Solving Problems Using TOP-TRIZ

Zinovy Royzen,
TRIZ Master
President, TRIZ Consulting, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
Tel: (206) 364-3116
zroyzen@[Link]
[Link]

Abstract

The author describes two cases he solved for his customers and techniques used in these
TRIZ applications.

One of the described problems took a team six months until it decided to look for a help.
Using TRIZ, the problem was solved in 15 minutes. Another problem delayed new
product development for more than a year. It was solved at the first day of TRIZ
facilitation.

The paper describes the methods used in the cases including the author's Tool-Object-
Product (TOP) Function Modeling, some Standard Techniques and Conflict Solving
Algorithm.

The paper also describes author's experience in teaching TOP-TRIZ.

What is TOP-TRIZ?
TOP-TRIZ is a further development of Classical TRIZ. It includes further development
of problem formulation and problem modeling, Standard Solutions, ARIZ and Laws of
Evolution of Technical Systems. It has integrated TRIZ methods into a user friendly
system of analytical thinking.

Classical TRIZ
Genrich S. Altshuller, the creator of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, stopped
development of TRIZ Methods to solve technical problems in 1985. His last version of
TRIZ known as Classical TRIZ. It includes the following methods.

• Substance-Field Analysis
• 76 Standard Solutions
• Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving (ARIZ)
• Laws of Evolution of Technical Systems

Some people include also 40 Inventive Principles and Contradiction Matrix, the earliest

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

version of TRIZ, even though Altshuller did not mention them in his last technical book
titled To Find an Idea.

Classical Substance-Field Models

Altshuller’s Substance-Field model of the simplest system is composed of three elements
— the two substances and a field.

Field F

Substance 2 Substance 1 S2 S1
F
S1 The object.
S2 The tool.
F (Field) Energy or force. S2 S1

Figure 1: Models of the simplest useful system

S2 S1

S1 The object.
S2 The tool.
F (Field) Harmful energy or force.

Figure 2: Model of the simplest system having a harmful action

Substance-Field Models describe models of the systems rather than functions.

Tool-Object-Product (TOP) Function Analysis

Tool-Object-Product (TOP) Analysis, the next generation of Substance-Field Analysis,
was developed by Zinovy Royzen in 1989. The simplest useful function has four
components. It has the tool of the function (or the function provider), the object of the
function (or recipient of the action of the tool), the action of the tool at the object, and one
more component — the product of the function. The useful function of the tool is to
obtain the product of the function from the object. The action is described by one arrow,
which simplifies the model.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

 F
T O ⇒ U.P.
O The object of the useful action
T The tool of the useful action
F (Field) Energy or force, or description of the useful action
U.P. A useful product.

Figure 3. TOP model of a useful function

F
T O ⇒ H.P.
O The object the harmful action
T The tool of the harmful action
F (Field) Energy or force, or description of the harmful action
H.P. A harmful (unwanted) product or products

Figure 4: TOP model of a harmful function

Very often a useful action also causes an unwanted effect, or an attempt to improve a
function leads to deterioration in another function of the system. Conflicts are the most
difficult type of problem in innovation. TRIZ offers models to describe any type of
conflict.

Fu
⇒ U.P.
T O ⇒
Fh H.P.

O1 The object of the useful and the harmful function

T The tool of the useful function
Fu Energy or force, or description of the useful function
Fh Energy or force, or description of the harmful function
U.P. A useful product.
H.P. A harmful (unwanted) product or products

Figure 5: TOP model of a conflict

Modeling a function by describing all four components — the tool, the object, the action,
and the product — improves understanding of both the function and the best ways for its
improvement.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Advantages of TOP Function Modeling:
• Universal Model of a Function
Neither the tool of the function nor the object of the function has to be a
substance. TOP Function Modeling allows you to model any function in any
system. It is a more generic way to model a function than Substance-Field
Modeling.

• Complete Description of a Function

Desired and unwanted products of the functions of a modeled system improve
understanding of the system and simplify analysis of the system resources.

• Link Between Functions

Introducing the product of a function into its model provides a very convenient
and understandable link between functions. For example, a product of the first
function can be a tool or an object of a subsequent function.

