Applications of TRIZ and Axiomatic Design: A Comparison to Deduce Best Practices in Industry☆

Abstract In the first decade of 2000s, several contributions have illustrated methods combining TRIZ and Axiomatic Design (AD). The strength of the connection was found in the complementary objectives AD and TRIZ pursue. AD is supposed to analyze the problem and structure it in the most convenient way, while TRIZ should solve the minimum number of design conflicts that are intrinsically present in a case study. Nevertheless, despite the promising match between AD and TRIZ, no conjoint application strategy has emerged as a reference, neither in academia, nor in industry. Conversely, the quantity has dropped of scientific papers contextually making reference to both methodologies. Some studies attempt to remark the methodological problems concerning the combination of AD and TRIZ. In a different perspective, the authors performed an application-oriented study, in order to point out the industrial domains for which the methodologies result the most suitable. The survey highlights that TRIZ is mostly employed for mass-market products, while AD is basically used to develop systems that industrial organizations make use of. The authors discuss the consequences of these findings, inferring how design can benefit from TRIZ and AD heuristics and the practical cases in which they are likely to be combined successfully.

[1]  Gül E. Okudan Kremer,et al.  Triz and axiomatic design: a review of case-studies and a proposed synergistic use , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[2]  David Silva,et al.  Automatic shape and topology variations in 3D CAD environments for genetic optimisation , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol..

[3]  Gaetano Cascini,et al.  TRIZ-based Anticipatory Design of Future Products and Processes , 2012, J. Integr. Des. Process. Sci..

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

[5]  Federico Rotini,et al.  Computer-Aided Problem Solving - Part 2: A Dialogue-Based System to Support the Analysis of Inventive Problems , 2011, IFIP CAI.

[6]  C. Kahraman,et al.  Multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing systems using fuzzy vs. crisp axiomatic design approach , 2005 .

[7]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Resolving equipment failure causes by root cause analysis and theory of inventive problem solving , 2014 .

[8]  Jie Yang,et al.  Integration TRIZ with problem-solving tools: a literature review from 1995 to 2006 , 2006 .

[9]  Denis Cavallucci,et al.  Use of formal ontologies as a foundation for inventive design studies , 2011, Comput. Ind..

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

[11]  Federico Rotini,et al.  Investigating the Patterns of Value-Oriented Innovations in Blue Ocean Strategy , 2012 .

[12]  Chih-Chen Liu,et al.  An eco-innovative design approach incorporating the TRIZ method without contradiction analysis , 2001 .

[13]  Nam P. Suh,et al.  Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications , 2001 .

[14]  Hei-Kuang Lee,et al.  A proposed process for systematic innovation , 2011 .

[15]  Albert Albers,et al.  TRIZ-Box in Design Education - A Study on Supporting Creativity , 2011 .

[16]  Eleonora Ibragimova,et al.  The Evolution of Sihwa Dam: A Formal Design Theory Perspective , 2009 .

[17]  Gaetano Cascini,et al.  Network of contradictions analysis and structured identification of critical control parameters , 2011 .

[18]  Chia-Hung Chen,et al.  Invention principles and contradiction matrix for semiconductor manufacturing industry: chemical mechanical polishing , 2012, J. Intell. Manuf..