Some Past Letters to the Editor:

November 2002 Letter to the Editor
  • Letters are always welcome. Write to editor@triz-journal.com . Please mention if you do not want your letters published.
  • Readers are asked to respond directly to the author when appropriate.

Critique on “The Simplified TRIZ”-book, and the Book Review

By Pentti Soderlin
Management Consultant
Helsinki, Finland
pentti.soderlin@netlife.fi

I have been reading a book on TRIZ, namely “Simplified TRIZ: New Problem-Solving Applications for Engineers & Manufacturing Professionals” by Ellen Domb, Ph.D, and Kalevi Rantanen.

In the June number of TRIZ-Journal Dr. Michael S. Slocum and Ms. Catherine Lundberg have reviewed the book. The TRIZ part of the book has been rewritten or translated from the previous book in Finnish by Mr. K. Rantanen. Ms. Domb has probably written the latter part of the book. However this is not clearly stated or mentioned in the book.

I cannot recommend this book to any potential reader.

The review

Suppose you are searching a book to get acquainted with TRIZ and you will find this book review. What do you expect? The beginning of the review loads you with superlative expectations: “…excellent introduction,… directed to professionals, …to learning a new science” to quote but the first three lines.

The uncritical and misleading text continues already in the next paragraph: … authors do outstanding job…, the examples are clear, concise,… personal examples, … technical and manufacturing examples…

Apart from explaining the topics, the review praises even more the authors: ... the authors are well versed,… have done excellent job, … the book is ... a positive contribution,… the authors should be commended…, the book is a must…

For your information: I cannot agree.

I don’t know how to describe the book, the book review and what kind of epitome to give each of these. So misleading and uncritical a review one hardly ever reads. So confusing is the book itself.

What do you expect from a book review?

What is the function of a book review? The answer is very simple and obvious: it serves as a recommendation or guide especially to a hesitating potential buyer or newcomer. Normally the buyer expects to hear not only positive comments but also possible faults or shortcomings, and even some negative arguments of the text. This is what I personally think the coutume is, or at least has been. But “everything is different in America”?

Who is responsible if the book is a flop or a complete misinvestment? The reviewers? The authors? The buyer? Whom to send claims?

There has been a discussion in April number “If TRIZ is such a good idea, why isn’t everyone using it?” One of the critiques was presented towards TRIZ books. Why?

One major reason might have been the fact that there exist confusing books and procedures by different TRIZ writers. This book in question is one and not at all a good one. Even the review is a complete flop, a disservice for TRIZniks.

The Book

“Simplified TRIZ”, what do you expect? Simplification normally means to explain (to those not familiar), clarify, make simple (pure and simple, easy to understand), to streamline etc. How does this book contribute to these? It doesn’t.

Let us start from the beginning, the terminology. Would it had been more rewarding if the authors have not caused additional confusion by inventing “new” terminology. I mean the basic concepts like Technical and Physical Contradictions. Why “Trade-off”, why “Inherited contradiction”? Especially when the author himself uses the old terms as synonyms later in his book.

The author also mixes the contradiction concept with that of system. He writes: “A contradiction is a conflict in the system”. Further the author names the “tool and object” in the “trade-offs”. Is there a need or request for simplification to talk about “tool and object” in this context?

A contradiction appears simply in the product characteristics, not in the system. See [1] pp.89 -91. Consider the fact that the solution of Technical Contradiction is found in the Matrix of product characteristics. How do these “tool” and “object” contribute to the contradiction? I didn’t find any answer.

The author describes in fact the Substance-Field Analysis elements, now renamed “contradiction” or “trade-off”. The author further confuses the reader by speaking with everyday terms, tool as an axe, and soon after as TRIZ (Substance-Field) term. There is no explanations whatever of the difference. How enlightening!

Shouldn’t the concept of tool and object be used and reserved for the Substance-Field Analysis only? Now a newcomer is again in the centre of a mess. Later in the book the author again describes contradictions between tool and object in the case of Su-Fi analysis. Isn’t it simply a problem in the system, which could and should be solved by Substance Field Analysis and “Standards”? See e.g. much better definitions by Savransky [2] pp 60-61. Now the “pearl” of TRIZ is presented as a side step in three pages with no mention what so ever of “Standards”. Fortunately the reference by Salamatov [3] uses some 200 pages to clarify the approach, not to mention “Tools of Classical TRIZ [4].

