CC BY
9DOI: 10.24412/cl-37100-2023-12-160-171
A. Kulakov
Automated construction of roadmaps for TRIZ-projects
ABSTRACT
Building roadmaps for TRIZ-project that specify the sequence of application of TRIZ tools, can be compared in terms of importance to ARIZ for solving inventive problems. While there are known methodologies that attempt to describe various universal roadmaps for several types of TRIZ-projects. On the one hand they are too complicated because try to describe possible project options in as much detail as possible. On the other hand, they cannot take into account all peculiarities of a particular TRIZ-project, suggesting the use of analysis types that are insufficiently effective for that project or, conversely, not suggesting the use of TRIZ tools important for that project.
Based on the experience of performing TRIZ-projects, the experience of mass implementation of TRIZ and management of TRIZ-project portfolios at industrial enterprises, the author proposes a new iterative method of building TRIZ-project roadmaps based on the analysis of completeness of the initial and refined problem situation formulation. The algorithms developed by the author formalize (digitize) the level of completeness of the current description of the problem in question and suggest the following types of analysis and application of TRIZ tools, which allow making a more complete description of the initial problem and finding a solution to the formulated contradictions of requirements to the system in question.
The approach proposed by the author allows increasing the efficiency of TRIZ-projects planning in terms of mass implementation of TRIZ at industrial enterprises with low experience of TRIZ-project managers, and opens up the possibility of automating the process of TRIZ project planning, which would result in reducing the time spent on project planning. This paper discloses the essence of the roadmap algorithm developed by the author for TRIZ projects, demonstrates by examples the work of the roadmap designer algorithm based on the developed algorithm, and gives the results of verification of the prototype and the algorithm performance in project activities.
Key words: Project planning, roadmaps for TRIZ projects, automation of planning, TRIZ implementation
INTRODUCTION
Successful project implementation involves meeting project objectives within a limited period, which is impossible without planning. This thesis has been repeatedly confirmed in the course of the author's practical activities in aluminum production and refrigeration engineering projects.
The development of a detailed project plan is preceded by an equally important step - the development of a project implementation strategy. It is the strategy that underpins future planning. In turn, the project roadmap is a form of visualization of the project implementation strategy. In other words, building a roadmap that is adequate to the project is key to the project's success.
The roadmaps for TRIZ projects represent visualized sets of subjects: TRIZ tools, results of tool use, links and sequences between tools. Despite the rather simple and straightforward form of the roadmaps, their adequate construction requires that the project manager is highly experienced in implementing such projects and using TRIZ tools in the context of a particular project against a background of information and time deficiency.
The author's experience shows that in the case of mass implementation of TRIZ in industrial enterprises, the number of experienced TRIZ project managers becomes a limiting factor. On the
other hand, it takes time to build up an experienced TRIZ project manager. In other words, there is a contradiction, which, if resolved, would allow for a qualitative leap in TRIZ project management when implementing the methodology on a large scale in the activities of enterprises.
In the 'Literature Review' section, the author has collected the major works that to some extent address the topic of road mapping, as well as attempts to resolve this contradiction. However, to date, the methodologies proposed in these papers exhibit a number of shortcomings that hinder their widespread practical application. For this reason, the topic of algorithmicizing and automation of the roadmap process is now still relevant and in demand in practical activities to implement TRIZ projects.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A large body of literature on the development of TRIZ approaches and methodologies was analyzed in the preparation of this article. To localize the scope of influence of this work in general terms, all developments have been divided into three major groups:
- developing selected existing TRIZ tools;
- developing new TRIZ tools;
- developing approaches, methodologies and algorithms that integrate TRIZ tools to create a single logical framework for implementing a TRIZ project.
This classification is not intended to be exclusive, but is merely given as a convenient way of defining the field of literature review and will only use the third identified group of developments in the discussion that follows.
