Critique of Altshuller’s Standards System
The system of Standards proposed by Altshuller [1] is quite inhomogeneous. For example, Standard 5.1.1 composes actually 9 ideas while the last Standard is no more than explanations of Standards 5.5.1 and 5.5.2.
Many Standards (e.g., all in the class 3 and groups 2.3, 4.5 as well as particular 2.2.2-2.2.4, 4.3.2, 4.3.3) are equal to the trends of the technique evolution. In general Standards classification matches with a trend of technique evolution: simple Su-Fields –> complex Su-Fields –> forced Su-Fields –> complex-forced Su-Fields –> transition into supersystem or subsystems.
Standards 2.4.7, 4.3.1 and 4.4.5 are obvious because any TS or TP is impossible without “action” of physical effects (they are background of chemical, biological, materials science and other phenomena). Practically any good invention in such high-tech industries as semiconductors, fiber optics, etc. can illustrate such Standards.
It is obvious that this patent fits the Standard 4.3.1 “If given is a Su-Field system, the efficiency of measurement and detection in it can be increased by using physical effects.”
Some Standards (e.g., 2.2.3) present the special cases of more general Standards (e.g., 2.2.2). Too much attention is given to Su_M-Fields, which are presented not only in the subclasses 2.4 and 4.1 but also along Standards in other classes. For example there is no constructive answer for the question why Standard 1.2.5 deals only with magnetic field. I would like to stress that an introduction of a magnetic field can give interesting solutions, but one should remember that incorporation of the subsystems for magnetic fields creation in many kind of techniques would decrease the Ideality of these techniques. Some Standards (e.g., 4.1.2, 5.1.4) repeat the Inventive Principles, while others (e.g., all in the group 5.3 and 3.1.5, 5.4.1) repeat Altshuller’s methods to resolve the physical contradiction (see the appendix 6). Most Standards can be modeled by Su-Fields, but a big group of Standards (e.g., all in classes 3 and 5 and subclass 4.1, as well as 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 4.3.1 and other) are out of scope of symbolic description of Su-Fields.
The formulations of various Standards are too different and inconsistent.
For example compare Standard 5.3.4. with Standard 2.1.1.
| 2.1.1. Chain Su-Field | 5.3.4. Two-phase state |
| If
Su-Field is weakly controllable, and you need to make it more efficient,
the problem is solved by transformation of a Su-Field part into independently
controlled Su-Field and construction of chain Su-Field.
Chain Su-Field can also be obtained by expanding relations in Su-Field. In this case, a new link F2-S1 is integrated into the relation S1-S2. |
"Double" properties of a system can be provided by replacing the single-phase state with two-phase one. |
Therefore, although many of Standards are quite useful in problems solving and design, their set proposed by G.S. Altshuller does not represent a system. Let me remind that any SYSTEM is a set of orderly interacting elements possessing the properties, which cannot be reduced to properties of separate elements, and intended for execution of certain functions. In the so-called system of Standards the individual elements (i.e. Standards themselves)
a) do not have a strong order between the classes and sometimes in groups,
b) the only few elements “interact” as “mother-child”,
c) different Standards execute various incompatible functions (describe the evolution of technique, play a role of TRIZ heuristics, model behavior of technique, etc.), and
d) Standards do not have synergetic properties, which cannot be reduced to properties of separate elements.
There are some attempts to improve the situation with Standards such as:
*the algorithm and flowchart that help orient in the Altshuller’s system and to use the right Standard [2],
* Pinyaev’s lists of selected Standards for typical problems [3].
* The morphological box for the Standards [4] is the most useful approach,
that allows to select the right Standard precisely and to unify different
Standards in the same formulation pattern.
NOTES
This paper written originally in Russian in 1990 were updated in 1998 and translated in English in 1999.
The morphological box for the Standards is available now only for the students of the Virtual TRIZ College.