Reducing Offering Burdens

ISBN

1-934805-30-0 978-1-934805-30-5

Acknowledgements

This book is the work of a collaborative group.

Contributors
Larry Ball (Primary Author)
David Troness
Kartik Ariyur
Jason Huang
Steve Hickman
Petr Krupansky
Larry Miller
Krishnamurthy Vaidyanathan

Editors
Erika Ball
David Troness
Paul Dwyer
Robert Lang

Illustrators
Larry Ball
David Troness

Other Authors, Theoreticians, Practitioners Whose Writings or Teachings have Impacted This Work
Genrich Altshuller
Ellen Domb
Roni Horowitz
John Terninko
Alla Zusman
Boris Zlotin
Lev Shulyak
Yuri Salamatov
Victor Fey
Eugene Rivin
Darrell Mann
Sergei Ikovenko
Simon Litvin
Peter Ulan
Lane Desborough
Clayton Christensen
Renee Mauborgne
Kim Chan

Where the Material Comes From

Much of the content for this book was inspired by the thought leaders referenced. The original intent was to codify the insights of these thought leaders; however, the process of codification ultimately led to the synthesis of other experimental approaches. This is because codification necessitated recognizing patterns of similarity among the tools. Once this was accomplished, the various tools were categorized with key decisions. Decisions generate and create information that flows to subsequent decisions. Patterns and gaps became apparent during this formative process. Experimental methods were introduced into the gaps. The effectiveness of these experimental methods lies in whether they truly assist the reader in identifying product or process characteristics that will resonate with the market.

Introduction to Reducing Offering Burdens

Prerequisite Knowledge:
Throughout this book, we will be working with the concepts of “Function” and “Job,” so it is important to understand the definitions of these two terms as they are used herein. If you have not read TRIZ Power Tools Working with Functions, please do so before continuing with this book.

Each of the books in the TRIZ Power Tools series is designed to be used as an algorithm.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

~Leonardo DaVinci

While many readers of this book are keenly aware of the need to simplify systems, some may have only a vague understanding of why this task is essential. It is tempting to believe that once you have created an offering, the next step is merely to resolve any issues and bring it to market. However, making your offering as simple as possible may be one of the most crucial steps toward marketability. It is easy to consider a product solely from an operational perspective. However, the burdens associated with the offering are often concealed. How much of the cost of a system is tied to its complexity? Each part must be designed, procured, tested, assembled, transported, stored, maintained, and ultimately disposed of. There are time and cost implications linked to each of these tasks, and this is compounded by the quantity and complexity of the parts. Ultimately, the system must be produced at a low enough cost to achieve profitability. Given the high rate of new offering failures, the simple removal of a few elements can determine the success or failure of a product launch. What we are addressing may be more than just the elimination of a few components. With proper attention to simplification, the savings will accumulate over time, increasing the offering’s chances of success in the marketplace.

Beyond making a product profitable, we need to consider the user experience. One of the primary purposes of simplification is to remove human burdens. These burdens are often hidden and institutionalized by humans, so we hardly notice their presence. These burdens extend beyond the constraints that consumers are consciously aware of. Think about how often we rush to new products or services because they are easier to use than their predecessors. Later, we find ourselves rushing to the next improved service because another unrecognized burden has been addressed. In the meantime, we institutionalize these burdens by working around the compromises they force us to make.

If you are a systems engineer, you will likely discover significant value in this material, as systems engineering has few tools beyond “trade studies” for simplifying systems. You will also notice that these tools complement existing systems engineering methodologies.

The key to understanding why we want to simplify lies in the concept of value. For a rough explanation of the concept of value, please refer to the expression below. This expression is not intended to be an exact mathematical representation but serves to illustrate that as a system or an object within the system adopts more useful functions while shedding burdensome functions and attributes, its value increases in the eyes of both the market and the business providing it.

In the book TRIZ Power Tools—Creating Offerings, we examine the increase in the numerator. There, we identified new functions that would enhance the offering and simplify the customer’s job. In the book TRIZ Power Tools—Designing and Prototyping, we create an offering piece-by-piece as we add functions in the most ideal way possible. Unfortunately, harmful functions and attributes emerge every time an element is added. This increases the denominator and therefore reduces the value of the offering. In this book, we focus on decreasing the denominator; we ask how we can lessen the burdens of the offering by removing burdensome elements. As a practical note, removing elements will usually introduce new problems. (Even in the physical world, no good deed goes unpunished.) To solve these and other existing problems, we proceed to the part of the algorithm contained in the book TRIZ Power Tools—Resolving Problems. Here we assume that the collection of objects representing our simplified offering must be further enhanced in value by removing its flaws.

Remove as Much of the Patient as Possible
Patients with diseases serve as good analogies for performing causal analysis. The doctor aims to go beyond the symptoms to find the root cause of the problem. What went wrong? The doctor probes carefully while considering all symptoms until the source of the issue is identified.

However, when it comes to solutions, the doctor-patient analogy begins to falter. When dealing with living patients, a doctor performing a surgical procedure will strive to preserve as much of the patient as possible. Yet, with man-made systems, we want to maintain the least amount of the system necessary to still accomplish the task. This is because technical systems impose human burdens. Radical surgery is preferable to preserving the system, as long as we don’t sacrifice performance.

This is the hallmark of TRIZ solutions and all good designs. The second axiom of Axiomatic^[1] design states that good designs impose the fewest requirements for information exchanges. In simpler terms, good designs require fewer functions and are therefore simpler. Regardless of our actions, either the system or super-system should become simpler. (This means that it is acceptable for the system to become more complex if the super-system (Job) becomes less complex).

To Jump to a New System or Not to Jump
When we simplify systems, regardless of the approach, this represents a courageous leap to a new system. The decision to jump to a new system rather than evolving the existing one is contingent upon the constraints for solving the problem. In evaluating requirements, we also considered the constraints on the problem-solving process. We assessed the amount of time we had, the budget we had to work with, and the number of alternatives we needed to generate. From this, we gain a solid understanding of how much we are allowed to alter the system. It is easy to assume that jumping to a new system will require more resources, but this is conditional.

Jumping to a new system may entail removing elements and streamlining the system. Eliminating flawed components from our system can justify the additional problem-solving time, even if there is little time to address the issue. Simplification can alleviate various problems, including the one we currently face. We have just performed a causal analysis. We understand the necessity of each component in the system. Often, objects related to the problem are only required because something else is failing to perform its function. This failure may stem from a hidden issue within the system that remains unresolved. If we address this problem, the need for other components may disappear. The system becomes simpler as we enhance it. This represents elegance.

Conversely, certain changes that simplify may require more problem-solving resources. It is highly likely that altering the physical phenomenon that delivers the main function will generate many unforeseen problems. When under a tight deadline, we are unlikely to consider this thoroughly.

In conclusion, jumping to a new system can demand more time and effort than evolving the existing system. However, the reduction in system complexity can often save time. Ultimately, it requires experience to determine how far to proceed. Even with experience, we can never be certain if we have gone too far or not far enough, as there is no way to explore all solution avenues.

Ideal Results and Machines
To leap to a new system, we are not recklessly brainstorming new systems. Our goal is to identify a more ideal machine that achieves the necessary performance while utilizing minimal resources.

Jumping to a new system may appear risky. For instance, the aviation industry tends to prefer gradual changes due to safety regulations. While gradual changes yield more predictable results, some kinds of radical changes are not particularly risky. Let’s explore why jumping makes sense even in highly conservative environments.

To illustrate the point about advancing to more ideal states than the current system, Altshuller presents a problem posed by D. Poia.^[2]

“How can you bring exactly six liters of water from a river using two buckets, one with a four-liter capacity and the other with a nine-liter capacity? It is clear that pouring water “by guessing” from one bucket to another is not allowed. The problem must be solved using the exact measuring capacities of the two buckets.

I presented this problem to students at seminars before we began studying the methodology of searching for solutions. The outcomes were consistently aligned with Poia’s conclusion. Attempts to solve the problem without our systematic approach resembled: “What if we do this?” The correct solution emerged after numerous “what ifs.”

Altshuller compares this to how technical problems are typically resolved, starting with a mental image of familiar machines and then trying numerous “what ifs” to enhance them. Eventually, a solution surfaces, but only after many trials. This method often leads to solutions that mirror the initial concept but with added complexity. He suggests a better approach for solving problems that require guesswork: namely, begin with the solution. Altshuller then applies this to the water bucket challenge.

“It is required that one of the buckets holds six liters. Clearly, this can only be the larger bucket. Therefore, an Ideal Final Result would involve having the larger bucket filled with six liters.

To achieve this, one must fill the larger bucket (which has a nine-liter capacity) and then pour out three liters. If the second bucket had a capacity of three—rather than four—liters, the problem would be effortlessly resolved. However, the second bucket possesses a four-liter capacity. To convert it into a three-liter bucket, it must first be filled with one liter. This way, it becomes possible to pour three liters out of the larger bucket.

Hence, the original problem is now simplified to a much easier one: Measure one liter of water using the two existing buckets. This poses no difficulty because 9 – (4+4) = 1.

We can fill the larger bucket and then pour four liters twice into the smaller bucket. Afterward, one liter of water will remain in the larger bucket. We can then transfer that one liter into the empty smaller bucket.

The four-liter bucket now effectively “transforms” into a three-liter bucket—exactly what we require. We refill the larger bucket to the brim and then pour off three liters into the smaller bucket. Six liters of water will now remain in the larger bucket. The problem is solved.

Altshuller further asserts that the concept of beginning with an ideal solution can be extended to inventive problem-solving. One must commence with a model of a preferred final state and then proceed by refining this model.

“If an inventor begins by outlining an Ideal Final Result, then an ideal concept serves as the foundational model. This model is already simplified and improved. Subsequent mental experiments are unburdened by habitual thought patterns. These experiments immediately locate the optimal perspective for their direction: The inventor seeks to achieve the most remarkable results with the least means.”^[3]

The notion of starting with a model of an ideal solution is often employed unconsciously by successful inventors.

How Many Ideal Final States Do We Need?
In the above dialogue, Altshuller refers to an Ideal Final Result (IFR). If you have studied TRIZ, it is quite probable that you have encountered this concept. Over the years, the notion of the Ideal Final Result has evolved and become more specialized, particularly in relation to contemporary ARIZ^[4]. Nonetheless, there has always been a pursuit to identify at least one ideal final state that serves as a guiding reference for the problem solver or inventor. The belief was that the problem solver should never relinquish the quest for this ideal final state. Abandoning this vision of the final state could lead to treacherous paths.

Early TRIZ theorists and practitioners sought a “best way” to represent the final state. For example, Altshuller presents “the” IFR for a situation that involves painting the inside of a pipe.^[5]

“If, for instance, we are considering a device to paint the internal surface of a pipe…The ideal result, in this case, must be expressed as follows: “Paint enters the tube by itself and uniformly covers the internal surface.”” (Italics added).

Notice that this formulation excludes other final states that could potentially be more ideal. For instance, what if the pipe does not require painting at all or it is already coated? These are also viable solution paths. Had Altshuller only taken into account the condition that painting was unnecessary, he would have excluded the less ideal scenario of the paint entering the tube by itself. Either state is significantly more ideal than the initial system that mandated humans to paint the interior of a pipe. The conclusion is that there may be multiple states that are considerably more ideal than the starting state of the system. However, these states are not equivalent. Each must be evaluated on its individual merits, taking into account the situation and the limitations of solving the problem.

This raises an intriguing question for TRIZ theorists. Is there an advantage to having multiple “ideal” paths where some are more ideal than others? As solution paths multiply, some TRIZ theorists may feel uneasy. Some argue that this may revert us to a state of having numerous solution avenues and ultimately many options to choose from, reminiscent of trial-and-error problem-solving.

