Exploring the use of TRIZ to define an innovation search-space for electric motors.

Exploring the use of TRIZ to define an innovation search-space for electric motors

The use of the TRIZ method as a systematic means for innovation, especially in defining an innovation search space, has attracted industrial interest. While the TRIZ method for systematic innovation has been demonstrated on various products, there are no documented studies of the method being applied to electric motors. Electric motors are of great interest in the industry today due to their role in reducing global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. This paper explores applying the TRIZ method to electric motors to define an innovation search space. Specifically, it uses an extended definition of the TRIZ trends of evolution against a list of available patents from the last five years. In employing this method, this study has identified several potential Trends of Evolution in electric motors that could be considered underdeveloped and an opportunity for further innovation.

By Leo Jeoh

Introduction

Developed by Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues in the former U.S.S.R between 1946 and 1985, the “Teorija Rezhenija Izobretatelskih Zadach” (TRIZ) or “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving” (Barry, Domb, & Slocum, n.d.) is a knowledge-based systematic methodology of problem solving (Savransky, 2002). The principles of TRIZ were developed from the discovery of a relationship between types of problems and solutions in a study of millions of technology patents, which led Altshuller to conclude that it is possible to classify problems and subsequently map these problems with types of solutions as a method for problem solving. In so doing, he also observed a regularity in the evolution of systems that are recognizable and thus also predictable (Ungvari, 2002). With a growing popularity since 1985, when experts on TRIZ began migrating to Europe and the US, and especially so after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992 (Wang, Lin, & Yang, 2013), the TRIZ method has generally found its applicability in the areas of Technical Problem Solving, Innovation, Technology Strategy (forecasting and planning), and even Business Management (Ilevbare, Probert, & Phaal, 2013).

The use of the TRIZ method as a systematic means for innovation has particularly attracted industrial interest (Stratton & Mann, 2003), and the effectiveness of the TRIZ in product innovation has been demonstrated in a range of product types such as road guide posts, presenter mouse, lighting fixtures, hand prostheses, and even mobile phones (Chang & Lin, 2013; Hu, Su, Lee, Chen, & Huang, 2011; Li, Yang, & Li, 2014; Zhang, Jiang, Lv, & Xu, 2014). However, TRIZ has been dubbed by some as being mysterious in nature or enigmatic, requiring substantial investment in time and resources to gain a full understanding (Ilevbare et al., 2013), and may have areas such as basic science or the discovery of new materials that are not addressed (Abramov, Kogan, Mitnik-Gankin, Sigalovsky, & Smirnov, 2015), indicating possible limitations in the effectiveness of employing TRIZ in innovation. In addition, no known references have been found in the study of the effectiveness of the method in analyzing an innovation road-map for electric motors. Electric motors are of specific interest to the transportation sector as they are considered the main component in electric vehicles that is key in reducing global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the world for the transportation sector, which accounts for almost a quarter (23%) of such emissions (Cazzola, Gorner, Teter, & Yi, 2016). The aim of this paper is to apply TRIZ to electric motors to evaluate its effectiveness in defining a refined innovation search-space for electric motors of the future.

Using TRIZ to find innovation opportunities

For Altshuller, the TRIZ method of inventing or innovating is aimed at being a creative process capable of reducing the number of empty trials in the trial-and-error methods of the modern inventions industry (Altshuller, 1998). One of the three key discoveries of Altshuller was the observation of “an unmistakable, explicit regularity in the evolution of engineered systems,” which he then described in his lectures and writings as The Laws of Engineered Systems Evolution, which has since been refined and expanded into more sublines of trends of evolution (Ungvari, 2002). Of the various recent expansions and updates, the trends deemed relevant to electric motors that were considered in this study and the associated ratings of progression are as shown in Table 1.

The ability to identify and classify the evolution thus leads to the possibility of defining an evolutionary potential or potential areas for further innovation by analyzing how far along a product is in its stages of progression in the trend (Labouriau & Naveiro, 2014; Flores-Luna, Dorador-González, & Espinosa-Bautista, 2013). This method should then uncover areas that may not have been actively explored and thus create a search space for future innovations.

Methodology

To employ this method on electric motors, it is first asserted that patents are a good indicator of the current state of innovation of a product. It is claimed that 90% to 95% of worldwide inventions are found in patents, and it is further claimed that in Europe, 80% of technical knowledge known to man is held in such documents. (Prickett & Aparicio, 2012). However, nothing has been said about the extent to which the patent database must cover chronologically, and thus this study began with the assumption that the last 5 years would be adequate. Extracted from open source (Google patent search of “electric motors” from 01 Jan 2010 to 01 November 2016), the list of electric motor patents from the last 5 years resulted in 97 patents. In addition, as a comparison, the oldest electric motor patent result (US Patent 439102A, filed in 1890) was also evaluated. The technology or idea specified in the patent was then qualitatively evaluated by an engineer with a sufficient degree of proficiency in the product field and 17 years of experience in engineering to determine how far along the invention would bring the electric motor with respect to the various trends of evolution. Marks were given for the individual trend in accordance with the perceived level of progress that the patent would achieve for an electric motor, and then the values were normalized with respect to the maximum level of progress.

Results

Based on the analysis conducted, the maximum progress attained in each trend, as well as the average represented by electric motors that would have resulted from the inventions in the patents, were plotted onto a “Radar of Evolution” plot as shown in Figure 1.

