Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to top

Top

Is TRIZ the Best Innovation Methodology?

| On 01, Jan 2010

Message: 139
Posted by: Jake
Posted on: Wednesday, 10th January 2007


I'd like to hear from people that do Triz and have been exposed to other innovation methodologies. Is Triz the best? Is Design for Six Sigma the best? Or are they the best “hammers” for their respective jobs?


Message: 140
Posted by: InnovationColorado
Posted on: Wednesday, 10th January 2007


Jake,

I'm not sur that there is a single answer to this.  To determine what is the “best” innovation methodology, I think that a Deming-esqe question is appropriate:  “what is your aim (or purpose)”?

For some purposes, TRIZ may be the best; for others, it may not.

What is your aim?

Best regards,

InnovationColorado


Message: 141
Posted by: Michael S. Slocum
Posted on: Wednesday, 10th January 2007


I wouldn't describe DFSS as an innovation tool. It certainly is a powerful methodology for producing a product or service that meets or exceeds customer requirments and is manufacturable at the Six Sigma level (or whatever the minimum required level is). However, DFSS does not contain the capability to create a novel concept or idea. DFSS assumes that a societal need has been identified and a concept or idea has been formulated to meet that societal need. DFSS then gives you the method and tools to reduce that idea or concept to practice while meeting needs, minimizing complexity, and minimizing risk and cost.

TRIZ is a collection of tools that are leveraged to repeatably, predictably, and reliably converge on an idea that achieves the specified purpose while minimizing trade-offs in the system. Based on this application of TRIZ, it could easliy be imbedded in the DFSS process thereby adding an innovative component to the DFSS process.

DFSS and TRIZ are compatable and both are needed.

Michael S. Slocum  


Message: 144
Posted by: InnovationColorado
Posted on: Wednesday, 10th January 2007


Michael,

I agree with you.  I my experience, Six Sigma DMAIC and DFSS both have a key weakness at the actual improvement phase (“I” in DMAIC and the 2nd “D” DMADV”).  There are few (if any) tools that are typically taught to actually develop the improvement or innovation.  One of the basic “Improve” steps is to “create possible solutions”, but there are not typically any tools taught that help you develop GOOD solutions. Six Sigma is very weak here.

When I get to “I” (Improve), I usually supplement basic DMAIC training with things like process streamlining guidelines, in order to help teams develop a good solution (or range of solutions) that is based on some science and practical application.

In the same way, I believe that the tools of TRIZ would be very useful in the 2nd “D” (Design) of “DMADV”. 


Best regards,

InnovationColorado


Message: 145
Posted by: Michael Schlueter
Posted on: Thursday, 11th January 2007


Hi Jake,

What are your alternatives? Here's my view, roughly grouped by increasing level of comparable effectiveness:

  • Guessing, exchanging ideas, inspiration
  • Brainstorming, brainwriting, lateral thinking, morphological box and similar
  • Talking to customer, sales force and similar people, who know “what's out there”; QFD belongs here, too
  • TRIZ, including Directed Evolution

Bionics (making analogies to soultions from nature) may be the ultimate, but that has to be proven in practice.

Those tools help you coming up with ideas (vague to excellent). Making them a reality can be achieved, e.g., by using DFSS.

Common to all these tools is: insight. The better we understand the situation, the better the solution can be (breaking psychological inertia in TRIZ-speak). The better we understand customers, the better sales and profit can be.

Kind regards,

Michael Schlueter


Message: 147
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Sunday, 14th January 2007


Jake,

Based on some of the discussion in the thread “Definition,” unless I missed something in that thread or something about TRIZ, it cannot be an innovation tool. There is that comercial requirement to be innovation and I don't understand it to be present in TRIZ.


Message: 148
Posted by: Art
Posted on: Monday, 15th January 2007


Mike – Jake is asking about TRIZ being a method, not a tool. Do you mean that he's comparing apples & oranges because DFSS is a tool? Art


Message: 150
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Tuesday, 16th January 2007


No. The title of the post is “Is Triz the best Innovation Methodology?”

As we went through some discussion on the difference between creativity, invention and innovation it seems that there is a critical componet of comercialization/marketing to innovation. Unless TRIZ does something with comercialization/marketing how can it be innovation, by definition? I am certainly not an expert of any sort on TRIZ but what I have been exposed to had nothing to do with the comercial side. If we stick with the definition then the answer has to be no it isn't an innovation tool or methodology.

Does that mean TRIZ is a tool for invention or creativity? People seem to be very insistent that invention and innovation not be used interchangably and that commercialization is a critical piece. It seems inconsistent.


Message: 153
Posted by: Art
Posted on: Tuesday, 16th January 2007


TRIZ itself isn't innovation. But it's a method that provides innovative solutions–if I'm reading things correctly. The method itself isn't commercial in the sense you're talking about, but the “ideal” results that TIRZ provides can be commercially viable.

Therefore, its a method.


Message: 158
Posted by: Michael Schlueter
Posted on: Wednesday, 17th January 2007


Hello Mike,

I agree with your observation. Ideas – weak or excellent – are intangible. They have to turn into something real (touch, feel, experience) to be a manifested innovation.

I also agree that the link between TRIZ and commercialization seems to be weak. However, a couple of companies managed to make TRIZ part of their development processes. One employee from a small company recently stated: “it's somehow unfair to compete against our main competitor with TRIZ, who has no clue at all about TRIZ.”

