PTC Modeling Core of Business TRIZ

1. PTC Modeling Core of Business TRIZ Hyo June Kim trizkorea@naver.comwww.TRIZAcademy.net +82-10-4151-8834 2011.07.26

2. 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 General view about Classical TRIZ ① ⃞6Sigma  Optimization / TRIZ Ideal Final Result (New Idea) – The typical approach is to compromise but that approach does not lead to an invention–An Invention overcomes the contradiction TPM, TQM  Stable Production Condition 6sigma  Optimization Creativity  TRIZ Innovation Trend Innovation Design: TRIZ Robust Design: Taguchi Optimizing Design: DOE Stabilizing Design : TPM

3. General view about Classical TRIZ ② ⃞An Invention overcomes the Contradiction. How? – Technical Contradiction(TC)  40 Inventive Principles, Contradiction Matrixex) If the power of engine is improved, then the fuel efficiency can be decreased – Physical Contradiction(PC)  Separation Principlesex) The wheel of airplane must exist and must not exist The CommonFactor of Inventive Ideas and Patents OvercomingContradiction Innovation TechnicalContradiction PhysicalContradiction Analysis and Classification of principles about Overcoming Contradictions Technical Contradiction 40 Principles 技術的 矛盾 Physical Contradiction Separation Principles 物理的 矛盾

4. Relationship between PC and TC ① ⃞PC and TC are simultaneous events, they coexist always. – Airplane wheel must be and must not be (PC)  For reducing air resistance, wheel must not exist  For landing, wheel must exist – About airplane wheel, Reducing air resistance comes into conflict with Landing Capability (TC) ButTechnicalContradictionalso exist. PhysicalContradiction.

5. Relationship between PC and TC ② ⃞If we could extract PC, we could find TC easily and automatically – Airplane wheel must be and must not be (PC) Why must not be?  For Reducing air resistance Why must be?  For Landing – Technical Contradiction between reducing air resistance and landing capability TechnicalContradiction PhysicalContradiction

6. Another example: Relationship between PC and TC ⃞If we could extract PC, we could find TC easily and automatically – The length of gun must be long and short (PC) Why must be long?  For increasing the accuracy of shooting and range Why must be short?  For decreasing reloading time – Technical Contradiction between the accuracy of shooting (range) and reloading time Matchlock used by Japan army at 15c PhysicalContradiction TechnicalContradiction

7. for landing Wheel must be Why? for reducing air resistance Wheel must not be Why? “To be or not to be, that is problem.” (Shakespeare)Physical Contradiction The collision between reducing air resistance and landingTechnical Contradiction Physical Technical Contradiction Modeling: PTC modeling <The problem about wheel> ⃞ The Problem can be defined as Physical Contradiction (PC) – To be or not to be, that is problem ⃞ The Cause of the problem can be defined ad TC – Such problem is caused by the collision between reducing air resistance and landing PhysicalContradiction &Technical Contradiction Problem The cause of the problem

8. for landing Wheel must be Why? ① IFR ② IFR for reducing air resistance We could reduce air resistance, with wheels Wheel must not be Why? “To be or not to be, that is problem.” (Shakespeare)Physical Contradiction The collision between reducing air resistance and landingTechnical Contradiction Physical Technical Contradiction Modeling: PTC modeling ⃞ The general direction of solutions can be derived, cross check – Every possible solution belongs to IFR Direction 1 or IFR Direction 2 – Generally, “win-win” is good way , but this is too much consequential (it is just result) But “win-win” itself can not provide concrete idea – Cross check method in PTC modeling can provide specific direction for “win-win” Problem The cause of the problem

9. for shooting accuracy must be long Why? ① IFR ② IFR for reloading time They reduced reloadingtime with long gunbarrel.Rear-mounted type must be short Why? “Long or short, that is problem.” (Shakespeare)Physical Contradiction The collision between shooting accuracy and reloading timeTechnical Contradiction Physical Technical Contradiction Modeling: PTC modeling ⃞ The general direction of solutions can be derived, cross check – The “win-win” concept is such an expression  “We could reduce reloading time with increasing shooting accuracy and range”  This expression is just announcement Matchlock used by Japan army at 15c Problem The cause of the problem

