<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
		<title>RealInnovation.com Discussion Forum</title>
		<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/</link>
		<description>Innovation Discussion Forum at RealInnovation.com</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2000-2010RealInnovation.com, CTQ Media</copyright>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:41:46 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>10</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Information About Triz Application to Gear Design]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[There is no special part of TRIZ for gear design.&amp;nbsp; If you can define the problem that you have designing the gear, then you can apply the general principles of TRIZ.&amp;nbsp; For example, many people start with &quot;technical contradictions&quot; (trade-offs).&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; If your problem is that as the gears get more complicated, maintenance requirements get worse, or that as the surface area of gear teeth increases, the useful lifetime decreases (I am making these up--not real gear cases!)&amp;nbsp; then you can use the contradiction matrix and 40 principles of TRIZ to find solutions to the problems.&amp;nbsp; But there are many other kinds of problems, too.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; So, you&apos;ll need to tell us more before we can help you.]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1879</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:22:24 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Ellen Domb]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Information about TRIZ application to gear design]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Please, I would like to receive information about TRIZ application to gear design]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1877</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:38:58 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Jorge Moya]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: the Current Ariz Version?]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Type &quot;ARIZ&quot; into the TRIZ Journal search engine, and select the &quot;articles&quot; option.&amp;nbsp; You&apos;ll get a lot of references, including downloadable book chapters, etc.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ARIZ-85C is reportedly the last version that Altshuller was personally involved with.&amp;nbsp; Many instructors have their own versions, sometimes called &quot;ARIZ-XY&quot; where XY are the instructor&apos;s initials.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; My advice is to try several of them, so you can see the patterns of relationships between the tools and methods, and can pick what works for the kinds of problems you deal with, and also can recognize when your problem is well-enough-defined that you don&apos;t need a full ARIZ analysis.]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1876</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 07:59:45 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Ellen Domb]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The current ARIZ version?]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been working with the older versions of ARIZ (71 + 77), but I would like to try the newer ones.. Which version should I use - and where can I find the description?
Bo]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1875</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:08:43 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Bo]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Triz Books]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you very much sir!]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1874</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:47 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[VVP]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: a Qustion About Triz Future]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[the desire to integrate the TRIZ methodologies into various &quot;innovation&quot; &quot;teachings&quot; that have given us such buzzwords as &quot;organizational DNA&quot; and similar reminds me of the quote from a well-known Kipling&apos;s poem: &quot;Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?&quot; You can integrate intelligence into stupidity all you want, but don&apos;t expect the result to be a functional one.Perhaps a big part of the future of this system would be to teach people to understand and apply it well enough that they would actually solve their problems and not run around trying to synthesize polluted antibiotics with traditional snake oil.]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1872</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:23:56 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Michael Lyubomirskiy]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Triz Books]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[A very useful list of books for all levels of 
interest in TRIZ and innovation.  Thanks.One suggestion would be to make it a click-able 
resource on the TRIZ Journal main page with regular 
updates, additions, etc.It might be an idea to categorize this growing 
compilation under a few headings, for instance:Innovation methodologies (incl. TRIZ)
Creativity tools
Innovation management
Innovation education
Public policy and reports
Technology and the organisation
etc. ]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1869</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:59:35 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[S. Saleem Arshad]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Triz Books]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[The following article is a list of systematic innovation books - some dealing with TRIZ&amp;nbsp;- that may be of use to you: Build a Library of Innovation Books.
Sincerely,Katie BarryEditorReal Innovation/The TRIZ Journal]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1863</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:05:23 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Katie Barry]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[In last one months discussions i couuld certainely able to gather input given by all TRIZ experts. Thanks to one &amp;amp; all for sharing their views.
Hopefully i am attending TRIZ conference in India on 29 th &amp;amp; 30 th July 2010. Hope i can able to meet few of you in conference &amp;amp; will be happy to gain knowledge from you all.
And in earlier discussion i was referring &quot;TRIZ &quot; as a tool &amp;amp; not different tools in TRIZ. 
Regards.
Hemant Apastamb]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1862</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:50:21 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Hemant Apastamb]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[TRIZ books]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi,
I am a Postgraduate research student in Biomedical Engineering. I am&amp;nbsp;new to the TRIZ approach. Can anybody please tell me how to learn it systematicaly? Please suggest the books.]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1861</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:33:16 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[VVP]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[I would imagine the purpose of a TRIZ and Innovation 
discussion forum is to discuss tools, philosophies, 
and methods.  The ?just one tool? one needs to get started with 
innovation is an ability to ask questions.  You very 
quickly learn to analyse the issue depending on the 
type of answers you get.It would be good to share precise and to-the-point 
answers regarding the basics of TRIZ but for that 
the knowledge base has to be collectively brought up 
to certain standards of commonality and content.  