The conclusion of this text is that multiple “ideal” paths are not only permissible but perhaps essential. The necessity for multiple solution paths arises from the practical realities of problem-solving and invention. We cannot anticipate all the challenges we may encounter as we pursue any particular solution path. For example, it could turn out that producing the tube so that it doesn’t need painting might demand extensive research into material corrosion. While we may be confident that our skills will lead to a solution in the end, the availability of time and financial resources could hinder this research-based strategy! It might also emerge that applying paint to the interior of the tube is highly acceptable and could effectively address the initial problem for many years.

Let’s Define “Simpler”
In this book, when we discuss how simple or complex a system is, we generally refer to the number of functions and functional objects within a system. Functional objects are groups of objects that modify other groups of objects. We have already addressed the importance of functions in system modeling. When we characterize a system as complex, we typically imply that there are numerous objects and, more specifically, an abundance of functions. When we transition to a simpler system, we envision one that contains fewer functions and, consequently, fewer parts or objects.

As a cautionary note, once we achieve fewer objects, we also seek to idealize the parameters of those objects to maximize their utility. Curiously, the parameters of the objects may become less straightforward to manufacture in order to achieve the highest level of functionality. For instance, the objects might become asymmetric and therefore more challenging to produce. We can take a cube as an example and claim that it is more “simple” than a prism. In this context, we mean that making a cube is generally easier than crafting a prism, even though a prism may present fewer surfaces. Rods are easier to produce than cones. In each of these scenarios, we refer to the simplicity of reproducing object parameters. However, this type of simplicity is not our focus when discussing the complexity of a system. We refer to the number of functions required by the system to accomplish a task.

It is also important to note that there are instances when our system must inevitably become more complex. This seems to contradict the notion that simplicity is superior. It is sometimes necessary to increase the complexity of a system in order to simplify the super-system (job). This helps explain the cyclical nature of system complexity, where systems may become increasingly convoluted before an event leads to a consolidating of fewer objects. We should not attribute this to poor designs, particularly if they persist. It is more likely that the added complexity actually simplifies the super-system in some manner. In general, the world should feel simpler once we complete the task. We can systematically achieve this by first simplifying the super-system and then its sub-systems. This is the topic of another book and will not be explored further here.

Some of the tools presented in this book were not originally devised by TRIZ theorists or practitioners. “Value Engineering” traces its roots to General Electric during WWII. During the war, there were shortages of skilled labor, raw materials, and components. Lawrence Miles and Harry Erlicher searched for acceptable substitutes. They found that these substitutions often reduced costs, enhanced products, or both. What originated as a necessity transitioned into a systematic process they termed “Value Analysis”.[6] TRIZ theorists and practitioners adopted these tools as a natural extension of Substance-Field Modeling.

Upon completion of the algorithm detailed in this book, the offering will consist of a collection of objects that should be simpler than the original components. (The only exception would be when we incorporate components to simplify the super-system). Challenges will likely persist that need to be addressed in the book TRIZ Power Tools—Resolving Problems.

It is one thing to remove job constraints and quite another to simplify the system utilized to accomplish the task. Most people no longer recognize or object to the burdens imposed by complex systems. We often institutionalize these burdens and automatically compensate for them. However, we should acknowledge how appreciative we are when the job is simplified. We may even feel delighted.

Time to Reduce Burdens?

Method

Is There a Requirement to Overhaul, Simplify, Cost Reduce, Enhance the Uniqueness, or Remove Burdens from the System?

Explanation

Many problems will not require system simplification. For instance, you may have an urgent situation where a customer has raised a problem or complaint. In such cases, it may be better to bypass TRIZ Power Tools—Resolving Problems. (Included in the problem-solving step are considerations that can allow for simplification of the system to address the issue.) Conversely, there may be a need to revitalize or reduce costs associated with a product. Moreover, the process of simplification often leads to products that enhance the lives of consumers. This step can create a delightful effect on the customer and differentiate the offering even more than enhancements in performance. Let’s examine situations where simplification may or may not be necessary.

Example—Customer Complaint

You have a new product that has been on the market long enough for customer complaints to arise.

Is There a Requirement to Overhaul, Simplify, Cost Reduce, Enhance the Uniqueness, or Remove Burdens from the System?

Typically, reducing burdens is a strategic consideration when business leaders recognize a product as non-competitive. In this scenario, we face an urgent situation that requires immediate attention. It is unlikely that this should necessitate simplification.

Example—Creating a New Product

You have just developed the specification for a new product. Should the unburdening algorithm be considered?

Is There a Requirement to Overhaul, Simplify, Cost Reduce, Enhance the Uniqueness, or Remove Burdens from the System?

This scenario likely does not warrant consideration; however, this presents an opportunity to highlight the natural sequence of major steps. Simplification is only feasible when there is an architecture to streamline. Since there is only a specification for a new product, it is probable that an opportunity for simplification will arise after it has been created. (Prototyping offerings is the subject of the aforementioned book.)

Example—High-Cost Product

Your product is on store shelves, but consumers are not purchasing it? Analysis indicates that the competing alternative is less expensive than yours.

Is There a Requirement to Overhaul, Simplify, Cost Reduce, Enhance the Uniqueness, or Remove Burdens from the System?

This step is likely a good opportunity to invoke unburdening. There will be multiple benefits. The product will cost less, and it will also be more appealing to use, as simplification involves removing various customer burdens.

System and Super-System Function Diagram

Explanation of Function Diagrams

Simple systems always begin with the super-system. The market is defined as a group of people trying to get a job done under certain circumstances. The market segment faces the same obstacles in accomplishing the task. You create a system that aids in a part of that job. Your system is not essential except within the context of completing their job. The customer seeks to get the job done with the least number of burdens and in the simplest way possible.

Remember, your system is not critical to the market; only the overall outcome of completing the job holds significance. If you simplify the system from the customer’s perspective, the most compelling results may involve the elimination of your system. In this case, the system producer may encounter a conflict of interest with the market. Ultimately, we aim to be completely aligned with the market. The elimination of our system through the development of new products that meet market demands could be one solution to resolving this conflict. If you do not take this step, it is likely that others will. If this is too difficult to accept, then allowing your system to assume functions of other components in the system may be easier to manage.

The process of simplification must consider the super-system. It can then advance to the system and subsequently to the components of the system. Function modeling^[7] is a practical and effective approach to begin understanding why objects are necessary within the system. A functional diagram provides a snapshot of all the elements and their roles without reference to time or sequence of operation.

It is often surprising to find that most system objects are employed to provide support to the primary objects that carry out the actual work. Those parts that perform the actual work are more vital. Once we comprehend the function of each system element, we should identify elements in the system for elimination to address the issue. While it isn’t always feasible to eliminate these elements, it is important that we endeavor to do so as much as possible. When we remove any element, we lessen the burdens imposed by the system on users and the environment.

Observing and walking through the process aids in understanding the functions that humans perform. Unfortunately, this does not capture many of the unspoken functions carried out by objects within the system. Consider the task of feeding a pet. Objects perform functions such as protecting or managing the food and water. These functions may be overlooked if we concentrate solely on the process.

Function modeling^[8] is a practical and useful method for understanding why objects are necessary within the system. A functional diagram provides a snapshot of all elements and their roles without reference to time or operational sequence. This diagram will assist us in grasping the unarticulated functions.

It is important to maintain good form when writing the functions, as we will use this information to make significant decisions. If you are unsure how to do this, please review the guidelines in the introduction.

Identify the Various Missions Related to the Main Job

Method

Step 1: Identify the various missions where these jobs are performed.

Step 2: Include missions with degraded operation or emergency performance.

Explanation

The super-system aims to accomplish a few main jobs. These jobs can be performed under a variety of situations, which we will refer to as “Missions.” Our system will execute certain Functions that assist in fulfilling these Jobs or Missions.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Identify the various missions where these jobs are performed.

Mission 1: The feeding system must nourish one animal for a day at a time.

Mission 2: The feeding system must nourish several animals for a day at a time.

Mission 3: The feeding system must nourish outdoor animals for up to one week, providing clean food and water.

Step 2: Include missions with degraded operation or emergency performance.

Mission 4: The feeding system must ensure that no animal dies due to lack of water. No failure condition will allow an animal to be without water for more than half a day in extreme heat.

Story Board or Process Map the Missions

Method

Step 1: Document the process with a storyboard or process map. Describe each step of the job in functional terms and note whether the function is preventative or remedial.

Step 2: If necessary, break down the process steps into progressively smaller steps. This can be accomplished with a storyboard or a process map.

Explanation

From the human perspective, jobs are executed in stepwise processes. Personally stepping through the process and noting each function as it occurs helps us identify many functions that are performed. All systems (including products) are processes. The value of either of these tools is primarily found in their ability to break a process down into increasingly finer steps. Do not focus too much on every detail in this step. A process map provides a snapshot of the sequence of functions without referencing causality and may not include all possible elements of the system or super-system.

We should note that regarding service or manufacturing processes and, to some extent, products, many, if not most, processes exist because another process in the system is not functioning properly. In other words, many processes are preventative or remedial and exist solely because the original builders of the system could not resolve a problem. Understanding this allows us to revisit and comprehend why these preventative or remedial issues occur and then address the root problem to render them unnecessary, thereby simplifying the system.

The objective of this step is not only to understand what the job performer is doing, but rather what the job performer is trying to accomplish successfully [9]. Often, the job performer aims to achieve results beyond what typically occurs. A successfully completed job is the goal, but it is usually not executed for every step along the way.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Document the process with a storyboard or process map. Describe each step of the job in functional terms and note whether the function is preventative or remedial.

Gathering the scattered food is beneficial.

Step 2: If necessary, break down process steps into progressively smaller tasks. This can be achieved with a Storyboard or a Process Map.

Begin the Function Diagram of the Job and Our Offering

Method

Step 1: In functional terms, describe the main job. This is a function that the system performs on the super-system product.

Step 2: Determine which elements of the super-system our offering will serve and the modifications that our system will perform. If these elements are not already on the diagram, then add them and indicate the functions that they perform. We refer to the product that our system serves as the system product.

Step 3: In functional terms, describe our offering, showing all of the modifications made to the super-system.

Step 4: Include elements within the immediate super-system (the job environment).

Explanation

A function diagram provides us with a snapshot of all the functions that are important to the job. Many of these functions may not be apparent when we view the system from a process perspective. Here, we will examine the job and our system from a new viewpoint. This perspective will be valuable as we consider strategies to overcome customer constraints and enhance the system.

Example—Pet Bowl

Step 1: In functional terms, describe the main job. This is a function that the system performs on the super-system product.

The overall job is to nourish the pet. The food and water are essential for nourishing the pet.

Step 2: Decide which elements of the super-system our offering will serve and the modifications that our system will perform. If these elements are not already shown in the diagram, then add them and illustrate the functions they serve. We refer to the product that our system serves as the system product.

The primary function of the feeding system is to contain the food and water. We have assigned them different colors to indicate that they serve the food and the water. Since we are already aware of the need to protect the food, we also include the function of preventing birds from harming the food. Note that this is a limited function since little is done to deter them. Currently, the water bowl does little to control bacteria in the water, so this function is not included.

Step 3: In functional terms, describe our offering, highlighting all modifications to the super-system.

Step 4: Include elements within the immediate super-system (the job environment).

Step 3: In functional terms, describe our offering, showing all modifications to the super-system.

Step 4: Include elements from the immediate super-system (the job environment).

Include Functions from Life-Cycle Jobs

Method

Step 1: Consider the primary tasks required for and by the offering by examining each stage of the Life Cycle.

Step 2: Include any individuals who are involved in these job functions.

Explanation

It is easy to envision products and services at the point of use. This is the moment for which these systems were created. However, there are many more functions that the Job requires and many additional tasks that are performed on the system. These functions need to be included in our assessment of potential problems within the system.

In addition to the primary job we are performing, there are other tasks that are necessary throughout the lifecycle of the product. At a minimum, the market may require purchasing the product, transporting it, setting it up, maintaining it, storing it, and ultimately disposing of the product. Non-consumers may exclude themselves from the market because these tasks can be relatively complex, time-consuming, or inconvenient. These functions are not new; it is just that they are often overlooked. Entire industries are built around making these additional tasks user-friendly. We will not neglect these tasks, especially if they create obstacles for potential consumers. Our system does not operate in a vacuum.