The paper [1] attempts to link TRIZ tools in the logic of a single project. Six stages of value engineering are outlined: preparatory, informational, analytical, creative, research, recommendatory. It should also be noted that the description of the analytical and creative stages contains an indication of the use of FCA (Function-Cost Analysis) and ARIZ-85B. Nevertheless, the stages outlined in the paper may not claim to be a comprehensive roadmap for the project. Among the whole list of TRIZ tools used in modern projects, the methodology contains only FCA and ARIZ-85B, with links and transitions between the stages and tools being difficult to trace and ambiguous.
The paper [2] addresses the problem statement using the FAST method, which is analogous to the Cause-Effect Chains Analysis (CECA). It gives recommendations on the use of the König graph and pays attention to the resource search and utilization. Nevertheless, all recommendations are of a rather general nature, which will undoubtedly be a source of confusion for inexperienced users.
Papers [3, 4] focus on Efficient Solution Technology (EST). The presence of the word 'technology' in the name of the methodology suggests that the proposed approach is algorithmic and standardized. The problem-setting and problem-solving process is broken down into 6 separate sequential segments. The papers present a structural description of each of the segments at the highest level and provides a 'classic technology chain' made up of TRIZ tools, principles and approaches. Without compromising the personal achievements of the methodology inventors in solving problems, the general nature of the description of algorithms, models and sets of recommendations will not allow users to apply the methodology without direct assistance or intervention from the inventors themselves.
The paper [5] suggests a method for pre-selecting a problem-solving strategy and "filling the space between the task set and the formulation of an administrative contradiction ". B ased on their own experience, the authors give a classification of problem situations. The definitions of the classes of problem situations presented in the paper are intuitive and allow a user familiar with TRIZ to
assign the situation to a particular class. The implication is a different strategy for each class of problem situation and a questionnaire is designed to help the user choose a strategy. Essentially, each strategy correlates with a specific analytical tool. However, there is no clear guidance on the sequence of application of TRIZ tools.
The paper [6] presents a method aimed at assisting the user in the process of improving output in terms of efficiency. The Method of Effective Results comprises 4 stages, all of which are broken down into steps. The steps have explicit wording for actions and outcomes, allowing the method to be used in practice. Yet, the narrow focus of the method prevents it from being used for projects requiring no output improvement.
The paper [7] discusses an algorithm designed to identify and formulate tasks in case of disturbances and disruptions in production processes. The algorithm involves examining the problem for falsity, finding the root cause, analyzing the physical-field resources and engaging them to resolve the contradictions. However, it is worth noting that the steps of the algorithm are not clearly linked, are made in the form of general recommendations requiring direct accompaniment by the authors, and do not involve the use of many modern TRIZ tools. The algorithm given in the paper is challenging the user to draw a roadmap for the project.
The paper [8] provides, for the first time, a roadmap for the implementation of a model product improvement project. The paper also contains general recommendations on specific procedures. The papers [9, 10, 11] develop recommendations on specific procedures.
Among the papers found and analyzed, the one closest to this paper is [11]. The author has developed a methodology for selecting and applying tools for innovation design, including an algorithm linking customer innovation strategy and project type. Detailed roadmaps have been developed for the following types of projects:
- increasing product value;
- improving technological processes;
- forecasting product development;
- creating products not covered by competitors' patents;
- verifying the products developed;
- identifying areas for product improvement by MPV.
Among all the model roadmaps presented in the paper [11], the model roadmap for improving technological processes is of the greatest practical interest based on the specifics of the Russian aluminum industry. Yet, practice has revealed that using the model roadmap approach entails the following challenges:
- when using a model 'as is' roadmap, users often perform unnecessary analytical procedures that do not lead to quality progress in the project;
- the reconfiguration of the model roadmap to fit the available project input requires the user to have experience of TRIZ projects, which is not always possible in the initial stages of implementing TRIZ approaches in project activities.