This did not happen, to any great degree, after the 
passing of G. S. Altshuller.For this reason the notion that someone needs a 
teacher to get the full benefit from a TRIZ tool 
does not hold up as each ?teacher? is singing to 
their own separate sheet of music.?There is a great deal more to be done in technical 
innovation research.  In my view TRIZ is the outcome 
of ?solution-centric? thinking towards innovation,  
in which the emphasis was on the study of published 
patents and records of invention, so as to gather 
the underlying principles, and thus reach into the 
innovation space.  As such it is very good at 
analysis of existing inventions.     I have had some success with an alternate style of 
thinking in innovation which seems to provide 
outcomes more directly.  Others may consider 
breaking through this psychological inertia in a 
format which suits them. 
]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1860</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:31:57 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[S. Saleem Arshad]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks, Mark--great way to say it.&amp;nbsp; The fact that someone needs a teacher to get the full benefit from a &quot;tool&quot; doesn&apos;t invalidate the tool!&amp;nbsp; {Depending on your personal past history and your personal skills, you could use a screwdriver the first time you saw one, or you might have needed a course in woodworking...&amp;nbsp;} One problem for this discussion forum is that this thread started with a request for &quot;give me one tool to start with&quot; and I did what the person asked, rather than giving him an essay on TRIZ as a combination of tools, philosophies, and methods.]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1859</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:31:03 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Ellen Domb]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Bravo! A great list of questions on application of the IFR and Ideality to a problem solving process. Where do I start? First and foremost, TRIZ provides qualitative assessment of a system/situation. Yet, TRIZ was aimed, first and foremost, to help engineers, who are used to mathematical expressions. Where are the numbers? Is familiar cry. In my view, this is one of the biggest reasons TRIZ is not widely accepted within engineering profession. If TRIZ is a science it is a philosophical one. More akin to social studies than to physics. Numerous attempts are being made to make TRIZ more palatable for engineers. For example, GEN3Partners introduced a notion of MPV ? Main Parameters of Value. I am not well acquainted with this technique. Then, there is an interesting movement of trying to make TRIZ a part of Lean Sigma. To me, very misguided. Now, incorporate Lean Sigma into TRIZ makes much more sense, but I am biased, of course.
Back to IFR and Ideality. Pure philosophy. The system does not exist, the function is performed. If the tree falls in the forest and no one is around ? does it make a sound? Technically we understand that a sensor of sorts is required to register the sound, otherwise we don?t know. Philosophically ? the discussion goes on. Yet, the IFR and the notion of Ideality provide a huge impetus to overcome psychological inertia. It is too big of a subject for this forum. I would suggest all interested to review a couple of papers by Dr. Iouri Belski: http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2000/04/a/index.htm and http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/1999/07/c/index.htm. 
TRIZ is the best methodology for idea generation and repeatable problem solving process. In the absence of a good study book on TRIZ, the best way to learn is to find a reliable teacher.
I welcome individual inquires for clarification.
Mark G. Barkan, PhD
President ? the International TRIZ Association &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1858</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jul 2010 20:54:05 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Mark Barkan]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[In Dr. Ellen Domb&apos;s reply, I found three aspects to 
be of particular interest to those of us who would 
like to enhance our knowledge of TRIZ tools, 
especially the IFR:   
A.  In Para 2, she has for the first time used the 
expression &quot;The non-mathematical formula for 
ideality ..&quot;. Almost all of TRIZ literature 
consistently refers to ideality and IFR in fairly 
standard mathematical terminology.  For instance in 
V. Petrov&apos;s article (TRIZ Journal, February 2006) 
mentioned by her, this is boldly expressed in 
mathematical fonts, using the summation (sigma) and 
index notation, includes two accomodation 
coefficients (fudge factors) and is said to evaluate 
to infinity.  Should one gather that the IFR has a 
mathematical representation and is in all other 
aspects non-mathematical. Why? If this is a symbolic expression why not represent 
it using a new comparision operator ( say /// ) as 
follows:(list of positive factors) /// (list of non-positive 
factors); where one of the aims is to convert non-positive 
factors into positive factors, if at all possible, 
using resources, TRIZ heuristics, etc.  Our goal is 
to increase the LHS and to decrease the RHS.  There 
is no question of anything going to infinity. Also, 
the net balance at any time is transient and 
subjective.