Other systems, suppliers, delivery channels, and operators are necessary to create a viable offering. For our product to thrive, many additional tasks are required. If we fail to recognize these jobs, we may miss the primary reasons that potential consumers and delivery channels may be reluctant to adopt our product. We lose sight of the non-consumer. The Product Life-Cycle Map will help us examine all of the tasks that our system may require to exist. Various functions are associated with these jobs. When we understand these tasks and their functions, we will be considering the entire offering.

Example–Pet Feeder

Step 1: Consider the main tasks required for and by the offering by evaluating each stage of the Life-Cycle Map.

We must include the packaging and transport of the product.

Step 2: Include any individuals involved in these job functions.

Include Humans

Method

Step 1: If the product already exists, take it through the range of experiences outlined in the life-cycle map.

Step 2: If a product does not exist, create basic prototypes and simulate their use.

Step 3: Pay special attention to human interactions and functions. Which functions “require” human operators?

Step 4: Are humans needed to monitor, maintain, or service our system?

Step 5: Include stakeholder “identity functions”—these are functions that may be negatively impacted when we simplify the system.

Explanation

Human elements are good candidates for removal. Perhaps our system can perform additional functions or address a problem that eliminates the need for human involvement. It is challenging to understand the emotions of the user without engaging with the system. Efforts to visualize its use alone are insufficient. Remember the product life cycle? Use this map to grasp the range of human experiences from purchasing the product to disposal and recycling.

Example—Pet Bowl

Step 1: If the product already exists, take it through the range of experiences outlined in the life-cycle map.

Step 2: If a product does not exist, create basic prototypes and simulate their use.

Step 3: Pay special attention to human interactions and functions. Which functions “require” humans to perform?

Functions that require humans to operate include the transportation of the product by manufacturers, sales personnel, and the end user who must transport the container that holds the product. Someone is responsible for cleaning the water and food bowls, particularly in warmer weather. A person must also remove unused food and water to minimize bacterial growth.

Step 4: Are humans needed to monitor, maintain, or service our system?

Someone monitors the food condition for pests and contamination.

Step 5: Include stakeholder “identity functions”—these are functions that may be negatively impacted when we simplify the system.

No example is provided.

Eliminate Elements Related to Unwanted Features

Method

If you have not yet done so in Creating Offerings, please complete the following steps:

Step 1: Based on feedback from both consumers and non-consumers, identify the factors that the industry frequently overlooks and that can be eliminated or significantly reduced.

Step 2: Remove system elements associated with the undesirable features.

Explanation

The initial effort to simplify involves reducing the requirements or features of the product. A product or service can indeed have too many features for the intended market segment. Each requirement of the offering adds to the complexity. It is crucial to understand what the target market segment genuinely desires before prototyping or simplifying a product.

Simplify by Stealing Functions from the Super-System

Introduction to Stealing Functions

So far, we have only described the current system. We will now consider changes to this system. In this section, we will “borrow” functions from the super-system and require our system to perform them. This enhances the value of our product or service. Note that this makes our product or service more complex; however, that is acceptable, especially if we can simplify the task for the job executor.

Please be aware that what follows does not yet include these borrowed functions from the super-system.

Steal From the Super System

Method

Step 1: List objects in the environment associated with the task at hand. Pay special attention to objects with similar functions.

Step 2: The tool takes over all or part of another object’s functions. This is not simply a combination of objects. When you are finished, one of the two original objects should be “invisible.” There should be no compromise in the original functions.

Step 3: Completely new and unexpected benefits must emerge. Experiment with different orientations and combinations.

Explanation

This is a tool borrowed from TRIZ Universality^[10] and also the ASIT^[11] Unification Tool. All systems within the super-system, including the super-system itself, are competing for functions. When we appropriate functions, the more closely related the function is to the function of your system, the more readily it will be accepted.

Example—Food Bowl

In a pet feeding system, the food bowl is usually considered separately from the water bowl. Here we will explore how the food bowl might be able to adopt another function.

Step 1: List objects in the environment associated with the task at hand. Take special note of objects with similar functions.

A water bowl is also a part of the job of nourishing the dog. It also performs the function of containing a substance.

The water bowl and food bowl are merged.

Step 3: Completely new and unexpected benefits must emerge. Experiment with different orientations and combinations.

Steal From Alternative or Competing Objects

Method

Step 1: Consider objects that provide the extremes of the function as well.

Step 2: Think about taking over all or part of these objects’ functions. New and exciting capabilities should emerge, along with new synergies between the objects that could not have existed before.

Explanation

Identify other objects or processes that seek to provide the same functions or perform similar jobs. Sometimes, these may not be obvious alternatives. Although they may originate from completely different industries, they represent the true competition. This concept also exemplifies the Universality principle^[12].

Example—Pet Feeding System

Now that we have combined the water dish and the food dish, how might we incorporate functions or attributes from competing systems? Disposable containers are often used for food and water bowls because they do not tip over and offer long-term storage.

Step 1: Consider objects that provide the extreme of the function as well.

Disposed food containers can be utilized for pet drinking water.

Step 2: Consider taking over all or part of these objects’ functions. New and exciting capabilities should emerge, as well as new synergies between the objects that could not exist before.

The pet can no longer drag the food bowl around, scattering the food.

Boost Incidental System Functions

Method

Step 1: Identify incidental functions that the system already performs.

Step 2: Which elements in the super-system typically deliver this function?

Step 3: Enhance these incidental functions to take over from the other super-system elements. Look for unexpected capabilities to arise.

Explanation

Most objects in a system provide incidental functions that we rarely notice. If we can identify these incidental functions and enhance them, it is often possible to create greater value for our product. Sometimes, it takes little more than observing people use the product or service and noticing all of the additional things it does. This is another way to apply the Universality Principle^[13].

Example—Solar-Voltaic Panels

Step 1: Identify incidental functions that the system already performs.

The solar panels incidentally protect the house.

Step 2: What elements in the super-system typically provide this function?

Roof Tiles.

Step 3: Enhance these incidental functions to take over for the other super-system elements. Look for unexpected capabilities to emerge.

Solar panels serve as roof tiles.

Steal Functions that Humans Do

Method

Step 1: Consider the system from the perspective of the humans who interact with it. Are humans needed to operate the system? Are they necessary for its maintenance?

Step 2: What modifications to the system would allow humans to be eliminated from involvement?

Explanation

Unless the objective of the system is to directly serve humans within it, there is usually a burdensome element to any function performed by humans in the system. When humans are removed from any function in the system, it becomes less burdensome. Note that to eliminate humans, the human function must be de-intellectualized. This illustrates the principle of Universality^[14].

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Consider the system from the perspective of humans interacting with it. Are humans necessary to operate the system? Are humans needed to maintain the system?

A human is required to refill the water bowl each day.

Step 2: What changes to the system would allow the human to be eliminated from the system?

What if the Feeding System could replenish the water?

Steal Preceding or Following Jobs

Method

Step 1: Identify jobs that precede or follow the main job.

Step 2: Integrate the preceding or following job into the job-to-be-done.

Explanation

We can streamline the super-system (SS) by consolidating super-system job functions into a sub-system. Often, a job is preceded or succeeded by other necessary jobs. These jobs can be integrated into the job we are analyzing. These jobs may not be part of the life cycle of the product or service.

Example—Movie

The primary job we are considering is being entertained at a movie.

Step 1: Identify jobs that precede or follow the main job.

Many individuals need to hire a babysitter, pick them up, and bring them home.

Step 2: Integrate the preceding or following job into the job-to-be-done.

The child is cared for during the movie.

Steal Measurement or Detection

Method

Step 1: Identify objects in the super-system that perform measurement and feedback functions, particularly if these roles are fulfilled by humans or alternative competing entities.

Step 2: Assume these functions.

Explanation

We can directly simplify the super-system (SS) by incorporating super-system job functions into a sub-system. One important type of function to streamline is the informing function. If humans are required to monitor the job, then removing this burden simplifies the lives of those involved.

Example—Pet Feeder

Step 1: Identify objects in the super-system that perform measurement and feedback functions, especially when this is done by humans or alternative competing objects.

Humans often check the water level and then adjust it accordingly.

Step 2: Take over these functions.

The pet feeding system must detect the water level and automatically adjust it, so that the user does not need to perform this function.

Steal Human Measurement

Method

Step 1: Identify human actions within the system.

Step 2: Assume that the system executes these functions autonomously.^[16]

Step 3: Recognize that to eliminate human involvement, the human function must be de-intellectualized.

Explanation

The Master shall not serve the servant. All human interactions within the system should be carried out by the system when necessary^[15].

Steal Incidental Measurement Functions

Method

Step 1: Identify incidental functions that the system already performs.

Step 2: Which elements in the super-system typically provide this function?

Step 3: Enhance these incidental functions to take over for the other super-system elements. Look for unexpected capabilities to emerge.

Explanation

Most objects in a system provide incidental functions that we rarely notice. If we can identify these incidental functions and enhance them, it is often possible to create more value for our offering^[17].

Target Burdensome Elements for Elimination

Introduction to Targeting Burdensome Elements

Once we understand the function of each system element, we want to target elements in the system for elimination to remove customer constraints and simplify the job. All elements carry burdens, regardless of their importance. When we eliminate any element, we reduce the burdens that the system imposes on users and the environment.

To provide a rationale for eliminating elements, we need to recognize that some elements are less critical to the system. Those elements that directly perform the work are the most important, and care must be taken to eliminate or replace these elements. Elements that provide power and control are next in importance. Finally, those that offer structure or support to the previously mentioned elements are the least important. It is often surprising to see how many system objects are used to support the objects that do the actual work.

All functions that are not directly involved in the primary function are referred to as auxiliary functions. Auxiliary functions support the primary useful function. They may only be necessary because something else in the system is not performing its job. Auxiliary functions can also be quite costly or burdensome in other ways. For example, feedback elements are often expensive and do not directly impact the useful function of the system. The importance of eliminating burdensome auxiliary elements cannot be overstated. Missing problem elements are no longer issues. All burdens from the elements are removed, and the system becomes more ideal. In this step, we will target problematic auxiliary elements for elimination and then look for every opportunity to eliminate them.

More care must be taken when eliminating or replacing the elements that perform the primary function of the system. Replacing these elements often means identifying a new physical phenomenon to deliver the primary function. This is typically performed only when the system has exhausted all resources, and improvement has reached a point of diminishing returns. When the physical phenomenon is changed, many unknowns are introduced. While this may be necessary in the long run, it can often delay the resolution of the problem while these issues are uncovered and addressed.

Elements can provide several functions, increasing their worth to the system. This is effectively accomplished by consolidating multiple elements into one element (a strategy for improving the worth of expensive elements).

Identifying Burdensome or Constraining Functions
There is no single cause of constraints. Likewise, the features that remove the constraints could be aspects of the product, manufacturing process, business model, consumers, channels, or partners. Just as there can be many solutions to a problem, there can be various factors that result in consumer constraints. For the same issue, one company might remove the constraint by altering the business model, while another might modify the product.

Now that we have created the function diagram, we are ready to identify the functions that burden the system and super-system. There are many types of burdens. The most significant burden is the constraint on performing the job. Everything we have done so far has led us to focus on the constraints faced by the job executor. We would love to identify elements involved in the burdens and, if possible, eliminate them.

In addition to elements that cause constraints, some elements are considered “low-value” because they are overly expensive compared to the functions they perform. Functions can waste time, space, energy, and materials, making the system tedious to operate. Elements can be harmful (even if they perform a useful function). The irony is that we often do not recognize burdens. This happens for two reasons. First, each time a system is improved, the new system may be such a significant improvement over the previous one that we do not perceive any new requirements the system imposes upon us as a burden. Secondly, we become accustomed to bearing the burden.

