Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices 2011 Part 19 pot

399 19 TRIZ Steven F. Ungvari 19.1 WHAT IS TRIZ? Nominally, TRIZ is a Russian language acronym for the Russian words teoriya resheniya izobretatelskikh zadatch, which can be translated into the theory of the solution of inventive problems. This title is somewhat of a misnomer, because TRIZ has moved out of the realm of theory and into a bona fide, scientifically based methodology. The development, evolution, and refinement of TRIZ have consumed some 50 years of rigorous, empirically based analysis by some of the brightest scientific minds of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the whole notion of creativity and innovation mentioned in the context of science makes for an unusual pairing. Innovation and creativity are typically thought of as spontaneous phenomena that happen in a capricious and unpredictable way in the vast majority of people. Historically, only a precious few individuals, such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison, seem to have possessed an innate natural ability for creativity and inven- tiveness. The name, the theory of the solution of inventive problems, implies that inno- vation and creative thought in the context of problem solving are supported by an underlying construct and an architecture that can be deployed on an as-needed basis. The implications of such a theory, if true, are enormous because it suggests that lay individuals can elevate their creative thinking capabilities by orders-of-magnitude. 19.2 THE ORIGINS OF TRIZ The inventor of TRIZ was Genrich Altshuller, a Russian (1926–1998). Altshuller became interested in the process of invention and innovative thinking at an early age. He patented a device for generating oxygen from hydrogen peroxide at the age of 14. Altshuller’s fascination with inventions and innovation continued through Stalin’s regime and World War II. After the war, Altshuller was assigned as a patent examiner in the Department of the Navy. As such, Altshuller often found himself helping would-be inventors solve various problems with their inventions. In due course, Altshuller become fascinated with the study of inventions. In particular, Altshuller was interested in understanding how the minds of inventors work. His initial attempts were psychologically based, but these probes provided little if any insight on how creativity could be engineered. Altshuller then turned his attention to studying actual inventions and in a sense reverse-engineering them to understand the essential engineering problem being SL3003Ch19Frame Page 399 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 400 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices solved and the elegance of the solution as described in the patent application. It should be noted that in the former Soviet Union patent applications (called authors certificates [ACs]) were concise documents no more that three or four pages in length. The author certificate consisted of a descriptive title of the invention, a schematic of the new invention, a rendering of the current design, the purpose of the invention, and a description of the solution. 19.2.1 A LTSHULLER ’ S F IRST D ISCOVERY The brevity of the certificates facilitated analysis, cataloguing, and mapping solutions to the problems. As the number of inventions he scrutinized grew, Altshuller uncovered similar patterns of solutions for similar problems. This was a remarkable discovery because it essentially paved the way for a scientific, standardized way to approach a problem and to incorporate a latent knowledge base as an integral element of the solution process. In other words, Altshuller discovered that similar technological problems gave rise to similar patents. This phenomenon was repeated in widely disparate engineering disciplines at different periods of time and in geographically dispersed areas. The logical conclusion reached by Altshuller was that the possibility existed of creating a mechanism for describing types of problems and subsequently mapping them with types of solutions. This discovery led to just such a mechanism, which consisted of the 39 typical engineering parameters, the contradiction matrix, and the 40 inventive principles. These tools are covered in more detail later in the chapter. 19.2.2 A LTSHULLER ’ S S ECOND D ISCOVERY Altshuller’s second enlightening discovery was made as he assembled chronological technology maps. Altshuller uncovered an unmistakable, explicit regularity in the evo- lution of engineered systems. Altshuller described these time-based phenomena in his lectures and writings as The Eight Laws of Engineered Systems Evolution. The term laws does not imply that Altshuller defined them as conforming to a strict scientific construction, as in the fields of physics or chemistry. The laws, though general in nature, are nevertheless recognizable and predictable; more importantly, they provide a road map to future derivatives. Today, these eight laws have been refined and expanded into more than 400 sublines of evolution and are useful in technology development, product planning, and the establishment of defensible patent fences. 