The link between functions is important in understanding not only a desired

performance of a product, but also the chain of unwanted functions. Links
between functions simplify cause-effect analysis and improve the process of
revealing the cause of a current or potential failure of a product.

• Increasing Effectiveness of Function Analysis

Function analysis guides you in decomposing the performance of your product
into single functions — both useful and unwanted. The system approach guides
you in describing the function of the supersystem of your product and interactions
between the product and its supersystem. It also guides you in analyzing and
describing interactions between the product and its surroundings that are not part
of the supersystem. Then a single function can be considered separately if it
needs improvement.

Function modeling helps you to understand the system’s performance, state the set of
problems to consider, classify the problems, and determine the TRIZ Methods to be
applied according to the TOP-TRIZ Flow Chart.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

TOP-TRIZ Flow Chart
Formulate Classify Solve Problems Evaluate
Problems Problems Using TRIZ Methods Concepts
State the Initial
Situation
y State the Purpose
of the System
y State Objectives
y State Current
Problems and
Known Solutions
Do You Need
to Reveal the Yes Revealing the Cause
Cause?

Analyze the Situation

y State the Basic No
Function
y Analyze the
Structure
y Analyze Functions Detect or Measure an
Is it a Detection or
y State the past Yes
Object or a Field
Measurement?
solutions
y State constraints
y State Alternatives
y Apply Ideal Ways
No
y Formulate
Problems to Solve
y ARIZ
y Separation Rules
Is it a Conflict? Yes y Direct Ways Yes
y Indirect Ways
y Special Ways
y Inventive Principles

No Is there a
New Problem?

Is it a Harmful y Direct Ways

Yes
Action? y Indirect Ways

No
No

Is it an Absent Build a Sufficient

Yes
(Insufficient) Action? Function

No

Is it a Useful Action? Yes Technological Forecast Evaluate Concepts

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Ideal Ways is an analytical method made up of the ideal directions for improving a
function. It is a part of problem formulation. Ideal Way 1, for example, guides you in
stating problems related to the possibility of elimination of the function and its tool. The
TOP model of the analyzed useful function provides the possible ways — eliminating the
need for the product of the function or eliminating the object of the function.

Standard Techniques
TRIZ Standard Techniques is a further improvement of Standard Solutions, developed by
Zinovy Royzen. Standard Techniques are step-by-step guides for applying generic
solutions to your problem and developing specific solutions by utilizing the resources of
the system, its supersystem, and its environment.

Integration of TRIZ Methods allowed separating of all Standard Solutions based on

applications of Laws of Evolution into separate class called Technological Forecast in the
TRIZ Flow Chart.

Integration of TRIZ Methods allowed simplifying a TRIZ method to reveal the causes of
a failure so that the method was included it in Standard Techniques.

Sub-classes of Standard Solutions of Class 1 were separated to simplify problem

classification and determination of the corresponding Standard Solutions.

Some Standard Solutions were reformulated. Some new Standards for eliminating
harmful functions were added.
Standards solutions were supplied with step-by-step checklists.

Standard Techniques for eliminating harmful functions include the following.

Direct Ways
Six Direct Ways provide a set of generic techniques for preventing an unwanted function from
producing its unwanted product.

Indirect Ways
Indirect Ways is a set of techniques for bypassing an original problem.
• Techniques for removal of the tool of a harmful function
• Techniques for removal of object of a harmful function
• Technique for elimination the cause of a harmful function
• Techniques for elimination of the consequences of a harmful function
• Techniques for converting a harmful function into a useful function

Further Development of ARIZ

Integration of ARIZ and initial function analysis of a system has improved conflict
definition and eliminated repetition. TOP function modeling improves understanding of
the conflict, its opposite versions, the function of X-resource and its product. One of the
most difficult steps in ARIZ – formulation of the physical contradiction — is simplified

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

significantly. Techniques for Physical contradiction separation are reformulated and an
additional technique was added.

Integration of TRIZ Methods allowed reducing the number of steps in ARIZ and
improving its effectiveness.