From Figure 1, it is apparent that while many areas have evolved to 50% or more of their potential, there has been very little mention of the areas in Quadrant 1 of the plot, namely:

- - Object Segmentation
  - Surface Segmentation
  - Increasing use of color
  - Increasing transparency
  - Increasing degrees of freedom
  - Increasing asymmetry
  - Increasing use of senses

In addition, a comparison of Max to Average progress indicates a decreasing maturity along the trends of evolution from Quadrant 2 to Quadrant 4. In Quadrant 2, the data suggest that electric motors in general are already mature in these areas of evolution by nature of their design today, whereas Quadrant 3 shows areas where some innovators are rightfully pushing the envelope. Finally, the data indicates that not much has yet to be considered in evolving the electric motor along the trends of Quadrant 4 and Quadrant 1.

With regards to the assumption that recent patents are a good indicator of the state of evolution, a comparison with the patent filed in 1890 shows a consistent view of evolution compared to the electric motors being described in the patents within the last five years. In this limited comparison, it leads to the view that sampling the most recent patents could be appropriate when utilizing the TRIZ trend of evolution method. Either way, the results of the method have resulted in the ability to identify aspects of the electric motor that have not been developed, thus forming a possible search space for future innovations.

However, there are limitations to this evaluation. In this evaluation, the assessment of some of the trends, such as density, nanoscale, or boundary, was qualitative due mainly to insufficient details within the patent documentation, which introduces an element of subjectivity in the assessment. The rating assignments could thus be subjective and could vary depending on the level of proficiency or experience of the evaluator. To preserve the nature of assessment but enable a more systematic evaluation, it may be necessary to consider better defined and measurable indicators for the progress along the trends of evolution or conduct this evaluation with more assessors to normalize subjectivity.

Conclusions

As a knowledge-based systematic methodology of problem solving, TRIZ has many tools available for innovation that have grown from the discovery of regularities in solutions versus problems and in the natural evolution of products. The TRIZ trends of evolution method was applied to electric motors and generated relatively clear results that are suitable to be considered as a potential innovation search space. While employing this method, the study has shown that the use of the most recent patents could be sufficient when trying to evaluate the evolution potential of a product. However, the results of this evaluation are potentially limited by a level of subjectivity due to the qualitative nature of some of the Trends of Evolution. A future study could be made on whether the use of specific and measurable indicators in the trends of evolution could lead to a better definition of the innovation search space or if the potential for subjectivity could be minimized by using more assessors. There are also more detailed trends of evolution being added to the TRIZ method (D. L. Mann, 2003) that could be considered to expand the innovation search space.

References

Abramov, O., Kogan, S., Mitnik-Gankin, L., Sigalovsky, I., & Smirnov, A. (2015). Triz based approach for accelerating innovation in chemical engineering. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 103 , 25-31.
Altshuller, G. S. (1998). Creativity as an exact science – the theory of the solution of inventive problems (4th ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Publishers. Barry, K., Domb, E., & Slocum, M. S. (n.d.). What is triz? (No. 12 Nov 2016).
Cazzola, P., Gorner, M., Teter, J., & Yi, W. (2016). Global ev outlook 2016, beyond one million electric cars (Tech. Rep.). International Energy Agency. Chang, C. P., & Lin, Y. H. (2013). Applying triz to improve a guide post. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 464 , 431-435.
Flores-Luna, R. I., Dorador-González, J. M., & Espinosa-Bautista, A. (2013). Prosthesis analysis based on triz. Key Engineering Materials, 572 , 135-138.
Hu, S. J., Su, L. H., Lee, K. L., Chen, J. C., & Huang, A. C. (2011). Using triz methods in product design and improvement of a presenter mouse. Key Engineering Materials, 486 , 13-16.
Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of triz, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33 (2-3), 30-37.
Labouriau, F. C., & Naveiro, R. M. (2014). Using the evolutionary pattern to generate ideas in new product development. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 37 (1), 231-242.
Li, T., Yang, J. H., & Li, L. (2014). Innovative design of led curved taxiway center line lights based on triz. Advanced Materials Research, 889-890 , 193-197.
Mann, D. (2002). Hands-on systematic innovation. Belgium: Creax Press.
Mann, D. L. (2003). Better technology forecasting using systematic innovation methods.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70 (8), 779-795.
Prickett, P., & Aparicio, I. (2012). The development of a modified triz technical system ontology. Computers in Industry, 63 (3), 252-264.
Savransky, S. D. (2002). Engineering of creativity introduction to triz methodology of inventive problem solving. Hoboken NJ, USA.: Taylor and Francis.
Stratton, R., & Mann, D. (2003). Systematic innovation and the underlying principles
behind triz and toc. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 139 (1-3), 120-126.
Ungvari, S. F. (2002). Triz. In J. B. Revelle (Ed.), Manufacturing handbook of best practices. Hoboken: CRC Press.
Wang, H. C., Lin, H. P., & Yang, J. (2013). History, current situation and development prospect of the triz. Advanced Materials Research, 798-799 , 992-997.
Zhang, J. Y., Jiang, J. G., Lv, Q., & Xu, D. Y. (2014). Conceptual design of mobile phone based on triz theory. Key Engineering Materials, 620 , 638-643.