Editor | On 19, Dec 2000

First published in the proceedings of TRIZCON2000, May, 2000.

ABSTRACT

The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) has been effectively taught at the undergraduate level at North Carolina State University and results of this experience were presented in a previous publication (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Pedagogy in Engineering Education, Part I, Drs. Clapp and Slocum, TRIZ Journal, November 1998, see this paper APPENDIX B). This work formed the basis of the creation and successful implementation of a graduate TRIZ class (four-month in depth review of theoretical base). The students (masters and doctoral candidates) completed case studies (several published in technical journals) as well as supplied a detailed course critique. The course format and content, the case studies, and the critique will be discussed in this paper so that other professors and universities may benefit from our experience.

INTRODUCTION

The tasks of the educator are of supreme importance as the next generation of engineers relies on the training and skills imparted to equip them for the challenges in the ever-changing competitive industrial environment. Engineers need the tools and methods to help them rapidly produce innovative designs to meet the customer demands of our society. Engineering education programs in the U.S. have been slow to integrate innovative problem solving methods into the curriculum. Several universities have begun to integrate the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) into existing undergraduate classes [1,2,3] . This trend will continue as the demand and impact of TRIZ is realized in industry and by faculty. In an effort to accelerate the integration of the TRIZ methods into engineering education, teaching strategies and methods must be shared within the academic community. The authors sought to develop a system for incorporating TRIZ into the Textile Engineering curriculum at NC State University in the Fall of 1998 [4] . Tables 1 and 2 revealed that the students expressed an improved ability to solve problems using the methodology. The students also expressed a positive response to learning the methods. This response was also reflected at other Universities[1] .

Table 1: Undergraduate Capstone Design Individual Student (19) Surveys [3]

Table 2: Undergraduate Capstone Design Team Project Performance [3]

Unfortunately, integration of TRIZ into an existing undergraduate course has limitations. The time to introduce the material is limited, and the scope of most engineering design classes includes many subjects related to the engineering design process. A course devoted entirely to TRIZ was needed. This paper addresses the second phase of the systematic integration of TRIZ into the Textile Engineering curriculum in a graduate-level course, TE589A.

The goal of the TE589A was to expose the students to the spectrum of TRIZ methods. The strategy for meeting this goal was achieved through a combination of lectures, outside reading, working practice problems, and working real problems. Specific information about the course is given below.

TEXTS

• Step-by-Step TRIZ: Creating Innovative Solution Concepts, Terninko, Zusman, Zlotin
• Creativity as an Exact Science, Altshuller (Library reserve)
• TRIZ:The Right Solution at the Right Time, Dr. Yuri Salamatov, edited by Drs. Slocum and Souchkov
• TRIZ Journal, www.the-trizjournal.com, edited by Drs. Slocum and Domb

CLASS OBJECTIVES:

1. Apply TRIZ methodology to solve problems, anticipate and prevent failures, and predict the evolution of technology.
2. Become familiarized with available texts and journal articles.
3. Complete class project demonstrating an understanding TRIZ theory.

LOGISTICS

The class met two days per week for seventy-five minutes per class period. Each lecture period was a combination of lecture, activity, and discussion. During the lecture period, students would often work in teams to discuss their homework. Reading and homework were assigned each period. Students worked an average of ten hours a week outside the normal lecture period. The semester lasted fifteen weeks (150 hours per student). The syllabus, shown in Table 3, shows the lectures and associated tests and presentation times. A total of twenty-five lecture periods were used to introduce new material. The remaining periods were used to reinforce or evaluate students’ performance.

SYLLABUS

Table 3 shows the syllabus for TE589A. The columns show the date, videotape number, and the topic. You will notice that the length of the videotaped lecture is less than seventy-five minutes. The remaining time in the lecture period was spent in group discussion and homework review.