Case 1. Plating Steel Rods and Pipes with Aluminum

Background of the problem

An old system for plating steel rods and pipes with aluminum included a well in the
ground of a shop filled with molten aluminum at 700-740 C and a conveyer moving steel
pipes and rods.
Preheated pipes and rods were submersed into molten aluminum for a short period of
time and then removed with a coat of aluminum which protects steel pipes and rods
against corrosion.

Figure 6: Old process of plating steel rods and pipes with aluminum

A new system for plating steel rods and pipe with aluminum was developed in order to
increase the rate of production.

The new system includes a tube and two pumps utilizing the magnetohydrodynamic
(MHD) phenomenon. When a magnetic field and an electric current intersect in a liquid,
their repulsive interaction propels the liquid in a direction perpendicular to both the field
and the current.

The pumps keep molten aluminum in the tube, and a rod passing through the tube is
plated with aluminum.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

 magnetohydrodynamic pumps

rod tube molten aluminum

Figure 7: Plating steel rods

The test of the new system was a success for plating rods.
Strait line motion of the rods increased productivity of the process. In addition, the new
system removed excess of aluminum, decreased loss of aluminum due to oxidation,
decreased energy loss and improved the shop environment.

However, there was a problem with plating pipes. High temperature (700-740 C) molten
aluminum was pumped out of the tube through the pipe inserted in the tube.

The cause of the failure was understood. A steel (ferromagnetic) pipe does not allow a
magnetic field to pass through it, thus there are no forces to keep molten aluminum
inside.

Pump 1 magnetohydrodynamic pumps

Pump 2

pipe tube molten aluminum

Figure 8: Plating steel pipes

The pipes have to be plated outside and inside.

After working on the problem for a half a year, Dr. Verdirevsky who led the development
of the system in Moscow called to the author with invitation to help him and his team.

He explained the problem and ideas his team had developed. Some of ideas related to
collecting aluminum from the pipe and returning it back to the system. Other ideas
suggested sealing the pipes for plating the outside surface and different methods of
plating the inside of the pipes.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

 Magnetic Field

Steel pipe

Figure 9: There is no magnetic field inside a steel pipe

TOP Function Modeling

Pump 2 pumps molten aluminum out from the pipe.

Pumps
Pump 2 Aluminum ⇒ Aluminum (H.P.)

Inside Outside

The harmful function is caused by disabling the pump 1 to hold aluminum.

Pump 1 Aluminum ⇒ Aluminum (H.P.)

Inside Outside

Pump 1 is unable to hold aluminum because a steel pipe blocks magnetic field.

Steel Pipe Magnetic Field ⇒ Magnetic Field (H.P.)

Blocked

According to Altshuller, Substance-Field model has to have two substances and a field.
This approach limits function modeling.

TOP Function Modeling can be used to describe any function.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

From TOP Function Modeling became the root cause of the problem.

Blocks
Steel Pipe Magnetic Field ⇒ Magnetic Field (H.P.)
Blocked

It is a harmful function and we need to apply techniques for harmful function elimination.

In classical TRIZ, Altshuller combined his standard solutions to build Su-Field Models
and to destroy Su-Field Models in one class of Standard which complicate the flow chart
of using standards.

Class 1. Building and Destroying Substance-Field Models

The class offers
1.1 Building a Su-Field Models
1.2 Destroying Su-Field Models

1.2.1 Elimination Harmful Interaction by Introducing S3

1.2.2. Elimination Harmful Interaction by Introducing Modified S1 and/or S2.
12.3. “Drawing Off” a Harmful Action
1.2.4 Counteracting a Harmful Function with F2
1.2.5 “Switching Off” a Magnetic Influence

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

 Steel Pipe Magnetic Field ⇒ Magnetic Field (H.P.)
Blocked

Direct Ways
Problem Solution Description
There is a Eliminate the harmful
harmful action action
on an object O
T F O
Insulate O from the harmful action
T F O Sx =? by a substance-insulator Sx.
Sx

Counteract the harmful action with

T F O Fx =? the opposing field Fx.
Fx

Protect O from the harmful action

T F O Sx =? by a safety substance Sx which
Sx attracts the harmful action on itself.

