Articles about TRIZ and MUST

TRIZ Creativity Development Tools and Games: What Is the Next Step
In my opinion, creativity is ability to resolve problems on demand. Some people are able to do this without any method and/or process. Unfortunately their ability could not be transferred to other people and reproduced. Some people are able to do this with help of methods and/or processes. In this case their ability might be transferred to other people and reproduced.
Levels of creativity differ like levels of problems that need to be resolved. Complexity does not make the problem creative. Complicated problem might be problem with "zero" level of creativity.
Uncertainty of initial conditions and a number of "right" solutions characterize creative problems.
Creativity, in my opinion, should be "on-demand". One should be able to switch it on/off. Why "off"? Because life is combination of mainly routine procedures with routine solutions that work. We need creativity in situations where routine approaches don't work. Once the solution was found it turns into the routine one until the next "emergency" case.
Part of TRIZ that is connected to tools, games and exercises that are intended to break so called psychological inertia is called "Creative Imagination Development". For more about games, tools and exercises see my review.
Tools for creative imagination development could be improved and personally adjusted basing on personal sets of meta-programs. Meta-program is term that is used in NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming).
Each of us have set of meta-programs. We look at the world around us through prism of this set.
Some of us move to positive and some of us move from negative - one meta-program type
Some of us see general and then go down to details and some of us see details and then go up to general - another meta-program type
Some of us have inner motivation and some of us have outer motivation - one more meta-program type.
We reflect everything that surrounds us through the following meta-programs that are called "reality reflection gates:
• Goals (sense) - answers to the questions "What for?" and/or "Why?"
• Actions (things) - answers to the questions "What?";
• Processes - answers to the questions "How?" and/or "What is the sequence (of actions or events)?";
• Places - answers to the question "Where?";
• Time - answers to the questions "When?";
• People - answers to the questions "Who?";
Majority of people most of time use two-three "reality reflection gates".
This does not mean that restrictions caused by meta-programs could not be overcome. Moreover, if you know your own meta-programs - this knowledge enables you to choose right tools to overcome their influence.
Breaking psychological inertia could be assumed, in my opinion, as overcoming limits of personal set of meta-programs. Therefore classifying tools and games for breaking psychological inertia according to meta-programs could enable us to adjust these tools depending on personal sets of meta-programs. Such a classifying could also uncover so called “empty cells” in order to develop new tools and games.
;
Using TRIZ Inventive Principles in Various Frameworks
Dividing (TRIZ) Inventive Principles into Groups
In order to be effectively used in frameworks of various methods inventive principles should be divided into five groups as follows:
• Using Resources;
• Changes in Time;
• Changes in Space;
• Structure Changes;
• Changes of Conditions and Parameters;
Now they (inventive principles) might be connected (after slight modification) to various methods.
Note: Actually such a work (dividing inventive principles into groups and re-writing their texts) was successfully performed in order to build the New System of Inventive Principles. Nevertheless, the classic 40 inventive principles also might be grouped in such a manner and used in frameworks of various methods.
Using TRIZ GB in the Framework of Lean
Relate revealed wastes to one of the following groups:
• Resource (materials, energy or information) connected wastes;
• Time connected wastes;
• Space connected wastes;
• Structure connected wastes (for example, unnecessary interactions or elements);
• Conditions connected wastes;
Note: Such a classifying of wastes enables one to address inventive principles from the appropriate group to remove or reduce them.
Apply inventive principles to uncover and utilize available resources in order to remove or reduce the wastes:
1. Start with the group of principles that are most closely related to the identified waste;
2. Apply recommendations suggested by the principle;
3. After using an appropriate group of principles it is strongly recommended then to move on to other groups;
Using TRIZ GB in the Framework of TOC
Relate revealed key UDEs (undesired effects) or assumptions to one of the following groups:
• Resource (materials, energy or information) connected UDEs or assumptions;
• Time connected UDEs or assumptions;
• Space connected UDEs or assumptions;
• Structure connected UDEs or assumptions (connected, for example, with interactions or elements);
• Conditions connected UDEs or assumptions;
Note: Such a classifying UDEs or assumptions enables one to address inventive principles form the appropriate group to remove or reduce them.
Apply inventive principles to uncover and utilize available resources in order to remove UDEs or assumptions:
1. Start from the UDE-related group of principles;
2. Apply recommendations suggested by the principles;
3. After using an appropriate group of principles it is strongly recommended then to move on to other groups;
Using TRIZ GB in the Framework of Six Sigma
Relate revealed process variability causes (sources) to one of the following groups:
• Resource (materials, energy or information) connected process variation causes (sources);
• Time connected process variation causes (sources);
• Space connected process variation causes (sources);
• Structure connected process variation causes (for example, unnecessary interactions or elements);
• Conditions connected process variation causes (sources);
Note: Such a classifying of process variation causes (sources) enables one to address inventive principles from the appropriate group to remove or reduce them.
Apply inventive principles to uncover and utilize available resources in order to remove or reduce the process variation:
1. Start from the group of principles that are related to the identified process variability;
2. Apply recommendations suggested by the principles;
3. After using an appropriate group of principles it is strongly recommended then to move on to other groups;
Using TRIZ GB in the Framework of SWOT
Relate revealed (and tabled) SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) sources or causes to one of the following groups:
• Resources (business elements, products/services, money, information etc.) connected SWOT sources (strengths, opportunities) or causes (weaknesses, threats);
• Time connected SWOT sources (strengths, opportunities) or causes (weaknesses, threats);
• "Space" (market or position on the market, for example) connected SWOT sources (strengths, opportunities) or causes (weaknesses, threats);
• Structure connected SWOT sources (strengths, opportunities) or causes (weaknesses, threats) - - for example, business elements and/or interactions ;
• Conditions or parameters connected SWOT sources (strengths, opportunities) or causes (weaknesses, threats) – for example, business or innovation culture or activities of competitors;
Note: Such a classifying of SWOT sources (strengths, opportunities) or causes (weaknesses, threats) enables one to address inventive principles from the appropriate group to improve / increase (strengths, opportunities) or remove / reduce (weaknesses, threats) them.
Apply inventive principles to uncover and utilize available resources in order to improve / increase strengths and opportunity or remove / reduce weaknesses and threats:
1. Start from group of principles that are related to the SWOT source or cause being considered;
2. Apply recommendations suggested by the principles;
3. After using an appropriate group of principles it is strongly recommended then to move on to other groups;
;
Some Notes about Innovation
Note 1: Innovation versus problem solving
"Innovator" and "Problem Solver" are different behavior models.
"Innovator" go TO (better). "Problem Solver" go FROM (worse).
Of course, sometimes "Innovator" solves problems and "Problem Solver" innovates, but their initial intents are different.
The first wants something new because maybe it will be better. The second wants something new because of problems with old.
Nevertheless, result of their activities might be the same.
Try to determine for yourself, who are you - "Innovator" or "Problem Solver". If you are an Innovator - this means that you are mostly a "positive thinker" and you see the world through a "prism of opportunities". If you are a Problem solver this means that you are a "negative thinker" and you see the world through a "prism of problems". Actually the both approaches are "two side of the same coin"
Remark: Design team might include both types of thinkers – don’t limit abilities of your team by using only one of two approaches.
Note 2: Innovation Team
The key word that characterize a good innovation or problem solving team is agreement.
1. Agreement on the problem
2. Agreement about the direction to resolve the problem
3. Agreement that the solution resolves the problem
4. Agreement to overcome any potential negative ramifications
5. Agreement to overcome any obstacles to implementation
By the way, such teams are built during TOC (theory of constrains) sections and are called “Team against the problem”
Actually "team against the problem" is "team with common goal and vision"
Note 3: Innovation Leaders
Nikolai Egorovich Zhukovsky - scientist, that also is known as the father of Russian aviation wrote that any mechanical engineer writes differential equations (this was time, when mechanical engineers were able to do this), but a good mechanical engineer writes differential equations that can be integrated.
I think this quote is applicable to asking "right" questions by innovative leaders. Good innovative leaders ask questions that... can be answered.
By the way, such right questions (even, systems of questions) were developed and classified long ago. They have become important parts of modern innovation methods.
In my opinion, innovative leaders should know and be able to implement these methods in order to succeed.
Note 4: Regularities of Technical Systems' Development as a Generalized VOC (Voice of Customer)
 
In my opinion, TRIZ regularities (evolution trends) actually are a generalized (and hidden) VOC. There is a difference between generalized and specific VOC. Regularities (trends) reflect the generalized one. In my opinion, that isn't so obvious and that's why it is interesting. Let me clarify...
A customer wants to get more and pay less.
A customer wants a system to work where and when this is needed.
A customer wants a system to consume less energy and produce less harm.
A customer wants a system to be more controllable
etc..
All this fit to regularities of technical systems' development (system evolution trends).
Thus one could call this "generalized VOC" that is expressed by regularities.