B.  In para 1, Dr. Domb suggests that in discussing 
the IFR, &quot;the facilitator needs to give structure to 
the meeting..&quot;  Should this not be the main role of 
the tool itself?  Otherwise, why call it a tool?  
The main difference between a tool and a hint is 
that we expect some input parameters, some 
procedure, and some output from a tool.  This 
provides the structure and the discipline in the 
correct usage of the tool, something which can be 
taught and evaluated.  Take all of this away and we 
are left with a hint: &quot;Envision the best possible 
outcome and proceed from there&quot;.  A tool should 
provide some step-wise guidance as to the how and 
the where. In commerce, as in the stock market, the hint given 
is: &quot;Buy low, sell high&quot;. No one would consider this 
a tool.  Yet in what way is the IFR different,  
unless the hint is procedurised in some manner. Is 
&quot;Transfer the functionality to the super-system&quot; a 
hint or a tool?
C.  In para 6, Dr. Domb expresses her inability to 
provide any instances of the correct formulation or 
use of the IFR from the past archives of the TRIZ 
Journal.  In over 13 years, at an average of 3 
articles per month, we have almost 450 articles 
published. Together, Mr. Darrell Mann and Dr. Ellen 
Domb must have contributed a good portion of these 
articles.  Surely some examples of the correct 
procedural usage of the IFR may be found in these.My point from this discussion is that unless some 
clarity can be gleaned about the IFR from its 
representation, its structure, or its usage by 
experts, what hope does the neophyte have of 
mastering TRIZ tools?]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1857</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:26:11 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[S. Saleem Arshad]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[The concepts of ideality (borrowed from the concept of &quot;value&quot; as Mark Barkan explained) and the ideal final result can both be very useful, but as several people have pointed out, the facilitator needs to give structure to the meeting--just asking people to speculate about &quot;the most wonderful possible thing&quot; or some other fantasy will produce exactly that, a useless fantasy.
The non-mathematical formula for ideality (Sum of the system&apos;s benefits divided by the sum of costs and sum of harmful factors) can be a good starting point.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Separately listing benefits, costs, and harm can help the team reach understanding of the system and how it works.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Particularly, the benefits are the results of the useful functions and the harm is the result of the harmful functions, so this helps you get started on function analysis, too.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Then your team can decide if they want an incremental improvement (improving one of the 3 factors, or more) or a breakthrough solution (creating an ideal final result).&amp;nbsp; 
The discussion of ideal final result will almost always involve the system operator (&quot;9 windows&quot;), resources, &amp;nbsp;and the patterns of evolution, since an ideal final result usually is at a different system level, or different stage of evolution from the system it is replacing.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The most common pattern that I see is that the supersystem absorbs the function of the system, and a resource in the supersystem does the work previously done in the system.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;If you consider the implications of &quot;Cost is Zero for the Ideal Final Result&quot; it becomes clear that something in the environment or the supersystem must do what had previously been done in the system, in order to maintain the benefits while eliminating the costs.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; This can be simple (the customer installs her own computer printer, at no cost, instead of having a technician do the installation) or very complex (the biology of the grass is changed so that the grass grows to a specific height and then stops, instead of using grass mowing machines and people to operate them, to maintain the height of the grass.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The cost is moved to R&amp;amp;D on the seed, instead of to each operation of the machine.)&amp;nbsp; The &quot;iteslf&quot; method of thinking of the IFR (see the articles by Darrell Mann&quot;) is a shortcut to thinking about how this can be done:&amp;nbsp; &quot;the grass keeps itself short&quot; or &quot;the engine gives itself the right gas conditions.&quot;
Breakthrough can also come from eliminating harm.&amp;nbsp; This is a good reason for considering the IFR early in problem solving, since if the harm can be entirely eliminated, the team does not have to do any of the detailed work!&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; One recent case (with all TRIZ beginners) the problem was lowering the cost of a water cleaning treatment.&amp;nbsp; When they realized that they could modify the factory to use no water, eliminating environmental harm, they would eliminate the need for the cleaning process entirely, and save tremendous amounts of money as well as eliminating harm.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The modifications to eliminate water use had some initial costs, but not the on-going cost of operation like the cleaning system.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 
The ideal final result is frequently threatening to the people doing the problem solving, since it may eliminate the need for their product or service.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; (If the engine could work with any temperature/pressure gas, it would not need a turbocharger...if people bought life insurance spontaneously, the insurance sales person would be out of business...if people learned what they needed to know whenever they wanted to know it, then teachers would be out of work...)&amp;nbsp; My practical experience has been that the best way to encourage people to develop threatening ideas is to acknowledge this at the beginning, and tell the people that they will learn to develop ideas for new, more interesting and more profitable work while they are also eliminating &quot;old&quot; jobs.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;
