Exploiting TRIZ Tools for enhancing systematic conceptual design activities

Abstract Systematic design methods are widely diffused in academia, representing a standard in many engineering courses. Nevertheless, some flaws related to the conceptual design phase have been ascribed to these methods, especially concerning a non-comprehensive support to innovation. However, literature acknowledges several creativity-enhancing tools that can be conveniently combined with systematic design methods. In particular, many scholars refer to TRIZ, i.e. the well-known Russian problem-solving theory. Moreover, recent literature contributions propose some alternatives to the classical Functional Decomposition and Morphology (FDM), claiming to overcome some of the related flaws. One of them is the Problem Solution Network (PSN) approach, i.e. a systematic conceptual design method strongly based on a problem-solution co-evolutionary logic. In this context, our work aims at combining the potentialities of TRIZ with the benefits claimed for the PSN, by proposing a comprehensive integration procedure. Accordingly, this paper reports a detailed description of the proposal, where TRIZ tools are exploited to support problem solving within the PSN approach. Furthermore, an application is also reported where an industrial case study is presented to argue about possible potentialities and lacks of the proposed approach.

[1]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[2]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments , 2000 .

[3]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Integrated Pahl and Beitz and the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving for the Conceptual Design of Multi-Domain Systems , 2009, DAC 2009.

[4]  J. Dixon,et al.  Engineering Design , 2019, Springer Handbook of Mechanical Engineering.

[5]  Dongwoo Kang,et al.  A fact-oriented ontological approach to SAO-based function modeling of patents for implementing Function-based Technology Database , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[6]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  RE-DESIGN THE DESIGN TASK THROUGH TRIZ TOOLS , 2016 .

[7]  Victor Fey,et al.  Innovation on Demand: Frontmatter , 2005 .

[8]  Simon Litvin,et al.  Advanced function approach , 2011 .

[9]  Roland De Guio,et al.  A framework for OTSMTRIZ-based computer support to be used in complex problem management , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol..

[10]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF DESIGN IDEATION: ALIGNMENT OF DESIGN EXPERIMENTS WITH LAB EXPERIMENTS , 2003 .

[11]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Assessing design creativity , 2011 .

[12]  W. Ernst Eder,et al.  Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity , 2007 .

[13]  John Terninko.  Systematic Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) , 2017 .

[14]  G. S. Alʹtshuller,et al.  The Innovation Algorithm:TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity , 1999 .

[15]  Victor Fey,et al.  Innovation on Demand by Victor Fey , 2005 .

[16]  Marco Aurélio de Carvalho.  CROSS-FERTILIZATION BETWEEN TRIZ AND THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO PRODUCT PLANNING AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN , 2000 .

[17]  Gaetano Cascini,et al.  Natural Language Processing of Patents and Technical Documentation , 2004, Document Analysis Systems.

[18]  J E Heller,et al.  THE DILEMMA OF MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IN PRODUCT CONCEPT SYNTHESIS – NEW APPROACHES FOR INDUSTRY AND ACADEMIA , 2014 .

[19]  Yoji Akao,et al.  Quality Function Deployment : Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design , 1990 .

[20]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  Enhancing functional decomposition and morphology with TRIZ: Literature review , 2018, Comput. Ind..

[21]  Menachem P. Weiss,et al.  Evaluation and Similarity of Systematic Methods for the Conceptual Design of New Products , 2008 .

[22]  Robert Phaal,et al.  A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice , 2013 .

[23]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional decomposition and morphology , 2016 .

[24]  Johan Malmqvist,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of the Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving and the Systematic Approach of Pahl and Beitz , 1996 .

[25]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  A Comparison of Classical TRIZ and OTSM-TRIZ in Dealing with Complex Problems , 2015 .

[26]  Ehud Kroll,et al.  Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis , 2013 .

[27]  Ut Na Sio,et al.  Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta-analytic review. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Seong Choe.  TRIZ(Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) 지적 창의경영 연구 , 2006 .

[29]  Davide Russo,et al.  Computer-aided analysis of patents and search for TRIZ contradictions , 2007 .

[30]  Fumihiko Kimura,et al.  Design methodologies: Industrial and educational applications , 2009 .

[31]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: Four responses and their methodological implications , 2013, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[32]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  My functional description is better! , 2013, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[33]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  The effects of time and incubation on design concept generation , 2014 .

[34]  Albert Albers,et al.  Different notions of function: results from an experiment on the analysis of an existing product , 2011 .

[35]  Michael A. Orloff,et al.  Inventive Thinking through TRIZ , 2003 .

[36]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering , 1991 .

[37]  Karen Gadd,et al.  TRIZ for Engineers: Enabling Inventive Problem Solving , 2011 .

[38]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  An ontological basis for computer aided innovation , 2009, Comput. Ind..

[39]  Karen Gadd,et al.  TRIZ for Engineers: Enabling Inventive Problem Solving: Gadd/TRIZ for Engineers: Enabling Inventive Problem Solving , 2011 .

[40]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[41]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2009 .

[42]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: addressing complexity challenges in inventive design , 2007 .

[43]  Semyon Savransky,et al.  Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving , 2000 .

[44]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design , 1994 .

[45]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design , 2001 .

[46]  Kwangsoo Kim,et al.  Identification of promising patents for technology transfers using TRIZ evolution trends , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[47]  Simon S. Litvin.  8. Posters and Extended Abstracts - 8.4 New TRIZ-Based Tool - Function Oriented Search (FOS) , 2004 .

[48]  Erik Kaestner,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 2016 .

[49]  John R. Dixon,et al.  A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes , 1989 .

[50]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  Linking TRIZ to Conceptual Design Engineering Approaches , 2015 .

[51]  Yuri Salamatov,et al.  TRIZ: THE RIGHT SOLUTION AT THE RIGHT TIME: A Guide to Innovative Problem Solving , 2004 .

[52]  Dr. Noel León-Rovira.  A PROPOSAL TO INTEGRATE TRIZ INTO THE PRODUCT DESIGN PROCESS , 2002 .