MAIN PART
Study of practical experience of Road Mapping
In the course of practical work, the author has drawn a number of systematically repeated observations of sub-optimal use of resources by teams of TRIZ projects run using the model roadmaps. This paper has highlighted the following issues:
• Building roadmaps is formal in nature. They are built at the beginning of the project and not used in any way afterwards;
• The projects use TRIZ analytical tools that do not fit the task. The bottom line is wasted time with zero result;
• Untimely use of TRIZ tools;
• Ineffective use of the results of analytical procedures.
To improve the credibility of the model roadmap approach, the author designed and conducted a blind experiment.
A group of TRIZ-trained colleagues (TRIZ competence level no higher than Icarus and Daedalus level 1 and with no more than 3 years project experience) was asked to build roadmaps for 3 pre-selected and already implemented TRIZ projects.
To minimize the influence of socio-organizational factors (personal relationships between the author of the experiment and the examinees, the functional subordination of the examinees, etc.) on the decisions of the examinees, a legend for the experiment was devised. The legend went that the examinees were a control group of trained and more experienced colleagues for another experiment that tested the effectiveness of the new training program.
The results of colleagues' work were then compared with the actual roadmaps of completed projects and an accuracy factor was calculated for each observation based on the following logic:
Potential outcomes of the experiment The tool is present in the examinee's roadmap The tool is not present in the examinee's roadmap
The tool is present in the actual roadmap Hit (+) Miss (-)
The tool is not present in the actual roadmap Miss (-) Hit (+)
Once the experiment results had been processed, the accuracy of the roadmaps among the examinees was 57%. Assuming that examinees will strictly follow the plans formulated, this value is unacceptable in terms of the use of human resources.
The author also proposes this methodology to evaluate ways of creating TRIZ project roadmaps for verification of automated road mapping algorithms, and the author has chosen 80% as the accuracy target for the future algorithm.
Basis for the creation of a roadmap algorithm
Any TRIZ project begins with a description of an inventive situation. This is an asset of background information held by the project team at the start of any TRIZ project and upon which it can rely to take the next steps in the project. Consequently, the development of a project implementation strategy and its formalization in the form of a roadmap is always based on the initial description of the inventive situation. Yet the quality and depth of the description of the original inventive situation may vary. Below you will find some real-life examples from the author's experience, retaining the grammar and punctuation of the authors:
Example 1: 'Wounds are taped over with plasters thus preventing the skin from "breathing". What should we do?'
Example 2: 'Boiler operation generates foam at the water-steam interface. By rising with the steam into the steam lines, the foam reduces the steam dryness, sticks to the surfaces of the steam lines and heat exchangers resulting in a reduction in heat transfer efficiency. The presence of foam comes from the high alkalinity of the water, resulting in alkaline corrosion of the boiler surfaces.'
Example 3: 'Inefficient power generation caused by manual control of turbine generator operating parameters during the heating season.'
Example 4: 'Lining failure of the metal tapping ladle.'
Example 5: 'The alumina point feeder bin is fed by the MZGV machine. When alumina is fed into the bin, the air in the bin is displaced and escapes with the alumina. By reducing alumina feed into the bin, dusting is reduced, yet decreasing the capacity of the MZGV machine.'
Clearly, the number and variety of analytical procedures for the examples above will vary and depend directly on the depth of information contained in the description of the inventive situation. Furthermore, the information contained in the description of the inventive situation is interpreted through the perception of the individual project manager. By virtue of different levels of experience and expertise, project managers will learn different amounts of information from one and the same description of the situation. Which also complicates the creation of unified approaches to road mapping.
So far, the author has presented 'depth of information' as a kind of subjective perception of the description of the inventive situation, which lacks any instrumentality with regard to road mapping.
The paper [12] solves the problem of formalizing the completeness assessment of inventive situation description by introducing and describing an inventive situation model. The model of an inventive situation comprises the following components:
- target metric;
- subject;
- requirement 1;
- conflicting requirement 2;
- ways to meet the requirements;
- element and element property upon which compliance with requirement 1 and 2 depends;
- supersystems.