10. for landing Wheel must be Why? ① IFR ② IFR for reducing air resistance Wheel must not be Why? “To be or not to be, that is problem.” (Shakespeare)Physical Contradiction The collision between reducing air resistance and landingTechnical Contradiction TRIZ Process Level 1 Problem The cause of the problem ⃞ If Technical Contradiction seems to stand out, try to apply 40 Inventive Principles – and you can be helped by contradiction matrix ⃞ If Physical Contradiction seems to stand out, try to apply Separation Principles – Separation in Time, Separation in Space, Separation in Scale

11. For preventing starvation of people Open-door policy Why? ① IFR ② IFR For maintaining regime Closure policy Why? “To be or not to be, that is problem.” (Shakespeare) Physical Contradiction Economy developing is now crashed into keeping government. Technical Contradiction Example of Business TRIZ: Politics and Diplomatic at 2000~2006 Problem Problem Cause To open, develop north-Korea economy, who will be the best partner? What resource can be used? To keep government, what will be the best way? What resource can be used?

12. The Conflict between PTC modeling and Classical TRIZ 1946~ 200,000 patents Classical TRIZ 40,000 patents Level 3,4 Contradiction Physical Contradiction Technical Contradiction 20,000 patents 20,000 patents I said PC and TC coexistWhat’s meaning? 40 Inventive Principle Contradiction Matrix Separation Principle ⃞ Just the Physical Contradiction stands out, and TC solved automatically – Airplane wheel problem could be solved by Separation in Time – In this process, the conflict between air resistance and landing capability disappeared spontaneously  Because they defined the problem exactly, they could use the principal simple solution, 3 separation principles

13. The Conflict between PTC modeling and Classical TRIZ 1946~ 200,000 patents Classical TRIZ 40,000 patents Level 3,4 Contradiction ? OK! Physical Contradiction Technical Contradiction PC and TC have special relationship What’s meaning? 20,000 patents 20,000 patents 40 Inventive Principle Contradiction Matrix Separation Principle ⃞ He could not reach to the PC, he could not define the problem itself – because he is not God in the engineering field, it’s difficult to communicate with nature so he cannot understand exact casual relationship (Cause Effect Chain relationship) – So that is a problem, such as a child is peevish ( you want this? That, do you want… This? This? That? …… 40 principles) – In business area, he can analyze casual relationship easily comparing with engineering, because the hero is human and human knows human more better than nature. That is the core difference between Engineering TRIZ and Business TRIZ – ARIZ is one of the systematical process to finding PC(3.4) from TC(1.1)

14. TRIZ Process Level 2 ⃞ “Contradiction  Tool  Idea  Result”, in contest at company. Practically, is it honest? One of the typical logic at TRIZ Best Practice contest in company ① The problem is … ② I could find TC ③ So, I derived 2 factor from 39 standard parameters ④ Using matrix, #24 and #14 principles were recommended ⑤ Applying #14, I could solve TC and apply for a patent ……

15. TRIZ Process Level 2 ⃞ Normal Circumstances, this is usually called “paper work”! – Many great results after using TRIZ in global company appear as follow… ① The problem is … ② I could not find Contradiction. Too many TC, invisible PC!  at this time, many person give up TRIZ, and say “TRIZ is attractive but difficult to use, it’s just theory) ③ It’s so annoying, the contradiction! I hate contradiction. I will just apply 40 principles and separation principles. Then Good Results appear ④ Company order me to do presentation at TRIZ contest. So I must prepare 10 slides for TRIZ result ⑤ So I think “why do #14 principle solve problem?” “Yes, there is TC between A and B!” ⑥ After assurance about contradiction, I could extract another good solution more ⑦ Finally Icould make report “contradiction  matrix  principles  idea  result”