19.2.3 A LTSHULLER ’ S T HIRD D ISCOVERY The third truism that emerged from Altshuller’s analytical work was the realization that inventions are vastly different in their degrees of inventiveness. Indeed, many of the patents that Altshuller studied were filed simply to describe a system and provide some degree of protection. These patents were useless in Altshuller’s deter- mination to discover the secret of how to become an inventor of the highest order. To differentiate inventiveness, Altshuller devised a scale of 1 to 5 for categorizing the elegance of the solution (see Figure 19.1). Note that only level 3 and 4 solutions are deemed to be inventive. Within the body of TRIZ knowledge, inventive means that the solution was one that did not SL3003Ch19Frame Page 400 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC TRIZ 401 compromise conflicting requirements. For example, strength vs. weight is an exam- ple of conflicting parameters. To increase strength, the engineer will typically make something thicker or heavier. An inventive solution would increase strength with no additional weight or even a reduction in weight. 19.2.4 A LTSHULLER ’ S L EVELS OF I NVENTIVENESS 19.2.4.1 Level 1: Parametric Solution A parametric solution uses well-known methods and parameters within an engineer- ing field or specialty. This is the lowest level solution and is not an inventive solution. For example, the problem of roads and bridges icing over can be solved by using salt or sand, or by plowing. Calculating stress on a cantilevered structure is accom- plished by using well-known mathematical formulas. 19.2.4.2 Level 2: Significant Improvement in the Technology Paradigm Level 2 is a significant improvement in the system, utilizing known methods possible from several engineering disciplines. Although a level 2 solution is a significant improvement over the previous system, it is not inventive. A level 2 solution of the icing problem would be required if conventional means were prohibited. This type of solution demands a choice between several variants which leaves the original system essentially intact. The roadways or bridges, for example, could be formulated or coated with an exothermic substance that would be triggered at a certain temperature. 19.2.4.3 Level 3: Invention within the Paradigm Level 3 eliminates conflicting requirements within a system, utilizing technologies and methods within the current paradigm. A level 3 solution is deemed to be inventive FIGURE 19.1 Levels of inventiveness. Level Nature of Solution Number of Trials to Find the Solution Origin of The Solution % of Patents at This Level 1 Parametric None to Few The Designer's Field of Specialty 32% 2 Significant Improvement in Paradigm Ten to Fifty Within a Branch of Technology 45% 3 Inventive Solution in Paradigm Hundreds Several Branches of Technology 18% 4 Inventive Solution Out of Paradigm Thousands to Tens of Thousands From Science - Physical/Chemical Effects 4% 5 True Discovery Millions Beyond Contemporary Science 1% SL3003Ch19Frame Page 401 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 402 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices because it eliminates the conflicting parameters in such a way that both requirements are satisfied simultaneously. A level 3 solution to the conflicting requirements of strength vs. weight has been solved in aircraft by the use of honeycomb structures and composites. 19.2.4.4 Level 4: Invention outside the Paradigm Level 4 is the creation of a new generation of a system with a solution derived — not in technology — but in science. A level 4 solution integrates several branches of science. The radio, the integrated circuit, and the transistor are examples of level 4 solutions. 19.2.4.5 Level 5: True Discovery Level 5 is a discovery that is beyond the bounds of contemporary science. A level 5 discovery will oftentimes spawn entire new industries or allow for the accomplish- ment of tasks in radically new ways. The laser and the Internet are examples of level 5 inventions. 19.3 BASIC FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES The three discoveries made by Altshuller provided the construct for the formation of the foundational underpinnings upon which all TRIZ theory, practices, and tools are built. The three building blocks of TRIZ are ideality , contradictions, and the maximal use of resources . 