Consider video stores, which have been around for years. Initially, we were not aware of the various burdens that video stores placed on us. Selection was extensive, and the relative cost of renting a video was minimal. This experience was a significant improvement over buying and owning our own video library, which often contained unwanted films. As time progressed, rental behavior became entrenched. Each time we rented a video, there was a time demand of traveling to the store, searching the aisles, standing in line, and then returning home. There was also the burden of using a vehicle for this task, incurring costs for gas, wear and tear on the vehicle, environmental pollution, and the cumulative infrastructure required to move us around. This example is just one of many that illustrate how we, as consumers, become accustomed to carrying (and compensating for) burdens without resenting them.

All products have unnoticed burdens. Eventually, these burdens are recognized, and an emerging business moves to provide the function in new ways that avoid imposing these burdens on the consumer. Would it not be fortuitous if we could identify and eliminate the long-accepted burdens and enjoy the rewards of delighting them?

Target Elements that Cause Bottleneck Constraints

Method

Step 1: Walk the business model or service and look for bottlenecks. These bottlenecks will manifest as accumulated inventory in front of them.

Step 2: If there is more than one bottleneck, prioritize those associated with higher dollar flow through the bottlenecks.

Explanation

We consider this first because this step pertains to identifying the most critical problems related to growing the business. We aim to create an overall state where the end user and the business are aligned. The end consumer seeks a product or service that meets their needs, while the business aims to satisfy these needs profitably. This is a holistic approach to business that accounts for all players involved.

All manufacturing and business processes encounter bottlenecks. For businesses, the most significant problems to resolve are related to these bottlenecks.

Eli Goldratt authored a book called The Goal. In this book, he describes the Theory of Constraints. Most of the constraints discussed in the book are related to bottlenecks within businesses. It is straightforward to identify where the bottlenecks occur due to inventory piling up in front of them. When multiple bottlenecks are found, you can determine which is the most crucial by the dollar flow through each bottleneck. Throughout the entire business, bottlenecks can range from customers purchasing the product to processing orders, manufacturing the product, and delivering it. The bottlenecks dictate the type of innovation necessary to advance the business. In other words, it is not always product innovation that is essential. Innovations in manufacturing, branding, or sales may be far more critical to the business.

If you are assessing a manufacturing process, the bottlenecks are relatively easy to spot as you walk the manufacturing floor, looking for piles of inventory waiting to be processed, tested, shipped, etc.

If you are analyzing a service, you can again observe where various service functions are waiting to be performed.

Think of bottlenecks in flow as an ever-branching stream that feeds lakes and ponds. Each pond represents inventory. The bottleneck is what creates the lake. When a bottleneck is removed, inventory collects in front of another bottleneck. This can be upstream or downstream. By eliminating bottlenecks, businesses can achieve substantial growth.

Focusing on the wrong process can worsen the most severe bottlenecks. For this reason, it is crucial to direct energy toward resolving the worst bottlenecks.

This is one of the distinguishing features of the Theory of Constraints compared to Lean initiatives. Lean focuses on eliminating waste at all process steps. The Theory of Constraints prioritizes the removal of bottlenecks. An indiscriminate focus on waste throughout a system can actually exacerbate bottlenecks. Eli Goldratt notes that it is often preferable to have some workers leaning on their brooms, so to speak, rather than maximizing utility from each process step.

Target Elements that Cause Known Problems

Method

Identify functions or functional elements that create known issues within the target market.

Explanation

In defining the necessary features of our product or service, our primary focus is on eliminating the constraints faced by the target market segment. Remember, the target market segment is defined as Job + Job Executor + Constraints on performing the job. This is the problem we aim to solve for the customer. Our goal is to eliminate the constraint, above all else. Here, we effectively address the constraint by removing functions or functional elements responsible for it. If that is not feasible, we will consider altering the attributes of the remaining elements to eliminate the constraints.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Identify functions or functional elements that create constraints on the target market.

Since our target market consists of individuals with outdoor pets who are troubled by living organisms that contaminate the food and water, the functions directly responsible for the constraints on the target market include those posed by birds, insects, and bacteria.

Target Low Value Elements

Method

Step 1: Identify the cost of each element.

Step 2: Calculate the cumulative function rank of each element by summing the rank for each function performed by the element according to the rules outlined below.

Step 3: Calculate the value of each element according to the rules in the box to the right.

Step 4: Identify the elements with low value. These elements are candidates for elimination or combination with other elements. Individuals in the system should always be considered candidates for elimination unless they receive benefits from remaining in the system, such as exercise or entertainment.

Explanation

Low-value elements are immediate candidates for elimination from the system. While we might not eliminate them immediately, we should recognize them for what they are so that when the opportunity arises, we can confidently remove them. Note that harmful functions have a rank of zero. This is surprising, as most would believe that this should be negative. Harmful functions do not need to have a strong effect on the system. If we assume that the effect can be greatly diminished, then why should it be considered negative? Preventative and remedial functions are also auxiliary functions; however, there is an argument that they should rank lower than other auxiliary functions. The justification for retaining them as auxiliary functions is that virtually all auxiliary functions can be considered preventative or remedial. A power tool requires the auxiliary support of a table, which can be seen as remedial because the power tool is not fulfilling its purpose without support.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Identify the cost of each element. We begin by indicating the cost of each of the items.

Step 2: Calculate the cumulative function rank of each element by summing the rank for each function performed by the element according to the rules in the accompanying box:

Step 3: Calculate the value of each element based on the rule in the left box:

Each cumulative rank calculated in the previous step is divided by the cost of each element in the system.

We arrive at the intriguing observation that from the perspective of the job, the package holds more value than the feeding system or the water bowl! This is because the package costs so little, while all functions performed by “useful” system objects are auxiliary. Of course, the value of pests is zero.

Step 4: Identify the elements with low value. These elements are candidates for elimination or combination with other elements. Individuals in the system should always be candidates for elimination unless the person derives benefits from remaining in the system, such as exercise or entertainment. Birds, ants, and bacteria have no useful function in the system and are therefore the best candidates for removal from the perspective of value to the system.

Target Functions that Cause Human Burdens

Method

Step 1: Experience or simulate the necessary actions to use the offering.

Step 2: Consider the mental demand required for thinking, deciding, calculating, remembering, searching, and looking. If data gathering is necessary, contemplate these three levels of data collection. Ambient: Takes no special effort to gather data. Natural: Requires no particular effort to interpret data. Continuous: Needs no additional effort to update data.

Step 3: Assess the physical demand required for pushing, pulling, turning, controlling, and acting. Is it easy versus demanding, slow versus brisk, slack versus strenuous, restful versus laborious?

Step 4: Evaluate the temporal demand. This refers to the time pressure, pace, or rate necessary for using the offering. Is it slow versus leisurely or rapid versus frantic?

Step 5: Examine the effort required. How hard are participants required to work (mentally and physically)? This is assessed over the duration of the job rather than the mental and physical demand per task.

Step 6: Consider the level of performance. How successful was the task or goal? How satisfied were the participants with the performance?

Step 7: Assess the level of frustration: How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed, and annoyed were the participants? Were they secure, gratified, content, relaxed, or complacent?

Step 8: Reflect on the emotional burden: Review the current design. Does it inspire awe? Does it raise suspicions about the product? Is it aesthetically pleasing?

Step 9: Take into account all other human actions on the system, including monitoring and detection. All functions that require the master to serve the slave are burdens.

Explanation

If humans must be involved in the job, there ought to be a constant effort towards minimizing their burdens. There exists a discipline called “Human Factors” that aims to reduce human burdens. While we may not become experts in this, we should strive to understand human burdens from the perspective of human factors. This is particularly crucial if there is a need to operate the product or service for extended periods. A useful tool for considering human factors comes from the NASA workload rating sheet.

Example—Pet Feeding System

After evaluating all of the steps, monitoring the pet food and water are the primary burdens. These should be eliminated.

Target Time Burdensome Functions

Method

Step 1: Measure the total time for each function and identify those with high execution times: One way to do this is to examine each element and determine how much time is spent interacting with it.

Step 2: Identify repetitive processes.

Step 3: Identify batch operations.

Explanation

Of all resources, human talent and time are the most precious. It is easy to become accustomed to using time to perform tasks and lose track of how much time it actually takes. This is especially true for functions that we do periodically, such as weekly tasks. Mowing the lawn each week becomes a routine, but consider the total time spent over the course of years! This same realization emerges in business practices where we should be more mindful of time usage. We simply get used to spending this time, or we learn to compensate for the wasted time. On the other hand, the use of time can sometimes be advantageous. Some functions are most ideally done over an extended period or for a set duration, such as exercising.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Measure the cumulative time for each function and identify high-time functions: One way to do this is to evaluate each element and ask how much time is spent interacting with each one.

The time spent replacing spoiled food, sweeping the deck, cleaning soiled chairs, or removing the scum from the water bowl are occasional and “unexpected” time wasters. While annoying, they are not the greatest consumers of time.

Step 2: Identify repetitive procedures.

Cumulatively, the repetitive time spent replacing food and water represents the greatest use of time.

Step 3: Identify batch processes.

Replacing the food or the water is a batch process. The pet “processes” the batch by eating and drinking. This opens the opportunity for continuous or just-in-time processes.

Target Functions that Waste Materials

Method

Step 1: Identify functions that consume materials. It may be necessary to consider useful functions and evaluate whether there are additional functions needed to describe the creation of waste.

Step 2: What is the minimum amount of material that must be discarded in order to perform this function? Waste is relative to this ideal level.

Step 3: Identify additional functions necessary to address the issues of waste.

Explanation

“Leaks” of resources are another example of waste that is often taken for granted. Waste materials, such as garbage, exemplify “leaks” in the system. Most chemical processes generate waste products. It is often possible to minimize the waste or repurpose it. The reduction of wasted materials can significantly impact the overall profit or loss of a process.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Identify functions that consume resources. It may be necessary to consider useful functions and determine whether additional functions are needed to account for waste creation.

Outdoor pet containers are notorious for wasting food and water, primarily due to the actions of the pets themselves. Furthermore, spoiled food is lost, and when animals scatter the food, it is also wasted. Waste occurs at a substantial level in this system.

Step 2: What is the minimum amount of material that must be discarded in order to perform this function? Waste is relative to this ideal level.

No food or water NEEDS to be wasted.

Step 3: Identify additional functions necessary to address the issues of waste.

The person maintaining the pet feeding system must clean up the mess.

Target Functions that Directly Waste Money

Method

Step 1: Identify transactional functions where money is spent.

Step 2: Without referring to the function diagram, consider whether there are clear instances where the user is spending money without deriving value.

Step 3: Ensure that the functional diagram includes the transactional functions related to the expenditure and waste of money.

Step 4: Are there further burdens arising from this waste of money?

Explanation

In this section, we consider the situation where money is spent but no value is returned. This creates a burden on the user that must decrease over time. Such a burdensome function often manifests as a flawed transactional process.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Identify functions that consume resources. It may be necessary to consider beneficial functions and determine whether additional functions are needed to account for waste generation.

No examples of functions that directly waste money could be identified.

Business Example—Cell Phone Minutes

Step 1: Identify transactional functions where money is spent.

“I sign up for 600 minutes per month on my cell phone.”

Step 2: Without consulting the function diagram, consider if there are obvious circumstances where the user spends money without receiving value.

“I often don’t use even 300 minutes, thus wasting the cost of 300 minutes without receiving any benefit.” Notice that in this scenario, the consumer feels compelled to compromise. The customer continues this behavior due to the high penalty incurred when exceeding 300 minutes. The added cost of wasting unused minutes is typically lower than the penalty for overuse. As a result, the consumer is forced to compromise.

Step 3: Verify that the functional diagram includes the transactional functions associated with the expenditure and waste of money.

Note that “enriches” is an excessive function and signifies monetary waste.

Step 4: Are there additional burdens that arise due to this waste of money?

None mentioned here.

Target Objects that Waste Space

Method

Identify functions that require significant space in relation to the minimal space needed to perform the function.

Explanation

Often, the use of space is overlooked, especially when ample room is available. However, there are situations where excess space is not an option, and every inch counts. Additionally, any space required to perform a function can be a burden, regardless of how much space is available. Someone must always handle objects that require a significant amount of space.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Identify functions that necessitate a lot of space compared to the minimum required to perform the function.

