TRANSITION FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONTRADICTION TO THE TECHNICAL ONE IN THE ANALYSIS OF INVENTIVE PROBLEMS
Alex M. PINYAYEV
ABSTRACT: An algorithm
for the functional analysis of inventive situations is considered in order
to substitute the step 1.1 of ARIZ-85.
BACKGROUND
Three types of contradictions - administrative, technical and physical
are defined in TRIZ [1]. The administrative contradiction
is an explicit indication of one or more drawbacks that does not seem to
be possible to avoid by known methods. The technical contradiction
is deterioration of one of the important features of the technical system
caused by improving of another one. The physical contradiction is
a couple of the opposite technical requirements to the physical state of
an object.
The transition from an administrative to a physical contradiction is
a subject of the Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving (ARIZ /in Russian
/ ) [1]. However, it is obvious that the transition from the administrative
to the technical contradiction is performed only by one step (step 1.1)
while the transition from the technical to the physical contradiction is
performed by the three parts of the algorithm (part 1-3, total 12 steps).
This does not correspond to the real process of inventive problem solving.
The practice of the ARIZ application shows that the step 1.1 is nearly
the most difficult among all the steps of the algorithm. The execution
of the step 1.1 often takes the same time as the rest of the analysis.
And this stands for training tasks, not to mention practical problems.
On the other hand, significance of step 1.1 can be hardly overestimated
because an incorrectly stated problem or a fallaciously formulated technical
contradiction makes it difficult or impossible to get a strong solution.
In this article, an algorithm of the analysis of the Inventive Situations
is proposed. Its purpose is to bring up and to state inventive problem.
The results of the work by the algorithm are technical contradictions and
objectives to be reached as the result of the problem solving. Thus, the
proposed algorithm executes all functions of step 1.1 of ARIZ and can be
recommended for its replacement.
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT CHAIN OF DRAWBACKS
The analysis technique is based on the ideas of the Functional Analysis
of Inventive Situations (FAIS) [2-3]. A structural flowchart of the proposed
algorithm is shown in Fig.1.
An analysis of an inventive problem can be started either from the main
function of the technical system or from a drawback [1-6]. The disadvantage
of the first alternative is an uncertainty in the choice of the technical
system from the systems hierarchy. Therefore, in this work the preference
is given to the second alternative.
The analysis of an inventive situation begins from the compilation of
drawbacks. Then a key drawback is to be chosen. A micro-algorithm for the
construction of Cause-and-Effect Chain for Drawbacks / like the Fishbone
Diagram/ is given in Appendix 1, steps 2 - 3. Note that there can
exist several key drawbacks. This case gives evidence of existence of several
major inventive problems in inventive situation, each of which should be
formulated and solved.
The peculiarity of this micro-algorithm is a way of construction of
the Cause-and-Effect Chain. The chain, in accordance with this micro-algorithm,
is built by comparing two opposite statements and choosing the correct
one (step 2). Such way allows to give the reliable criteria of causality
and thereby to formalize constructing of the Cause-and-Effect Chain.
CLASSIFICATION OF DRAWBACKS AND PROBLEMS
All drawbacks can be divided into two types: "harm" (a harmful
action is performed) and "inefficiency" (inefficient or too expensive
performance of a function). Such classification is necessary because differences
in these types of drawbacks are so great that the different methodologies
are required for their analysis.
Study of the "inefficiencies" (step 5 of the Algorithm) is
concentrated on finding a "function- crack", which creates an
entire problem, in a cause-and-effect chain of the useful functions.
Study of the "harms" (step 6 of the Algorithm) is based on
the analysis of the functions and the properties of the element causing
the harmful action. The aim in this study is detection of couples of mated
functions, i.e. such functions which are linked by tool or product.
In this instance, there are defined four possible types of inventive
problems:
a) the tool performs useful function and harmful action;
b) the tool performs useful function to product and product performs harmful action to tool;
Any conflict can be reduced to the four above types, and the instrument
for such a reduction is the FAIS Algorithm (See Appendix).
LOGIC OF ANALYSIS OF "HARMS"
The sequence of the analysis of "harms" is this:
drawback --> harmful action --> component --> "harmful"
property --> set of useful functions --> "useful" property"
--> mated useful function
here "component" is the component executing harmful action;
"harmful" property is the property causing harmful action;
"useful" property is the property opposite to the harmful
property.
Thus, the logic of the analysis of "harms" is based on the
assumption that the cause of a drawback of this type is a presence of the
"harmful property" in the component resulting in execution of
harmful action by this component.
An attention should be given to the relative character of the term "harmful
property": the property harmful in one way can be simultaneously useful
in another. By a "harmful" property I mean the property causing
harmful action, no matter is it necessary for the execution of some useful
function or not.
Steps 6.6 - 6.8 of the Algorithm are intended for revealing models of
problems of the types (b) and (c).
LOGIC OF ANALYSIS OF "INEFFICIENCIES"
The reason of appearance of "inefficiencies" is quite a different
from this of "harms". Harmful action is not executed in this
case, so presence of some "harmful" property is not the fact.
The real cause of "inefficiency" is some "crack" in
cause-and-effect chain of functions. This "crack" is an intermediary
function, always not a main function, which is not possible to perform
in a known way.