Any of these elements of the original inventive situation can be assessed using the following
scale:
1 - No
2 - Not clear whether yes or no (insufficient information, dubious information)
3 - Plenty, but vaguely worded
4 - Plenty clearly worded, but it's unclear which one to choose
5 - Yes
The author notes that the introduction of an assessment scale of inventive situation components in the context of the task of building a roadmap adapted to the TRIZ project allows:
1. Taking into account the influence of the expertise of the TRIZ project manager. A more experienced project manager will surely recognize the components of a problem situation more clearly and will give higher marks. This will result in the roadmap adding the minimum necessary TRIZ toolkit for this particular project manager.
2. Automating the road mapping using software, which will significantly speed up the road mapping and planning process for the project as a whole.
In this way, the textual description of the original inventive situation is given a logically connected formalized digital equivalent, which can be used as input for the road mapping algorithm.
Road mapping algorithm
The road mapping algorithm proposed by the author is broken down into two modules. This modular construction simplifies the algorithm itself, and subsequently simplifies software testing based on the algorithm and error detection. The figure depicts the author's general outline of the project road mapping process based on the proposed algorithm:
The first module of the algorithm relates to the assessment of the initial inventive situation. It can be presented in the form of the following table with estimation rules:
Inventive problem component Estimation rule
Requirement 1, Conflicting requirement 2 The rating may not exceed the rating of the Subject
Ways to meet the requirements The rating may not exceed the rating of the Requirements
Element and element property upon which compliance with requirement 1 and 2 depends; The rating may not exceed the rating of ways to meet the requirements
The author has formulated these estimation rules based on the following logic. Since Requirement 1 and the conflicting Requirement 2 are both applied to a specific subject, their wording in an inventive situation may not be clearer than that of the subject. The same approach holds true when formulating rules for the Ways to Meet the Requirements, the Element and the Element Properties.
To illustrate how this part of the algorithm works, let's take a closer look at the process of evaluating the initial inventive situation using examples.
Example 1. 'Wounds are taped over with plasters thus preventing the skin from "breathing". What should we do?'
Below you will find a table with the Subjects rating and the author's rationale:
Situation description component Wording of the problem situation components Rating Rating rationale
Subject Wounds, plaster, skin 3 Subjects are plenty, but no details are available on subjects. We do not know the plaster type, the degree of wound and the kind of skin, neither we know anything about their characteristics, etc.
Since the Subject has been rated 3, we may not rate Requirement 1 and Requirement 2 higher than 3, but the original situation has been worded in a generalized form, with all the other components missing in the wording, so they can be assigned the lowest possible rating of 1.
Let us take another example, but with a more detailed wording of the inventive situation, leading to higher ratings.
Example 2: Boiler operation generates foam at the water-steam interface. By rising with the steam into the steam lines, the foam reduces the steam dryness, sticks to the surfaces of the steam lines and heat exchangers resulting in a reduction in heat transfer efficiency. The presence of foam comes from the high alkalinity of the water, resulting in alkaline corrosion of the boiler surfaces.'
Below is a table with the Subjects rating and the rationale based on the author's analysis of the baseline situation:
Situation description component Wording of the problem situation components Rating Rating rationale
Subject Boiler, foam, water, steam, steam lines, heat exchangers 4 Subjects are plenty - 6, from the context of the situation description, the subjects are clear and understandable, but it is not clear which one to choose for analysis
Target metric Steam dryness, heat transfer efficiency, water alkalinity 4 There are three target metrics, they are clearly worded, but it is not clear which one to choose
Requirement 1 2 There is a suspicion that Requirement 1 may be 'the foam should not adhere to the surface of the steam pipes'. But since it is not obvious, the author rated it 2
Requirement 2 - 1 Not detected by the author
Way to meet the Rq 1 - 1 Not detected by the author
Way to meet the Rq 2 - 1 Not detected by the author
Element or element property - 1 Not detected by the author
It is important to emphasize here that these ratings are based on the author's understanding of the available information in the situation description, as well as the author's expertise on the topic of the problem situation. In other words, a different person evaluating the same situation might have different ratings and a different roadmap. Hence, this algorithm accommodates the characteristics of the body of knowledge of the specialist creating the TRIZ project roadmap.