While all systems with physical components utilize space, the space required for a pet feeding system is not typically viewed as particularly wasteful. Conversely, allowing space for spills can consume a considerable amount of space.

Target Functions that Waste Energy

Method

Consider functions that expend energy and identify instances of energy waste. Compare the energy consumed to the minimum energy required.

Explanation

Many modern conveniences save time at the expense of energy efficiency. We often consume more energy than necessary because it is relatively inexpensive. The unfortunate consequence is the cumulative energy consumption and its associated costs. It is essential to market appliances as “green” to highlight their energy impact. Without such marketing, consumers might never recognize their energy waste.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Consider functions that expend energy and identify instances of energy waste. Compare the energy consumed to the minimum energy required.

No instances of functions that waste excessive energy were identified.

Example—Leaf Blower

Consider functions that expend energy and identify instances of energy waste. Compare the energy consumed to the minimum energy required.

In this case, the debris must be moved a horizontal distance of 20 feet and lifted 5 feet to be placed in a garbage can or storage receptacle.

The minimum energy required to perform this function is the change in potential energy (weight times height). This value is very small and certainly much smaller than the energy expended by a leaf blower. The energy used to move 20 feet is extremely minimal as well; in a vacuum, this is effectively zero. This takes into account that the energy needed to accelerate can offset the energy required to decelerate. In air, there is a slight resistance caused by the atmosphere. Therefore, this function wastes a significant amount of energy. This is illustrated in the following diagram by the excessive movement of air and the minimal movement of leaves compared to the energy released into the air. The author’s leaf blower is 1/3 horsepower!

Target Harmful Functions

Method

Identify harmful functions directly from the function diagram.

Explanation

Some of the most significant burdens are those imposed by harmful functions. Wear and tear of essential parts cost consumers billions of dollars each year. Food is wasted due to spoilage. Costly and time-consuming repairs are necessary because of harmful functions. Ironically, most harmful functions are caused by elements that also perform useful functions.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Identify harmful functions directly from the function diagram.

Note that this function diagram is filled with harmful functions, which are already indicated with zigzag lines. The key harmful functions will be marked with an “H.” These lead to other harmful functions. If the pet were unable to move the feeding system or water bowl, significantly less food and water would be spilled out. If the pet food did not attract birds and insects, they would not be able to damage the food, and the birds would not soil the furniture. If the water bowl did not collect bacteria, then the water would not be able to nourish and contain it. Furthermore, the bacteria would not be able to harm the pet.

Target Remedial or Preventative Functions

Method

Step 1: Identify functions that fix or remediate the outcomes of other harmful functions or a function that is underperforming.

Step 2: Identify functions that are solely intended to prevent something from occurring.

Explanation

Nearly any useful function can be viewed as resolving a problem or preventing potential issues that arise from the failure of another function. For example, a function may be necessary because something else does not fulfill its role adequately or because another entity is detrimental.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Identify functions that rectify or remediate the effects of other harmful functions or a function that is underperforming.

The human mitigates the effects of birds and ants by collecting scattered food or removing food with insects attached.

Step 2: Identify functions that are solely intended to prevent something from occurring.

The human must remove excess water and food to prevent spoilage. While not depicted here, replenishing the food and water could be seen as remedial, as the previously given food did not sustain the animal adequately. The pet could be regarded as underperforming because it constantly requires nourishment. Although these observations may appear somewhat far-fetched, they inspire various types of products. For example, a pet that does not require nourishment is the now-popular robotic pet.

Summarize the Most Burdensome Elements

Method

Step 1: Identify functions that rectify or remediate the outcomes of other harmful functions, or a function that is not contributing effectively.

Step 2: Identify functions that exist solely to prevent negative occurrences.

Explanation

To determine which elements are the most suitable targets for elimination, we summarize the various burdens and decide which we would like to target for removal.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: Summarize the burdens from the function diagram.

Step 2: Create a rationale for which target you want to prioritize.

The bacteria, birds, and insects appear to carry the greatest burdens. By eliminating these, the harm to the pet is reduced, the target market remains unconstrained, and the human burdens are lessened. Our goal is also to remove the human from the system entirely to alleviate the human burden and simplify the life of the target market. The water bowl and feeding system are also candidates for removal but are of lower priority since they will likely play a key role in eliminating the human from the equation. Additionally, from the perspective of the manufacturer of the pet nourishment system, we would prefer to retain the food and water bowls.

For the initial objects to be removed from the system, we will select the bacteria, as they create a burden for both the pet and its owner. Our aim is to eliminate the bacteria from the system if feasible.

Remove Deep Reasons for Constraints and Elements

Why do Constraints and Targeted Elements Exist

Method

Step 1: If constraints have been developed, go to TRIZ Power Tools– Discovering Cause and utilize the methods outlined in this book to identify the causes of the constraints affecting the target market.

Step 2: Navigate to TRIZ Power Tools–Discovering Why Targeted Objects Are Required.

Explanation

To remove the constraints, we need to understand what is causing them. This requires us to link the chain of causes to the problem. As we do this, we will discover that there are multiple causes we can address to resolve the issue. We will also find that the problem can be tackled in various systems, as we will see in the next step.

The removal of the constraint should provide as immediate relief as possible. Most people will take action if the alleviation of pain is immediate. People are looking for aspirins rather than vitamins; they want immediate relief.

Note: The main explanation of causal analysis can be found in TRIZ Power Tools Discovering Cause.

Determining why Elements Exist in the System
The rationale for determining why something is necessary or exists in a system can be found in TRIZ Power Tools– Discovering Why Targeted Objects are Required. If you haven’t read these books, please do so and then return to this section.

All useful elements exist to provide functions that other elements in the system or super-system require. Often, elements exist because they are needed to solve a problem introduced by other elements. Something in the system is not performing its job, and an element is introduced to fix the issue. Almost any useful function can be viewed through this lens. If we can discover these underlying problems and resolve them without adding elements, then the system becomes simpler.

Harmful elements exist because they cannot be avoided or because they are not yet recognized and removed. Most harmful elements also serve a useful function, making them difficult to eliminate.

Understanding and removing the need for (or cause of) the target element allows us to potentially eliminate large groups of elements from the system. Many elements or sub-systems are required to compensate for other elements that are not performing their job. There is a function that is flawed or harmful, and this fact may have become obscure to us. The element that is not doing its job is being concealed by compensating elements. If we can discover this weakness and correct it, then the compensating elements can be removed. This makes this particular method of simplifying systems very powerful. Most useful functions can be framed as compensating functions.

Example—Pet Feeding System

Step 1: If constraints have developed, go to TRIZ Power Tools– Discovering Cause and use the approaches of this book to uncover the causes of the constraints on the target market.

The constraints on the pet feeding system relate to the need to constantly clean the containers. Causal analysis leads us back to the deeper issues of bacterial films coating the insides of the containers and the food that falls into the water from the pet’s muzzle. This arises from the size and shape of the water bowl. Since it is large, the dog can put its food-coated muzzle into the water, turning the food into a breeding ground for bacteria. A potential solution to this problem is to shape the bowl appropriately so that it does not allow food particles to enter. More to come…

Step 2: Go to: TRIZ Power Tools— Discovering Why Targeted Objects Are Required.

This example is used in the above book. Below is a summary of the findings.

The first step was to determine the reason that bacteria exist in pet bowls: Following is the result of this analysis. It was found that the removal of water by the pet is a key weak function in eliminating the bacteria. The primary issue with this useful function is that the amount of water removed does not equal the total volume in the bowl. This deeper problem, if resolved, allows the system to become simpler and removes one of the main constraints on the target market, which is the harm caused by bacteria to the pet. If more water were removed, the bacterial problem would mostly dissipate. The volume of water dictates the length of time that bacteria are allowed to feed on the food and the water. We can imagine that if the volume were enormous, the bacteria might never be removed. Therefore, the requirement becomes to have only a small amount of water available. Additionally, if the volume were equivalent to the amount of water consumed each time the pet drinks, then bacteria would be eliminated each time the pet drinks. We also note that if the volume of water is smaller, the amount of food washed off the muzzle would also be reduced. The net result is that the available water should equal the amount the pet consumes. Further analysis of water removal revealed that the shape allows bacterial food to collect in corners. From our analysis, we find that all these factors are largely controlled by the water volume, and the shape of the pet bowl should ensure that nothing can hide in corners. There should be no corners in a pet bowl. The pet should drink from a large “spoon.” With all these requirements met, the water bowl becomes “self-cleaning” because the pet removes any food and bacteria every time it drinks. Thus, we have a further requirement that the small amount of water be replenished after or during the time the pet is drinking.

Remove the Deeper Causes

Method

Go to TRIZ Power Tools Resolving Problems and address the underlying issues related to the constraints and the reasons for the existence of the objects.

Explanation

Removing the Constraints
With a causal analysis in place, we recognize that there are numerous paths we could take to eliminate the constraints. Now we must develop some rationale to determine which parts of the business system will provide the greatest leverage at the lowest cost. We have several factors we might change, including customer perception, the product itself, the manufacturing process, the business model, the platform, and the delivery channels. Larry Keeley[18] has identified what he considers to be ten different types of innovations that significantly enhance a company’s ability to generate profit. These include: business model, networks and alliances; enabling processes; core processes; product performance; product systems; services; channel; brand; and customer experience. Note that each of these innovations relates to different aspects of the system that create and deliver the product to the customer, as well as the product itself. Keeley argues that a variety of innovations are necessary to improve a business’s effectiveness. Here, we argue that we need to understand which of these systems hinder the customer from accomplishing the task. This is where we need to innovate.

Removing Targeted Elements
If you have chosen to determine why targeted elements exist, then you are now cognizant of the key functions that need consideration. You comprehend the deeper problems that were not addressed in the original designs and thus your opportunity for simplification lies in correcting these flawed decisions. We aim to idealize functions in such a way that the core problem is fully resolved, allowing us to remove the most elements from the system.

Most of the methods in this section are integrated into resolving problems. When we resolve issues according to the methods in Resolving Problems, we do so in the most ideal manner; in other words, we address the problem while eliminating elements. Very often, we can remove groups of elements when these issues are resolved.

Example—Pet Food Container

Go to TRIZ Power Tools– Resolving Problems and address the underlying issues related to the constraints and the reasons for the existence of the objects. While idealizing useful functions, we note the following ideas:

Function not required: containing the food is necessary to prevent it from becoming dirty or wet. By slightly altering the food, the dog food requires no container because it does not come in separate pieces. For instance, the food can be linked together or come as a single piece. Perhaps it simply hangs on a roll.

The food is positioned relative to the surrounding environment. Can we adjust the surroundings to accommodate scattered food? If the food is scattered, nobody cares because it simply blends in with the environment.

The ideal phenomenon: The trend is to combine food bowls with large storage containers while keeping the food at a height that is comfortable for the pet.

From the list of resources: The water stops crawling insects.

While idealizing informative functions, we note the following ideas: From measuring or detecting: the pet feeding system must detect the water level and automatically adjust it so that the user does not need to perform this function.

When we identified why burdensome functions existed, we realized that harmful bacteria thrived due to the leftover food and water in the bowl. The food and water nourish the bacteria. Ideally, the amount of food left behind should be zero. If the pet drinks all the available water and no food is left behind, any remaining bacteria will grow very slowly. While mobilizing unused resources, we determined that if the water bowl is spoon-shaped and just large enough for the animal to lick all the water out, it will be self-cleaning and leave no food and minimal bacteria behind. This insight came from understanding the parameters for bacterial growth. As it turned out, there was no real contradiction to resolve. We discovered that the overlooked resource was the shape and size of the water bowl. When these factors were properly adjusted, the problem vanished.

Simplify by Idealizing Individual Functions

Method

Step 1: Go to the book TRIZ Power Tools Idealizing Useful Functions and attempt to idealize useful functions in the function diagram.

Step 2: Go to the book TRIZ Power Tools Idealizing Informing Functions and attempt to idealize informing functions in the function diagram.