Note 5: Disruption
According to MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) there are five change levels:
1. Result
2. Method (to get the result)
3. Technology (the method is based on)
4. Means (that support the technology)
5. Parameters (that wrap all the above levels)
Disruption is something that is connected with a change on the two (rarely three) first levels.
Disruption might relate to: a market, a product/service, a company (business model, for example).  Let's call this 3-D Disruption.
Clayton Christensen relates disruption to the first one (1-st D) - market. That's why such companies as Uber and Tesla are not disruptive according to his theory.
Note 6. Defining Disruptive Strategy
As far as any business includes not only market, company and product/service, but also levels of their development (3-4 levels), before defining a disruptive strategy one has to:
1. Using each of business characteristics (market, company and product/service) as axis build a "business space"
2. Determine in this "space" where is his/her specific business "cubic"
3. Define the disruptive strategy(strategies) that is (are) connected with this specific "cubic"
Mainly this strategy is connected with a "jump" into another "cubic". Some of "jumps' are "forbidden". For example, a level three company hardly compatible with a level one product    and with a level one (or even less) market and without additional measures is going to fail.
For more about the measures refer Quantum-Economic Analysis (QEA). This method enables to define a business strategy basing on matching between stages of development according to so called "S-curve" of the company itself, its product/service and its market.
Note 7: Innovation and Crisis
Innovation activity in a crisis differs...
Let's look at so called "innovation quadrant":
1-t axis Existing Product/Service - New Product/Service;
2-d axis Existing Market - New Market;
As one can see its sub-quadrants are connected with different tasks and, therefore, their tools and resources also differ. For example, sub-quadrant "Existing Product/Service - Existing Market" might includes Value Engineering and/or Lean tools to cut costs.
In my opinion, in a crisis it is better innovate in two sub-quadrants that are connected with existing product/service and leave the rest half of the innovation quadrant for the "after crisis" time.
;
Some Notes about Education
Note 1. The basic problem of the modern education
This problem relates to increase of the gap between what is actually taught and what should be taught.
Moreover, this situation gets worse because society, teachers, parents and students actually don't know what should be taught in order to get prepared for future life and/or satisfy needs of society. In addition there is also mismatch between what should be taught and what students want to learn – in case they want to learn.
We even are not able to evaluate this gap (between what is actually taught and what should be taught) correctly, because the "system" does not know what should be taught.
The separate issue is that students, parents, society (it isn't homogeneous also) strive to get different "sets of skills", because they all have different "interests". Let's also not to forget about the education system itself that also has its own interests.
Rapid changes of the modern world also contribute to increasing the gap…
Note 2. Education "Agrifactory"
Schools are often compared to factories, but in my opinion in case of such a low "yield" factories would be bankrupts. The issue is what should be assumed as "yield" of the education system. And seriously speaking don't you see a problem in the fact that "education factory" less takes into account its "product properties" than factories in nearly any industry?
I don't like to see an education as a manufacturing process, but it very close to such a process - sins of industrial revolutions. Moreover it is rather like a manufacturing process with backward oriented dispatching and marketing systems.
By the way, sir Ken Robinson in his lectures says that education should be rather as agriculture - it should cultivate and create conditions for "growing".
I would agree with him, but education should also satisfy needs of society.
Agrifactory?
Note 3. Some principles that could be transferred from business to education
1. Education is rather ecosystem than a battlefield
2. Education institution is rather a community than a machine
3. Learning motivation isn't based on fear but on a mutual vision
4. Education technologies should rather emancipate than "automatize"
5. Learning isn't a hard work only, but also a joy
6. Students/scholars are rather colleges than "kids"
7. Teaching is rather a service than control
8. Continuous change of education process is rather development than a “suffering”
Unfortunately I don't remember who the author of the similar principles for business is.

