CC BY
11DOI: 10.24412/cl-37100-2023-12-243-255
A. Kulakov, A. Trantin, M. Rubin Development of evolution strategies using TRIZ
SUMMARY
The notion of «strategy» is a key notion in management theory. Strategy is a kind of behavior style, which preconditions quite definite and relatively stable line of behavior of the object of strategy application at a fairly long historical interval. That's why approaches and methods for strategy development, which are practically applicable, are so necessary and needed by the enterprises of any branch of industry and sphere of activity.
Methods for strategic planning are known, which are based on system analysis and modeling of interaction between the analyzed object and external environment in time. The main disadvantage of these methods consists in the fact that they are not adapted to registering of quality changes in the analyzed system. In order to take into account, the fundamental changes in the system, it is proposed to use TRIZ tools in strategic planning, in particular, direct and reverse use of TRIZ Model. The method of strategic planning presupposes twofold approach: one way of planning implies the direction from solving the problems and resolving the contradictions within the system, while another way presupposes following the direction from ways of realization of the already formulated future image of the system under discussion. Both approaches mutually enrich each other in the iterative process of strategic planning.
The article contains a review of existing methods of planning implying the identification of their strong and weak sides, comparison of these methods using a nine-screen model (system operator). The authors of this work describe the method and algorithm for forming strategic plans and quote practical examples for using this method and algorithm.
INTRODUCTION
Worldly known consultant and guru of management Izhak Adizes, answering the question concerning the order of variation (mission, strategy, structure), comes to the following conclusion [1]: «Mission is something base of what we have to change. Strategy is the method for performing this function. Discussion of strategy will lead to a large number of changes in structure. While planning the strategy we could draw up more than one hundred of preliminary variants. A step back, a step forward, from function to form and vice versa: structure based on strategy and strategy based on structure».
No doubt, these elements are strongly interconnected and it is impossible to consider them separately. However, it is strategy which constitutes that very line of action, or it would be better to say - the plan, which preconditions quite definite and relatively stable line of behavior of the strategy object at a fairly long historical interval - is a touchstone of all changes in the company.
Strategy enables to emphasize priorities, plan and distribute resources and - which is the most important thing - to form the vector leading to the final result, to which the company is moving during its evolution.
For a fairly long time TRIZ was developing as an exclusively «iron-oriented» methodology, which was accessible only to engineers, however, global processes and needs introduced their corrections to world experience of TRIZ application and, as of today, in our opinion, nobody doubts that TRIZ found its extensive and effective application in the sphere of business problem solving.
One of such problems is the development of strategies of evolution and in this direction TRIZ is able to prove its universality and instrumentality, which will be demonstrated by the authors on practical examples, which are quoted below.
Thus, it is possible to formulate the main goal of the authors' work - creating a method for strategic planning, which enables to work with qualitative changes in the system in focus.
RESEARCH OF EXISTING METHODS FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING
The main motivations, which encouraged the authors to create the new methodology for strategic planning using TRIZ, are as follows:
• Existing popular methods for strategic planning don't presuppose any qualitative changes in the object of strategizing;
• Recommendatory (or abstractly recommendatory) character of changes within the system, which are proposed as a result of using existing methods of strategic planning;
• Absence of clear algorithm for strategy forming, which preconditions very high requirements to the experience of strategy developer;
• The majority of methodologies are adapted exclusively to work with products and services.
The goals of the present work don't include complete analysis, detailed description and comparison of all existing methods for strategic planning. To make the comparison possible, several of them were analyzed: the ones, which, according to the opinion of the author are most widely spread in business milieu.
More or less objective comparison of methods for strategic planning seems to be a complicated task. The discipline of strategy relates to social and humanitarian sciences. It means that in order to compare the methods of strategic planning it is necessary to create or to select a homogeneous formalized space. Otherwise, the entire comparison will be reduced to listing pluses and minuses of methods, which are incompatible one with another and which bear a subjective character predetermined by the personal experience.