Step 3: Go to the book TRIZ Power Tools Idealizing Harmful Functions and attempt to idealize harmful functions in the function diagram.

Explanation

Even after removing the reasons for elements to exist, there is still the possibility that elements remain that could be removed or replaced. We will attempt to idealize burdensome functions that we have already identified.

Simplify by Eliminating Individual Elements

Simplify by Idealizing Individual Functions

Method

Step 1: Identify a problematic element in the system.

Step 2: Remove the element.

Step 3: Press another object in the system or super-system (associated with the job, task, or environment) to perform the functions of the removed object.

Step 4: If the element cannot be eliminated, have it take on other system or super-system functions.

Step 5: Consider having the product of the function act on itself by breaking the product into interacting parts that influence it.

Step 6: Recursively remove individual elements. Continue the process of searching for opportunities to simplify by removing individual elements and identifying other objects to perform their functions. Proceed to the next step when you feel you have done everything you can.

Explanation

This method is based on invoking STANDARD 5-1-2 l[19], which imposes the necessity to simplify a system or to avoid introducing a substance in the first place. Here, we consider eliminating all burdensome elements, but there is one particular case that should be highlighted. Recall that when we identified burdensome functions and elements, one of the considerations was low-value elements. Low-value elements are typically those that (1) perform only one function, (2) do not directly operate on the system product, and (3) incur high costs. We would like to directly eliminate low-value elements if possible. If we cannot replace them, then we may consider having the low-value element assume additional functions.

Example—Cutting Tape

Recall that we used this example to demonstrate how to identify low-value objects. While we could have chosen any example of a burdensome system, this example clearly illustrates how to identify and remove low-value elements.

Step 1: Identify a burdensome element in the system.

We have already identified that the base provides the least value in the system.

Step 2: Eliminate the element.

The base is removed. We represent this as a spindle and blade unsupported in space. The other functions are intentionally left to emphasize that these functions are still necessary. We can remove the objects, but there is still a need to fulfill their original purposes.

Step 3: Press another object in the system or super-system (associated with the job, task, or environment) to perform the functions of the removed object.

Note that in this case, the base performed several functions. There is still the possibility of using the table or other objects that are typically associated with the job.

For instance, we could consider the object being taped. In this case, we will allow the spindle to support the blade. The person will support the spindle.

Note that not all bugs have been resolved in this tape dispensing system. There is a potential risk of the blade swinging around. Support for the tape may not be adequate, etc. When we reach the “Fixing” stage of problem-solving, we will work on addressing these issues.

Step 4: If the element cannot be eliminated, have it take on different system or super-system functions.

Step 5: Consider having the product of the function act on itself by breaking the product into interacting parts that operate on itself.

Step 6: Recursively Remove Individual Elements. Continue the process of seeking opportunities to simplify by removing individual elements and identifying other objects to perform their functions. Proceed to the next step when you feel you have done all you can.

Simplify by Consolidating System Elements

Introduction to Consolidating Elements

At this stage, all remaining functions and elements are deemed essential. We can further streamline the system by consolidating elements. When we consolidate elements, we merge them together. This is not merely about combining elements. Ideally, consolidation should yield unexpected benefits or synergies. For example, the user may be able to extend the same function to other elements that have not yet been considered. Consolidation is a natural step in the evolution of systems. Below is the evolutionary path for consolidation:

Knife Example
We begin with a single knife (mono). Then, we use two knives to hold the object in place and gain the advantages of a bi-system. Next, we design the knives to interact with each other or form scissors, allowing us to enjoy the benefits of two knives operable with one hand. This presents an unexpected advantage. Furthermore, the scissors can be utilized on various materials that the knives would struggle with, such as cutting fabric. It remains unclear how to refine the blades.

Example—Machine Gun
We begin with a single-shot rifle (mono). We may want several single-shot rifles on hand just in case we need them (multiply same). Next, we could combine several barrels into a single weapon (combined). Finally, we can have a simpler, lighter gun with one barrel that automatically reloads from a clip of ammunition (consolidated).

Example—Pump Action Gun
We start with a single-shot shotgun (Mono). Again, we may want to have other single-shot shotguns available (multiple same). Next, we see a double-barreled gun (combined). Finally, we have a gun that holds several shells, which are ejected and reloaded with the pump action (consolidated).

Example—Biased Hammer
We start with a group of hammers, one with a large head and one with a small head, for different situations (group biased). We could combine the hammers to have both sizes of heads (combined). How they can be further consolidated is not yet clear.

Example—Hammer-Axe
Similar to the previous example, we begin with a hammer and an axe (different groups) and then combine them into one hammer-axe (combined). Can they be further consolidated to suit any situation without encountering drawbacks?

Example—Hammer and Claw (Combining Anti Functions)
In this special case, we start with a hammer and a separate nail puller. These serve opposite functions. (combine opposites) Then we combine them into one tool (combined). Can they be consolidated even further?

Reduce Penalty of Expensive Parts by Stealing Functions

Method

Step 1: Identify elements that you would like to use, but are too expensive.

Step 2: Have these costly elements take over the function of something else, even if it only serves as a structural component.

Explanation

If elements are expensive, and there seems to be no way around this, then look for ways to increase the number of functions performed by the expensive element. This can help reduce the overall cost.

Example—Optical Cover for Telescope[36]

Step 1: Identify elements that you would like to use, but are too expensive.

An example of this is a telescope for classrooms. The mirror needs to be protected from dust. Regular glass will create excessive optical distortion. Optical-grade glass, carefully ground, can serve as a cover, but it is too costly.

Below is the functional diagram. More elements are represented in the diagram than in the picture. Please note the number of functions performed by each element.

Step 2: Have these expensive elements take on the function of something else, even if it only serves as a structural element.

If the optical cover assumes the role of supporting the mirror (currently performed by the Spider), it effectively takes on two functions. This change increases the telescope’s value to the owner and decreases the overall cost of the telescope.

ASIT Parasite Tool

Method

Step 1: Choose a low-value object.

Step 2: List objects in the environment that have similarities to the chosen object.

Step 3: Select a part of the main object (preferably one of the more significant ones) and remove it.

Step 4: One of the similar objects will take over this function.

Step 5: Look for unexpected capabilities.

Explanation

Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking, or ASIT[37], is a creative thinking method derived from TRIZ. “The Parasite Product” is one of the six “thinking tools” used for developing new products. The concept involves removing as much of an object as possible and then substituting the removed part with something from the surrounding environment.

Example—Simplifying Eating Utensils for Backpackers

Step 1: Choose a low-value object.

In this case, we begin with a common fork.

Step 2: List objects in the environment that share similarities with the selected object.

A spoon has been chosen. It is both functionally similar and has components that resemble each other, such as the handle.

Step 3: Select a part of the main object (preferably one of the more significant ones) and remove it.

In this instance, we will remove the handle.

Step 4: One of the similar objects assumes this function.

We select a part of the main object to remove, in this case, the handle. We merge the spoon with the remaining part of the fork, resulting in a spoon with a fork attachment.

Step 5: Look for unexpected capabilities.

In addition to its lighter weight and versatility, this utensil is extremely useful for eating certain types of foods that require both a fork and a spoon, such as stews that contain large pieces of meat.

Consolidate Elements with Different Functions on the Same Product

Method

Step 1: Identify tools that perform various functions on the same product.

Step 2: Consolidate these tools or integrate them.

Step 3: Look for unexpected capabilities: None are observed.

Explanation

When two or more tools operate on the same product, there are often opportunities to merge these tools. It is frequently the case that they share common elements.

Example—A Rake and Hoe Combination

Step 1: Identify tools that serve different functions on the same product.

A rake and a hoe both address weeds in a garden, but they perform different tasks; one cuts the weeds while the other collects them.

Step 2: Consolidate these tools or make them interact.

By consolidating the tools, we create a rake that can also function as a hoe.

Step 3: Look for unexpected capabilities: None are observed.

Example—Consolidating Pneumatic Elements

A typical fluid handling system controls the pressure of a fluid using a pressure regulator and can start and stop the flow with an On-Off Valve. How can this system be simplified?

Step 1: Identify tools that perform various functions on the same product.

Creating a functional diagram highlights that both the on-off valve and the pressure regulator work on the same product, the fluid.

Step 2: Consolidate these tools or make them interact.

We can enhance the system by creating a single element that performs both functions. This will become a Regulator/Shutoff valve with one modulating component acting on the fluid.

Step 3: Look for unexpected capabilities.

The components typically involved in the shutoff function may be used to regulate the flow of fluid at very low rates.

Combine Elements of Contiguous Operations

Method

Step 1: Identify Contiguous Functions (one follows the other in time).

Step 2: Consider ways to combine and consolidate the elements.

Step 3: Look for unexpected capabilities.

Explanation

Contiguous operations are those that occur consecutively in sequence or time. When you observe such a sequence of functions, there is often an opportunity to merge elements and significantly simplify the system.

Example—Drill & Anchor Bolt Combination

Step 1: Identify Contiguous Functions (one follows the other in time).

Typically, to hang a heavy picture or mirror on a wall, you first drill a hole in the drywall, then pound in an anchor before finally inserting a nail or screw to hold the picture. Penetrating and securing represent contiguous functions.

Step 2: Consider ways to combine and consolidate the elements.

The drill and the anchor are to be combined. The new product drills the hole as it is screwed into the wall. The thread that follows fits perfectly into the drilled hole.

Step 3: Look for unexpected capabilities.

The torque from the screwdriver is adequate to drill the hole. No power tools are necessary.

Consolidate Elements with Similar Structure

Method

Step 1: Identify an element, preferably one of low value.

Step 2: Identify a second element with a similar structure (same power source, transmission, and control).

Step 3: Identify the minimum working element that combines both elements. This can often be achieved by merging or enabling the elements to interact while consolidating the power source, transmission, or control.

Step 4: Look for unexpected capabilities.

Explanation

The energy source, transmission, or controls of a system can often be consolidated. While neither performs exactly the same function, they both share common elements that could be unified into one.

Example—Pick & Hammer Combination

Step 1: Identify an element, preferably one of low value.

Consider the scenario of working in a blacksmith’s shop with various tools. We start with a simple hammer.

Consider the scenario of working in a blacksmith’s environment with a variety of tools. We begin with a simple hammer.

We know there is another tool with a similar structure that is used essentially in the same manner: a pick (same power source, transmission, and control).

Step 3: Identify the minimum working element that combines both components. This can often be achieved by merging or facilitating the interaction between the elements while consolidating the power source, transmission, or control.

There is a common component for both the pick and the hammer: the handle. The hammer and pick are integrated into a hammer-pick.

Step 4: Look for any unexpected capabilities.

No issues detected.

Consolidate Biased Tools

Method

Step one: Identify tools in the system that operate on products that are slightly different from each other (biased). Alternatively, identify the need for one tool to operate on slightly different products.

Step 2: Merge the two systems or enable them to interact. If there is a common element, use only one of these elements.

Explanation

Biased objects are those that are substantially similar but have one main difference. A bag of marbles contains marbles of various colors. A library holds books made from different materials. There is often a need to work with all elements in the system or to expand the functional capabilities of a tool.

Example—Big Hammer & Small Hammer Combination

Step 1: Identify tools in the system that operate on products that are slightly different from each other (biased). Alternatively, identify the need for a single tool to operate on slightly varied products.

You may own a few different hammers. They are fundamentally the same, but they differ in one significant way: one is smaller than the other. The size difference primarily helps in positioning the nail correctly. (A lighter hammer does not significantly help, as the user tends to strike with less force). Both tools serve the same purpose and work on the same type of product, yet there is a distinction between them: one is smaller. We say that the products are biased.

Step 2: Merge the two systems or enable them to interact. If there is a common element, utilize only one of these elements.

A combined hammer serves the same purpose for both small and large nails. The hammer’s head remains capable of working with different products.

Merge Anti-Tools

Method

Step 1: Identify a tool within the system.

Step 2: Determine the opposing function of the tool.