The digitized problem situation from example 2 is as follows: 4-4-2-2-1-1-1. This will be the input for the roadmap creation.
But a mere digitization of the problem situation is not yet sufficient to create a project roadmap that is as tailored as possible.
The author analyses a sample of TRIZ projects in the aluminum industry and highlighted the following problem types: capital intensity, production cost, capacity, yield, reliability, market volume, scope of use, environmental friendliness. The identified problem types were then correlated
with the most effective TRIZ tools for a particular type (primarily analytical tools) and their sequencing. The result obtained is summarised in the table below:
Type of problem The 1-st tool The 2-nd tool The 3-rd tool The 4-th tool
CAPEX Function Function Cost Function-Ideal -
Analysis Analysis Modeling
Cost Flow Analysis Limits Function Analysis El-Field
Evolution Cause-Effect -
Analysis Chains Analysis
Performance Processes Limits Function Analysis El-Field
Analysis Evolution Analysis Cause-Effect Chains Analysis -
Quality Flow Analysis Subversion Analysis - -
Reliability Cause-Effect Chains Analysis Function Analysis El-Field
Market size MPV Benchmarking Feature Transfer -
Scope of use Function Analysis Inverse Function Oriented Search - -
Environmental Function Benchmarking Feature Transfer -
friendliness Oriented Search
An assessment of the problem situation components is fed into the road mapping algorithm's input. This algorithm represents a set of conditions for adding recommendations, tools and a sequence for adding these tools and is shown as a table below:
Condition A recommendation is added Tools are added to the roadmap
If the Subject is rated 1 or 2 Clarify the subject
If the Subject is rated 3 Component analysis Structure analysis
If the Subject is rated 4 Structure analysis
If the target metric is rated 1 or 2 Suggest a target metric
If the target metric is rated 3 or 4 Clarify the target metric
If Requirement R-1 is rated 1 Select the problem type Problem density analysis Tools as per problem type
If Requirement R-1 is rated 2 Select the problem type Problem density analysis Tools as per problem type
If Requirement R-1 is rated 3 Clarify the Requirement R-1
If Requirement R-1 is rated 4 Clarify the Requirement R-1
If Requirement R-2 is rated 3 Clarify the Requirement R-2
If Requirement R-2 is rated 4 Clarify the Requirement R-2
If the Method to meet R-1 is rated 1 Function Oriented Search Contradiction of requirements Principles
If the Method to meet R-1 is rated 2 Function Oriented Search Contradiction of requirements Principles
If the Method to meet R-1 is rated 3 Clarify the way to achieve R-1 Contradiction of requirements Principles
If the Method to meet R-1 is rated 4 Clarify the way to achieve R-1 Contradiction of requirements Principles
If the Method to meet R-1 is rated 5 Contradiction of requirements Principles
If the Method to meet R-2 is rated 3 Clarify the way to achieve R-2
If the Method to meet R-2 is rated 4 Clarify the way to achieve R-2
If the Element is rated 1 2K analysis Contradiction of attribute, Ideal Final Result Standards Eff ects Cat alo gue Be nch mar kin g Ver ific atio n
If the Element is rated 2 2K analysis Contradiction of attribute, Ideal Final Result Standards Eff ects Cat alo gue Be nch mar kin g Ver ific atio n
If the Element is rated 3 Clarify the Element Contradiction of attribute, Ideal Final Result Standards Eff ects Cat alo gue Be nch mar kin g Ver ific atio n
If the Element is rated 4 Contradiction of attribute, Ideal Final Result Standards Eff ects Cat alo gue Be nch mar kin g Ver ific atio n
If the Element is rated 5 Contradiction of attribute, Ideal Final Result Standards Eff ects Cat alo gue Be nch mar kin g Ver ific atio n
This table is worth elaborating on, with a few qualifying comments to gain a deeper understanding of the algorithm's logic.