19.3.1 I DEALITY The notion of ideality is a simple concept. Essentially, ideality postulates that in the course of time, systems move toward a state of increased ideality. Ideality is defined as the ratio of useful functions F U divided by harmful functions F H . Useful functions embody all the desired attributes, functions, and outputs of the system. In other words, from an engineering point of view, it is termed design intent . Harmful functions, on the other hand, include the expenses or fees associated with the system, the space it occupies, the resources it consumes, the cost to manufacture, the cost to transport, the cost to maintain, etc. Extrapolating the concept to its theoretical limit, one arrives at a situation where a system’s output consists solely of useful functions with the complete absence of any harmful consequences. Altshuller called this state the ideal final result (IFR). The IFR is not actually calculated; rather it is a tool to define the ideal end-state. Once the end-state is defined, the question as to why it’s difficult to attain flushes out the real (contradictory) problems that must be overcome. Ideality = I = F F U H Σ Σ SL3003Ch19Frame Page 402 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC TRIZ 403 One might argue that it is absurd to think of solving problems from the theoretical notion of the IFR instead of explicitly defining the current dimensions of the problem. It is, however, precisely this point of view that opens up innovative vistas by reducing prejudice, bias, and, most of all, psychological inertia (PI). Psychological inertia is analogous to what Thomas S. Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, defines as one’s paradigms. Kuhn defines a paradigm as “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community.” The danger of paradigms is that they confine the solution space to the area inside the paradigm. An engineer competent in mechan- ics, for example, is unlikely to search for a solution in chemistry; it’s outside his paradigm. Dr. Stephen Covey in his best-selling book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, offers a similar concept in habit 2, “Begin with the End in Mind.” Dr. Covey stated, “To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know where you’re going so that you better understand where you are now and so that the steps you take are always in the right direction,” The notion of ideality also postulates that a system, any system, is not a goal in itself. The only real goal or design intent of any system is the useful function(s) that it provides. Taken to its extreme, the most ideal system, therefore, is one that does not exist but nevertheless produces its intended useful function(s) (see Figures 19.2 and 19.3). In the illustration above (Figure 19.2), the supersystem has not reached a state of ideality because the useful interaction between A and B is accompanied by some type of unwanted (harmful) functions. An ideal system A, on the other hand, is one that does not exist; yet its design intent is fully accomplished. In the abstract, this notion might at first blush seem fantastical, impossible, and even absurd. There is, however, a subtle yet powerful heuristic embodied in ideality. First, ideality creates a mind-set for finding a noncompromising solution. Second, FIGURE 19.2 Typical system function. System A interacting with system B and producing a useful output but also creating harmful consequences. FIGURE 19.3 Ideal system function. System A does not exist, its function, nevertheless, is carried out. System A System B FU Fh Fh System A System B FU SL3003Ch19Frame Page 403 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 404 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices it is effective in delineating all the technological hurdles that need to be overcome to invent the best solution possible. Third, it forces the problem solver to find alternative means or resources to provide the intended useful function. The latter outcome is similar to an organization reassigning key functions to the individuals who have been retained after a reduction in force. 19.3.2 C ONTRADICTIONS The second foundation principle is the full recognition that systems are inherently rife with conflicts. Within TRIZ these conflicts are called contradictions . In TRIZ, an inventive problem is one that contains one or more contradictions. Typically, when one is faced with a contradictory set of requirements, the easy way out is to find a compromising solution. This type of solution, while it may be expedient, is not an inventive solution. If we return to the example of weight vs. strength, an inventive solution satisfies both requirements. Another example would be speed vs. precision. A TRIZ level 3 solution would satisfy both requirements utilizing available “in paradigm” methods, whereas a level 4 solution would incorporate technologies outside the current paradigm. In both cases, however, speed and precision would be achieved at a quality level demanded by the contextual parameters of the situation. In TRIZ, two distinct types of contradictions are delineated, technical contradictions and physical contradictions. Methods for solving technical contradictions are dis- cussed later in the chapter. 19.3.2.1 Technical Contradictions A technical contradiction is a situation where two identifiable parameters are in conflict. When one parameter is improved, the other is made worse. The two previ- ously mentioned, weight vs. strength, and speed vs. precision, are examples (see Figure 19.4). 