Andrew (Gabriel) Livshits
With the advent of new programmable processors in the innovation process is very much changed drastically. Emerging applications engineering program (which is design, not graphic) helps simulate the ideal final result long before the publication of the first prototype of the innovative technical solutions
To appear on these decisions difficult. But you can always (again according to certain rules) solutions go further - to formulate the ideal final result (IFR), without worrying about how it will be achieved.
IFR is in strong solutions, formulating RBIs, we get rid of the set of "blank" samples. Then, exploring the IFR (here, too, have their own rules), you can accurately identify technical contradiction and its underlying causes. Sometimes analysis makes the solution obvious. At other times we have to use special tools to eliminate causes of technical contradiction. These tools are the basic techniques.
It has long been known that the inventor uses some techniques for transforming a source of technical object: separation, union, inversion ("do the opposite"), etc. Various authors provide lists of techniques, but these lists were incomplete, along with strong doses in They appeared weak and outdated methods. And most importantly - it was not known: what kind of reception when applied.
In addition, inventors, especially in the field of tablet PCs, mobile phones and similar objects, because of the high degree of integration of the product of a number of independent technology, a team must work as a team in that each potential inventor is working on his sector and within it sees is original ideal final result
In the past, the development of a systematic analysis was conducted ARIZ patent collection: Highlights and examined the invention of the third and higher levels were determined that they contain technical inconsistencies and possible remedies. On that basis, the Tables of the most common technical contradictions and lists the main methods to address them.
So at this table for ARIZ-71 was analyzed about 40,000 of the specification. Then for three years, the table is adjusted, rebuilt: it introduced prognostic amendment, it was tested on new and challenging tasks. This table is not only reflected the collective creative experience of a large number of inventors, but also had a solid stock "prognostic factor": recommended techniques it does not lose relevance for 8 - 10 years.
Within the article it is impossible to consider the entire course of the innovative solutions of the problem of the time.
I will try to show the work of ARIZ on one of its fragments, taking not very complex learning task.
Here it is:
"Samples of the material in the form of rods have long-term strength under high temperature and corrosive environments. For this purpose, sturdy metal cabinets safes. Samples reinforce inside the safe, hung to sample the goods and fill safe aggressive substance. Safe lid closed.
The main problem - how to determine the time of rupture of the sample (or free drop - it makes no difference, because the test lasted for many days, and the required accuracy - minute).
Placing alarms inside the chamber can not. Through holes in the walls, too, do not.
Then just begs decisions dictated by psychological inertia: the camera shine radiation (slozhno!), pick the outside noise load (nenadezhno!) ...
If we begin to solve the problem because it is recommended to do ARIZ, then we will do it for very long. Today, the topic is not likely to be able to innovative technical solutions, the question is likely to be reduced to the choice of the most suitable commercially available equipment
Normal production technology of new ideas based on the method of trial and error: "And if you make it? .. Can not ... Maybe try this way? .." This method is as old as man himself. It is true that in the long history of mankind were in it made some improvements: Now we do not clearly absurd samples (although sometimes the key to the problem is the fact that it seems absurd to us), learned to thought experiments - they are real fast, learned to lean heavily on the challenges collectively ...
But the essence of the method is unchanged. And is it any wonder that the concept of "creativity" is often the same as in our imagination with the technology for solving creative problems by trial and error? "She was lucky," "talent," "patient search of variants" or "inspiration" - these concepts are inherent in a particular technology, attributed to creativity in general.
Thought kills creativity, says V.Rozov. Yes, working by trial and error and this happens. Uncontrollable thoughts by psychological inertia leads away from the seemingly obvious idea. And if the thought control? We have introduced a one time management (do "inside out"), and he began to give new technical ideas-products, which is no different from the resulting insights.
Then we used a combination of three techniques - and found that the combination qualitatively stronger one reception: we received more than give inspiration - we have a method to expand the scheme in any one "space schemes." But if the methods and techniques we will be 100, 200 or 1000? ..