Modify the tool (source) of the

T F O Tm=? harmful action T to turn off the
m harmful action.

It was recommended to heat pipe

over its Curie temperature which
is 770 C.
Modify O to be non sensitive to the
F harmful action.
T O Om=?
m
Alter the amount of the zone of the
F
T O harmful action, its duration or both
to decrease the harmful action or
eliminate it completely.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Case 2. Water Bottle Cap Problem
A water bottle cap which avoid the need for manual positioning of the valve and which
permits dispensing water by application of suction, should open easily at suction
pressures less than -0.38 psi.

The problem is that under normal use, sometimes internal container water pressure can be
greater than 0.38 psi, and thus the valve can leak water.

Also, water has to be released by squeezing the bottle with pressure applied to the valve
not less than, for example, 1 psi.

What should be done?

Bottle

Water

Cap
Flexible membrane

Valve closed Valve opened

Figure 10: Water bottle cap with a flexible membrane

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Initial Situation

1. The purpose of the system is to seal water in the bottle and release water by sucking.

2. The objective of the project is to design a closure that meets the following
requirements.
- One hand bottle use
- Opening the valve by sucking with ΔP not more than 0.38 psi
- Dispensing water by squeezing the bottle.
- No leakage

3. Current problem. Valve designed for easy opening by sucking leaks under normal
conditions of use.
4. State known solutions. State advantages and disadvantages of known solutions.
- Push to open valve. Eliminates leakage. It takes two hands to operate.
- Twist to open valve. Eliminates leakage. It takes two hands to operate.
- “Stiff “ Valve. Eliminates leakage. It does not open by sucking.

Analyze the Situation

1. The basic function of the system is to seal and dispense water.
2. Describe the system, supersystem and environment.
The system:
Cap
- Case
- Stem
- Valve
Water Bottle
Water
Air in the bottle
The supersystem:
Customer
The environment:
Air
Outside Forces

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

3. Analyze functions and formulate problems.

The Current Problem (Problem 1)

Water leaks through the cap under normal conditions of use because ΔP applied across the
valve could be more than 0.38 psi.

Model of the harmful function.

Lets
Valve ed
Water ⇒ Water
Open Inside Outside (leakage)

Problem 2.
The Problem 1 is caused because the Valve is opened.
Model of the harmful function.
Pressures
Water Valve ⇒ Valve
Pressurized Closed Opened

The harmful function is caused because water in the bottle is pressurized by an

outside force. However, the valve was designed to be opened when 0.38 psi applied
across it.
The open valve causes leakage of water.

The useful functions of the valve are to open and to seal water.
1. The function of the valve is to open water.

Model of the function.

Lets
Valve Water ⇒ Water
Open Inside Outside (dispensed)

In order to perform the function there is a need to apply suction with ΔP=0.38 psi.

2. The function of the valve is to seal water.

Model of the function.
Seals
Valve Water P ⇒ Water P
Closed Sealed (does not leak)

It is also possible o say that the function of the valve is to press the wall in order to
seal water.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

 Presses
Valve Wall ⇒ Wall
Closed Pressed

The function is insufficient. The valve is flexible in order to open it easily.

A known solution is to make it “stiffer.”

List of Problems

Problem 1.
Lets
Valve Water ⇒ Water
Open Inside Outside (leakage)

Problem 2.

Water Valve ⇒ Valve

Pressurized Closed Opened

Problem 2 is the proffered problem to start.

Open by sucking Open by squeezing

Closed

ΔP applied across
the valve
Undesired
0.38 PSI opening 1 PSI

Known Solution
A “stiff” valve eliminates leakage by sealing water; however, water will be sealed even
when suction is applied.

Problem 3. Conflict

Water (Pressurized) ⇒ Water (Pressurized)

Sealed
Valve Water ⇒ Water
Stiff Sealed

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Problem 2

Water Valve ⇒ Valve

Pressurized Closed Opened

Direct Ways
Problem Solution Description
There is a Eliminate the harmful
harmful action action
on an object O
T F O
Insulate O from the harmful action by a
T F O Sx =? substance-insulator Sx.
Sx

Counteract the harmful action with the

T F O Fx =? opposing field Fx.
Fx

Protect O from the harmful action by a

T F O Sx =? safety substance Sx which attracts the
Sx harmful action on itself.