Note 3. Principles of teaching process
1. Actuality
2. Interest
3. Activity
4. Controllability
5. Effectiveness
Note 4. Stages of Learning process
Each learning process passes through four stages:
1. Unconscious absence of knowledge (proficiencies, skills etc.) – “unconscious unknowing”
2. Conscious absence of knowledge (proficiencies, skills etc.) – “conscious unknowing”
3. Conscious knowledge (proficiencies, skills etc.) – “conscious knowing”
4. Unconscious knowledge (proficiencies, skills etc.) – “unconscious knowing”
If you try to teach others you have to stay at the third stage - otherwise you will not be able to explain what you know and teach others. But in order to be the best implementation professional you should be at the fourth stage.
I would like to add the fifth stage - controllable knowledge (proficiencies, skills etc.), where unconsciousness might be switched on/off upon demand.
Only a small amount of specialists in each field (including innovation) “populates” the fifth stage.
Note 5. Pay attention to so called TRIZ pedagogics
One of the best sites in Russian about TRIZ-pedagogics is here. Yes, it is in Russian, but Google translator can help a lot.
Here are links to some TRIZ pedagogical articles that were translated to English:
http://www.triz-profi.com/upload/5_13_eng.pdf
http://www.triz-profi.com/upload/5_12_eng.pdf
http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2004/04/02.pdf
http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2004/08/04.pdf
Note 6. Powerful thinking
TRIZ is based on and develops a number of thinking like:
1. System thinking;
2. Thinking that is directed to ideality and usage of resources;
3. Dialectic thinking that is oriented to revealing and resolving contradictions;
4. Non-ordinary thinking that implement different points of view on systems and problems;
5. Pattern-based (controllable) thinking;
Each one of these thinking has its own support tools and they all are parts of the same system of powerful thinking.
I would like to point also that in my (not modest) opinion:
"MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) is TRIZ of twenty first century!"
;
Some Notes about TRIZ (Inventive Problem Solving Theory)
Note 1: Do Engineers Really Need TRIZ?
I in person don't think that TRIZ is "must have". And I think also that engineers are not so wrong when they don't want to spend a lot of time learning TRIZ. They (majority of engineers) want to forget it (TRIZ) like a nightmare after resolving a hard problem.
"To forget TRIZ like a nightmare" does not mean that they (engineers) dislike it. They like... But they will not use it anymore in vast majority of cases for various reasons - from the simple laziness up to absence of a need. Engineers (usual engineers that don't intend to become TRIZ professionals - facilitators consultants, trainers etc.) need something "to be with and feel without" TRIZ.
In addition the way of how TRIZ treats change of thinking paradigm isn't "user-friendly". Thus, I am not surprised and agree... with engineers.
Note 2: Thought of My Friend
One my friend said me very interesting thing. He said:
Altshuller's TRIZ isn't intended for smart people - it is intended for  "less smart" or VERY smart people.
I asked: Why?
He answered: Because the "less smart" people accept it whole without criticism and the very smart ones see behind it brilliant ideas and don't pay attention on some of its "problematic" examples and non-accurate statements.
Thus our main goal is to change TRIZ in order it will be accepted by smart people. And one of the task is to use real examples.
Remark: Don't relate to the classic examples from Altshuller's books as to real examples. A lot of them are based on patents that never were implemented. Moreover some of TRIZ inventive principles were derived (according Altshuller's own note in his book "Innovation Algorithm") from rejected patent applications. Nevertheless these examples perform their function to illustrate usage of TRIZ tools with excellence. The solution idea for icebreaker, for example, was implemented many times to resolve real problems.
Note 3: TRIZ Parallels with Old Jewish Tales
"Our Rabbis have taught that four entered into the Pardes: Ben Azai,  Ben Zoma, “Acher” (Elisha Ben Avuyah) and Akiba.
Ben Azai gazed and died.
Ben Zoma gazed, and went insane.
Acher became an apostate.
Rabbi Akiba entered, and exited in peace."
What does PaRDeS means you can find here.
Any field of knowledge including TRIZ has its own "PaRDeS". Thus only one of those four that that start to learn TRIZ seriously (on professional level) will enter and exit in peace from "PaRDeS of TRIZ"
One of four will become an "apostate" (will discredit TRIZ);
One will "die" (never will use TRIZ);
One will get "insane" (will suggest TRIZ as panacea)
And only one of four will use it wisely;
"There's an old story we all learned as children about a stranger who came to Rabbi Hillel with an odd request: "Teach me the Torah while I stand on one foot." So Hillel taught him: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it."
In our case such an odd request of a stranger would sound like: "Teach me the TRIZ while I stand on one foot."
I don't pretend to be as wise as rabbi Hillel, nevertheless I would answer: "TRIZ is the improving change on-demand, all the rest (what to change, what for, when, where, how etc.) is commentary. Go and learn it"
Note 4: Internet+TRIZ
Nearly twenty years ago, when TRIZ (in English) was called TIPS yet I had submitted to one of TIPS forums the following post (I present it as it was written in Ruglish - the ironic name for Russian English):
"If you work for a usual company which haven’t R&D department you nearly can’t use TRIZ in your work.
Why?
Because it isn't enough to find an idea under these conditions.
You can’t make R&D work, because it takes a lot of time and money.
The only way is to find a company, which already has the ready for use technology that is based on your idea and buy it.
You can say: “It’s impossible if I have found the new idea!”
OK.
Maybe it is a new idea for you, maybe it’s even a new approach in your field, but it isn't new for the all technology world - I can guarantee this 99%.
Thus your first step is to find an idea and second one is to find a company which already applies this idea and has the needed technology.
To find such companies you can by using Internet search engines.
For example, you have found the idea to use ice instead of sand for cleaning - try to search for this technology and equipment providers using key words “ice blasting” or “ice blasting technology”.
The best way to search is to take as the base for searching physical effects and phenomena the needed technology is based on.
And what is about TRIZ-soft?
TRIZ-soft has to enable such searches..."
Farther I wrote about how a TRIZ-soft should work with search engines.
It is amusing that this post is actual yet. Moreover, it has been becoming more actual with development of search engines in the last years.
The only difference is that we don't need TRIZ software to perform a search anymore - Google allows us to do nearly the same for free.
Note 5: TRIZ as "Epicycle Theory"
Unfortunately, TRIZ nowadays looks like such an "epicycle theory". That's why all these ideas about different TRIZ modifications per various industries appear.
I do not mean universality<->specialty. I meant that the main (and right for its time) idea TRIZ is based on, nowadays has become obsolete. And analogy with the epicycle theory isn't casual at all. Either geocentric or heliocentric systems existed in antic Greece. Then the geocentric one won because it was more suitable for use. But with time to gain necessary accuracy there was a need to add more and more "sub-epicycles". The system becomes too complicated for use and is substituted by the heliocentric system.
Looks like modern TRIZ with its system-centric "objective" approach nowadays is at the same stage. I think... the system-centered approach should be substituted by the change-centered one. It is more precise and more universal, in my opinion.
At the very beginning of TRIZ development levels of change were in focus. They are called "invention levels". This is more close to the change-centered approach.
Note 6: ARIZ
Some Russian TRIZ specialists worked hard to "hammer" like a "nail" this thought (absolutely wrong in my opinion) "to understand TRIZ you must properly understand ARIZ-85C" in heads of audience that spoke other languages.
Nevertheless I find useful study of the ARIZ's logic and comparison between different versions of ARIZ. But instead of trying to understand bad translations of ARIZs to English I would use original texts of Altshuller translated with help of Google translator.
Altshuller's Russian is simple and clear. That's why his texts are better translated to English by Google translator than by most of translators that don't forget to add their own interpretation.
The same is also correct for other Altshuller's texts (not only for ARIZ).
Note 7: TRIZ Elevator Pitch (EP)
TRIZ enables:
1. Problem situation analysis and choice of the right problem (the key problem);
2. Deep insight of this problem (in terms of time, place and essence etc.);
3. Choice of the most promising problem solving direction (direction to the strong solutions' field);
4. Applying available resources to support of the chosen direction (expenses minimization);
5. Using problem solving patterns (short recommendations of how exactly to use resources in order to find the solution idea);
6. Clear and reliable criteria to evaluate the solution ideas;
Problem solving line according to TRIZ (or TRIZ-like) approach looks as follows:
Choose "the right problem" by using the system approach ; Formulate it correctly by using dialectic (contradiction) approach ; Define the most promising direction of problem solving by using "ideality" approach ; Use resources in order to support the direction to an ideal solution" ; Use "patterns" (regularities, principles, standards, effects) that reflect the world problem solving wisdom in order to know how transform resources to find solution ideas ; Then again use ideality approach to evaluate ideas and system approach to define so called subsequent problems.
EP for TRIZ consultant should also include three additional points:
• "Illness"(possible customer problems)
• "Medicine to heal them" (TRIZ)
• "Why me" (your competitive advantages)

;
Once Again about Contradiction
 
There are three options to overcome a contradiction:
1. Separate contradictory requirements;
 