19.3.2.2 Physical Contradictions A physical contradiction is a situation where a single parameter needs to be in opposite physical states, e.g., it needs to be thin and thick, hot and cold at the same time. This type of contradiction has, at least to the author’s knowledge, never been articulated prior to the arrival of TRIZ in North America. FIGURE 19.4 Technical contradiction. As parameter A improves, B is worse and vice versa. B A I M P R O V E M E N T SL3003Ch19Frame Page 404 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC TRIZ 405 A physical contradiction is the controlling element or parameter linking the parameters of the technical contradiction. Figure 19.5 shows the pulley (C) upon which parameters A and B rotate as the physical contradiction. The physical contradiction lies at the heart of an inventive problem; it is the ultimate contradiction. When the physical contradiction has been found, the process of generating an inventive solution has been greatly simplified. It stands to reason that when a physical contradiction is made to behave in two opposite states simul- taneously, the technical contradiction is eliminated. For example, if by some means, pulley C could rotate in opposite directions at the same time, both A and B would increase, hence eliminating the technical contradiction. 19.3.3 R ESOURCES The third foundation principle of TRIZ is the maximal utilization of any available resources before introducing a new component or complication into the system. Resources are defined as any substance, space, or energy that is present in the system, its surroundings, or in the environment. The identification and utilization of resources increase the operating efficiency of the system, thereby improving its ideality. It is understandable that in the former Soviet Union where money was scarce necessity did in fact prove to be the mother of invention. In the West, on the other hand, system problems were often engineered out by the proverbial means of throwing money (and complexity) at the system. The utilization of resources as an “X” agent to solve the problem was and still is not widely practiced. A practiced TRIZ problem solver will marshal any in-system or environmental resource to assist in solving the problem. It is only when all resources have been exhausted or it is impractical to use one that the consideration of additional design elements comes into play. The mantra of a TRIZ problem solver is never to solve a problem by making the system more complex. More on this when the algorithm for problem solving (ARIZ — Russian language acronym) is discussed. Table 19.1 lists the types of resources used in TRIZ. 19.4 A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TRIZ is composed of a comprehensive set of analytical and knowledge-based tools that was heretofore buried at a subconscious level in the minds of creative inventors. FIGURE 19.5 Physical contradiction. For A and B to improve, C must rotate clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneously. B A I M P R O V E M E N T C SL3003Ch19Frame Page 405 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 406 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices Asked to explain specifically how they invent, most are unable to provide a repeatable formula. Through his work, Altshuller has codified the amorphous process of inven- tion. Altshuller’s great contribution to society is that he made the process of inventive thinking explicit, thus making it possible for anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence to become an inventor. What Altshuller did for inventive thinking is not unlike what happened in math- ematics with the invention of place values and the zero. Prior the modern (Hindu–Arabic) form of mathematics, the civilized Western world used Roman numerals. This system of numbers was written from left to right and used letters to designate numerical values. The number 2763, for example, is written MMDC- CLXIII. The system, although somewhat awkward, was sufficient for doing simple addition and subtraction. It was nearly impossible, however, to perform calculations requiring multiplication and division. These mathematical functions were understood by only a few highly capable math wizards. The Hindu–Arabic numbering system that used symbols and incorporated place values based on 10 was far superior and easier for the average person to learn and understand. Furthermore, the flexibility and robustness of the system allowed for the invention of algebra, statistics, calculus, differential equations, and scores of other advancements. TRIZ is the inventive analog of the Hindu–Arabic numbering system. TRIZ makes it possible for people of average intelligence to access a large body of inventive knowledge and, through analogic analysis, formulate inventive “out-of-the-box” solutions. TABLE 19.1 Types of Resources SUBSTANCE — any material contained in the system or its environment, manufactured products, or wastes ENERGY — any kind of energy existing in the system, any space available in the system, and its environment time intervals before start, after finish, and between technology cycles, unused or partially used FUNCTIONAL — possibilities of the system or its environment to carry out additional functions, unused specific features and properties, characteristics of a particular system, such as special physical, chemical, or geometrical properties. For example: resonance frequencies, magneto susceptibility, radioactivity, and