Table 3: TE589A Syllabus

TE 589A Master Schedule for Spring 1999
Class Time: 3:05 – 4:20 TH Room 2221
Dr. Slocum / Dr. Clapp
	LECTURE
DATE	CODE	LECTURE TITLE
	(Minutes)
5-Jan-99	Intro(71)	Introduction
7-Jan-99	1 (64)	History of TRIZ (1)
12-Jan-99	2(45)	Psychological Inertia (2), Ideality (3)
14-Jan-99	3(40),4(7)	Ideality Continued (3,4)
19-Jan-99	HOLIDAY
21-Jan-99	5(59)	Physical & Technical Contradictions (5)
26-Jan-99	6(41)	Levels of Innovation (6)
28-Jan-99	7(35)	System Approach/ISQ (7)
2-Feb-99	8(48)	Use of Resources (8)
4-Feb-99	9(37)	Maturity Mapping (9)
9-Feb-99	10(59)	Errata for Lectures (10)
11-Feb-99	NONE	Exam for Lectures 1-9
16-Feb-99	11(43)	Anticipatory Failure Determination (11)
18-Feb-99	12(39)	Trends of Evolution (12)
23-Feb-99	13(28)	Directed Evolution I (13)
25-Feb-99	14(34)	Directed Evolution II (14)
2-Mar-99	15(29)	Directed Evolution III (15)
4-Mar-99	16(32)	Su-Field Analysis I (16)
9-Mar-99	HOLIDAY
11-Mar-99	HOLIDAY
16-Mar-99	17(15)	Su-Field Analysis II (17)
18-Mar-99	18()	Review
23-Mar-99	NONE	Exam II
25-Mar-99	19(20)	ARIZ I
30-Mar-99	20(40)	ARIZ II
1-Apr-99	HOLIDAY
6-Apr-99	21(13)	ARIZ III
8-Apr-99	22(13)	Organizational Evolution
13-Apr-99	23()	MLP Modeling
15-Apr-99	24()	Zones of Conflict/Creative Persona
20-Apr-99	25()	Secondary Problems
22-Apr-99	26()	QFD/Taguchi/TRIZ
27-Apr-99	NONE	Project Presentations
29-Apr-99	NONE	Project Presentations

STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Students were expected to take an active role in the class. Attending lecture was a minor portion of the time invested in the class. The pattern for the external assignments was a combination of reading to prepare the students for the lecture, assigned problems from texts (Salamatov), and real world problems from the students’ environment. Two “Closed Book” tests were given to ensure that the students reviewed their notes and understood the concepts presented.

A major project was assigned midway through the semester. Students were encouraged to identify projects related to their research. Each student was required to systematically use ARIZ to generate solution concepts. Going systematically through ARIZ provided a review and application of most of the topics presented in the lecture. Students also had an opportunity to use a particular TRIZ method to solve their problem.

Students were required to submit a formal written report and make a formal presentation to the class at the end of the semester. Typical project titles are listed in Table 4. Overall, the projects were very good. Some of the projects have been published in the TRIZ-Journal [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14] . Due to the semester time constraints, the students did not focus on concept selection.

Table 4: TE589A Student Project Titles

• Smart Garment for Firefighters [6]
• The Determination of the Technological Maturity of Ultrasonic Welding [7]
• Analysis of a Problem: Clogging of a Multi-Drum Filter Used in a Textile Application [8]
• Increasing Speed of Yarn Spinning [9]
• Design and analysis of a method for monitoring felled seat seam characteristics utilizing TRIZ Methods [10]
• Solving the Problems of Particle Filled Fibers Using the TRIZ Methodology [11]
• Maturity Mapping of DVD Technology [12]
• Addressing Salt Issues in Textile Dyeing Using an ISQ and ARIZ [13]
• Automatic Boarding Machine Design Employing Quality Function Deployment, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, and Solid Modeling [14]

Student Course Evaluation

Students were asked to evaluate the course through an exit survey. The survey results are presented in Appendix A. The results show the students benefited from the course, and they will continue to use TRIZ methods. The comments of one professional reflect the benefits to a working professional who took the class via videotape. The authors feel that this is a viable alternative to a typical two or three day workshop given to industrial professionals.