2. Satisfy contradictory requirements;
 
3. Bypass contradictory requirements;
 
Let’s get a little bit deeper with the "classic" example...
Icebreaker should make a wide canal in ice but this demands a lot of energy. In order to make a wide canal the icebreaker should be thick and in order not to waste energy it should be thin.
• We can separate these contradictory requirements (thick/thin) using separation principles;
• We can satisfy them choosing one of the mentioned above values (thick or thin) and trying to make or wide canal in the ice with a thin icebreaker, or not to waste a lot of energy with a thick icebreaker;
• We can bypass this contradiction trying to get our goal - making a canal in ice without icebreaker or even moving through the ice without a canal;
Such an approach to overcoming contradictions differs a little bit from the "conventional" one that is used in TRIZ.
I would like to point again that in order to overcome a contradiction we don't need always to have two opposite values of the same parameter to meet two contradictory requirements in order to get our goal, but choose one of the following options:
1. Separate the two opposite values of the same parameter (the first option - separate)
2. Choose one of the contradictory requirements and satisfy the consequence of the  other one (the second option - satisfy)
3. Get a goal by an alternative way/method (the third option - bypass)
The first option directs us to one parameter, the second one widens amount of parameters that should be evaluated and the third option directs us to choose an alternative way to meet our goal (get result). Thus consequence “separate->satisfy->bypass” is correct to overcome contradictions according to the “minimal change” criterion.
We can also say that we "separate" on level of a subsystem, "satisfy" on level of the system and "bypass" on level of a super-system.
Such an approach can also be easily implemented to increase efficiency of "Cloud" (conflict resolution diagram from TOC) or other tools that deal with contradictions.
;
Example of MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) Usage for Techno-Gene Hypothesis
“In his book The Selfish Gene (1976), the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins used the term meme to describe a unit of human cultural transmission analogous to the gene, arguing that replication also happens in culture, albeit in a different sense" See more here.
What is about techno-genes? What are they?
There is so called "meme pool". What is a techno-gene pool? Look at this excellent serial. Does it show us "techno-genes"?
In my opinion, techno-genes are "information pieces" that describe properties that enable technical systems to perform their functions (action, process activity). Nevertheless, these properties themselves are not functions.
I suggest the MUST approach based classification key, where a property itself is a "result" that might be gained by different methods, that might be based on different technologies, that might be supported by different means, that might have different sets of parameters. Systems are related to the same kind (group, family, class, type) according to their level matches.
"Library" of techno-genes could help us to build technical systems with previously defined properties. But such a library (or pool of techno-genes) needs a good classification in order to find an "appropriate" techno-gene. It also needs "rules" to join various techno-genes together. We also would like to have some regularities of inheritance and changeability, dominance etc. for techno-genes.
Techno-gene Classification "Key" with Refrigerator Example
1. The result – one (or set) of external properties of the technical system
For example, cooling the internal volume.
2. The method of gaining this set of properties (could be a number of different methods)
For example, cooling the internal volume by the circulation of the refrigerant.
3. Technology the method is based on (might be several different technologies)
For example, cooling of the refrigerant that is based on adiabatic expansion/compression.
4. Means (technical solution), supporting this technology might be different means that support the same technology)
For example, a technical solution realizing the adiabatic expansion/compression.
5. Parameters (the same technical solution might have different sets of parameters)
For example, design and parameters of a specific compressor, radiator, cooling chamber and so on.
Techno-genes related to the first level determine qualities defining the type of the technical system.
For example, the idea of cooling the internal volume.
Techno-genes related to the second level determine qualities defining the class of the technical system.
For example, the idea of cooling by circulation of the refrigerant.
Techno-genes related to the third level determine qualities defining the group of the technical system.
For example, the idea to use adiabatic expansion/compression to cool the refrigerant.
Techno-genes related to the fourth level determine qualities defining the family of the technical system.
For example, the idea (technical solutions), used to implement the adiabatic expansion / compression.
Techno-genes related to the fifth level determine qualities defining the kind of the technical system.
For example, the smallest ideas associated with design of the refrigerator.
;
Evaluating Startup
Month ago I have presented criteria that startup’s idea should pass in order to be successful.
These criteria also could help in evaluating startup companies. Let’s take, for example, X- startup company at Y-market. The startup and presented numbers are real, but I would not like to reveal its name.
1. The idea should be consumable - this means that it should resolve a real customer's problem and/or satisfy a real customer's need.
The idea resolves the real customer’s problem. Moreover, resolving this problem (according to research) might increase potential market at least twice.
2. The idea should be marketable - this means that market for the idea should be big enough and in case it is big, it (market) should not be occupied with strong players that simply won't allow your success.
Potential market volume for the idea in USA is at least one billion dollars and it (market) as was mentioned above will grow. The market is underserved and isn’t occupied - the only player has 10% market share right now. The player’s product has a lot of disadvantages that don’t allow fully resolve customer's problem. Its (player's) technology also does not allow fast growing in order to increase quickly player's market share.
3. The idea should be protectable - this means not only "patent umbrellas", but also knowhow. Otherwise, "Blue Ocean" is going to turn into "red" one.
The startup’s product is defended by a number of patents and its technology is also strongly protected by knowhow.
4. The idea should be feasible - this means that it is possible to build a working in real conditions prototype.
The idea feasibility was proven by building the working prototype. Moreover, the startup has already developed and successfully tested the product itself and its manufacturing technology. Product tests have proven that the product fully resolves customers’ problem.
5. The idea is profitable - this means that it satisfies three contradictive demands: quality, time and cost.
This is the most interesting point... In case of successful marketing and taking 10% of Y-market share (I would like to remind that the market is underserved) during two-three years the X-startup company is going to bring about twenty millions net profit (the number is supported by financials) because of its unique technology. As far as P/E ratio for X-startup’s industry is about forty (40), the company (in case of success, of course) could be evaluated about seven-eight hundreds millions dollars. Actually, this number (0.7-0.8 billion) is right in case the company is a “cash-cow”, but as far as we have here underserved and growing market – the company is going to be a “star”.
As known, only one of ten startups gains commercial success. For the mentioned above X-startup such a failure ratio (9/1) is significantly reduced. Nevertheless, in my opinion, one should increase it (failure ratio), because we leave in the changing world and who knows what is going to occur in the future.
As far as numbers were presented – this evaluating case could be assumed as the “easy” one.
So what is evaluation of the X-startup, in your opinion?
Some Additional Examples of MUST Implementation
Disruption
Generally speaking disruption is a change. According to MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) there are five change levels:
1. Result
2. Method (to get the result)
3. Technology (the method is based on)
4. Means (that support the technology)
5. Parameters (that wrap all the above levels)
A change on one of the levels demands "rebuilding all" the levels below the changed one.
Disruption is something that is connected with a change on the two (rarely three) first levels.
For example, in education it could be connected with change of education results or methods to get the results. Means like virtual and/or augmented reality are not the real disruption for education. Nevertheless, no one underestimates their possible "disruptive" impact in education’s consuming.
Business Mapping
MUST analysis might also be used for business mapping by describing it on five levels:
1. The result to be gained (a satisfied customer's need);
2. The method to gain the result;
3. The technology the method is based on;
4. Means that support the technology;
5. And at last the parameters that "wrap whole the package"
What does give such an approach?
Various change possibilities. One can apply a change on different levels in order to bring additional opportunities to a business.
Resources (one of TRIZ basics)
Resources of any system can be divided according to "consuming levels":
1. Resources that are connected with results from the system (satisfied needs)
2. Resources that are connected with methods to gain the results
3. Resources that are connected with technologies the methods are based on
4. Resources that are connected with means which support the technologies
5. Resources that are connected to parameters (of the means)
Actually such an approach to resources enables us to reveal obvious or latent resources of the system, and, also shows us possible alternative changes on different levels of the system that will "bring" a new set of resources
By the way, the same approach to all TRIZ basics (system, contradiction, ideality, resource and pattern) brings very interesting results. For example, contradiction: We should get and should not get (or should get an opposite) result and so on...
 Sustainability
According to MUST, sustainability demands to any design also might be described with the five consuming levels: For example, let’s take a polymer made sack:
1. Result: sack that does not cause harm to nature (or causes less harm)
2. Method: biodegradable suck or sack that is destroyed by animals or plants
3. Technology (one of possible technologies): set of connected phenomena(chemical, physical or biological) the method is based on: you produce your sack from something that bacteria eat.
4. Means: technical solution that supports the technology (pores or pockets that keep water to dissolve the sack quickly)
5. Parameters: pores dimensions, time to dissolve etc..
Library of sustainability demands/results that are classified according to such a " consuming key" would be very helpful for the sustainable design process. In case you have a sustainability non-conformance you can present it as UDE (undesired effect) and use I-MUST approach to find a solution concept.
Usability Test Mistakes
From MUST point of view there are five levels of mistakes:
1. Usability needs were defined wrong;
2. Usability needs were defined correctly, but methods of their testing were defined wrong;
3. Usability needs and methods of their testing were defined correctly, but technology of testing was defined wrong;
4. Usability needs, methods of their testing and testing technologies were defined correctly, but means of testing were defined wrong;
5. Usability needs, methods of their testing, testing technologies and testing means were defined correctly but testing parameters were defined wrong;
Testing protocol(s) should cover all mentioned above in order to avoid and/or help to reveal mistakes.