The problem in this case can be defined by creation of cause-and-effect
chain of the functions and finding the intermediary function - "crack".
One can formulate a formal technical contradiction by the requirement
to execute the function - "crack" without execution of its function-cause.
The logic of analysis of "inefficiency" is designed in accordance
with the above ideas. This logic can be presented as the following sequence:
desired function --> component --> function-cause --> intermediate
function,
where:
- "desired function" is the function to be performed or improved according to the problem conditions,
- "component" is a component executing or improving the execution of the desired function,
- "function-cause" is the function of the component, necessary for execution of the desired function,
- "intermediate function" is the function between the function-cause
and the necessary function in a cause-and-effect chain.
The algorithm is recursive and repeats until the function-"crack"
is found as an intermediary function.
It is easy to notice that such logic of the analysis also allows us
to obtain the mated pair of functions, in which the function-"crack"
and its function-cause participate. However, now the "mated"
character of functions is determined by the cause-and-effect relation,
rather than tool/product properties.
Strictly speaking, the problem on destruction of the cause-and-error
relation is also posed in the case of "harm" analysis. Such relation
exists between useful function and harmful action. Thus, functional approach
allows us to find the deep relation between the two basic types of inventive
problems regardless of all the difference in mechanisms of their appearance
and methods of analysis.
Let us summarize the peculiarities of the described algorithm :
Note, that these peculiarities determine the algorithm's high efficiency.
It allows us to recommend the algorithm for replacement of the Step 1.1.
of ARIZ-85.
APPENDIX
Algorithm For Functional Analysis Of An Inventive Situation (intended
for replacement of the Step 1.1 of ARIZ)
1. Compile the list of drawbacks.
2. Reveal the cause-and-effect relations between the drawbacks.
Micro-Algorithm:
2.1. Take any two drawbacks and formulate following two statements for them:
a) The drawback 1 disappears if the drawback 2 is eliminated;
b) The drawback 2 disappears if the drawback 1 is eliminated;
2.2. Select the right statement among the two.
Note. If both statements are incorrect, then drawbacks are independent.
2.3. Determine the cause-and-effect relation between UE1 and UE2.
Note. The first drawback in the statement at the Step. 2.2 is the cause, while the second is the effect.
2.4. Repeat the Steps. 2.1 - 2.3 for the other pair of drawbacks up
to exhausting of list of them.
3. Show the initial drawback in the cause-and-effect chain.
Note. If there are several key drawbacks, then the following
steps should be done for each of them.
4. Define the type of the key drawback:
4.1. Harmful action go to Step 6;
4.2. Inefficient or too costly function go to the next Step.
5. Perform the analysis of a key drawback of the "inefficiency" type:
Micro-Algorithm:
5.1. Formulate a "desired function" which should be executed or improved;
5.2. Indicate what "function-cause" is necessary to execute or improve execution of the desired function;
5.3. Indicate "intermediate function" which is between a function-cause and desired function in the cause-and-effect chain of these functions;
5.4. Repeat 5.1 - 5.3 until a "function-crack" is found Go
to the Step 8.
6. Perform the analysis of a key drawback of the "harm" type:
Micro-Algorithm:
6.1. Indicate harmful action;
6.2. Indicate the component executing harmful action;
6.3. Indicate the "harmful property" of the component, due to which it executes the harmful action;
6.4. Indicate the "useful property" property opposite to the "harmful property";
6.5. Check if the harmful action is executed when the component possesses the useful property. If Yes - come back to the Step 6.3 and re-formulate harmful property. If No - go to the next step.
6.6. Indicate whether component executes some useful functions.
Yes - go to the Step 6.9, No - go to the next step
6.7. Indicate whether the object of the harmful action executes some useful function at the component.
Yes - go to the next step, No - go to the Step 7.3.
6.8. Indicate what useful function is executed go to the Step 7.2.
6.9. Compile the list of the useful functions executed by the component;
6.10. Eliminate from this list such functions which will be executed if possesses the useful property;
Note. If after this the list will contain more than one UF, then select such UF which is consequence of all others.
6.11. Go to the Step 7.1.
7. Formulate technical contradiction by one of the following forms:
7.1. A. If the component possesses the harmful property then it executes
the useful function but also executes the harmful action.
B. If the component possesses the useful property then it does not execute
the harmful action but also does not execute the useful function.
It is necessary to perform the useful function without performance of the
harmful action.
7.2. A. If component executes the useful function then the object of
this function executes the harmful action.
B. If the object of the useful function does not execute the harmful function
then the component does not execute his useful function.
It is necessary to perform the useful function without performance of the
harmful action.
7.3. Component executes the harmful function. It is necessary to eliminate
his capability to execute this harmful function.
8. Formulate problem by the following form:
Function-crack cannot be efficiently performed by its function-cause.
It is necessary to find a different way of executing the function-crack.
References (all in Russian)
1. .. . . - : , 1986.
2. .. . , .1, N1, 1990, .30.
3. .. . ( N2).
4. (
, ). . :
.., .. - : . "", 1991, 145 .
5. .. -91. - : , 1991.
6. .. ( -85). - : , 1991.