The students felt that the amount of material covered was excessive. They suggested that the course be divided into at least two courses. The pace of the course did not allow the students to have the level of practice they felt they needed to have a depth of understanding of all aspects of the subjects covered. The syllabus for the second offering of TE589A is presented in Table 5.

Table 5: TE589A Syllabus for Spring 2000

TE 589A Master Schedule for Spring 2000
Class Time: 3:05 – 4:20 TH Room 2221
Dr. Slocum / Dr. Clapp			Revised (2/10/00)
	LEC.	LECTURE
DATE	#	CODE	LECTURE TITLE
		(Minutes)
11-Jan-00	1	Intro(71)	Introduction to TRIZ
13-Jan-00	2	1(64)	History of Creativity
18-Jan-00		HOLIDAY
20-Jan-00	3	2(45)	Psychological Inertia (PI)
25-Jan-00	4*	6(41)	Five Levels of Innovation *SNOW
27-Jan-00	5*	3(40)4(7)	Ideality * SNOW
1-Feb-00	*(4)		Five Levels of Innovation
3-Feb-00	6	7(35)	Theory of Constraints (Dr. Maday)
8-Feb-00	7		Situation Analysis
10-Feb-00	8 *(5)		Ideality
15-Feb-00	9	5(59)	Contradiction Theory (Technical)
17-Feb-00	10		Contradiction Theory (Physical)
22-Feb-00	11		Software demonstration
24-Feb-00	12	23(19)	MLP Modeling
29-Feb-00	13	16(32)	Su-Field I
2-Mar-00		NONE	EXAM I
7-Mar-00	14	17(15)	Su-Field II
9-Mar-00	15	19(20)20(40)	ARIZ I & II
14-Mar-00		HOLIDAY
16-Mar-00		HOLIDAY
21-Mar-00	16	21(13)	ARIZ III
23-Mar-00	17		Software Utilization
28-Mar-00		12(39)	Trends of Evolution
30-Mar-00			Salamatov Problem Review
4-Apr-00		9(37)	Maturity Mapping
6-Apr-00		13(28)14(34)	Technology Forecasting I & II
11-Apr-00		15(29)	Technology Forecasting III
13-Apr-00			Review
18-Apr-00		NONE	EXAM II
20-Apr-00			QFD/Taguchi/TOC/TRIZ
25-Apr-00			Case Studies
27-Apr-00			Case Studies
2-May-00		NONE	Project Presentations
4-May-00		NONE	Project Presentations

SUMMARY

Teaching TRIZ at the graduate-level provides the depth and the time for the student to learn and practice TRIZ methods. Students voluntarily attend the class and apply the methods to their own problems. The format of combining lecture, reading, homework, and a major project was effective. The students are prepared to apply TRIZ methods to a variety of problems.

In the future, the amount of material presented over the course of the semester will be reduced. The videotape approach to teaching may provide an alternative for working professionals wanting to learn TRIZ.

All educators are encouraged to share their experiences with the academic community at large to diffuse TRIZ methods into engineering curriculums.

REFERENCES

1. USE OF THE THEORY OF INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (TRIZ) IN DESIGN CURRICULUM – published in Innovations in Engineering Education, 1996 ABET Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp.161-164. – Eugene I. Rivin, Professor of Mechanical Engineering – Wayne State University. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. March 1997.

2. Introduction to Inventive Problem Solving in Engineering EGN5040 – Professor D. Raviv, Department of Electrical Engineering, Florida Atlantic University. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. March 1997.

3. Integrating TRIZ-Based Methods into the Engineering Curriculum, By: Timothy G. Clapp. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. Oct. 1998.

4. Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Pedagogy in Engineering Education, Part I, By: Timothy G. Clapp and Michael S. Slocum. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. Nov. 1998.

5. B-cyclodextrin Molecules and Their Use in Breathable Barriers, By: Michelle Roberts. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. Nov. 1999.

6. Smart Garment For Firefighters, By: Severine Gahide. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. June 1999.

7. The Determination of the Technological Maturity of Ultrasonic Welding, By: Nathan Gibson. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. July 1999.

8. Analysis of a Problem: Clogging of a Multi-Drum Filter Used in a Textile Application, By: Josh Carr. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. August 1999.

9. Increasing Speed of Yarn Spinning, By: Vikram J Khona. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com <https://the-trizjournal.com>. August 1999.

10. Design and analysis of a method for monitoring felled seat seam characteristics utilizing TRIZ Methods, By: Dr. Timothy G. Clapp and Brad A. Dickinson. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com. Dec. 1999

11. Solving the Problems of Particle Filled Fibers Using the TRIZ Methodology, By: Stan Batchelor. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com. Oct. 1999

12. Maturity Mapping of DVD Technology, By: Sanjana Vijayakumar. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com. Sep. 1999

13. Addressing Salt Issues in Textile Dyeing Using an ISQ and ARIZ, By: Darren Heath. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com. Jan. 2000

14. Automatic Boarding Machine Design Employing Quality Function Deployment, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, and Solid Modeling, By: Benjamin Kunst and Dr. Timothy Clapp. TRIZ Journal. www.the-trizjournal.com. Jan. 2000.

APPENDIX A: TE589A Exit Survey Summaries

Spring ’99 TE589A Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
Survey Summary

Dr. Michael S. Slocum, Dr. Tim G. Clapp

1. Has TRIZ changed the way you perceive a problem? YES 14 NO 0
2. Has TRIZ increased your ability to solve problems? YES 13 NO 0 MAYBE 1
3. Rank the TRIZ tools in order of usefulness (the lower the score the better, possible minimum:14):

Psychological Inertia	15	Most Useful
Ideality	21
Contradiction Theory	27
Su-Field Analysis	43
Resources	46
ARIZ	56
MLP	68
Trends of Evolution	83
Creative Persona	87
AFD	91
Organizational Evolution	106	Least Useful

4. Increase in solution quality?

300%	4
200%	7
Higher	3

5. Increase in Level of Innovative Problem Solving?

YES	14
NO	0

How much?

1 level	9
2 levels	3
not sure	2

6. Will you continue to use TRIZ?

YES	14
NO	0

7. Will you teach TRIZ to co-workers?

YES	10
NO	2
Unknown	2

8. Will you use TRIZ software?

YES	13
NO	1

TE 589A SPTP – TRIZ Problem Solving EXIT SURVEY Spring 1999

From: Off-Campus Student (TOTE)

---

Professional Profile: Owner, Engineering Design Consulting Firm, 20 years Experience, Primary Product: engineering design solutions for military research and development projects

---

1. Has this methodology (TRIZ) changed the “way” you perceive a problem?

Yes. As I mentioned in the project report, I have already applied TRIZ to two real life inventions that yielded results I most likely would not have thought of because of PI.

2. Has TRIZ increased your ability to solve problems?

Yes. One of the precepts applied by myself and colleagues in Physics is to first describe the problem in the greatest detail possible, then remove the parts deemed insignificant to the model. In this manner, everything that can be included is included from the beginning so that as the modeling progresses, the researches can refer back to the original formulation as a point of guidance. I had presumed that I was doing this whenever I was developing a new device; however, after learning the systematic approach of TRIZ and using the outlines, I can see that my inventive applications were limited in scope and thus could not contain all options.