The author also mixes the concepts of Macro and Micro level with that of Super and Sub level. These concepts are totally different things. See Altshuller [5].

The author should have been precise or understood the difference to avoid additional confusions like this.

Further the “Simplified TRIZ” goes to the presentation of “Principal Resource”. What is that? Isn’t it simply the Object? What about the “Auxiliary Resources”? Aren’t these simply a part of Substance Field Resource Analysis?

What additional benefits do these terms bring with? The answer is nil.

These new terms do nothing but cause additional mess. There is no actual use or benefit of these “new” definitions.

Examples with wrong explanations

There are additional wrong concepts or simply misinterpretations. The author seems to think that a void is the same as “micro” level. In the Fiskars axe example the author describes the “micro level” of making the handle hollow. To be precise, this example is a “Level one” invention according to Altshuller[5]. There is a simple technical task to replace a wooden handle with one made of glass reinforced plastics (or equivalent). Since the latter is much more durable than wood, you don’t need such a diameter as in the case of wooden handle. However the GRP has at least twice as much specific weight than that of wood. If the handle is solid GRP it becomes too heavy etc. What is an ideal handle? If you are playing and enjoying golf, you’ll know that a shaft weighting nothing, is the ideal one. There are no “micro level” whatever explanations but simple engineering understanding of moment of inertia. This would have been a more “scientific” approach and explanation. Further it is obvious that the author doesn’t understand the difference between energy and power.

Had the author known his mechanics he had avoided these fallacies.

The same continues in the lawnmower muffler example. Had the author known the principles of sound absorption, he had described the whole situation as in the actual case: the invention was based to the need to find another “muffler” to replace that broken. What are the basic “tricks” in a muffler design? “Everybody” knows how to dampen the combustion engine noise but the author.

Had the author described the functions of muffler, he would have known what to search for?

The same inexperience in engineering and lack of knowledge in manufacturing continues with the example of the visor latching. The proposed solution will not simply work. Why? Consider the actual conditions in the use and the manufacturing tolerances. The conditions might be e.g. such while in harbour the port side of the visor is in the bright sunshine, the starboard in the shadow. The temperature difference might be several tens of degrees, while the dimensions of the visor are tens of meters. Calculate or simply give a thought how much distortion this might cause? Further the visor is a very large piece of ship, preferably manufactured in advance with all latches etc., ready installed. This is the common advanced practice in shipbuilding today. How can you manufacture such a part with the latches “dead sharp” or how can you be sure these dimensions will last? The answer is you can’t. The fact that the patentee had acquired a patent for the conical pin doesn’t prove anything about the suitability of such an innovation in practice. Why just the angle 15.4 degrees? What is the (“scientific”) explanation of that? Anybody else with some engineering and manufacturing experience would most likely have rejected the patent as an example. Everybody can draw a picture of that design and find it will not work as described.

A thoughtful and experienced engineer or naval architect finds these kinds of examples naive and frustrating. The reader will simply omit TRIZ. Thus these examples are only harming the acceptance of TRIZ.

In some examples it is obvious that the author doesn’t understand cost or investment. This is the case particularly in the “Thinning out” of carrot seeds. Let alone the author will use the 40 principles as an independent source of solutions versus the correct use of Matrix. What have been the correct Technical Contradictions? What are the suitable or recommended Principles from the Matrix? What is the correct definition of Physical Contradiction (is it the one presented)? What about the thinning out or removal of weeds? Had the author any experience in allotment gardening he had understood the example correctly.

There is additionally some naive and frustrating advice to find a solution to problem. One should analyse all the resources in the system & environment. Wait a moment! The list will be enormous! Sure, the answer is there, isn’t all the human knowledge there? The “HOW” is missing!

Some peculiarities

In the book there are many attempts to explain the “What”. What should be done or found. The “What” is of course important, but the ”HOW” would have been the most important of all. This is laid down. No actual “How”s are explained. The author tries to explain the end result with the help of a priori knowledge of the solution. This is, however, not very innovative nor explaining. Further it would have been more rewarding with recent innovations than explaining very ancient examples. The most aged of the examples date some 50 to 60 years ago. The authors explain this hypocritically with the confidentiality of their projects.