Techniques have long been known. And the obvious thought "the more tricks, the better" came to mind a lot. But as the number of devices is growing rapidly uncertainty of their application: the owner of the collection in 1000 would have had to techniques to solve the problem in the same trial and error, random sorting techniques.
Techniques - great power, if you know when and how to use them. Necessary theory and methods that allow to dissect the creative task, to get to its very essence and determine exactly when and how to use the technique.
To construct a theory for solving engineering problems (science will be discussed later), you need to postulate that technical systems evolve naturally, these laws can be known and used for conscious solving creative problems. For if no laws and technical systems evolve randomly, neither of which the theory can not be considered.
Laws, fortunately, there are. Here is one of them: the system with inconsistent rhythm parts are replaced with more advanced systems with coherent rhythm.
There was, for example, patented a way to loosen the coal: coal in an array of drilled wells, the water is pumped through it and transmit pressure pulses. The method was not very successful. Seven years - struck others, and they have one single, but crucial change: the pulse frequency to be agreed with the natural frequency of the array drilled. Seven lost years, such fees ignorance about the development of technical systems ...
Trial and error is good enough, if the problem is solved by brute force a dozen options. But the higher the "price" of the problem - hundreds of samples, thousands, tens of thousands, the more clearly manifest weakness of the method. Theory of creative tasks is to give ways to transfer the task of higher level - "cost" many thousands of samples - to the lowest level, where it takes a few samples.
What is the difference between "high value" tasks? Why is difficult to meet the challenge?
Task 1. In the production of electric light bulbs for the control to measure the pressure of the gas inside the lamp. How to do it?
The problem is pretty simple: put the lamp in the hermetically sealed cylinder, divide the bulb glass, the gas comes out, measure pressure, introduced an amendment to increase the volume. Ironically, this solution available to a schoolboy, is protected by the copyright certificate ...
Task 2. The same situation as in Problem 1, but you can not break the lamp. Your suggestion?
Comparing these two problems, it is easy to see that there are fundamental differences. The more broken lamps (one in a thousand, one hundred, and so on), the more precise control. The gain in precision control is accompanied by a loss in performance. For perfect control will break all the lights, products simply will not ...
The need to overcome these technical contradictions and makes the task difficult, and their solution - creative.
In depth technical contradiction is the contradiction physical: one and the same part of the system should have a mutually antithetical physical properties. Bulb should be impervious to keep the gas and must be permeable so that you can get to the gas and measure its pressure.
If the tasks - is a process of identifying and addressing conflicts, we can formulate the requirements for the theory of problem solving. Theory must:
• provide a clear program task processing that allows step by step to get to the physical contradiction hidden in the "bowels" of the problem;
• specify which methods should be used to address any conflicts (of course, you must have an extensive pool of such methods);
• protected from psychological disturbances, especially the invasion of trial and error, which will break in the course of solution, imposing a blank sample ("Let's weigh the lamp! .. Oh, no desired accuracy? .. Then let X-rays shine light! .. ").
To construct a theory for solving creative problems is very difficult. Say, for a fund techniques to turn over hundreds of thousands of patents and copyright certificates, select the tens of thousands of strong solutions and thoroughly investigate them. But a lot has already been done. In the following essay, we will learn the basics of the theory, let's see how to construct the theory and how it works.
Such an organizational decision to initiate innovative projects usual during the creation of the theory of inventive problem solving, today is practically not working Today, innovation - this is what lives every growing company.
One (but not the only) means of their creation is the theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ). It has almost half a century of practice has been applied in various fields of human activity, but it should always be adapted to the ever-changing rules of the game.
There are several new methods that are natural extensions of its most well-known relevant to the work with contradictions. The proposed methods provide work with TRIZ contradictions in a systematic way than qualitatively different from the well-known approaches, based on the techniques of solving technical and physical contradictions.
Methods are logical rigor and high potential for solving creative problems. Efficiency of the method is confirmed by numerous examples.
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) has been and continues to be an effective means of innovation. Today, it has a wide range of tools that solve the problem very different directions, combined with new techniques to overcome the complex contradictions in integrative technical solutions.
