Articulate the conflicting positions or functions. Identify the needs forcing the two positions.

200 CHAPTER 7 Concept Generation Meet customer’s requirements Need to make it easier for customers to move and handle Make product smaller and lighter Fit in all the functions Assumptions 1. Functions needed all the time Assumptions 1. All the functions won’t fit 2. Functions have weight and size Assumptions 1. All the functions are needed 2. They all have to “fit” inside Need the functions to meet the competition Assumptions 1. The customers want all these functions 2. We know the frequency of use of the functions 3. The competition’s product is not “function rich” and “usability poor” Assumptions 1. We accurately understand the size and weight requirements 2. There aren’t other features that can make handling easier. 3. We can’t use plug-in to get added functions 4. We can’t break the system into separate modules Assumptions 1. The customer requirements are an accurate picture of what is needed Assumptions 1. Lighter and smaller are the only ways to make it easier to move and handle Conflict Figure 7.20 The assumptions. In Fig. 7.20, 14 assumptions have been identified. Some of them may seem obvious, they may overlap, and in some cases, they are trivial. But by noting these assumptions, you can ■ Question the diagram for its validity. Some of the assumptions may de- mand more information e.g., whether it is true that “the customers are not aware of our product” or “we understand the customers’ desires”. The diagram may need reformulating based on what you now know. ■ Note new criteria. Explore how each assumption adds a requirement or constraint to the problem. ■ Identify new alternatives. These are called injections and are the focus of the final step.

7.7 The Theory of Inventive Machines, TRIZ

201

5. Articulate injections that can relieve the conflict while meeting the objective.

The final step to evaporate the cloud is to add injections. An injection is a new idea that may help break the conflict. Since virtually all assumptions center on why you can’t do something, ask the question, “What can eliminate this assumption?” Answers to this question can help develop directions for further study and new alternatives to consider. In this example, some additional research that might help clarify the situation would be ■ Are all the functions on the customers’ product used? ■ Can we modularize the product? ■ Do we really know what the customers want? Some new ideas that are evident from the EC Fig. 7.20 include: ■ Plug ins ■ Modules ■ Achieving the functions using software from “Functions have weight and size” Although the diagram helps tease out much information, the EC mindset is even more important: ■ The two alternative views, which seem to conflict, do not conflict in reality if they both support the goal. To meet both needs, we need to fix something that is wrong with our perception recall the story of the six blind men and the elephant. ■ The process brings two sides together to focus on developing a new win- win solution that better meets both needs, thus evaporating the apparent conflict, in which each side defends its position. The win-win solution is not a compromise, which is lose-lose. 7.7 THE THEORY OF INVENTIVE MACHINES, TRIZ TRIZ pronounced “trees” is the acronym for the Russian phrase “The Theory of Inventive Machines.” TRIZ is based on two ideas:

1. Many of the problems that engineers face contain elements that have already

been solved, often in a completely different industry, for a totally unrelated situation, that uses an entirely different technology to solve the problem.

2. There are predictable patterns of technological change that can be applied to

any situation to determine the most probably successful next steps. The theory is that with TRIZ we can systematically innovate; we don’t have to wait for an “inspiration” or use the trial and error common to the other methods