The underlying assumption of this algorithm is that the roadmap is created based on the information available at the time of creation about the inventive situation and about the things that must be known about the inventive situation to make use of a particular TRIZ tool.
Thus, for instance, in order to formulate a requirement conflict, you need to identify Requirement 1, the conflicting Requirement 2, and the Ways to meet those requirements in an inventive situation. That is, based on what was said earlier, these components of the inventive situation should be rated at least 3.
If Requirement 1 or Requirement 2 are not identified, which means that they have been rated 1 or 2 by the user, then the project will need to identify these requirements using analytical tools, so with these assessments at hand, the 'Problem Type' module is activated in the algorithm and then tools are added based on the selected problem type.
Let's take a closer look at some examples of roadmaps created using this algorithm, based on the wording of the original situations.
Example 3: Boiler operation generates foam at the water-steam interface. By rising with the steam into the steam lines, the foam reduces the steam dryness, sticks to the surfaces of the steam lines and heat exchangers resulting in a reduction in heat transfer efficiency. The presence of foam comes from the high alkalinity of the water, resulting in alkaline corrosion of the boiler surfaces.'
The assessment of this initial situation has already been given in detail before, here we will only give the final results: 4-4-2-2-1-1-1. Select 'Reliability' as the problem type. The algorithm yields the following roadmap:
Structure analysis Problem density Cause-Effect analysis Chains Analysis H Functional analysis |-1 El-Field -
Function Oriented Search Contradiction of requirements Principles H 2K analysis h Contradiction of properties, Ideal j Final Result -
Standards cÏoÎe Benchmarking H Verification 1
Example 4: Egypt was assisted by the Soviet Union in rebuilding the Suez Canal. During construction work, it was decided to use self-unloading barges. Given the specific conditions, new barges had to be built with a greater capacity and shallower draft, i.e., wider and flatter than existing barges. In order to ensure the right performance, the designers 'opened up' the triangular prism, increasing the angle at its base. A model of such a barge was built and it was discovered that it wouldn't get back to its original position. The keel installed on the barge was no longer able to return it, as the distance to the center of gravity had decreased with the opening of the hull. To bring the barge back to its original position, the keel could have been made heavier, but in that case, you would have to carry a 'dead weight' all the time, which would reduce the useful load capacity. What should be done?
As can be seen, this description is different from Example 3 in terms of the amount and detail of information. Below you will find a table for assessing the inventive situation:
Situation description component Wording of the problem situation components Rating Rating rationale
Subject Self-unloading barge 5 The subject is clearly defined, throughout the description, the subject is recurrently repeated and clarified in the context of the situation
Target metric Capacity 5 The target metric is indicated in the problem situation narrative
Requirement 1 The barge must return to its original position 5 Specified in the text of the problem situation
Requirement 2 Ensure that the payload capacity is not reduced 5 Specified in the text of the problem situation
Way to meet the Rq 1 Ensure that the keel is heavier 5 Specified in the text of the problem situation
Way to meet the Rq 2 Barge-mounted keel (as is) 5 Specified in the text of the problem situation
Element or element property Keel 5 Specified in the text of the problem situation
Final rating: 5-5-5-5-5-5-5. Based on these ratings, the algorithm will give the following roadmap:
Contradiction of requirements
H
Principles
Contradiction of properties, Ideal Final Result
Standards
Effects Catalogue
Benchmarking
Verification
It should be noted that the ratings are given by the author, who has gained experience in using TRIZ tools, which makes it possible to effectively detect the components of a problem situation from the description. Where the user is less experienced, the ratings may be set lower and the algorithm will produce a more extended roadmap.
When comparing the generated roadmaps from Example 3 and 4, you can see a significant difference in the number of recommended tools. Since the problem situation in Example 4 has clearly articulated components, there is no need for analytical procedures and we can go straight to formulating and dealing with contradictions. Alternatively, if the problem situation is fuzzy, the length of the roadmap increases, becoming saturated with analytical tools, which will help clarify the problem situation during the TRIZ project process.