transparency at certain frequencies SYSTEM — new useful functions or properties of the system that can be achieved from modification of connections between the subsystems, or a new way of combining systems ORGANIZATIONAL — existing, but incompletely used structures, or structures that can be easily built in the system, arrangement or orientation of elements or communication between them DIFFERENTIAL — differences in magnitude of parameters that can be used to create flux, that carry out useful functions. For example: speed difference for steam next to a pipe wall vs. in the middle, temperature variances, voltage drop across resistance, height variance CHANGES — new properties or features of the system (often unexpected), appearing after changes have been introduced HARMFUL — wastes of the system (or other systems) which become harmless after use SL3003Ch19Frame Page 406 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC TRIZ 407 19.4.1 H OW TRIZ W ORKS The general scheme in TRIZ is solution by abstraction. In other words, a specific problem is described in a more abstract form. The abstracted form of the problem has a counterpart solution at the level of abstraction. The connection between the problem and the solution is found through the use of various TRIZ tools. Once the solution analog is arrived at, the process is reversed, producing a specific solution. Figure 19.6 illustrates the process of solution by abstraction, and Figure 19.7 applies the process to an algebraic problem. Assume that we were given the task of solving the problem found in the Equation, 3x 2 + 5x + 2 = 0. Without a specific process, we would be reduced to the inefficient process of trial and error. An even more absurd method would be to try to arrive at the answer by brainstorming. Yet, brainstorming is often applied to problems that are much more complex than that shown above. This is what makes TRIZ so compelling — it provides a roadmap to highly creative and innovative solutions to seemingly impossible problems. Figure 19.7 shows the principle of solution by abstraction applied to the algebraic equation. FIGURE 19.6 Solution by abstraction process. Specialization Abstract Solutions Category Your Specific Inventive Solution Your Specific Inventive Problem Abstract Problem Category Abstraction TRIZ Tools & Techniques Trial & Error Brainstorming Partial Solutions & Compromises SL3003Ch19Frame Page 407 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 408 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices Figure 19.6 provides the general schema for how TRIZ works. The fundamental idea in TRIZ is to reformulate the problem into a more general (abstract) problem and then find an equivalent “solved” problem. These analogs, in theory, define the solution space that is occupied by one or several noncompromising alternative solutions. The advantage of increasing the level of abstraction is that the solution space is expanded. Solving the equation in Figure 19.8 is relatively simple, assuming knowledge of algebra. The correctness of the solution is also easier to verify because the solution space is very small, i.e., there is only one right answer! Inventive problems pose a much greater challenge than the one shown because the solution space is very large. Figure 19.8 shows what happens when solving inventive vs. noninventive problems. An inventive problem is often confused with problems of design or engineering, or of a technological nature. For example, in constructing a bridge, the type of bridge to be built is largely an issue related to design. A cantilever bridge provides known design advantages over a suspension bridge in specific contexts, and vice versa. This is an example of a noninventive design problem. Calculating the load and stress the bridge will have to withstand is an engineering problem. Coordinating the construction and assuring that materials meet specifications and the job is on time and on budget is a technical problem. Although these problems are not insignificant by themselves, they are not inventive within the context of TRIZ because they are solvable by using known methods, formulas, schedules, etc. Furthermore, the path to the correct solution is defined and direct and, because the solution space is very small, verification of the answer is straightforward. This is not the case with inventive problems. An inventive problem in the context of building a bridge would to be to make the bridge lighter and stronger, larger and less expensive, longer and more stable. These problems are inventive because they often have to overcome many contradic- tions. To reiterate, a problem is an inventive one if one or several contradictions must be overcome in its solution, and a compromise solution is not acceptable. Several distinguishing characteristics of an inventive vs. typical problem are shown in Figure 19.8. First, the entire solution space can be quite large, containing FIGURE 19.7 Solution by abstraction example. X = 1 2a -b ±± ±± b 2 - 4ac [ [ Abstract Solutions Specific Solution X = -1, - 2 3 Specific Problem 3x 2 + 5x + 2 = 0 Abstract Problem ax 2 + bx + c = 0 Abstraction Specialization Algebraic Techniques SL3003Ch19Frame Page 408 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC [...]