Modify the tool (source) of the harmful

T F O Tm=? action T to turn off the harmful action.
m
Modify O to be non sensitive to the
F harmful action.
T O Om=?
m A stiff valve.
Problem 3.
A stiff valve will not be opened by
sucking.
Alter the amount of the zone of the
F harmful action, its duration or both to
T O decrease the harmful action or eliminate
it completely.
In order to reduce total amount of the
harmful action we need to decrease the
area of the valve exposed to water.
Problem 4. A smaller area of the valve
exposed to water will not be sufficient to
open the valve by sucking.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

 According to Direct Ways, there are two solutions to Problem 2.

A. A stiff valve. This solution causes a new problem. A stiff valve will not be
opened by sucking.

B. A smaller area of the valve is exposed to water. This solution causes a new
problem. The valve will not be opened by sucking.

An attempt to solve this problem improves understanding of the physics involved.

Problem 3. Conflict

ARIZ Flow Chart

Step 1. State the Opposite Versions of the Conflict

Shortcut 1

Step 2. State the Extreme Versions of the Conflict

Shortcut 2

Step 3. Describe the Model of the Problem

Shortcut 3

Step 4. State the Physical Contradiction and

the Ideal Final Result

Step 5. Separate the Physical Contradiction

Step 6. Apply Standard Techniques and

Utilize the Resources

Step 7. Change the Problem

(If the problem has not been solved)

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving
Step 1. State the Opposite Versions of the Conflict
Membrane
• The system for sealing and dispensing water includes a valve, water and pressurized
water.
Model of the conflict.

Water (Pressurized) ⇒ Water (Pressurized)

Sealed
Valve Water ⇒ Water
Stiff Sealed

• State the Opposite Versions of the Conflict

Conflict 1. Conflict 2.
In order to dispense water by sucking In order to seal pressurized water
the membrane has to be flexible the membrane has to be stiff
but it will not dispense water by
but it does not seal pressurized water. sucking.

W ⇒ W
W ⇒W M Sealed
M Sealed W ⇒ W
W ⇒ W Sealed
Sealed

• A minimum alteration of the system has to provide dispensing water by sucking and
sealing pressurized water without any complication or deterioration of the
system or anything else.

• Shortcut 1. Separate Preliminary Physical Contradiction 1.

The membrane has to be flexible and stiff.

1. Separation in Space
2. Separation in Time
3. Separation Between the Components
4. Separation Between the Components and the Set of the Components
5. Separation Between Parameters

Separate the Physical Contradiction

The valve has to be flexible to be opened by sucking and has to be stiff in order to
prevent its opening by pressurized water.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Separation in Space

ΔP=-0.38psi

Zone 1. Flexible valve

Valve opened
Zone 2. Stiff valve

Figure 11: Water bottle cap

Separation in Time

Dispensing Sealing
Time

Leakage

Separation Between the Components

Two valves. Existing valve has to be flexible. A new valve has to be stiff.

Separation Between the Components and the Set of the Components

Both valves are flexible. The system of flexible valves is stiff.

Separation Between Parameters

Opening of the valve depends on the force applied to the valve.
F =ΔP x Area

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Another way to analyze the situation is the following.
Pressures
Sucking Air-Water Valve ⇒ Valve
Opened

Pressures
Air-Pressurized Water
Valve ⇒ Valve
Opened
The valve is opened when ΔP =0.38 psi applied across it. Even though the tools of the
functions are different, the ΔP is the same.

From this point of view the following conflict can be stated.

⇒ Valve Opened (for dispensing)

Valve
ΔP ⇒ Valve Opened (leakage)
0.38 psi

Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving

Step 1. State the Opposite Versions of the Conflict
Membrane
• The system for sealing and dispensing water includes a valve and the pressure across
the valve.

• Model of the conflict.