A multi-screen pattern of talented thinking, proposed by G.S.Altshuller [2], was selected as such homogeneous formalized space. This pattern is presented in Fig. 1.
Past Present Future
Supersystem Supersystem Supersystem
System System System
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem
Figure 1
«The world, in which we live, has a very complicated structure. And if we want to know it better and to transform it, our mentality should reflect this world correctly. Complicated, dynamic and dialectically developing world should find in our mentality an analog in the form of its full model - complicated, dynamic, dialectically developing. » [2]
«Complete pattern» of thinking embraces all system levels, transitions between the levels and on the time axis. Therefore, this pattern (not without grounds) can be accepted as the most complete and even a reference model for comparing existing methods for strategic planning and the newly developed method. GAP-analysis
This is one of the most widely known methods, which is extensively used in the companies, relating to various branches of business [4], IT, relating, logistics, etc. Born in the USA, behind the walls of Stanford, this method became popular in the whole world, first of all, due to its relative simplicity: it is necessary to understand, what the company wants and define, what the company has and then to concentrate on the research of the «gap» between two above-mentioned states (Fig. 2).
Reality
Plan
Figure 2
In a simplified form GAP-analysis can be reduced to the following:
1. Statement of goals of analysis.
2. Study of actual situation.
3. Analysis of goals planned at the very beginning.
4. Identification of deviations (gaps) between plan and fact.
5. Drawing up the plan of reaction.
An important issue in conducting GAP-analysis is the evaluation of adequacy of the desired result as well as deep immersion in the intricacies of business-processes and current market conditions. However, neither these things guarantee exact fulfillment of the future «plan».
The «complete diagram» of thinking shows that this method is responsible for a very modest part of it (it is color marked) (Fig. 3). The plan is the past of the system, fact is the present, there is no comprehensive target-oriented analysis of supersystems and subsystems. Moreover, there is no described methodology, with the aid of which one could formulate the plan of transition from the system «AS IS» (in the present) to the System «AS TO BE» (in future).
Past Present Future
Supersystem Supersystem Supersystem
System System System
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem
Figure 3
It leads to the following disadvantages:
• In most cases only the obvious factors are identified, which restrict the evolution and the non-obvious facts, which in fact can be of greater importance, are omitted;
• GAP-analysis enables to correct only the situation, associated with the occurred deviations;
• It is impossible to perform a qualitative jump in the system evolution;
• It is not clear how to work with conditions of presence of a large number of gaps, which influence one another;
• There are no tools, enabling to develop particular steps. Developing corresponding measures is in most cases reduced to brainstorming.
It is obvious that the relative simplicity of gap analysis on the one hand contributes to the growth of popularity of this approach, however, on the other hand leads to quite a number of disadvantages, which, in the opinion of the authors in many respects decrease the effectiveness of the approach.
SWOT-analysis
One more classical tool for forming strategic plans, the history of which dates back to 1960-ies [5]. One of the kinds of SWOT-analysis is OTSW-analysis, which was developed and is now being implemented by W. Quint and his followers [6].
The essence of this analysis or method is reduced to the following: «The method of SWOT unites strong and weak sides, opportunities and threats, as well as evaluates current and future potential of the enterprise. It constitutes a matrix, consisting of four parts, each of which signified a necessary sphere of activity to be studied». [7].
The obtained SWOT-matrix (Fig. 4) is used for formulating problems or possible strategic directions:
• What strong sides should be necessarily used in order to realize the potential (evolution)
• What potential can offer the basis for overcoming actual weak points (internal transformations)
• What strong sides should be used for eliminating threats (potential advantages)
• What weak sides should be eliminated in order to prevent threats (restrictions of evolution).
Strengths I Weaknesses
Opportunities I Threats
Figure 4
In the «complete pattern» of thinking SWOT-analysis covers the part, which is a little bigger than the one covered by GAP-analysis (Fig. 5). It happens because the analysis of strong and weak sides in this or that way is reduced to analysis of subsystems, while the analysis of opportunities and threats implies analysis of supersystems. In this case only the present time is meant, there is no methodology for describing the transition from the system «AS IS» to the system «AS TO BE», however, this is a touchstone in the issues of strategic planning.
