers.

The evening began with a buffet dinner allowing people to move around and ‘communicate' with each other. This worked very well and gave many opportunities to talk and link up. The evening closed with an optional classical guitar concert from Ireland's premier guitarist, Catherine Thom.

Toru Nakagawa exclaimed, ‘a very beautiful and relaxing recital'.

What a day! I look forward to tomorrow.

Links for further information

• Conference: http://www.osaka-gu.ac.jp/php/nakagawa/TRIZ/eTRIZ/
• Hotel & Lake Biwa: http://www.osaka-gu.ac.jp/php/nakagawa/TRIZ/eTRIZ/elinksref/eJapanTRIZ-CB/e4thTRIZSymp2008Pre.html#Venue
• Catherine Thom: www.CatherineThom.com

RSS