Membrane Opened (for dispensing)

ΔP
⇒ Membrane
0.38 psi Opened (leakage)

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

• State the Opposite Versions of the Conflict

Conflict 1. Conflict 2.
In order to eliminate opening of the membrane In order to open the membrane by
(leakage) the ΔP across the membrane has to be sucking the ΔP across the membrane has
increased, but the membrane will not be to be decreased, but the membrane will be
opened by sucking. opened by pressurized water (leakage).

⇒ M
ΔP M Opened (D)
⇒ V ⇒ M
ΔP M Opened (D) Opened (L)
⇒ V
Opened (L)

Step 2. State the Extreme Versions of the Conflict

Extreme Conflict 1. Extreme Conflict 2.

If the ΔP across the membrane is 1 psi If the ΔP across the membrane is less
in order to eliminate opening of the 0.25 psi in order to open the membrane
membrane (leakage) completely, by sucking easily, the membrane will be
the membrane will not be opened by opened by pressurized water (leakage)
sucking.
M ⇒ M
ΔP M ⇒ Opened (D) ΔP M Opened (D)
⇒ M ⇒ M
1 psi 0.25 psi
Opened (L) Opened (L)

Step 3. Describe the Model of the Problem

• Conflict 2 is better for the basic function of the system.
• It is necessary to identify an X-resource:
A. X-resource has to eliminate opening of the membrane by pressurized water (leakage).
B. X-resource must not deteriorate easiness of opening the membrane by sucking.

⇒ M
ΔP M Opened (D)
⇒ M
0.25 psi
Opened (L)

⇒
X M Not opened (L)

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Step 4. State the Physical Contradiction and the Ideal Final Result
• Define Macro Level Physical Contradiction.

In order to eliminate opening of the membrane by pressurized water (leakage),

the membrane has to have no opening force and the membrane has to have an
opening force in order to be opened by sucking.

• State the Ideal Final Result

During the operating time, the zone of the conflict itself has to provide membrane
with an opening force and no opening force.

Step 5. Separate the Physical Contradiction

Separation in Space

ΔP=-0.38psi

Zone 1. Membrane has to have a force

Valve opened
Zone 2. Membrane has to have no force

Figure 12: Water bottle cap

Separation in Time

Dispensing Sealing
Time

Leakage

Separation Between Parameters

Opening of the membrane depends on the force applied to the valve.

F =ΔP x Area
In order to have opening force and no opening force having the same ΔP across the valve
when sucking and when water pressurized, area of the valve exposed to pressurized water
has to be smaller than the area of the valve exposed to suction.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

“It is clear that through the application of TRIZ we were able to generate more concepts
in two days than the contracted inventors were able to accomplish in over a year. Also
the concepts and approaches we developed with your help are founded in sound
engineering principles.”
Larry Smeyak

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the Alcoa CSI team Involved in the project: Mark Powell, Larry Smeyak,
Ramesh Kamath, David Babcock, Nassan Najdawi and Coy Hearld.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

Teaching TOP-TRIZ
The program includes three 40-hour courses.
1. Designing and Manufacturing Better Products Faster Using TRIZ.
2. Advanced Practice TRIZ Course.
3. Certified TRIZ Practitioner Course.

Designing and Manufacturing Better Products Faster Using TRIZ

• Basic concepts of TRIZ
• Analysis of a system and problem formulation
• Solving a class of problems called Insufficient Function
• Solving a class of problems called Conflict
- Algorithm for Conflict Solving
- Five techniques for Physical Contradiction Separation
- Special Ways to introduce new resources without causing subsequent
problems
- 40 Inventive Principles and Contradiction Matrix
• Solving a class of problems called Harmful or Unwanted Function
• Solving a class of problems called Measurement
• Solving a class of problems called Revealing the Cause of a Failure
• Accelerated development of the new generation of products and processes by
applying Technological Forecast (overview)
• Concept evaluation
• Combined application of TRIZ Methods
• Solving problems brought by participants.
• Group discussion

Advanced Courses
The objective of the advanced courses is to help TRIZ users in gaining advanced level
experience in applying TRIZ and confidence in working on their real-life problems
and facilitation of TRIZ facilitation of teams.