Past Present Future
Supersystem Supersystem Supersystem
System System System
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem
Figure 5
In spite of a great number of pluses, such as all-purposeless, forming a «new» vision of business, absence of need for special knowledge, in our opinion, the method cannot fully meet the needs of strategizing because of a number of fundamental disadvantages. To such disadvantages we can relate the following:
• Temporal dynamics is missing, which is well seen, when the method is superimposed over the «complete pattern» of thinking;
• Non-regulatory nature of obtained conclusions;
• Utterly strong influence of subjectivity of the analyst;
• Problems stated in the course of analysis are solved using the brainstorming methods;
• Features or disadvantages are not distinctly formulated and are not associated with a definite object;
• There are no criteria for prompt evaluation of quality of proposed solutions. PEST-analysis
PEST-analysis is a tool intended for defining the strategy of the company for the distant future. [8]. The method exists both in classic form, when four factors of the macro-environment are taken into account: Politics - political environment of the company, Economics - economic environment of the company, Socio - Culture - social-and-cultural environment, Technologies - technological environment of the company, and in other variations, when additional spheres of human activity are added to the analysis (ecology, juridical milieu, etc.)
PEST methodology is in many respects analogous to SWOT-analysis and consists in:
• Compiling a matrix filling in the corresponding cells;
• Working out the company strategy, which, in the opinion of its compiler, will fully meet the company's needs.
Work with PEST-analysis can be reduced to the following steps:
1. Identifying topical factors.
2. Describing the identified factors for nearest 3-5 years.
3. Selecting only such factors, which could influence business.
4. Developing the measures, which will enable to reduce the negative influence of identified factors.
The opportunities of PEST-analysis are shown in Figure 6 by color-marking corresponding sections of «complete pattern» of thinking. In contrast to SWOT-analysis we see losses in the depth of analysis. The main emphasis in this type of analysis is made on factors, which influence the object of strategizing, i.e., in terms of TRIZ - analysis of supersystems.
Figure 6
It leads to the following disadvantages of PEST-analysis:
• Non-regulatory character of obtained conclusions;
• Influence of the subjectivity of the analyst;
• Developing the measures on reducing the degree of influence of these factors is carried out via brainstorming.
Situational analysis of McKincey
Figure 7 presents the pattern of situational analysis. The authors of this analysis propose to «take into account the difference in the levels of indefiniteness of external forces, which exert influence upon the given branch of industry, influence of these levels upon its structure and the specific features of interaction inside the branches» [9]. It is also implied that with time the level of indefiniteness can change - become higher or lower.
Figure 7
This analysis is the closest method to the method of strategic planning developed by the authors (in terms of embracing the full pattern of thinking) (Fig. 8).
Past Present Future
Supersystem Supersystem Supersystem
System System System
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem
Figure 8
However, as it is seen from Figure 8, transition from the present state of the system, subsystem and supersystem to the future image is not methodologically grounded. This transition takes place as a result of brainstorming and the experience of the strategy developer, which might be insufficient for developing high-quality changes in the object of strategizing.
Summing up the above, the authors come to conclusions that the majority of disadvantages of the analyzed methods, applied in strategic planning, could be reduced to the following:
1. Indefiniteness of algorithms and methodologies for conducting analytical procedures.
2. Key role of experience of strategy developer.
3. Developing particular steps based on the results of analysis is not backed up by tools.
4. The methods don't take into account qualitative changes of the system.
The TRIZ-based method of evolution strategy, developed by the authors is intended for elimination of these disadvantages and enhancement of strategizing effectiveness.
METHOD FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING BASED ON DIRECT AND REVERSE USE OF TRIZ MODEL.
The strategy development method proposed by the authors is based on TRIZ model, presented in Fig. 9.