... Deteriorated Feature Weight of nonmoving object 411 Weight of a moving object TRIZ 15,8 29,34 6, 2 34 ,19 1 Weight of a moving object 2 Weight of a nonmoving object 3 Length of a moving object 4 Length of a nonmoving object 5 Area of a moving object 6 Area of a non-moving object 7 Volume of moving object 2,26 29,40 1,7 35,4 7 ,15 13,16 33 Convenience of use 25, 2 6,13, 1,17 13,15 1, 25 13,12 2 ,19 13 34 Repairability... inventive, it must meet all of the stringent requirements outlined in Table 19. 2 © 2002 by CRC Press LLC SL3003Ch19Frame Page 410 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM 410 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices TABLE 19. 2 Requirements of Inventive Solutions • • • • • Solution Solution Solution Solution Solution fully resolves the contradictory requirements preserves all advantages of the current system... 6:01 PM 412 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices TABLE 19. 3 40 Inventive Principles (Partial List) 3 Local quality a Change an object’s structure from uniform (homogeneous) to non-uniform (heterogeneous) or, change the external environment (or external influence) from uniform to non-uniform b Have different parts of the object carry out different functions c Place each part of the object under... LLC SL3003Ch19Frame Page 420 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM 420 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices Solution 1 Vector of Psychological Inertia Solution 2 Problem Solution 3 ARIZ Solution Space for Analysis and Elimination of Contradictions Solution 4 Ideal Final Result Solution 5 FIGURE 19. 15 A respiratory problem: two perspectives A portion of the algorithm (Stage 1: Formulation of the problem)... pair of the identical conflicting elements, it is sufficient to analyze just one pair 19. 5.2.2.2.3 Conflict Intensification Formulate the intensified technical contradiction (ITC) by showing an extreme state of the elements © 2002 by CRC Press LLC SL3003Ch19Frame Page 422 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM 422 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices 19. 5.2.2.2.4 Conflict Diagrams Compile diagrams of the... and repeatable pattern of interactions between the system and its environment These patterns occur because systems are subject to various cycles of improvement When a new technological system emerges, it © 2002 by CRC Press LLC SL3003Ch19Frame Page 414 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM 414 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices Degree of Ideality c b C d B A a Time FIGURE 19. 10 Life-cycle curves... analogy between use of the laws of evolution and laws of motion If the position of a moving object is known at a certain moment of time, © 2002 by CRC Press LLC SL3003Ch19Frame Page 415 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM TRIZ 415 TABLE 19. 5 Patterns of Technological Systems Evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stages of evolution Evolution toward increased ideality Non-uniform development of systems elements Evolution... gravitation fields of the earth • Overall-system resources a Side-products: waste products of any system or any cheap or free foreign objects 19. 5.2.2.4 Model of Ideal Solution 19. 5.2.2.4.1 Selection of the X-resource Select one of the resources for further modification 1 Select in-system resources in the conflict domain first 2 Modification of the tool is more preferable than modification of the article 19. 5.2.2.4.2... effect Harmful effect Transformation FIGURE 19. 13 Sufield interactions © 2002 by CRC Press LLC S2 SL3003Ch19Frame Page 418 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM 418 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices Lake Mechanical Fme Dye S1 S1 S2 FIGURE 19. 14 Sufield solution measuring volume problem global positioning systems (GPS) integrated with sonar mapping None of these answers was as elegant as the one... space, a number of inventive principles, analogs or substance field models promote thinking outside of the box (see Figure 19. 15) 19. 5.2.2.1 The Steps in ARIZ The architecture of ARIZ is composed of three major processes that are subdivided into nine high-level steps, each with their own sub-steps The macro- and high-level steps in ARIZ are shown in Figure 19. 16 ARIZ is designed to utilize all of the tools . Error Brainstorming Partial Solutions & Compromises SL3003Ch19Frame Page 407 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 408 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices Figure 19. 6. SL3003Ch19Frame Page 409 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 6:01 PM © 2002 by CRC Press LLC 410 The Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices 19. 5 CLASSICAL AND MODERN TRIZ TOOLS In the course of his. Adaptability Repairability Convenience of use Volume of moving object Area of a non-moving object Area of a moving object Length of a non- moving object Length of a moving object Weight of a non- moving object Weight of a moving