Many of the cases I am familiar with have not been documented in TJ articles because they are part of proprietary processes at the companies where the work was&amp;nbsp;done.&amp;nbsp; I&apos;m glad to share my experience as a teacher, but can&apos;t give references to case studies.&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1856</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:26:57 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Ellen Domb]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Penti , Mark &amp; SalimI fully concur with your observations . During a DFSS session , I once tried to force the IFR on a few teams , but with disastrous consequences . Some teams came up with very &quot;funny&quot; defintions .  Maybe Dr Ellen Domb could elaborate how this can be done for every ideation exercise. Are we missing something ?]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1855</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:56:27 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[bbusa]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Penti Soderlin and Mark Barkan have correctly pointed out the basic issues with the ideal Final result (IFR).  Although many TRIZ experts rate the IFR as the crown jewel among its tools; its utility, efficacy and certainly its mathematical representation should be open to question.To form even a simple mathematical expression with non-quantitative, hetrogeneous, and subjective factors would ring alarm bells anywhere.  Before discussing if the result of such an expression would be quantitative, qualitative, or neither, one must ponder if any processing of such an expression is possible in the first place. Logically what would constitute the next step 2? step 3? etc.Dr. Ellen Domb has suggested earlier in this thread about the IFR that: &quot;This is not the easiest tool of TRIZ, and it may be the one that causes the most cultural/psychological distress, but that&apos;s why I think it is the right starting point if you want to learn &quot;tools.&quot;&quot;.She further refers to her article Ideal Final Result: Tutorial (The TRIZ Journal, February, 1997) in which she states: &quot;Start your problem solving by formulating the Ideal Final Result. It will help you	&gt;Encourage breakthrough thinking	&gt;Inhibit moves to less ideal solutions (reject compromises)	&gt;Lead to the discussions that will clearly establish the boundaries of the project.Encourage breakthrough thinking	The IFR will position you to use the technical tools of TRIZ effectively in solving the right problem.&quot;  These are powerful reasons to consider the IFR as the portal to problem solving with TRIZ.  I would be indebted to Dr. Domb if she would kindly point out from the past archives of the TRIZ Journal,since 1997, some instances where the IFR has been properly formulated;  the correct steps to achieve this formulation; where the IFR has been processed to Step 2, Step 3, etc.; and examples where the above mentioned three advantages have been realized as a result of using the IFR.Many thanks in advance.]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1853</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 5 Jul 2010 07:58:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[S. Saleem Arshad]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Penti, you are absolutely on target. In fact, the ideality in a formula first appeard in a book &quot;Search for New Ideas&quot; by Altshuller, Zlotin, Zusman and Filatov. An excellent book, which provided a study, among other things, of VE and TRIZ coming together on so many points. This was the first TRIZ manuscript which came close to being a TRIZ study book. Clearly, the Ideality &quot;formula&quot; was a knock off Value Expression in VE. A few years ago I wrote to the editors of the TRIZ Journal about this subject. http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2003/09/j/10.pdf]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1850</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 03:31:52 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Mark Barkan]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Dear all,
Ellen Domb has adviced to start with IFR and refers to an article by Vladimir Petrov and her own article. To my ashtonishment the said articles are not at all describing IFR but the concept of Value as defined by L.D. Miles in Techniques of Value Analysis/Value Engineering. What is the difference between Value and Ideality? See my article Thoughts of Value and Ideality in http://triz-journal.com/archives/2003/05/f/06.pdf&amp;nbsp;.
Petrov and Domb are referring to some kind of optimal product rather than an ideal one or perhaps their intention was to describe&amp;nbsp;the concept of product differentiation? ]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1849</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:52:53 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Pentti Soderlin]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Need Information]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Dear Jack,
Thank you so much for clearing my thoughts by giving entire process of &quot;How to deploy TRIZ?&quot; in the organization.
I am sure this guidance will help me &amp;amp; my organization in a long way.
I will try to follow entire process in due course of time.
Once again thanks for your crystal clear guidance.
Regards.
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<link>http://www.realinnovation.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=1848</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:25:03 GMT</pubDate>
			<postedBy><![CDATA[Hemant Apastamb]]></postedBy>
		</item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