Figure 9
TRIZ model is a schematic presentation of a gradual transition from the problem to the TRIZ-model of the problem, after that - to TRIZ-model of solving and then to the solution itself; from system to TRIZ-model of the system, then to TRIZ-model of the new system and further, to real modification of the system. All mentioned transitions are instrumental, each of them implies formalized procedures, enabling to develop all-purpose algorithm of strategic planning.
Step 1. Select the object and horizon of planning.
As it is seen in figure 9, everything begins with choosing the object of analysis - system «AS IS» or Problem. This is an important step, since all subsequent steps depend upon it. For example, strategy of development can be prepared for a branch, enterprise, section of the enterprise or for an individual direction in the activity of the given enterprise. At this step it is necessary to clearly define the boundaries of the strategizing object.
System in the past
System as is
As a particular example of an object taken from the professional activity of the authors one can quote the direction in TRIZ in the aluminum division and in downstream division. These directions have distinct boundaries and structure.
Also, it is important to define the horizon of planning, since it will directly precondition drawing up further plans. Algorithm operates, also with modifications in supersystems, therefore the higher the horizon of planning, the more radical could be the influence of changes in supersystems and the higher is the need for transformations of the selected object.
Step 2. Describe the system «AS IS», what key problems are now contained in it? Formulate requirements contradictions based on key problem situations.
At this step it is necessary to describe the composition of the selected system in its present state. This is what takes place in the present. There are no ideal systems, already now there are key problems in the system, which hinder or restrict its evolution. If this is true, these problems may hide the contradictions, which are necessary to detect and to formulate according to TRIZ methodology.
System in the past
System as is
Getting back to the real example from Step 1, one of the key problems of TRIZ direction in the aluminum division and downstream division is the insufficient involvement of enterprise employees in TRIZ projects. At this step the problem was formulated in this particular wording. However, at the next steps it was refined and the contradiction was formulated.
The sources of information on key problems could be different documents (protocols, normative and constating documents) associated with the object, participants of the processes, which occurred in the selected site.
It is very important to note here that not all of the problems have contradictions in their basis, but as a rule, key problems, which restrict system evolution are based on such contradictions, the resolution of which could be a driver of growth in mid-term and long-term perspectives.
Step 3. Define target metrics of the object in keeping with the selected horizon of planning and specify the wording of requirements in identified contradictions of requirements.
If at the preceding step the wording of key problems can be of free form, at this step it is necessary to pass over to from the free form of formulating problems to contradiction of requirements worded in the following form: If (to do something), then Requirement 1 is achieved, however in this case Requirement 2 is not achieved. This transition is not always trivial and accessible at the first iteration. Deeper analysis of the problem situation with the aid TRIZ analytical tools might be required, for example, with the aid of cause/effect analysis.
System in the past
System as is
Contradiction of requirements
^^ Target Metrics >
System as to be
Based on the example offered by the authors, the problem «insufficient involvement of employees of the enterprises in TRIZ-projects» formed the basis for the following contradiction of requirements: «If the employee of the enterprise actively takes part in TRIZ-project, TRIZ is quickly incorporated into the processes of the company, but in this case the employee has no time for fulfilling his routine operational tasks. If the employee of the enterprise does not take part in TRIZ project, he fully fulfills his routine operational tasks, but in this case TRIZ gets incorporated into the company processes fairly slowly or even is not incorporated at all.».
B ased on this example it is seen that the wording «insufficient involvement of enterprises' employees into TRIZ projects» contains a much smaller volume of information than the presented wording of requirements contradictions, which proves that certain analytical work has been done.
If the horizon of planning is 1-2 years, it could be possible not to perform subsequent steps. It would be better to concentrate on elimination of contradictions using the techniques of resolving contradictions. Obtained solutions and measures for realization of these solutions will form the basis for the future short-term plan.
Step 4. Using TRIZ tools intended for working with contradictions (contradiction of attribute, principles, IFR) formulate the lines of evolution of system «AS IS».