MUST Usage as a Matching-Mismatching Diagnostic Tool
When we deal with a technical system it is obvious that there should be a match between its so called “consuming levels”: result, method, technology, means and parameters. Otherwise the system simply will not work properly.
Imagine yourself that a method does not enable to get a result or isn’t supported by a technology, or the technology is not supported by means…
When we deal with a human personality or with a company vision, mission etc. the issue stops to be obvious. Mismatching between levels of human personality such as identity, believes, abilities etc. or between a company’s vision, mission values etc. sometimes isn’t so “visible”. In this case MUST approach might be used as a “health” diagnostic tool.
Actually such an approach is a transfer of so called matching-mismatching regularity to a new level.
I would like to point that actually MUST will take in such a case nearly the same form, but one has to define so called " consuming levels" for the specific non-technical field.
What are results (satisfied needs) for the field?
What are methods to gain results that are used in the field?
What are technologies (a set of connected each other scientific phenomena) that are used in the field to support methods?
What are means that are used in the field to implement technologies?
What are parameters? This will help accommodate I-MUST procedures to the chosen non-technical field.
 Turning Maslow’s Pyramid into “Predictive Table”
Names of table’s columns - horizontal axis (Maslow):
1. Physiological needs
2. Safety needs
3. Belonging needs
4. Esteem 
5. Self-actualization 
Names of table’s rows - vertical axis (MUST):
1. Result to be gained
2. Method to gain the result
3. Technology the method based on
4. Means to support the technology
5. Set of the means parameters (wrap all the above)
Such a table (5x5) with twenty five cells might be used as an innovation tool with predictive abilities.
;
I-MUST/MUST(Multilevel Universal System Thinking) and Operator of the Numeric Axis
DTC (dimensions, time, cost) operator is intended for breaking of the psychological inertia.
The Numeric Axis (NA) operator is the next step in development of the DTC operator. According to the NA operator we might change from usual to zero or from usual to infinite any parameter of our system .
How could we improve usage of the NA operator?
According to I-MUST we define a problem on the five functional levels:
1. UDE (undesired effect)
2. Subject (means - the element connected with UDE)
3. Action (of the element)
4. Object (of the action)
5. Environment
I think you already have guessed that as the parameters we are going to change with help of the NA operator are parameters of:
1. UDE (from usual to zero or from usual to infinite)
2. Subject (from usual to zero or from usual to infinite)
3. Action (from usual to zero or from usual to infinite)
4. Object (from usual to zero or from usual to infinite)
5. Environment (from usual to zero or from usual to infinite)
Moreover we can enhance usage of the NA operator with help of the System Operator and/or PSM (problem situation mapping)
;
MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) and TRIZ (Inventive Problem Solving Theory) Tools
Implementing the MUST analysis to different TRIZ tools enables us to change point of view on them.
40 principles
For example, there are principles that suggest change on the level "result" and there are principles that work on levels "method", "technology" and "means". Some principles consist of sub-principles that suggest changes on number of levels. Implementing the MUST approach to principles enables us to re-organize them according to consuming levels. Nevertheless, changing ready tools isn't worthy. That's why in frames of the first I-MUST versions consuming levels were turned into the functional ones and principles were divided into groups accordingly.
TRIZ Standards
The same might be said about the TRIZ standards, but their texts were re-written in order to make them more suitable to I-MUST
TRIZ Regularities
The most interesting is implementation of the MUST analysis to the TRIZ regularities. Some of regularities work on all levels and some mostly on specific ones. Using the MUST approach we can build their "hierarchy" basing on consuming levels: result, methods, technology, means and parameters.
Effects and Phenomena
Using the MUST approach, we can re-build collections of technical effects and phenomena describing them according to the consuming levels. Actually in such a case they will not be collections of separate effects and phenomena any more - rather complexes of effects and phenomena.
MUST analysis of the "main" TRIZ tools allowed revealing the fact that they (the main TRIZ tools) do not fit well for working on the level "result" satisfied need).
The "secondary" TRIZ tools and games that are used for creative imagination development are suited better but even they are not enough effective. In order to widen the set of such tools we have to look for them in other fields of human life like semiotics or NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), for example, but this is another story…
In order to show how MUST analysis changes point of view on TRIZ regularities let’s take as example the regularity of transition into super-system. What are the systems that are joined into super-system from the MUST point of view? They are as follows:
1. Systems that gain different results (satisfy different needs) - there might be joined systems that perform different stages of the process or those acting at the same place;
2. Systems that use different methods to gain the same result;
3. Systems that support use different technologies the same method is based on;
4. Systems that are different means that support the same technology;
5. Systems that are the same means but have different set of parameters;
6. The same systems (the same result, method, technology, means and parameters);
Try doing the same for other regularities (principles, standards) – you will be surprised.
Digression about Feature Transfer and Transition into Super-System
MUST has appeared after trials of TRIZ feature transfer into other fields of human life. But some ideas from “other fields”( semiotics, for example) also might be transferred into TRIZ. For example, there is a parallel between the regularity of transition into super-system and this semiotic line:
Text -> text with inserted text -> hypertext
Actually we can relate to technological systems as to… texts. Transition into super-system in this case matches to the "text with inserted text".
And what does matches to “hypertext”?
In my opinion, systems with so called "fuzzy (flexible, floating) hierarchy". Once we have verbalized this - we can see some such systems (hypertexts) around us.
For example, a lock is the part of the door, but there are doors that are closed by moving the door into the wall. In this case the door is part of the lock. Or painting on the room wall (that is part of the room), when the room (furniture, for example) is designed to look like a part of the painting. A lot of software systems are actually the systems with "fuzzy (flexible, floating) hierarchy" The more advanced systems with "fuzzy (flexible, floating) hierarchy" are systems where "hierarchy" is changed "upon condition". Now we can correct a little bit the line of transition into super-system:
System-> super-system -> system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy
How is MUST connected to the mentioned above? Let's apply it to the last link of the chain - system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy. system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy. We will receive the following result:
1. Transition to system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy of results;
2. Transition to system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy of methods;
3. Transition to system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy of technologies;
4. Transition to system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy of means;
5. Transition to system with fuzzy (upon condition) hierarchy of parameters;
As one could see with help of feature transfer from semiotic to TRIZ and MUST we have got interesting and deserving, in my opinion, further development ideas about transition into super-system.
;
I-MUST and Altshuller’s Matrix Usage
Using Altshuller's Matrix in frame of I-MUST start from an “original” UDE (undesired effect) that determines a problem.
According to PSM (problem situation mapping), we have to define additional UDEs:
• UDE(a) that appears if we use a known (regular) method to eliminate the original UDE
• UDE(b) that appears if we mentally remove the element connected with the original UDE - in this case the element connected with original UDE is the “known” (regular) method
We also should define six more UDEs:
• UDE(c) that is the cause of the original UDE
• UDE(d) that is an effect of the original UDE Each of them should be treated as the original UDE.
• UDE (e) that appears if we use a known (regular) method to eliminate UDE(c)
• UDE(f) that appears if we mentally remove the element connected with UDE(c)
• UDE (g) that appears if we use a known (regular) method to eliminate UDE(d)
• UDE (h) that appears if we mentally remove the element connected with UDE(d)
Thus we have six contradictions:
1. Original UDE -> known method->UDE (a)
2. UDE (b) -> known method -> original UDE
3. Cause UDE (c)-> known method->UDE (e)
4. UDE (f) -> known method -> cause UDE (c)
5. Effect UDE(d) -> known method->UDE (g)
6. UDE (h)-> known method -> Effect UDE(d)
Now we can match UDEs in each contradiction to parameters (to be improved and get worse) in Altshuller’s matrix.
For more (including example) see here and here.
MUST and Chain Analysis
The last element of the MUST approach that was not presented yet is analysis of objects chain.
It isn't intended to deal with "simple" objects like technical systems when in order to resolve a problem sometimes enough to describe a system on different consuming levels and then apply I-MUST.
Chain analysis is intended for complex objects. For example, a company produces a product (provide a service) for a group of customers. It isn't a simple object - it is a chain of objects. Thus we have to describe consuming levels for each of the chain objects: company, product, group of customers. These descriptions differ a lot each other because the objects and regularities of their changing belong to different fields of human life.
Moreover, dominance of every "next" object of the chain relatively to “previous" one increases.
This element (chain analysis) of MUST is used mostly for evaluation and development of problem solving methods.
MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) and Information
One of the best (in my opinion) definitions determines information as reduced uncertainty.
Let's using MUST approach divide “uncertainty” into levels:
1. Uncertainty of a result to be gained (a need to be satisfied);
2. Uncertainty of a method (to gain the result);
3. Uncertainty of a technology (the method is based on);
4. Uncertainty of means (that support the technology);
5. Uncertainty of parameters (specific realization of the means);
One has to admit that decreasing uncertainty tools on level "result" differ from those that are intended to work on level "parameters".
Such an approach gives us also a key to classify and rank DATA processing tools. In this context it’s very interesting to look how religious texts were analyzed during centuries by the best minds of the mankind using similar (multilevel) approach:
1. Facts;
2. Hints;
3. Allegories;
4. Secrets (Codes);
In my opinion additional level "DATA" that actually is the lowest level of information should be added before level "Facts":
1. DATA
2. Facts;
3. Hints;
4. Allegories;
5. Secrets (Codes);
Unfortunately such a multilevel approach was not fully adopted yet for building information systems.
;
MUST, KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and MPVs (Main Parameters of Value)
MUST and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)
According to the MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) approach you have to divide your KPIs (key performance indicators) into five levels:
1. KPIs that are connected to results you strive to gain;
2. KPIs that relate to a method  you use to gain the results;
3. KPIs that are connected to technologies (set of effects and phenomena – physical, chemical, psychological, economic etc.) the method is based on;
4. KPIs that relate to means (technical, organizational, political etc.) that support the technologies;
5. KPIs that are connected with specific realization of the means;
What is useful in such an approach - dividing KPIs into levels?
• First, such an approach enables you to define KPIs for your system more completely, accurately and easy.
• Second, changing something in your system you can easily define the change level and redefine KPIs on this level and the levels below accordingly. There are also third, fourth, fifth, etc.
• Third, building a table like according to MUST approach for specification writing enables us to reveal and map "hidden" KPIs.
MUST and MPV (Main Parameters of Value)
I would like to add that MUST approach for specification writing can be implemented nearly without changes for revealing and mapping hidden MPVs (main parameters of value) also. The only change is that we have to fill each cell in the table. It is possible because in this case we work with an existing system.
The advantages of MUST based approach for MPV determination are similar to the mentioned above for KPIs.
;
MUST Analysis of Problem Solving Methods
Describing various methods on MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) consuming levels allows their (methods) correct comparing and also enables us:
1. Define possible development directions of methods;
2. Feature transfer from one method into another;
3. "Correct" joining of methods into a "hybrid" method - synergy;
For example, TOC (theory of constraints) è TRIZ (inventive problem solving theory) were joined into such a "hybrid" method that was successfully tested on real projects.
Let's perform MUST analysis of TOC TP (theory of constraints thinking procedures) and TRIZ
1. Result (a need to be satisfied): Both TRIZ and TOC TP are intended to get the same result - improvement of a system;
2. Method: TRIZ gains the result by using of so called "patterns" that were revealed on base of the world patent fond analysis. TOC TP gains the result by identifying and elimination of the system constraint (key-problem);
3. Technology: TRIZ - method is based on the technical system development lows and regularities TOC - method is based on releasing (during discussion) and applying existing (but hidden) team knowledge and intuitions;
4. Means: TRIZ tools that are applied to analyze problem situation, define the problem, choose problem solving direction, find and evaluate the solution concept. TOC TP tools that are applied to consolidate a team, identify key-problem (constraint), analyze the problem, resolve it and evaluate the solution concept;
5. Parameters: Both TRIZ and TOC TP have well-described tools and work procedures.
In order to check "synergy" possibilities let's write down drawbacks of TRIZ and TOC TP beginning from the level "method":
TRIZ isn't intended to find key-problem (constraint) and TOC TP does not use "patterns".
Drawback at the level "technology": TRIZ isn't built to release hidden team knowledge and intuitions and TOC TP does not use system development "regularities".
Drawback at the level "means": TRIZ tools are not enough visual and TOC TP tools do not allow "smooth" transition between the tools.
A "synergy" of TRIZ and TOC TP should overcome the mentioned above drawbacks of the two methods.
The “synergetic” process in my opinion should look as follows:
1. CRT (current reality tree - to identify key-problem/constraint);
2. PSM (problem situation mapping) and defining a set of contradictions;
3. Presenting the contradictions (each one) in form of clouds (TOC TP tool that visualizes conflicts and reveals hidden assumptions);
4. Applying "patterns" to columns of each cloud in order to generate solution concepts;
5. Concepts evaluation with FRT (future reality tree);
 