Wouldn’t it have been more honest to leave this kind of “confidentiality” statements out and use the examples as they are, just a collection from scientific papers or technical newsletters?

If however the authors have been working over two decades with TRIZ, why can’t they present any innovation of their own some 5 to 10 years of age? These would of course be well known for the competitors by now and thus of any harm to the client.

Now the reader has been given the illusion of highly competent author with a lot of projects, which unfortunately are not allowed to publish. Would you believe?

All the examples are a posteriori or simply retrospective examples what could or would have been done with TRIZ if the inventor had had any knowledge of TRIZ (if they in general are suitable as examples).

Some other peculiarities in the text: in the Job Plan part the author claims that the problem statement is not important at all. However later in the text that is again very important?

The author pinpoints that the importance of features (and not the functions). Features are of course easy to describe but functions are much more important for the results. Altshuller himself already emphasized this. The function concept is a major part of the method.

The author has no deep understanding in Value Analysis. Hence the “features”. To “simplify” TRIZ this way is again a major flaw.

“When the velocity of car increases, safety worsens.” “Long distance communication technology first expanded- telegraph and telephone wires- and then trimmed - wireless technology.” How come? These kind of ridiculous and faulty definitions or misinterpretations the book is full of. (I thought the safety depends mainly on the driver, does it not? What about the wireless technology? Is it the result of trimming?)

The above examples are but a few of careless or false statements which the book is loaded. A careful proofreading by somebody familiar with techniques would have been an asset.

Something good:

the book is at its best when giving the explanations to 40 principles loaned from other TRIZniks. The outlook is also O.K. Some citations from Homer will probably excite somebody.

The “scientific approach”

The author claims that the book represents a “scientific” approach. I would say it doesn’t. See the comments above. The same applies to “cognitive” learning. It appears that the author has found a fancy term and tries to give a “scientific” impression. The result is more likely something to do with “scientology”. A book is not simply “scientific” nor “cognitive” on the sole bases that the author says so, the reader have to be convinced about that. The frequent repetition of the previous examples in the text is nothing but boring, not at all cognitive experience, only yawning. This was supposed to be an introduction of TRIZ to adult readers?

The author even loses good taste and goes even further to praise himself:

“The model presented in this book is based on modern TRIZ, on recent achievements of innovative design in industry and on the latest results”. And a few pages later: “…on the feedback from many students of TRIZ over the past two decades”.

For the sake of precision I would like to ask:

Which achievements, which research and by whom? These are faulty statements without any proof and made only to praise the book by the author himself. These kinds of statements might perhaps be accepted in the spoken sales talk, but certainly not in a book.

The reader would like to have references. Without them these kinds of statements are simply intentionally misleading and even impostorous?

There is an unwritten consent that everything new in TRIZ is and has to be tested in numerous cases with positive results. Where are the cases? How many are they? Who has verified these? The questions about TRIZ are more than justified? [6].

The more you read the book the more you’ll find similar confusing explanations, paradoxes and misinterpretations without any real show how.

The latter part

The latter part of the book is beyond my experience ( QFD, Robust Design, DFM-A, Concurrent Engineering?, TOC, SIX Sigma). This part of the book is actually not needed or relevant. Or is it to acquire readers from the experts of these topics only? I sincerely hope that these have been explained more correctly.

Conclusion

I don’t simply understand the praise of this book in the review. Maybe Dr. Slocum and Ms. Lundberg have simply botched their critiques?

I cannot recommend this book to any reader.

 

References:

[1] G.Altshuller: The Innovation Algorithm, Technical Innovation Center, Inc. Worcester, MA. 2000.

[2] S.D.Savransky: Engineering of Creativity. Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving; CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2000

[3] Yuri Salamatov: TRIZ: The Right Solution at the Right Time, Insytec B.V., 1999.

[4] Tools of Classical TRIZ, Ideation International Inc., Southfield MI, 1999

[5] G. Altshuller: Creativity as an Exact Science, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, NY. 1984

[6] Brian Campbell: If TRIZ is such a good idea, why isn’t everyone using it? www.TRIZ-Journal.com, April 2002.