At this step deeper developmental work on these problems starts. Transition from contradiction of requirements to contradiction of attribute requires a deeper understanding of processes occurring inside the system «AS IS». Formulated contradiction of attribute offer an opportunity to pass over to IFR. At bottom, when a contradiction of attribute is formulated, transition to IFR is a mechanical operation of using already known models of IFR, resource IFR. For example, using a software complex Compinno-TRIZ, one can formulate IFR through single mouse click.
System in the past
System in the past
©
IFR
In the example, offered by the authors, the following contradiction of requirements was formulated at step 3: «If the employee of the enterprise actively takes part in TRIZ-project, TRIZ is quickly incorporated into the processes of the company, however in this case the employee has no
time for fulfilling his routine operational tasks. If the employee of the enterprise does not take part in TRIZ project, he fully fulfills his routine operational tasks, however in this case TRIZ gets incorporated into the company processes fairly slowly or even is not incorporated at all».
As a system element the employee of the subdivision was selected, in which TRIZ is being implemented, while the parameter under analysis was labor hours. In this case contradiction of attribute could be formulated in the following way: «Employee of the subdivision should spend labor hours on fulfillment of TRIZ project in order that TRIZ should be quickly implemented into the company's processes and should spend labor hours on fulfillment of his routine operational tasks in order to fulfill them fully.».
Also, depending upon the selected contradiction of requirements, IFR and resource IFR will have the following wordings:
IFR1: Employee of the subdivision with the attribute Labor hours are spent on fulfillment of TRIZ-project HIMSELF (HERSELF) allows to maintain operational activity.
Resource IFR1: X-resource (from the resources of system) in place of element Employee of the subdivision, retaining the attribute Labor hours are spent on fulfillment of TRIZ-project, should HIMSELF (HERSELF), during operational time within the limits of the operational zone provide for an opportunity to meet the Requirement maintains operational activity.
IFR2: Employee with the attribute Labor hours is spent on fulfillment of his (her) operational routine tasks HIMSELF (HERSELF) enables TRIZ to be quickly implemented into the process of the company.
Resource IFR2: X-resource (from the system resources) in place of the element Employee of the subdivision, retaining his (her) attribute Labor hours are wasted on fulfilling his routine operational tasks, should HIMSELF (HERSELF) during the operative time and within the limits of the operational zone provide for an opportunity to meet Requirement TRIZ is quickly implemented into the processes of the company.
Step 5. Formulate the ideal image of the system «AS TO BE»
Based on the wordings obtained at step 4 and target metrics defined at step 3, the ideal image of the system «AS TO B E» is formed at the present step.
System in the past
System in
the past
System as is
System as is
Target Metrics
Ideal image of system as to be
As a continuation of our once-through example let us quote several wordings of an ideal image of the system «AS TO B E»:
• The work on TRIZ-projects is an inseparable part of performing production functions;
• Development of skills and habits of an employee in the field of TRIZ is affected in the minimum volume necessary for participation in TRIZ-project;
• TRIZ-projects are an effective method to improve the material situation, build the career and get the recognition of colleagues and relatives.
This list is not exhaustive and is quoted here for the purpose of demonstrating the step. Step 6. Formulate ideal images of subsystems and supersystems «AS TO BE» This step is analogous to step 5, only in this case the images of subsystem and supersystem «AS TO BE» are formulated.
Supersystem Supersystem
in the past as is
System in System as is
the past U--
Subsystem Subsystem
in the past as is
Ideal Image of supersystem as to be
©
Ideal Image of system as to be
Ideal Image of subsystem as to be
Here the authors will offer be only general comments and definitions, because this information is confidential. In discussing the system of TRIZ evolution it is implied that its supersystem will be understood as either the enterprise, the company as a whole, or particular subdivisions, in which the implementation takes place. In its turn, subsystems could be treated as subdivisions, which directly take place in implementation and development of TRIZ at the enterprise.
Step 7. Formulate, WHAT should be changed in subsystems, system and supersystems
«AS IS», in order to approach the images obtained at step 6.