;
What is D-MUST
The letter “D” means “Diagnostic”. D-MUST is an application of MUST approach to the diagnostic problem solving.
The diagnostic problems are connected with discovering (exposing, finding out) causes (reasons) of different phenomena. Simply speaking while solving the diagnostic problems, we have to answer the questions: "Why does such a thing occur?”
According to D-MUST (like in the TRIZ based methods), instead of asking: "Why does such a thing occur and what has caused such a result?" we ask: "How can we achieve this result?" The last question enables us to use MUST in order to build “explanation” models
Implementing MUST to build the models, we describe:
1. Result itself
2. Possible methods of gaining the result
3. Technologies the methods are based on
4. Means that support the technologies
5. Parameters/conditions of the means
The only limitation is to use exclusively resources (ready, combined or derived) of the system or its environment. Then each explanation model should be verified
;
What is I-MUST
The letter “I” means “innovation”. According to MUST, innovation is a multilevel thing that might be applied on five levels. I-MUST is an application of MUST approach to the innovation problem solving. It is built in form of algorithm that has different tool sets for each of five levels: result, method, technology, means and parameters.
I-MUST might be applied to the whole system or to its part that is connected to an undesirable effect (UDE). This part is revealed during the problem formulation stage when we define: UDE, UDE connected element, element’s action, action object and environment. The five change levels are then defined for this element.
In addition to “conventional” tools that usually connected to drastic change of the action object or environment on the level “result” (satisfied need) might be used problem situation mapping (PSM). PSM is actually the problem re-formulation stage when are defined additional UDEs: UDE – cause, UDE-effect, UDE that appears if a common method is applied and UDE that appears in case that the element that is connected with the “original” UDE is removed and its function isn’t performed.
The tool sets in majority are the TRIZ tools (the modern version of I-MUST has its own set of tools – G.F.) that were re-classified and divided according to the mentioned above five change levels.
Functioning Levels
When we solve real problems with help of I-MUST it is easier to use the functioning levels instead of the consuming ones. There are functioning levels as follows:
• UDE – undesirable effect
• Means - subject
• Action of the means
• Action object
• Environment
There is a strong relationship between the consuming and functioning levels but they are not the same. Such a transfer (from the consuming levels to the functioning ones) enables us to connect classic TRIZ tools (the modern version of I-MUST has its own sets of tools – G.F.) to the change levels.
For example, let’s take the 40 principles and connect them to functioning levels.
• UDE: 8, 9, 11, 13, 21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 34, 39
• Means: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40
• Action: 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 32, 36, 37, 38
• Action object: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40
• Environment: 3, 8, 13, 15, 30, 32, 35, 39
As you could see some principles appear in a few levels. That occurs because they consist of sub-principles or “suggest” change, for example, UDE and Action, like principle # 9. Such an approach will enable us to re-arrange this old but still effective TRIZ tool. The principles’ grouping that is presented above might be changed and improved.
For those that don’t want to “waste their time” passing through inventive principles I would suggest to build a table. Write the functioning levels as names of the table rows:
• UDE – undesirable effect
• Means - subject
• Action of the means
• Action object
• Environment
Write possible change types as names of the table columns:
• Time
• Place
• Structure
• Conditions or parameters
• Insertion of extra-elements (from resources, of course)
Then fill in each table intersection cell change procedures.
For example, changing of the environment before, during or after or changing of structure of the action object by its segmentation or changing the means by insertion of an extra-object.
Problem Situation Mapping
In the "real life" we rather deal with so called "problem situations" than problems. One should "retrieve" problem from such a situation. That's why Problem Situation Mapping was developed. At the very beginning initial problem  (the top of the "problem situation's iceberg") is defined.
Initial Problem Definition
There are two types of problems:
a) Absence of a system to perform a function in order to obtain a specific result
For example: How could one discover cracks in a glass wafer? The problem is that the glass wafer is covered with two aluminum wafers. What can be done?
b) Undesirable effect (UDE) in an existing system
For example: During sputter coating of wafers with metal through a mask, metal also appears on the wafer under the mask. The reason is that there is space between the mask and the wafer. What can be done?
In case a) we define:
• The function; (discover cracks in glass wafer);
• The object of the function; (cracks);
• A known more or less suitable system to perform the function; (lighting from behind);
• The UDE which arises when we use this known system; (only the glue stamp and big cracks can be discovered)
In case b) we define:
• The UDE; (metal on the wafer under the mask);
• The element of the system connected with this UDE (mask);
• The function of this element; (to cover the wafer, to make shadow on the wafer);
• The object of the function; (the wafer);
Note: For both cases (a and b) we also might define environment.

;
Problem Situation Mapping
Once the initial problem is defined we are able to map our problem situation.
 
For example: We cannot increase the speed of an aircraft because of the air resistance to the wings.
Let’s perform the Initial Problem Definition for this problem, which is of the second type - a UDE in an existing system:
• The UDE: air resistance to the wings;
• The element connected with this UDE: the wings;
• The function of this element: to support the aircraft body
The object of the function: the aircraft body;
• Now we can proceed with the Problem Situation Mapping;
1. The “south” UDE is the UDE which appears when the original problem (original UDE) is solved with known methods.
For example: The original UDE is air resistance to the wings. If we decrease the area of the wings, another UDE will appear: we have to increase the take-off speed of our aircraft... The element connected with this UDE is the airport runway, which should be too long...
2. The “north” UDE is the UDE, which appears if we remove the element connected with the original UDE.
For example: When we  remove the wings, there is no air resistance to the wings, but now we have a new UDE connected with the non-performance of the function of the wings ...
3. The “west” UDE is the UDE which is the reason for our original UDE.
For example: Maybe the reason for air resistance to wings is the vortex motion of air which is caused by the wing surface... The element, which is connected with this UDE, is part of the surface of the wings...
4. The “east” UDE is the UDE which is the result if the original UDE is not eliminated.
For example: The loss of time because of the low speed of our aircraft.
For each UDE (original, north, south, west and east) we can now choose which is the kind of problem that we are going to solve:
1) UDE elimination
2) UDE measurement or detection
 
