The first part of ARIZ is dedicated to build a model of a problem. As soon as a model appear we should go ahead with this model and forget the initial situation temporarily. In case we should come back to the initial situation or to step 1.1. it means our model is not good. OR! our mental inertia too much storing and we are not able to overcome it.
A fragment of Nikolai Khomenko's letter to Hongyul Yoon, 5 May, 2005
Please refer to Nikolai's publications to learn more about his views on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last periods, some different TRIZ experts, delivered different versions of ARIZ from the version of my understanding amd memory. Your answers will be deeply appreciated. 1. About ARIZ part 2, OT According to Expert A, OT should be divided into 3 parts : T1, T2, T3, or T1 means the period before conflict, T2 means the conflict time, T3 means the period after conflict. Expert A insisted this version is from Altshuler. But, my text says T1 (conflict time) and T2 (before conflict).
Which is from Altshuller? (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of them. It seems you do not remember what I have told during my classes. I mean that we should consider all of these three ‘Times’.
But I am not sure we should change the text like that the ‘Time’ of Conflict is T1
and T2 is the ‘Time’ before the conflict and T3 is a ‘Time’ after the conflict.
Sometimes it is helpful to consider the ‘Time’ after the conflict as a resource. Altshuller explained these during his lectures.
But as soon as he stopped his activity in 1986 about ARIZ because he was very ill.
(he was in coma at the end of 1986 but doctors made him revive)
At that time, then he did not develop the text of ARIZ further and
he didn't perform some other changes he was going to make in ARIZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. About ARIZ part 3, IFR, Physical contradictions.
As far as I know, In ARIZ part 3, resources must be considered individually instead of X element, NOT only OZ. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but first of all, resources that are already in OZ during OT and their modifications. For example, if we have resources : tool = pipe, object = water, super and environment = air, gravity we have to think about IFR and PC in respect to pipe, water, gravity and air. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From part 3-2 to part 3-5, we have to think in parallel way. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on your preferences. You could analyze each resource step by step, one by one, or you could perform each step for each resource simultaneously and
do it all in parallel or even you could mix both of these ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to TRIZ expert B’s way, we should think about OZ not resources in Part 3. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know why TRIZ expert B said this. I did teach him, "Do the analysis" as Altshuller taught me. OZ is just the resource of space. But we should analyze other resources also. It must be several lines for each of resources we mentioned in step 2-3. In reality, it often happened 'after analysis of several resources' that we can get an acceptable solution. It is a mistake that they stop after this. it is against the rules of ARIZ. But during classes we do not have enough time to perform all of them so I propose students usually to choose several ones for training purposes only. In order to give them understanding of how to use ARIZ to perform those steps in Part 3. I can not agree with Expert B according to my experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am confused. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also confused very much with Expert B's statements.
He was my student in the past. It means I was not able teach him properly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. About ARIZ’s non-reasonable ways. In my humble opinion, Part 2 must be done in different viewpoints. In Part 2-3, resources must be checked based on the problem model of Part 1-5,1-6. However, part 2-1, 2-2, defining of OZ and OT is not reasonable if it is based on the problem model of Part 1-5, 1-6. I think part 2-1, 2-2 must be done based on the condition of the initial contradiction. For example, Altshuller's example. : lightning conductor. After 1-5, we have no conductor in the problem condition. That means there is no system which delivers the function to receive the lightning. Therefore, we cannot check where the useful function happens. ARIZ part 2-1, 2-2 are much easier if we think about them based on the initial contradictions. I would like to ask your opinion. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can not agree with you about this point. We should talk about this further.
But here I am going to try to describe my point shortly.
First of all, the first part of ARIZ is dedicated to build a model of a problem.
As soon as a model appear we should go ahead with this model and forget the initial situation temporarily. In case we should come back to the initial situation or to step 1.1. it means our model is not good. OR! our mental inertia too much storing and we are not able to overcome it.
In this case it means that we perform the first part of ARIZ well enough
and should concentrate on how to perform the rest of the job according this model.
In case that the instrument must absent, we should be careful much more.
When we face this situation, it means we should dramatically change this instrument but stay as closed to our specific situation as possible.
We should develop a new tool that is able to perform the function of the old one. In your example, it means we should consider the situation that the conductor is absent.
The (first) end of story. :-) But the useful function should be performed. It is the second end of the same story. :-)
Taking it seriously in the frame of OTSM viewpoint, it means we should start to develop a description of the 'Tool' according to ENV-model.
On the component, the description was already done - the '(Main) Useful Function' of the 'Tool'.
If this function was discovered according to OTSM, it is better that the steps of part 3 as an algorithm appear as a request for a 'Value' of a certain 'Attribute' (Feature, Property etc.)
In your example, we need to "transport" energy of lightning to the Earth by 'something' between Lightning and the Earth (Model of Verb-Noun (Action-Object)).
Otherwise, we have to change the location of the electrical charge from where it locates now (the sky around the telescope) to a certain location where it can not damage the telescope (the Earth). Now according to our model, we have just air between Charges in the Sky and the Earth.
Air performs well one of two functions for 'Product' which we will call - Electromagnetic wave (by the way, could we replace this professional terminology by simple words?
It is very appreciated.) As you can see, I did replace the professional term - Lightning by 'not-professional-one', "Electrical Charges in the sky".
As you know well, this is a rule of ARIZ and Classical TRIZ as a whole.
The second function should be performed by the X-element that should work in order to transport electrical charges to the Earth.
This is a short description of the model of the initial problem as you could see 'Tool' is absent.
And you are totally right when you say that 'Tool' is absent. But the rest of your phrase is not acceptable for me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we cannot check where the useful function happens. (Hongyul Yoon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as we understand what function should be performed for what resource as 'Product',
then we have a chance to recognize where the function should be performed.
Try to consider this situation as a situation you should develop a certain device to perform the function that your costumer or yourself need.
That model is exactly the same. So what should you do when you start to develop a new device from 'absence'?
You usually identify attributes of this device.
And especially where this devise should work. Now according to our model of the problem we do not have the "transportation system or delivery system"
whatever you prefer.... But you know exactly what should be transported, the start point and the final point.
This is a zone around the 'telescope'. So we should surround the telescope by something that can provide this transportation.
And then we should also think about the physical laws that will help us to perform the function.
In order to transport charge form one point to another, we need 'Electrical Tension' between two points and put a conductor between them.
We can also mechanically move a certain carrier with charges.
But in our case it is not a good idea.
Therefore, the zone of space that should perform the 'Function' for the 'Product', 'Electrical Charge' - is clear : now the zone of space around 'Telescope'.
It gives us an even better idea then the initial prototype.
In case we found the way how to perform it, we will get an even better idea.
Then we can optimize it according to our specific needs and make it acceptable from multi parameter optimization point of view even if it would be not so good.
In our problem we have just two but this is an education problem.
In real problem you usually have many restrictions that should be taken into consideration.
Problem Flow Networks Approach based on 4 OTSM technologies could help us with this.
We never discuss it because this Networks approach was developed after I stopped my visit to Korea.
It is the further development of Problem Flow Technology and new understanding of what should be done with a problem situation that have hundreds of problems.
But this is another subject. So let's discuss further your point of view and mine.
Try to eliminate our disagreements. It could be helpful for both of us.
Regards! Nikolai