This step implies the comparison of two states of the system, subsystem and supersystem: «AS IS» and «AS TO B E».
For example, system «AS IS»: The work on TRIZ projects is an excessive load for the enterprise on the whole and for the employees in particular. System «AS TO BE»: The work on TRIZ projects is an inseparable part of performing productive functions. Comparing these two wordings and using the results of step 4, it is formulated what in particular should be changed in the system, subsystems and supersystems. This step is a linking chain between the current state of the system and the image, which was formed at the preceding steps. It has to be noted here that this is the work performed as part of preceding steps implying the identification of key contradictions existing within the system and the resolution of these contradictions, which allows to carry out qualitative transformations of the system, supersystem and subsystem.
Step 8. Formulate HOW to change what was defined at step 7. The total sum and sequence of obtained points will be a strategic plan.
Having defined at the preceding step, what in particular should be changed, the measures are formulated at this step, which will contribute to these changes. The total set of these measures will form the basis of the future strategic plan. After postulating the terms for realization of the above-mentioned measures as well as the persons responsible for this realization, the user of the algorithm gets a ready strategic program, directed at the resolution of system contradictions, which hinder qualitative transformation of selected system.
Ideal image of supersystem as to be
Ideal image of system as to be
Ideal image of subsystem as to be
What to change? |
Due to the reasons of confidentiality the items of obtained strategic program of TRIZ direction development formulated by the authors are not quoted here.
If we use the reference pattern intended for comparing methods and approaches of strategiz-ing accepted at the beginning of the article, the pattern of the proposed algorithm will take the following form:
Past Present Future
Supersystem Supersystem Supersystem
System System System
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem
Figure 10
Figure 10 shows that the quoted algorithm embraces the analysis of systems, subsystems and supersystems and enables (with the aid of TRIZ tools) to pass over from the system «AS IS» to the image of the systems «AS TO BE». В ased on the obtained results, it becomes possible to name particular measures concerning transformation of system «AS IS» into the system «AS TO BE». It offers an opportunity not to be restricted only by quantitative improvements, but also to attain qualitatively new transformations of the system.
CONCLUSION
Practical experience of the authors and the research conducted by the authors of a number of popular methods for strategic planning showed that:
• They possess a number of advantages, simplicity of use being the key advantage;
• They possess a number of key disadvantages, -- incorrectness of obtained measures, great role of brainstorming with all characteristic restrictions, absence of tools used for formulating qualitative transformations of the system.
In order to compare so different methodologies of strategic planning, a multi-screen pattern of talented thinking was selected. It enabled to visualize and evaluate the completeness of embracing the objects of analysis in the analyzed methodologies and the instrumental aspects of transition between the objects.
The authors quoted a detailed algorithm for strategic planning based on TRIZ model illustrated with examples of using it, where it was allowed by the considerations of confidentiality allowed that. Subsequent works on this topic could be associated with the verification of the given algorithm for forming strategic plans in any branches of industry followed by refining it and specialization of steps, taking into account specific features of the given branch.
REFERENCE
1. https://adizes.me/posts/missiya-strategiya-struktura-v-kakom-poryadke-provodit-izmeneniya-v-kompanii/
2. Development of system-based thinking - Final goal of teaching ARIZ, G.S.Altshuller, 1975, Baku https://altshuller.ru/triz/triz70.asp
3. GAP-analysis: Short way from desirable to actual! | Blog 4brain
4. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/algoritm-postroeniya-tablitsy-gap-analiza-razryvov-likvidnosti/viewer
5. https://vc.ru/u/1215539-projecto/442930-instrumenty-strategicheskogo-planirovaniya
6. https://sciff.ru/pochemu-my-ispolzuem-otsw-analiz/
7. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/swot.asp
8. https://upr.ru/article/pest-analiz-chto-eto-takoe-i-kak-ego-provesti-na-primerah/
9. http://vestnikmckinsey.ru/strategic-planning/disciplina-strategii
10. TRIZ Summit, TDS. Onthology "TRIZ Model" (triz-summit.ru)