For example: Tool wear is measured by measuring the motor current. Then the adaptive system machinery center changes the parameters of the cutting process. However, overheating of the bearings causes wrong measurement of the tool wear.
In case 1) (UDE elimination) we might, for example, prevent the over-heating of the bearings.
In case 2) (UDE measurement) we might measure (or detect) the over-heating of the bearings.
It depends on you to choose the problem to solve, based on the resources that we have.
Note: The chosen problem should be redefined again according to the rules of Initial Problem Definition.
Innovation Quadrant
The innovation quadrant helps us to divide innovation activities depending on market and product. It consists of two axis:
Product/Service:
1. Existing Product/Service;
2. New Product/Service;
Market:
1. Existing Market;
2. New Market;
Thus we have four innovation sub-quadrants:
1. Existing Market - Existing Product/Service
2. Existing Market - New Product/Service
3. New Market - Existing Product/Service
4. New Market - New Product/Service
Related to sub-quadrants innovation activities are connected with different tasks and, therefore, their tools (and resources) also differ.
For example, quadrant "Existing Product/Service - Existing Market" might include Value Engineering and/or Lean tools to cut costs. Quadrant "New Product/Service - New Market" might include various forecasting tools, like TRIZ regularities of technological system development.
The innovation quadrant also gives four possible (innovation based) strategies to increase revenues:
1. Increase of the existent market share with the existent product/service (Existing Market - Existing Product/Service);
2. Introduction of new products/services into the existent market (Existing Market - New Product/Service);
3. Expansion to new markets with the existent product/service (New Market - Existing Product/Service);
4. Introduction of new products services into new markets (New Market - New Product/Service);
 Like innovation activities each of the mentioned above strategies is also connected with appropriate set of tools.
Adding “company” as the third axis (Existent Company – New Company) to the innovation quadrant might turn it into an innovation cube increasing the number of strategies to eight.
MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) and Innovation
Innovation, in my opinion, is an implemented change that brings (mainly commercial) result.
According to MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) the change might be implemented on different levels (I call them consuming levels):
1. A new result (a new satisfied customer’s need–“need” solution);
2. A new method of gaining the same result (“principle” solution);
3. A new technology the same method is based on (“scientific” solution);
4. New means the same technology is supported by (“technical” solution);
5. A new set of parameters of the same technical solution (“parametric” solution);
Belonging of the change to one of the described above consuming levels determines its “innovation scope”.
Of course, the consuming levels might be related to different stages of the product life: manufacturing, installation, day-day usage, emergency usage, maintenance, repair etc. Simply “customers” of each stage might differ…
The higher (1, 2) change levels are less consumable and sometimes hidden from the wide public that prefers "mature" (and small) innovations of the lower (4, 5) levels.  That's why understanding specific innovation is not limited by relating it to one of the consuming levels. There is also so called "innovation graph".
The innovation graph looks like y=1/|x|, where "y" is impact (of an innovative idea) in development and "x" is impact in consuming.
There are innovations (and brilliant innovators) in "y" and there are innovations (and brilliant innovators) in "x" For example, Tchaikovsky was x-type "innovator". His impact in development of symphonic music was close to zero. He even used "No novation!" as his slogan. Nevertheless, Tchaikovsky's impact in consuming of symphonic music was endless. Maybe the same description (X-innovator) is also right for Steve Jobs.
Thus x-type innovation geniuses cannot be gagged according to rules of y-type ones and vice versa.
;
When Most of Managers Are Really Ready to Innovate
In spite of opposite declaration most of managers (sincerely) think that actually they don't need to innovate.
In majority of cases they (managers) start to think about innovating when a certain chain of events has become reality.
What is this chain?
The chain consists of events connected each other by a number of ANDs as follows:
1. Manager has come across a serious problem with a product or service on its specific life stage;
AND
2. Manager is not able to solve the problem with common (traditional in her/his domain) methods;
AND
3. Amount of possible solutions from other domains is more than accepted;
AND
4. Concept testing takes a lot of time/money;
AND
5. Manager cannot afford to spend a lot of money/time;
By other words this chain (situation) is called “deep sh*t”.
Without any of ANDs of the chain above manager in most of cases is sure that there is no need in innovation.
 
In case of company such a chain might cause to lost of the business
In case of a person such a chain might cause to lost self-esteem
Thus manager that isn't yet in this situation has two alternatives:
1. Wait until such a situation occurs and then apply to innovation / problem solving methods if it will not be too late, of course
2. Take preventive measures (apply to innovation / problem solving methods or experts n advance) in order to be prepared. And who knows – maybe such measures will prevent the mentioned above situation...
;
Choosing Method that Fits to Company’s Culture
A company might be looked through different "prisms" as follows:
• Management;
• R&D;
• Engineering;
• Manufacture;
• QS;
• Etc.;
Each of these "prisms" might dominate in the company culture. Each method has a "prism" it fits better, for example:
• Management "prism" - TOC (theory of constraints);
• R&D "prism" - Product/service VE (Value Engineering);
• Engineering "prism" - Process'
• VE Manufacture "prism" - Lean;
• QS "prism" - Six Sigma;
Actually all these methods are intended to bring the same result by different ways:
• TOC - by removing system constraints;
• VE - by Increasing product or process value/cost ratio;
• Lean - by reducing value flow waste;
• Sis Sigma - by reducing process variation;
TRIZ differs from the mentioned above approaches. It fits better to inventor's "prism". TRIZ is intended to get the ideal solution by resolving contradiction. That's why in the real world TRIZ (in order not to bring... troubles to inventor) should get married with one of the mentioned above methods or with all of them.
Actually all more or less successful attempts to use TRIZ are connected with such "marriages" in spite of sometimes they are presented as parts of TRIZ.
By the way, MUST is a good "matchmaker".
;
MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) Application to Determination of Company’s Mission
According to the MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) approach, mission also might be described on the five consuming levels as follows:
1. Result: - What is “mankind” or society need the company should satisfy?
2. Method: - What is the activity of the company? In other words how the company is going to get the result?
3. Technology: - What is the “scientific base” the activity is based on? How does the activity applied? It is close to the company values but isn’t not the same.
4. Means: - What does support the technology? This means the company itself, its stuff, policies etc.
5. Parameters: - What are the “numbers” that “wrap” all mentioned above?
Notes:
• Change might be applied on every of the mentioned above levels;
• The higher the level the more meaningful the change is;
• The levels below the change level then should be revised and rebuilt if necessary;
• There are tools that are associated with each level and “suggest” possible changes