Step 3: Identify objects within the system that are already being used to perform the opposing function.

Explanation

The evolution of systems dictates that functions will ultimately be combined with their anti-functions. The tool that performs the anti-function of your tool may already exist in the super-system.

Example—Combining a Hammer & a Crowbar

While this may be an issue of the past, it still helps to convey a familiar message. We will consider tools related to the craft of carpentry.

Step 1: Identify a tool within the system.

We identify a hammer for driving nails.

Step 2: Identify the anti-function of the tool.

Since the tool is used to drive nails into wood, the anti-function would be to remove nails from the wood.

Step 3: Identify objects within the system that are already used to serve the anti-function.

The crowbar is utilized to extract nails, especially those that have not been driven in straight or are bent.

Step 4: Combine the anti-tool with the tool. Consolidate elements as much as possible.

The crowbar is combined with the hammer to create the well-known claw hammer.

Step 5: Look for unexpected capabilities: The hammer can access restricted locations.

Elements Closely Associated in the Job

Method

Step 1: Identify objects that are in close proximity.

Step 2: Consolidate these elements so that they can be easily used together.

Explanation

Elements that are used in close proximity to each other may naturally be combined. Be cautious that something new emerges from this combination. It is not sufficient for two objects to merely share the same structure; new capabilities should develop.

Example—Vegetable Peeler

Step 1: Identify objects that are in close proximity.

Knives and zesters are close companions.

Step 2: Consolidate these elements so that they can be easily used together.

The knife is incorporated into the blade alongside the zester. While these functions may be used sequentially on certain vegetables, such as potatoes, this may not hold true for others. This tool can also be utilized to create unique platter decorations.

Example—Multifunctional Camera

Step 1: Identify objects that are in close proximity.

Digital movies, binoculars, GPS devices, magnifying glasses, and the internet are all in close proximity.

Step 2: Consolidate these elements so that they can be easily used together.

The aforementioned objects are combined in such a way that digital movies can be recorded, edited, and played back. The viewing quality is sufficient for watching commercial films. The camera is also capable of extremely close-up shots, effectively functioning as a magnifying glass. Additionally, the internet feature allows for downloading movies online. The GPS functionality enables geo-caching or other outdoor navigation activities while capturing photos or videos.

Recursively Consolidate Elements

Method

Continue the process of seeking opportunities to simplify by consolidating elements. In this step, we return to the beginning of the consolidation phase and start again with the new baseline system. We consolidate as much as possible before proceeding.

Simplify by Reducing Space Burdens

Introduction to Removing Space Burdens

Now we are down to the more practical elements of simplification. Many of these are straightforward tasks that the brain can perform almost automatically. However, some are more complex, and we need the reminders regardless.

Permutate the Elements

Method

Step 1: Sketch the concept in your journal as you imagine it.

Step 2: Redraw it multiple times, making small refinements each time.

Step 3: Determine whether parts MUST come in a specific order. For example, must one part be within another, or can the sequence be altered?

Step 4: If the sequence can be altered, sketch the idea in various orientations. Repeat this process until it is as excellent as you can envision it.

Explanation

Entire books have been written on the topic of iteratively drawing ideas to “evolve” them. Psychological inertia suggests that your idea can only be illustrated as you perceive it in your mind. Until now, you have viewed your concept in a limited number of ways. In this step, we will explore the idea through multiple sketches repeatedly until it is as refined as you can imagine.

Fold Elements Into Themselves and Other Parts

Method

Step 1: Consider how elements may be temporarily folded.

Step 2: Consider how elements can be permanently folded within themselves.

Step 3: Does the article typically interact with other objects? Consider different orientations of other elements that allow them to fold into one another.

Step 4: Utilize unoccupied space. Identify the boundaries of the object as it currently exists. Look for volumes of unoccupied space. What elements can be moved within this space? Identify volumes of occupied space that serve little function. What elements can be repositioned within this space?

Step 5: Alter the orientation of objects. If objects were oriented differently in three-dimensional space, could they be made more compact? Consider each element and experiment with different orientations.

Step 6: Implement space-saving structures such as tubes, filaments, fabrics, expanding materials, and nested objects.

Step 7: Miniaturize. Which components do we already know how to miniaturize?

Step 8: Rearrange the order of items. Place external items inside. The horse becomes the engine. The lock is in the door. The speaker is housed within the computer.

Step 9: Utilize mass-conserving structures such as cantilevers and cables.

Explanation

By removing elements, we have already made significant progress toward reducing the required space. Here, we will complete the space reduction by examining the architecture and identifying ways to decrease the spatial requirements.

–One of the most significant disadvantages that many concepts face is a large envelope or volume. This can create problems in various ways.

–Is there a need for the article to be transported during or after manufacture? Must the user move it around during normal use? Will its size pose a challenge during transportation?

–Is there a need to store the article due to intermittent use? Does it occupy excessive storage space?

–Is the article excessively large, making it cumbersome to use?

Recursively Sketch the System

Method

Recursively sketch the part of the system that you are working on, each time making small improvements.

Explanation

We have done nearly everything we know to simplify the system by removing, replacing, and consolidating elements. During this step, the mind can rapidly simplify by repeatedly sketching the system, each time making it slightly more ideal. One aspect that will become apparent during this phase is the addition of space-saving features.

If the TRIZ methodology has been followed, it is likely that several concepts will have been generated. Each of these ideas can be further refined by making a series of drawings in your invention journal. Creating successive drawings with small improvements aimed at conserving space, weight, and cost will help refine the idea to the point where you can construct a more complete prototype. During this refinement, we can explore different configurations and orientations of elements. We can also consider the partial or complete consolidation of both similar and dissimilar elements. Folding elements into themselves and other elements can further enhance the product by reducing its size.

This step is also performed while simplifying the system, but it is particularly useful here. This stage is especially important if you have just identified a group of objects that will perform the required functions. These objects will initially be in an imperfect form and will necessitate significant simplification. During this phase, the mind can effectively simplify by repeatedly sketching the system, each time making it slightly more ideal. One thing that will become apparent during this step is the space-saving features that can be incorporated. Additionally, consider ways in which objects can take on multiple functions, thus eliminating the need for other objects.

Simplify by Eliminating Substances

Introduction to Eliminating Substances

Now that we have examined tools with the potential to eliminate groups of elements, we will explore tools that assist us in reducing the number of individual elements. We accomplish this by prompting elements and substances in our system to adopt additional functions after first removing the element that originally performed that function. Additionally, we will consider the possibility of substituting elements with others that are less expensive, such as voids and resource substances in the job environment or system. We will also take into account field resources present in the system or environment.

Use of Voids Instead of Substances

Method

Step 1: If an object or substance needs to be introduced or removed from a system, consider using a void instead. Such a void can be

Loose Substances–>Liquids–> Foam–>Gas–>Empty Space

Step 2: Think about utilizing inflatable structures.

Explanation

This method is based on STANDARDS 5-1-1-1 and 5-1-4 d[20] [21] which emphasizes the need to simplify a system or to avoid introducing a substance altogether. Once again, this illustrates a scenario where a substance can exist and simultaneously not exist. The role of the object is replaced by a void, thereby simplifying the system. Naturally, these voids must be formed and shaped to fulfill the required functions.

Use of Field Instead of Substance

Method

If a substance or object is to be introduced or removed from a system, consider using a field (as mentioned above) instead of the substance or object.

Explanation

This method is derived from invoking STANDARDS 5-1-1-2d[22], which imposes the necessity to simplify a system or to avoid introducing a substance altogether. By utilizing a field instead of a substance, we can eliminate substances from the system. Ultimately, the field must be supplied by another element within the system or the environment. Thus, this serves as another means of substituting one element for another, whether it exists within the system or the environment.

Use of Field Within the System

Method

Step 1: Identify the fields already used in the system from the table of fields.

Step 2: If possible, replace the given field with one of the fields already in the system. Ideally, the field should be more manageable (those lower in the table of fields).

Explanation

This method arises from invoking STANDARDS 5-2-1m[23], which self-imposes the necessity to simplify a system or to avoid introducing a substance in the first place.

Use of Field From the Job Environment

Method

Step 1: Identify fields already used in the job environment, based on the table of fields.

Step 2: If possible, replace the existing field with one from the job environment. Ideally, the new field should be more manageable (those lower in the table of fields).

Explanation

This method arises from invoking STANDARDS 5-2-2[24], which self-imposes the necessity to simplify a system or to avoid introducing a substance in the first place.

Use of Field Which Compliments System Materials

Method

Step 1: Identify the substances in the system.

Step 2: Which fields react strongly to these substances?

Step 3: If possible, replace the current field with one that reacts strongly to a substance in the system.

Explanation

This method is derived from invoking STANDARDS 5-2-3 s[25], which imposes the necessity of simplifying a system or avoiding the introduction of a substance in the first place.

Use of a Substance from the Environment

Method

Step 1: If a substance or object is to be introduced or removed from a system, consider utilizing a substance that is native to the environment or other objects necessary for the task.

Step 2: Consider using substances derived from objects or materials in the external environment or relevant to the task.

Step 3: Consider decomposing substances present in the job’s environment.

Explanation

This method is aligned with STANDARDS 5-1-1-3 and 5-1-1-9[26][27], which impose the necessity to simplify a system or avoid introducing a substance altogether.

This is quite similar to replacing a substance with a field. The new substance from the environment will also utilize fields to perform its function; however, these substances may be better suited to existing fields in the system.

Temporarily Introduce Substances and Elements

Method

Step 1: Identify a burdensome element within the system.

Step 2: Create a list of free, inexpensive, or waste elements.

Step 3: Determine whether the substance can be replaced by inexpensive or free materials from the environment. Consider phase transformations as discussed in Separation in Time. Explore methods to decompose substances found in the environment.

Step 4: Eliminate elements by combining them with other inexpensive, cheap, or waste materials present in the native environment.

Step 5: Remove elements by altering their phase.

Step 6: Remove elements through decomposition.

Explanation

This method is derived from STANDARDS 5-1-1-6, 5-1-1-8, and 5-1-3 [28] [29] [30] which impose the need to simplify a system or to avoid introducing a substance in the first place.

If the previous steps have led us to consider incorporating substances or elements into the system for additional functions, we recognize that this is not ideal. We require the function of the object or substance but not the material itself. One solution is to resolve the contradiction in time and contemplate the temporary introduction of substances and objects. Often, these substances can be generated from inexpensive materials, or even better, from free materials found in the native environment.

Use of Disposable Objects and Substances

Method

Step 1: Identify a burdensome element in the system.

Step 2: Consider whether the substance or object can be replaced by a disposable item. Ensure that the item to be disposed of is inexpensive and has minimal or no environmental impact. Additionally, confirm that it possesses desirable properties for the system. Explore methods to decompose, dissolve, or evaporate the unwanted substance.

Step 3: If disposing of it in an environmentally friendly manner is not feasible, consider ways to ensure that the disposed object cannot be separated from the rest of the system. (For instance, caps that remain attached to bottles or pop can lids that stay with the can.) This illustrates a scenario of being disposed of and not disposed of.

Explanation

This method invokes Inventive Principles 27 and 34. e[31] [32]This represents a special case of temporarily introducing objects or substances. In this context, the object may remain in the system for extended periods and be removed only at the last moment.

When simplifying, it is common to desire an object to exist and not exist simultaneously. We want the substance to exist under certain conditions and not exist under others. This implies a separation in time. The object exists at one moment but not at another. When a substance or object must both exist and not exist, we should consider sustainable and environmentally friendly disposal methods. This approach reflects a method of separation in time. The disposable item should also possess other qualities that add value to the system.

Use of Active Additives

Method

Step 1: If a substance or object is to be introduced or removed from a system, consider using a highly active additive in very small amounts.

Step 2: Consider concentrating the additive in one specific part of the system.

Explanation

This method is based on STANDARDS 5-1-1-4 and 5-1-1-5 e[33] [34], which necessitate the simplification of a system or the avoidance of introducing a substance altogether.

While using active additives is not as ideal as completely removing elements, it is certainly preferable to employing whole elements and large quantities of substance.