I'd like to add one aspect. I think innovation – ideas turned into something real – is needed for both profit and non-profit organizations. Examples: For a company it's important to provide new products or services for money. For a hospital it's important to provide new means or services for better health or better diagnosis. For a school it's important to adjust to changing conditions and to provide education, which makes their graduates more successful in life.

There is a name for it: management.

“Management is the transformation from resources and knowledge into results (Fredmund Malik).” – “There are no underdeveloped countries, but under-managed countries (Peter F. Drucker)”

In this perspective we can regard TRIZ as being under-managed, at least when we talk about achieving results.

TRIZ is a breathtaking summary of inventive thinking (a language of innovation, if you like) and TRIZnik did and still do a good job here. What is missing, as you observed, is transforming TRIZ knowledge into results (management). Which is not so specific to TRIZ, I think.

Kind regards, Michael Schlueter


Message: 165
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Wednesday, 17th January 2007


Michael,

I hope this isn't coming off badly. I have no general issue with TRIZ as a tool. The only reason that TRIZ popped up was the question that labled it as an innovation tool. With the qualifier of commercialization pretty much eliminates almost anything as an innovation tool. It also puts SS into the not an innovation tool but it still doesn't mean it kills it.

I agree with you that innovation is necessaryfor any company to survive simply because of the changing rate of change – although some companies are very good at not being the leading edge organization. I know I see your name in the iSixSigma Discussion Forum so you have seen me reference the book “The Deviant's Advantage” but if you accept the premise of the loss of reference because of the rate of change it almost makes the idea of iteration and systematic invention the only logical strategyfor a company in todays economy.

Just my opinion.

Regards


Message: 1259
Posted by: Mark Proffitt
Posted on: Wednesday, 19th March 2008


TRIZ is based on copying things from the past so its not suited for creating innovations that have never been done before. Its also heavily focussed on physical systems. TRIZ is clumsy for business strategy and dealing with customers desires. As was already mentioned 6 Sigma methods lack the idea generation component.


Message: 1260
Posted by: S. Mahdi Golestan Hashemi
Posted on: Wednesday, 19th March 2008


From view of the a comprehensive approach , TRIZ is a sub-discipline of åÇ Creatology åÈ as an extensive scientific field of Creativity and Innovation ( TRIZical Creatology ) . So Creatology is very broader than TRIZ , but TRIZ-based Creatology is very powerful . Of course TRIZ alone can not be enough for development of Human Creativity and Innovation . Another powerful Creatological approach and methodology is Nature-based Creatology : Bionical Creatology ( Bionical Creativity and Innovation methodology ) and BIOISCical Creatology ( BIO-inspired & imitated Social Creativity ) , that is complementary of TRIZ , and via a combinational and integrative approach can introduce a synergic Creatological methodology .  


Message: 1263
Posted by: Kelly
Posted on: Thursday, 20th March 2008


This is, again, pretty much the same thing you always post. 

Could you post some type of example that would explain what you mean?  Speaking for myself, I have to say I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.

Respectfully,

Kelly


Message: 1264
Posted by: Prakash
Posted on: Thursday, 20th March 2008


I don't see there is any point arguing TRIZ is the best innovation methodology or not! TRIZ should be looked at as an effective thinking framework. It is pretty much like a tool box with several tools provided to help us think effectively. We are creative, inventive and innovative when we think effectively. And, TRIZ could probably one such tool, and there are other techniques. TRIZ may be providing more options to think in a structured way, unlike any other techniques.


Message: 1266
Posted by: Ellen Domb
Posted on: Thursday, 20th March 2008


Bravo, Prakash!   The “best” methodology is the one that does what you or your company needs, and that may be a whole suite of tools or only one.  TRIZ (and all its tools) should be in the toolbox so that you can use what you need when you need it. 

See Darrell Mann's paper in the Dec. 2007 TRIZ Journal (just click “archive” in the left hand column) for a great perspective on the trouble with ANY method that claims to be comprehensive, step-by-step innovation.


Message: 1268
Posted by: S.Mahdi Golestan Hashemi
Posted on: Thursday, 20th March 2008


Althoug it is new , but is clear .  If you interested to know about Bionical Creatology ( Bionacal Creativity & Innovation Methodology) , you can refer to Design & Nature at http://www.wessex.ac.uk  and other related references .

Regards 


Message: 2003
Posted by: sadegh shahbazi
Posted on: Tuesday, 5th April 2011


No, because it is not good for management problems.


Message: 2006
Posted by: Michael Lyubomirskiy
Posted on: Saturday, 9th April 2011


if neither you nor the guy who wrote the books you have read know how to apply TRIZ techniques to the problems of business strategy and solving customer needs, it does not mean that it cannot be so applied very effectively.

All successful disciplines study past achievements and seek to learn from their examples. A man good at analogical reasoning can glean much useful knowledge and techniques even from something as fuzzy as Sun Tzu's maxims. A man without it will not learn much even from the much more structured TRIZ approach.


Message: 2007
Posted by: Michael Lyubomirskiy
Posted on: Saturday, 9th April 2011


if neither you nor the guy who wrote the books you have read know how to apply TRIZ techniques to the problems of business strategy and solving customer needs, it does not mean that it cannot be so applied very effectively.

All successful disciplines study past achievements and seek to learn from their examples. A man good at analogical reasoning can glean much useful knowledge and techniques even from something as fuzzy as Sun Tzu's maxims. A man without it will not learn much even from the much more structured TRIZ approach.