3. Would you rank the following TRIZ tools according to their usefulness to you (1 being the most useful, etc.,…:

I do not consider myself capable of effectively ranking the tools because I have not used them all in a full scale investigation. Yet, at my current level of understanding, the tools I would use are listed in order as follows:

1) ARIZ, 2) Contradiction Theory, 3) Ideality (IFR), 4) AFD, 5) Psychological Inertia, 6) Su-Field Analysis, 7) Use of Resources 8) Trends or Patterns of Evolution (Directed Evolution), 9) Organizational Evolution, 10) MLP 11) Creative Persona

4. What increase in solution generation would you say you experienced (some percent over or under “normal” for you)?

I noted about a 3 fold (300%) increase in the number of ideas and directions (or paths) of problem solving. Most of this is from the completely new lines of thought which generated successful (though not always used) ideas.

5. Did the quality or innovative level of your solutions increase or decrease? By how much?

The quality was contained in the innovation which increased as mentioned in question 4. The best improvement of innovation is getting multiple uses from a single structure. The value of this can not be quantified directly. However, for the medical device described in the project report cover letter, the innovation gives the device the potential ability to capture and keep the market.

6. Will you continue to use the principles (theory) of TRIZ in your work and life? if NO, why not ?

Yes. I am now reorganizing my notes for future applications and I am looking for the next text to purchase (probably an ARIZ study).

7. When you begin working (or if you already do) for an employer will you teach coworkers TRIZ?

As a private consultant, I will continue to use TRIZ and I will encourage those I work with to use it. Also, anyone I hire to work under me will be asked to study TRIZ. And finally, I plan to introduce TRIZ to the local faculty in both the science and engineering fields.

8. Will you attempt to convince your company to embrace TRIZ?

Right now I am the company and yes, all my future employees will learn TRIZ.

9. Will you continue to be a member of the TRIZ community?

Yes. I have began to read the Internet TRIZ journal and will remain in the TRIZ study circuit. Also, I will submit TRIZ papers when applicable.

APPENDIX B: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Pedagogy in Engineering Education, Part I

Timothy G. Clapp, Ph.D., P.E. Professor College of Textiles North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 (919) 515-6566 tclapp@tx.ncsu.edu

Michael S. Slocum, Ph.D.* Chief Scientist and Engineer ONTRO Inc. 13250Gregg St. Poway, CA 92064 (858) 486-7200 slocum1946@aol.com (* Adjunct Assistant Professor North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695)

The tasks of the educator are of supreme importance as the next generation of engineers relies on the training and skills imparted to equip them for the challenges in the ever-changing competitive industrial environment. It is with this in mind that the integration of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) into existing engineering curriculums was considered. TRIZ problem solving methods are especially suited for rapidly, identifying innovative solutions that are more robust and more economical than conventional problem solving methods [1] [2] [3[4] .

Since the introduction of TRIZ methods in the United States in 1991, only limited efforts have been undertaken to introduce TRIZ into the engineering academic curriculums [5] [6] . The authors sought to develop a system for incorporating TRIZ into the Textile Engineering curriculum at NC State University in the Fall of 1998 [7] .

This paper addresses the first phase of the systematic integration of TRIZ into the Textile Engineering curriculum in a senior-level engineering design capstone course. An existing senior design class was selected by the authors to eliminate potential problems of adding a separate course, which would add additional credit hours to an already crowded curriculum. Most importantly, the integration enables the student to understand the proper perspective of this methodology in respect to other traditional engineering methods. TRIZ and the perception of it as a panacea is avoided and the coordination of the methodology with value engineering, robust design, Pugh concept selection, failure mode effects analysis, etc.,…, is clearly defined. Problems from industry assigned to teams of students provided scenarios for the application of the methodology as it was taught. The theory’s place in the concept generation phase as well as the problem resolution phase is obviated. Exercises that require the integration of the theory into existing design practices reduce the theory to practice and reinforce the power of the methodology. We have found these interrelations to be critical to the success of the introduction of the theory. The integration is indicated by the curriculum outlined in Table 1.0.