;
MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) and Determination of Subsequent Problems
Additional or subsequent problems might appear after resolving a "primary problem". Sometimes it is clear what are additional (subsequent) problems that should be resolved in order to realize solution of a "primary problem". Sometimes they (problems) are partly (or fully) hidden and should be revealed. This is one more (MUST based) tool to those tools that are already used (like extra-effect determination, or subversive prognosis, for example) for revealing subsequent problems.
According to MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) approach before determination of possible subsequent problem we have to make a table.
As names of the table columns we write life cycle stages of the changed (according to our solution) system:
1. Preparation and installation
2. Normal functioning and emergency functioning
3. Maintenance & repair
4. Development
5. Utilization.
There might be other life stages according to your choice, for example, transportation, storage, manufacturing etc.
As names of the table rows we write so called consuming levels of the specified system:
1. The result to be gained
2. The method to gain the result
3. The technology the method is based on
4. The means that support the technology
5. The parameters of the means
Such a table is actually is a preparation for mapping of possible subsequent problems. Then you might start to fill in the table with possible subsequent problems. You will not be able to fill in all the cells of the table (one or two filled cells in each column are considered as a good result).
In order to make the process of subsequent problems' determination (and filling the table) easier take into account this short list of possible problem sources (at each life cycle stage):
1. Changed system itself and its activity
2. Super-system and its activity
3. Neighbor systems and their activities
4. Human factor and its activity
5. Environment
After mapping of possible subsequent problems they might be ranked for further analysis (with help of PSM, for example) and resolving.
By the way, the list of subsequent problems can be then used in order to build FRT (future reality tree) that is used in TOC (theory of constraints). Mapping of subsequent problems using MUST provides a tool that enables us to build FRT easier.
The same approach provides also a good tool to create list of UDEs (undesired effects) to build CRT (current reality tree) easier. Simply instead of looking for possible subsequent problems we look for possible UDEs Of course there are some nuances...
Thus MUST mapping of subsequent problems turns in one more tool that enables synergy between TRIZ and TOC.
;
What is MUST
MUST is multilevel universal system thinking. It is intended to analyze, evaluate and define change level of any artificial systems (including methods and techniques)
The key-difference of MUST approach from other system approaches in usage of CONSUMING levels instead of HIERARCHY ones.
These consuming levels are:
1. Result (satisfied need)
2. Method
3. Technology
4. Means
5. Parameters
A need is satisfied by a method based on technology that is supported by means with a set of parameters.
Let's go a little bit deeper...
1. Every artificial system is intended to gain a result to satisfy some need – the first level.
2. Result might be gained by a number of ways or/and methods – the second level.
3. Each way/method might be based on one of a number of different technologies (interconnected sets of scientific - physical, chemical, biological, geometrical, psychological, economic etc.,- effects and phenomena) – the third level.
4. Any technology might be supported by different (technical) means - the fourth level
5. Each (technical) mean has its set of parameters – the fifth level
For example, let’s take a refrigerator:
1. It is intended to prevent food from spoiling – result
2. Result is received by food cooling - method/way. But there are other methods/ways to gain the same result.
3. Method is supported by, for example, technology based on adiabatic expansion/ compression and phases transition effects – technology. But there are other technologies that are able support the cooling method, for example, thermoelectricity.
4. There are a lot of different refrigerator designs that each of them realizes the adiabatic expansion/compression and phases’ transition effects technology – technical means
5. Any technical means has its own set of parameters.
Let’s take a painting instead of a technical system.
1. One of the results (satisfied needs): live-like feeling while looking at the painting
2. Method: to show movement (micro-movement) on the painting
3. Technology (set of scientific phenomena connected to each other): usage of the eye “scanning” phenomenon to get full image. 
4. Means: objects on the painting, light and shadows are shifted a little bit from their correct place to create illusion of micro-movement
5. Parameters: an exact composition - a shift distances, for example
;
Using MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) to Prepare Spec
Did you hear such an amusing sentence “Let’s apply to subcontractors and allow them to break their heads (in order to resolve our problem)"? "To break their heads" is my translation of the Hebrew idiom that means "To try to resolve a hard problem".
The problem is that when the deadline is close you "suddenly" discover that instead of results you have... "broken heads" of subcontractors.
Correctly written spec might prevent such a failure in majority of cases. The key-word here is "correctly".
What does this mean?
According to MUST (multilevel universal system thinking) approach before writing a specification we have to make a table.
As names of the table columns we write life cycle stages of the specified system: preparation and installation, normal functioning, emergency functioning, maintenance & repair, development, utilization. There might be other life stages according to your choice, for example, transportation, storage, manufacturing etc.
As names of the table rows we write so called consuming levels of the specified system:
1. Result to be gained;
2. Method to gain the result;
3. Technology the method is based on;
4. Means that support the technology;
5. Parameters of the means;
Then you start to fill in the table beginning from the top of each column. I believe you will not be able to fill in all the cells of the table. For some columns you will fill in the cell “result” only, for other columns you will be able to fill in sells “method”, “technology” and even “means”.
Unfilled parts of the columns define the “decision freedom” you transfer to your subcontractor.
Now you are ready to write a correct spec. After receiving your specification your subcontractor will send you back his/her one. Attention, subcontractors prefer defining means and means parameters instead of results and methods.
You will “meet” each other near “technology” level +/-
Correct the spec. Now it is full and ready.
;
MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking) Application to IP protection and Expansion
In order to provide maximum defense the "tree" of patent claims might be written according to the five MUST (Multilevel Universal System Thinking)levels.
What the MUST levels are?
1. Every system is intended to gain a result to satisfy some need – the first level
2. The result might be gained by a number of ways or/and methods – the second level
3. Each way or method might be based on one of a number of different technologies (scientific - physical, chemical, biological, geometrical, psychological, economic etc.,- effects and phenomena) – the third level
4. Every technology may be supported by one of different sets of (technical) means - the fourth level
5. And each (technical) mean has its set of parameters – the fifth level
Refrigerator example
1. It is intended to prevent food from spoiling – result
2. This result is received by food cooling - method/way. There are other methods/ways to gain the same result – to prevent food from spoiling
3. The method is supported by, for example, technology based on adiabatic expansion/compression and phases transition effects – technology. There are other technologies that are able support the cooling method, for example, thermoelectricity
4. There are a lot of different refrigerator designs that realize the adiabatic expansion/compression and phase’s transition effects technology – technical means
5. Each technical means has its own set of parameters.
System of claims according to the MUST levels
1. Result (s): The first claim(s), where the results are defended. For example, describe a stent behavior under different conditions (stent's properties)
2. Method: The claim(s) with reference to the first claim, where are described methods to gain the result. For example, describe methods you provide the stent's properties
3. Technology: The claim(s) with reference to the method claims, where technologies that support the methods are described
4. Means: The claim(s) with reference to the technology claims, where means that realize the technologies are described
5. Parameters: The optional claim(s) with reference to the means claims, where parameters are described.
Such a system of claims creates so called "umbrella" that protects IP, but it has additional advantages. It directs you  to think about possible alternative methods, technologies etc. and protect them in order to expand your IP.

Successful Startup's Idea Criteria
 
In order to be successful the startup base idea should pass the following criteria:
1. The idea should be consumable - this means that it should resolve a real customer's problem and/or satisfies a real customer's need
2. The idea should be marketable - this means that market for the idea should be big enough and in case it is big, it (market) should not be occupied with strong players that simply won't allow you success. Evaluate, for example cardiovascular market at nowadays.
3. The idea should be protectable - this means not only "patent umbrellas", but also know how. Otherwise, "blue ocean" is going to turn into "red" one:)
4. The idea should be feasible - this means that it is possible to build a working in real conditions prototype.
5. The idea is profitable - this means that it satisfies three contradictive demands: quality, time and cost.
Without getting "pass" for all the mentioned above criteria a startup is going to fail.
Unfortunately, the mentioned above criteria are not enough - there are a lot of additional factors and... some luck.
;
How to Resolve Problem with Implementation of Innovative Solutions
Answer please to this "simple" question: "Why are not (or rarely) implemented even excellent solutions of innovation consultants although they really resolve hard problems?"
I would like to share with my opinion...
1. Innovative problems seldom are stated correctly and often need to be reformulated. If a problem is reformulated by a customer (with consultant’s help) it becomes the customer’s problem. If a problem is reformulated by a consultant it remains the consultant’s problem and is rarely accepted by the customer.
2. Innovative concepts often contradict to the previous customer’s experience and demand overcoming some psychological “gap”. If a concept was found by a customer (with consultant’s help) it becomes the customer’s concept. If it was found by a consultant it remains the consultant’s concept and is rarely accepted by the customer.
Thus if a consultant tries to resolve an innovative problem him(her)self instead of facilitating of customer work on the subject – she/he often finishes with a some type of lose-lose situation instead of the win-win one, because:
1. Customer does not agree that this is his/her problem
2. Customer does not agree that the suggested direction leads to solution
3. Customer does not agree that the suggested solution resolves the problem
4. Customer isn’t ready to overcome any potential ramifications (secondary problems)
5. Customer isn’t ready to overcome implementation obstacles
Yes, experienced innovation consultants are able to resolve innovation problems and generate innovative concepts, BUT In order to get better implementation results innovation consultants rather should pay attention to training customers and facilitating the problem solving process.
;
Innovation Dilemma
In order to gain permanent success in the modern world on the one hand, companies have to bring new products or services to the market. Otherwise a company will be “swept out” of the market by more innovative competitors. On the other hand, companies should generate profit. Developing and testing of new ideas demands a lot of money and "eats profit".
 
According to some sources the ratio is 3000/1 - 3000 raw ideas - 1 commercial success. The famous Hamlet's question "To be, or not to be?" in this case turns into "Innovate or not to innovate?" It is so called Innovation Dilemma.  You can find more about the 3000/1 ratio here.
The main question is: "Why does exist such a ratio?
In my opinion such a frightening ratio (3000/1) is the result of the fact that in majority of cases the problem field differs from the solution field. For example a problem is in the precise mechanics field and a possible solution is in the chemistry field. "Problem field" specialists and "solution field" specialists are not the same. Moreover before you have found a solution concept you are not able to define the solution field - otherwise you would apply to the right consultant.
This is the first reason of the 3000/1 ratio. The second one is that in majority of cases we use so called trial and error method that is good enough when we need to resolve a problem from our field. But this method (trial and error) isn't acceptable when the solution is located far enough from our specialty’s field. So called psychological inertia vector directs us away from the strong solutions' field  that might bring commercial success.
What can be done?
In my opinion, the right way to reduce the 3000/1 ratio is to use modern systematic innovation methods like TRIZ, TOC etc. because they enable:
• Choice of the right problem (the key customer's problem)
• Deep insight of the conflict (its time, place and essence)
• Choice of the most promising problem solving direction (direction to the strong solutions' field)
• Resource support of the chosen direction (minimization of expenses)
• Connection to the world best problem solving patterns (usage of the world "problem solving wisdom")
• Reliable concept evaluation (compliance to solution criteria)
After that in case of such a need you might apply to the "solution field" consultant and he/she is supposed to be the right consultant.