Despite the considerable development of TRIZ is still the best known and widely used is the first tool of its historically - receptions eliminating technical contradictions (TA). It is a situation in which an attempt to improve one characteristic of the system leads to a deterioration of any of its characteristics. Elimination of contradictions, means to perform such actions, which provide the disappearance of the undesirable effect of the conversion system. The source from which "draw" such action as was the patent fund.
Of course today it is not enough sovyershenno
Based on the study and synthesis of a vast array of patent information were formulated forty techniques eliminate TA, and to facilitate practical work with them - developed a special table. This table and associated with many users, especially foreign ones, with the actual TRIZ
Further deepening the topic TA led to the identification of ten more additional techniques are described in the literature, but the recognition practices have not received.
Due to the subsequent weakening of attention to the creators of TRIZ methods eliminate TA, they are not improved and therefore preserved the appeared in that distant time and today is the obvious drawbacks, namely:
- Not defined rules for the selection of reception to resolve specific conflicts;
- Techniques are not structured;
- Techniques have different levels of generalization;
- A list of techniques is not sufficient;
- A list of devices does not meet today's requirements.
Due to the presence of these shortcomings techniques permit TP are rightly criticized in many publications
Here we should add the following. Techniques themselves, and supporting their examples, in general, based on the mechanics, or are of a "mechanical" shade. Someone has rightly sees this as a good methodical move, making methods accessible to different user groups. But there is another, no less than the right, the view according to which the techniques do not cover such rapidly developing areas like the computer industry, communications, multi-functional household appliances and standing much closer to what may be called a generalized electronics. For professionals working in them mechanics - a field of knowledge that does not coincide with their professional orientation. Using the techniques in this regard, possibly on the basis of only a distant analogy.
Similar arguments have been relatively especially bio - and nanotechnology, chemical industry, in general, all that is different from pure classical mechanics. In addition, methods of removing TP were formed on the basis of past experience of the inventors. This means that, as in any other case of statistical data analysis is subjected to living. Accordingly, we can talk about the treatment methods of the past. Extrapolation of the data, based on them predict future development of technical systems is probabilistic in nature: may or may not be.
Imperfection techniques eliminate TA recognized and GS Altshuller. So when in the TRIZ the notion of a physical contradiction (AF) and techniques have been developed to solve them, he wrote: "The difficulties that arise in the analysis, and the resulting fuzzy nature of technical contradictions, was overcome by introducing the concept of physical contradictions ... If there is no physical contradiction - there is no inventive problem. ...
In ARIZ - 71 deep analysis is to identify the physical conflict, a problem usually solved at this stage, and if it is not solved, it is most advantageous to repeat and deepen the analysis, and not to return "closer to the surface" - the technical contradictions. "
Under the OP with is a situation in which an object or part of the conditions of the problem are presented opposite (conflicting) requirements. Only eleven developed techniques permit AF.
From the top of the time it is always easier to consider its earlier events, identify their strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, with regard to FP: forty years after their occurrence can try to give them a more or less fair assessment.
1. Obviously, the fact of the inclusion of the contradictions of the creative process - a remarkable achievement. Only a year later he was recognized in scientific circles. And now, for example, in published work, that: "The understanding of the creative process as a process of conflict resolution is currently the most effective. Moreover, although the human mind is undergoing a significant change in the history of a number of parameters, the resolution of conflicts is a basic principle of art from antiquity to the present day. "
2. How not to recall here the statement of the great German philosopher GWF Hegel: "Controversy ... is the root of all movement and vitality, just because something is in itself a contradiction, it moves, have the motivation and activities. "
3. It should be understood, however, that by themselves do not provide conflict transition to a new level, do not provide development. To be a source of development, the contradiction must be resolved. That is, development is where there is a conflict and overcoming them.
Authors of many studies in our time correctly note that the problem without contradiction arises only when there are no restrictions on the inclusion of additional items in the system, in fact - nothing prevents the use of additional resources.
Due to the fundamental changes in terms of materials, design methods and technical requirements and specifications, there are studies that reveal the psychological mechanisms of human activity at work with contradictions.
... to be continued ...