Table 1.0, Outline of Senior Design Curriculum

The curriculum in Table 1.0 reflects the material that will be covered during the first half of the design engineering course. The lectures given and their respective durations are listed in Table 2.0.

Table 2.0, Lecture Outline

Lecture	Sub-lecture(s)	Duration	Applicability
Introduction and Overview	History of Innovation Psychological Inertia Ideality 40 Principles	2 hours	used these principles in senior project
Contradiction Matrix Theory	Physical contradiction (PC) Technical contradiction (TC) TC-to-PC conversion Separation principles (SP) 40 Principles and reversibility 39 Parameters Contradiction matrix	2 hours	used this theory to formulate problems associated with senior design project
Function Analysis	Function analysis Su-Field introduction	2 hours	performed function analysis using TOPE 3.0 of senior design project
Introduction to Directed Evolution	S-curve Trends of Evolution Maturity mapping	2 hours
Review of previous 4 lectures		2 hours
Anticipatory Failure Determination	Failure Analysis Failure Prediction	2 hours	performed AFD on existing designs of senior project to eliminate and mitigate failure modes

The lectures were supplemented by assigning tasks designed to reinforce material presented in a format that was directly related to the engineering projects assigned the class. This series of lectures will be augmented by several additional series to complete the presentation of the basic body of TRIZ knowledge. The use of the theory will also be expanded from the concept development stage (the primary goal of the first half of the course) to the reduction to practice stage. Many insights are expected during this transition from theoretical application to experimental activity.

The reactions of the class were positive in the following senses: 1) questions were asked to elucidate portions of the theory that needed further elaboration, 2) many technical contradictions and physical contradictions were presented that were applicable to assigned design projects and discussions concerning proper framing were very active (real-world concerns were addressed), 3) the function analysis lecture was followed by the creation of a function model as a team (the synergy of the team coupled with the complications associated with function diagram creation were ideal for a thorough understanding of the processes involved), and 4) many side-bars were experienced after lecture completion for students who evidenced advanced curiosity. We consider these activities to be indicators of successful delivery. Table 3.0 indicates the performance increases in solution generation realized post lecture delivery. Table 4.0 indicates team performance on their senior projects in the areas of component reduction, cost reduction, number of solutions generated, and potential patents.

Table 3.0, Individual Student Survey

Table 4.0, Team Project Performance

In conclusion, Tables 3.0 and 4.0 reflect several important issues: student acceptance, student application (increase in number of innovative solutions, project component reduction, project cost reduction, and potential patents), and realization of relevancy. A number of the students have expressed interest in taking a course dedicated to TRIZ. Phase II of this project is comprised of detailed design of their respective (Groups I-III) projects. The usage of Anticipatory Failure Determination (failure prediction) will be presented in the next report. The detailed design activity will reveal additional problems that will be addressed using the material presented to date. These secondary problems will be reported on as well.

REFERENCES

[1] Altshuller, G.S., Creativity as an Exact Science, Gordon & Breach Science Publishing House, 1984, New York

[2] Kamm, L.J., Real-World Engineering, IEEE Press, 1991, Piscataway, NY

[3] Terninko, J., Zusman, A., Zlotin, B., Systematic Innovation, St. Lucie Press, 1998, Boca Raton, FL

[4] Terninko, J., Zusman, A., Zlotin, B., Step-by-Step TRIZ: Creating Innovative Solution Concepts, Responsible Management Inc., 1996, Nottingham, NH

[5] Rivin, E., “Use of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) in Design Curriculum,” Innovations in Engineering Education, 1996 ABET Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp.161-164

[6] Fey, V., Rivin, E., Vertkin, I., “Application of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving to Design and Manufacturing Systems”, Annals of the CIRP, 1994, volume 43/1, pp. 107-110

[7] Clapp, T., “Integrating TRIZ-Based Methods into the Engineering Curriculum,” 1998 IMC Users Group Conference Proceedings