16. TRIZ Process Level 2 ⃞ Almost real work in the world is paper work. Work and document is typically different – Core process in Lateral thinking of Edward De Bono ① Typical Brain Storming  40 principles and Separation principles ② Grouping  paper work, reverse engineering “yes this is contradiction” ③ Concept (called Fixed Point)  “yes this is contradiction” ④ Alternative  after finding contradiction, he could extract another various solutions – This is TRIZ Process Level 2 : this is true situation, practical way. – Some kinds of another Creative thinking way based on Lateral Thinking of De Bono  TRIZProcess Level 2 (Real situation in Global Company using TRIZ)

17. TRIZ Process Level 2, Summary ⃞ Contradiction  Tool  Idea  Result, in contest at company. Practically, is it honest? – One of the typical logic in TRIZ Best Practice contest at company ① The problem is … ② I could find TC ③ I derived 2 factor from 39 standard parameters ④ Using matrix, #24 and #14 principles were recommended ⑤ Applying #14, I could solve TC and apply for a patent …… ⃞ Normal Circumstances, this is usually called ‘paper work’! – Many great results after using TRIZ in global company appear as follow… ① The problem is … ② I could not find Contradiction. Too many TC, invisible PC! (at this time, many person give up TRIZ, and say “TRIZ is attractive but difficult to use, it’s just theory) ③ It’s so annoying, contradiction! I just apply 40 principles and separation principles. Then Good Results appear ④ Company order to do presentation at TRIZ contest. So he must prepare 10 slides for TRIZ result ⑤ So he think “why do #14 principle solve problem?”. “Yes, there is TC between A and B!” ⑥ After assurance about contradiction, he could extract another good solution more ⑦ Finally he could make report “contradiction  matrix  principles  idea  result” ⃞ Almost real work in the world is paper work. Work and document is typically different – Core process in Lateral thinking of Edward De Bono ① Typical Brain Storming  40 principles and Separation principles ② Grouping  paper work, reverse engineering “yes this is contradiction” ③ Concept (called Fixed Point)  “yes this is contradiction” ④ Alternative  after finding contradiction, he could extract another various solutions – This is TRIZ Process Level 2 (this is true situation, practical way. Some kinds of Creative thinking way based on Lateral Thinking of De Bono

18. for landing Wheel must be Why? ① IFR ② IFR for reducing air resistance Wheel must not be Why? “To be or not to be, that is problem.” (Shakespeare)Physical Contradiction The collision between reducing air resistance and landingTechnical Contradiction TRIZ Process Level 3 Problem The cause of the problem ⃞ If you could analyze the structure of problem, you can consider 2 general directions – Best use of resources is very important (this is some way of “How to use resource”) – The Core of Business TRIZ

19. Modern TRIZ, TRIZ Process Level 4 ⃞ How to find Contradiction systematically? – Always, “How to find contradiction?” is main issue at Modern TRIZ – Some TRIZ experts did research at Root Cause Analysis or 5 Why methodology– So, they made “Cause Effect Chain Analysis” • ⃞ Is there only one PTC modeling at one problem? • – Root cause analysis has a fundamental weakness • – maybe, the same situation with Cause Effect Chain Analysis – In one specific problem, there are various contradictions, contradiction relationships • (another words, there are many PTC modeling)

20. Modern TRIZ, TRIZ Process Level 4 ⃞ Every possible direction of solution can be derived using Problem Chain Analysis (PCA) – The PCA methodology is based on Harmful machine theory (VasilyLeniachine & Hyo June Kim, 2003, www. trizjournal.com) – Using this PCA, you could analyze every possible direction for solution – After using PCA, you could do positioning old solution of customer and present approach of customer – Also you can find out customer’s “Not Thought of” direction, and you could extract core contradictions systematically – PCA method will be announced at 2011 TRIZ-future Conference