Use of a Copy

Method

Step 1: What are the essential characteristics of the object being considered for introduction or replacement?

Step 2: What would a copy look like that has only these essential characteristics? Such copies can be photographs, impressions, facsimiles, shadows, videos, etc.

Explanation

This method is derived from invoking STANDARDS 5-1-1-7y[35], which imposes the necessity to simplify a system or not introduce a substance at all.

A copy requires only the essential characteristics of the system element. For example, if we aim to measure the diameter of a functional object, then the only attribute we are interested in is the outer dimensional characteristics. We don’t need the entire object, but only a copy of the part that we are focused on.

We may not require the whole pilot to perform vital functions on an aircraft. In fact, the pilot may be unable to make rapid adjustments to control surfaces. We only need certain characteristics of the pilot. Thus, we can use a copy.

Simplify the Manufacturing

Explanation of Simplifying the Manufacturing

Now we are down to the more practical aspects of simplifying. Many of these are straightforward tasks that the brain can handle almost effortlessly. However, some are more complicated, and we still need the reminder nonetheless.

Consolidate Machining into One Element

Method

Seek opportunities to consolidate all machining into a single component.

Explanation

Minimizing the number of components that require machining or other manufacturing processes will significantly streamline product design. The cost savings are substantial due to the reduced setups needed on today’s multi-axis machines.

Modularize or Integrate

Method

Step 1: Verify that the system’s performance exceeds the required standards for the target market and that the industry competes on cost, convenience, and delivery.

Step 2: Ensure that industry standards are simple enough to be distilled into rules of thumb. This means that potential interfaces between elements can be specified, and the performance of any element is not reliant on the unique characteristics of other elements. What matters is that the interfaces function correctly.

Step 3: Confirm that the reduced performance of the modularized elements will still be acceptable to the target market.

Step 4: Break down systems into components that can be utilized across various product lines.[39] It is not essential for all components of a system to be modular; however, high-volume components are excellent candidates for modularization.

Step 5: Clearly define the interfaces between components so that the modules can be interchanged among various products and that flexibility and adaptability can meet diverse customer needs. Freeze the interfaces from any future changes.[40]

Step 6: Assess the need for integration in the manufacturing process. If any elements of the supply chain are unreliable or not cost-effective, consider integrating those supply chain elements into your operations. This may involve hiring and training new staff or even incorporating resource extraction processes into your system. (Do whatever is necessary to reduce costs or enhance the reliability of these elements). To identify where these issues exist, look for inventory in front of these constraints or bottlenecks.

Explanation

The final approach to simplifying the system is to modularize elements according to the Value Chain Evolution Theory[38]. This theory posits that when system performance or reliability is insufficient to meet the rigorous demands of a market, the architecture of these systems tends to be or remains integrated (i.e., non-modular). To enhance system performance or reliability, integrated systems require detailed coordination among different companies. Such coordination is challenging or impossible with modular systems. Improvements or changes in one part of the system influence other sections. The whole must be “tuned” as a unit.

As time progresses, performance or reliability surpasses market needs. The industry now competes on cost, convenience, or delivery. To produce at increasingly lower costs and expedite product development, internal standards evolve into industry standards and rules of thumb. When this occurs, products can be divided into modular elements that can be brought to market more quickly. For a part of a product to be modularized, it must be clear which attributes of the interface are pivotal. It is also crucial that these interface attributes can be specified and easily verified. Lastly, it is essential that the consequences of altering an attribute are predictable. Generally, the performance of a component must be slightly degraded to become a module. (Many attributes can only be modified in increments rather than continuously). Since the products have not exceeded market demands, this reduced performance observed in modularized products is acceptable, particularly in exchange for quicker speed to market or convenience. If the performance is insufficient, most of the market will reject this reduced performance.

Sub-systems or systems whose performance is still “not good enough” remain integrated and are surrounded by modular components. These integrated systems continue to command high margins because their performance is constrained and still evolving. Most companies that manufacture modules do not possess the resources to address the challenges posed by integrated architectures.

Products employing modular architectures can be manufactured at a lower cost than those produced with integrated architectures. This result occurs despite the presence of more parts and the requirement for additional interface components. The lower total cost is achieved by sourcing individual modules from one of several highly competitive companies. Firms that create such modules usually operate with slim margins due to intense competition. If your module’s performance meets expectations, you compete on price and convenience. As a side note, some companies can produce multiple modules while eliminating expensive interfaces between parts, further driving down costs.

Several criteria must be satisfied to consider modularization. First, the system must have surpassed market expectations in terms of performance and reliability. As a result of modularization, the system will experience a slight decline in performance. Components will not be perfectly matched to one another, so it is essential to have a sufficient performance margin to accommodate this impact. If modules negatively influence customer perception of the product, they may be best avoided. Next, exchanges across system interfaces must be well understood. Rules of thumb must apply effectively. There should be no need to conduct complex analyses to ascertain the interactions. Note that integrated systems are invariably surrounded by modular systems. The integrated system is crucial because the performance or reliability of that system has not yet reached a satisfactory level for modularization. For example, programmers often break down large, complex programs into smaller modules. This strategy helps them repurpose code and avoid redundancy. However, new concerns regarding interactions or interfaces arise.

Recursively Unburden

Have you achieved your goals for unburdening? If not, please refer back to the System and Super-System Function Diagram and continue the unburdening process. Apply this to super-system, system, and sub-system components.

Explanation

After simplifying the super-system, we move on to our system and then to the components of the system. There are numerous opportunities for further simplification. Revisit the first step of the simplification algorithm and create a functional diagram for the new system. Repeat this process until you are confident that you have done everything possible.

Be aware that simplifying the system may lead to larger issues. This is acceptable. Such issues can be addressed using TRIZ Power Tools—Resolving Problems.

References

[1] Suh Nam Pyo of MIT, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, 1990.

[2] Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, Technical Innovation Center, pp. 127

[3] Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, Technical Innovation Center, pp. 128

[4] ARIZ refers to the Algorithm for the Solution of Inventive Problems. Altshuller and his associates created various versions over the years, the most recent being ARIZ-85c. The number 85 indicates the year it was formalized and “c” refers to the revision. ARIZ is a structured approach to identify and resolve conflicts in systems while applying the fundamental tools of TRIZ to solve problems.

[5] Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, Technical Innovation Center, pp. 129

[6] See the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_engineering, as well as the Lawrence D. Miles Value Engineering Reference Center at http://wendt.library.wisc.edu/miles/index.html.

[7] Function Modeling was first introduced by Lawrence Miles, Jerry Leftow, and Harry Erlicher, all from General Electric during World War II, in an effort to optimize the use of scarce resources. Function modeling is a technique used within the broader context of Value Engineering. The objective of function analysis is to identify the functions that objects perform and then find alternative means of achieving the same function. For more in-depth research into this topic, visit the Lawrence D. Miles Value Engineering Reference Center Collection at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, which houses original manuscripts and works by Lawrence Miles.

[8] Function Modeling was first introduced by Lawrence Miles, Jerry Leftow, and Harry Erlicher, all from General Electric during World War II, in an effort to optimize the use of scarce resources. Function modeling is a technique used within the broader context of Value Engineering. The objective of function analysis is to identify the functions that objects perform and then find alternative means of achieving the same function. For more in-depth research into this topic, visit the Lawrence D. Miles Value Engineering Reference Center Collection at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, which houses original manuscripts and works by Lawrence Miles.

[9] Tool Kit by Lance A. Bettencourt and Anthony Ulwick.

[10] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: an object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be eliminated. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 287.

[11] ASIT stands for Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking, a methodology developed by Roni Horowitz. It is primarily used to create new products that can be easily distinguished in the market.

[12] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: an object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be eliminated. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 287.

[13] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: an object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be eliminated. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 287.

[14] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: an object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be eliminated. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 287.

[15] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: an object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be eliminated. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 287.

[16] Inventive Principle #25—Self-service: An object must serve itself and perform supplementary and repair operations. Make use of waste material and energy. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 288.

[17] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: an object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be eliminated. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm, p. 287.

[18] Larry Keeley—The Ten Types of Innovation.

[19] STANDARD 5-1-2: If a system is not easy to modify as required, and the conditions do not allow for replacing the component acting as an instrument (tool) or introducing additives, the artifact (product) must be used instead of the instrument (tool), dividing the artifact (product) into parts that interact with one another.

[20] STANDARD 5-1-1-1: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and this is not permitted, a “void” can be used instead of the substance. Notes: A “void” is usually a gaseous substance, like air, or empty space formed in a solid object. In some cases, a “void” may be created by other substances, such as liquids (foam) or loose bodies.

[21] STANDARD 5-1-4: If it is necessary to introduce a substantial quantity of a substance, but this is not allowed, a “void” in the form of inflatable structures or foam should be used as the substance. Note: The introduction of foam or inflatable structures resolves the contradiction of “much substance- little substance.”

[22] STANDARDS 5-1-1-2: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and this is not allowed, a field can be introduced in place of the substance.

[23] STANDARD 5-2-1: If a field needs to be introduced in a SFM, one should first use the existing fields for which the media are the substances that form the system or its parts. Note: The use of substances and fields already present in the system enhances the system’s ideality: the number of functions performed by the system increases without increasing the number of components used.

[24] STANDARD 5-2-1: If a field needs to be introduced in a SFM and it is not possible to use the fields already present in the system, one should utilize fields from the external environment. Note: The utilization of external environmental fields (gravitational, thermal, pressure, etc.) improves the system’s ideality: the number of functions performed by the system increases without increasing the number of components used.

[25] STANDARD 5-2-3: If a field needs to be introduced in a SFM and it is not possible to use the fields already present in the system or in the external environment, one should utilize fields for which the substances present in the system or external environment can act as media or sources. Notes: For instance, if there are ferromagnetic substances in a system and they are utilized for mechanical purposes, it is possible to leverage their magnetic properties to obtain additional effects: improve interactions between components, acquire information about the state of the system, etc.

[26] STANDARD 5-1-1-3: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and this is not permitted, an external additive can be used instead of an internal one.

[27] STANDARD 5-1-1-9: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and this is not allowed, the substance may be produced by decomposing the external environment or the object itself, for instance, through electrolysis, or by altering the aggregate state of a part of the object or external environment.

[28] STANDARD 5-1-1-6: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and this is not allowed, the substance can be introduced temporarily and then removed.

[29] STANDARD 5-1-1-8: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and this is not permitted by the system’s operating conditions, the substance can be introduced in the form of a chemical compound that can be subsequently decomposed.

[30] STANDARD 5-1-3: After the substance introduced into the system has fulfilled its function, it should either disappear or become indistinguishable from the substance that was in the system or the external environment beforehand. Note: The introduced substance may disappear due to chemical reactions or phase changes.

[31] Inventive Principle 27 Dispose: Replace an expensive object with a cheaper alternative that possesses different properties (e.g., longevity).

[32] Inventive Principle #34: Rejecting and regenerating parts: After completing its function or becoming unusable, an element of an object is rejected (discarded, dissolved, evaporated, etc.) or modified during its operational process. Used-up parts should be restored during operation.

[33] STANDARD 5-1-1-4: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system, and this is not allowed, a highly active additive can be introduced in very small quantities.

[34] STANDARD 5-1-1-5: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system and it is not allowed, an additive can be introduced in very small quantities and concentrated in specific parts of the object.

[35] STANDARD 5-1-1-7: If it is necessary to introduce a substance into the system, and it is not permitted, a copy of the object can be used instead, where the introduction of substances is allowed.

[36] D.D. Maksutov The Innovation Algorithm by Genrich Altshuller, pp. 31.

[37] Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking. The author is Roni Horowitz. The main feature of this methodology is the creation of products with distinctive properties. Reference for ASIT information: – http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/09/b/index.htm

[38] Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

[39] Research and Technology Executive Council Modular Design Playbook.

[40] Research and Technology Executive Council Modular Design Playbook.

Subscribe to receive updates on new eBooks and exclusive content.

*By subscribing you agree to our Terms & Conditions