The automatic generation of TRIZ project roadmaps significantly accelerates and facilitates the planning phase for users with as yet little experience in TRIZ activities. In this case, automatically generated road maps can be completed manually at the user's request, as well as in case the original situation is reassessed.
CONCLUSION
The project roadmap is a form of visualization of the project implementation strategy and its relevance to the project will ultimately determine the effectiveness of the TRIZ project.
The author's analysis of TRIZ projects in the aluminum industry has revealed that existing methods of road mapping have limited effectiveness. The author's belief is that these methods are highly dependent on the experience of the TRIZ project manager. When TRIZ is massively implemented in industrial enterprises, the experience of TRIZ project managers becomes a limiting factor for growth.
Hence, the road mapping issue poses the following contradiction. An experienced TRIZ project manager ensures a thorough and personalized approach to TRIZ project planning, yet it takes considerable time to train such a TRIZ project manager, which is unacceptable in the mass implementation of TRIZ in industry.
In order to implement one of the solutions to this contradiction, the author has developed an algorithm for road mapping based on the assessment of the initial situation of the TRIZ project.
The intuitive baseline assessment module allows to digitize a particular TRIZ project manager's understanding of the baseline situation and to generate a roadmap based on the baseline situation and the TRIZ project manager's experience. This is expected to boost the efficiency of road maps from 57% to at least 80%.
In designing the algorithm, the author also developed a methodology for calculating roadmap efficiency and a methodology for conducting a blind road mapping experiment, which can be used in later studies.
Logical and desirable avenues for follow-up work on this topic could be as follows:
• Comparison of existing methods of TRIZ project planning with the identification of promising areas for development;
• Implementation of the developed algorithm as software and conducting a large-scale verification with collection and analysis of the data obtained in order to further refine the algorithm.
REFERENCES
1. L. Kh. Pevzner, T. A. Rybnikova 'The ABC of Invention'. - Yekaterinburg: Middle-Urals. Publishing house, 192-240 pp.
2. A. V. Podkatilin Technology of effective solutions. Proceedings of the International Conference. MA TRIZ 'TRIZ-Fest 2005', St. Petersburg, 2005, pp. 52-60
3. A. V. Podkatilin, V. I. Timokhov Series 'Innovative Cases 2.0'. TRIZ - Profi, Moscow, 2009, 68 p.
4. A. T. Kynin, S. H. Hang, H. D. Li You, General scheme of practical problem solving, Collection of papers 'Theory and Practice of Inventive Problem Solving', Moscow, 2007, pp. 273-275
5. M. S. Gafitulin. Method of Effective Results, Collection of Reports of the International Conference. MA TRIZ 'TRIZ-Fest 2007', Moscow, 2007, pp. 13-16
6. G. I. Ivanov, A. A. Bystritsky, Algorithm for Selecting Engineering Problems - AVIZ http://www.metodolog.ru/00470/00470.html , http://matriz.karelia.ru/section.php?docId=4234
7. A. L. Lyubomirsky, S. S. Litvin 'Changes in the Technology of Conceptual Projects', Abstracts of the conference "Innovative technologies of design today and tomorrow", St. Petersburg, 1999. - p. 49-54
8. S. S. Litvin, A. L. Lyubomirsky 'The General Logic of the Conceptual Project', Guidelines, TsITK 'Algorithm', St. Petersburg, 1999, 16 p.
9. S. S. Litvin, A. L. Lyubomirsky 'Innovative Technology of Design™ Guide, PVI, 1998, 40 p.
10. A. L. Lyubomirsky, S. S. Litvin 'Trends of Engineering Systems Evolution (Guide), TsITK 'Algorithm', St. Petersburg, 2003, 186 p.
11. O. M. Gerasimov 'Technology for Selecting Innovative Design Tools Based on TRIZ-FCA
12. A. Kuryan, M. S. Rubin 'Description and Analysis of Inventive Situations in TRIZ'