Summary and Conclusions

TOP-TRIZ is a user-friendly contemporary generation of TRIZ. It is one of the most
advanced and effective versions of TRIZ. It enhances your analytical thinking in
problem formulation and problem solving. The power of TOP-TRIZ has been proven by
solving many difficult problems.

A set of courses provides the learners of TOP-TRIZ with practical experience sufficient
to achieve outstanding results.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

References
1. Altshuller, G. S., Creativity as an Exact Science, translated by Anthony Williams,
New York, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1984.
2. Altshuller, G. S., To Find an Idea, (in Russian), Nauka, 1989.
3. Altshuller G. S., ARIZ-85c, 1985.
4. Royzen, Z., Designing and Manufacturing Better Products Faster Using TRIZ. Basic
TRIZ Course, TRIZ Consulting, Inc. 2008.
5. Royzen, Z., Advanced Practice TRIZ Course, Case Studies. TRIZ Consulting, Inc.
2008.
6. Royzen, Z., TRIZ Practitioner Course, Case Studies. TRIZ Consulting, Inc. 2008.
7. Royzen, Z., Tool, Object, Product (TOP) Function Analysis, TRIZCON99.
8. Royzen, Z. Application of TRIZ in Value Management and Quality Improvement.
The SAVE Proceedings, Vol. XXVIII, Society of American Value Engineers,
International Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, May 2-5, 1993.
9. Royzen, Z. Product Improvement and Development of New Generation Products
Using TRIZ. The ASI Symposium, Total Product Development, Dearborn, Michigan,
November 1-3, 1995.
10. Royzen, Z. Case Study: TRIZ Solves a Hard Drive Reliability Problem. The Tenth
Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, June 14-16, 1998.
11. Royzen, Z. Solving Contradictions in Development of New Generation Products
Using TRIZ. The ASI 2nd Annual Total Product Development Symposium, Pomona,
California, November 6-8, 1996.
12. Royzen, Z. TRIZ Solves a Reliability Problem Concerning a Space Shuttle Class
Main Engine. The ASI 4th Annual International Total Product Development
Symposium, City of Industry, California, November 18-20, 1998.
13. Royzen, Z. Ideality of Products and Contradictions, Advanced Tutorial,
TRIZCON1999
14. Royzen, Z. Standard Approaches to Solving Problems, Advanced Tutorial,
TRIZCON2000
15. Royzen, Z. Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving, Advanced Tutorial,
TRIZCON2001
16. Royzen, Z. Conflict Solving Algorithm, Advanced Tutorial, TRIZCON2002
17. Royzen, Z. Maximizing Utilization of New Solutions and Super Effects, Advanced
Tutorial, TRIZCON2004
18. Royzen, Z. Revealing Causes of a Failure Using TRIZ, Advanced Tutorial,
TRIZCON2005
19. Royzen, Z. Conflict Solving Algorithm, Advanced Tutorial, TRIZCON2006
20. Royzen, Z. Conflict Solving Algorithm, Advanced Tutorial, TRIZCON2007
21. US Patent No 6,832,706

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.

About the Author

Zinovy Royzen is a Master of TRIZ certified by Genrich Altshuller,

the creator of TRIZ. He is the founder and President of TRIZ
Consulting, Inc., Seattle, Washington, the first U.S. company to
apply TRIZ, cofounder and 1998-2007 Director of Altshuller
Institute for TRIZ Studies and affiliate associate professor of
University of Washington, Seattle.

Royzen Zinovy has been applying TRIZ to new product

development, quality improvement, cost reduction, and inventive
problem solving in innovation since 1980. He has been developing
and teaching TRIZ since 1984.

He has led workshops and/or provided consultation at numerous

organizations, including Alcoa, Boeing Co., Eastman Kodak, Ford
Motor Company, Hewlett-Packard, Illinois Tool Works, Kimberly-
Clark, Lexmark International Inc., LG Electronics, Lucent
Technologies Inc., NASA, Paccar, Plug Power, Philips
Semiconductors Hamburg, Samsung, Siemens, Thiokol
Corporation, Western Digital Corporation, Weyerhaeuser
Company, and Xerox.

He is a MS in mechanical engineering, the author of many TRIZ

papers and holds 27 patents.

Copyright 2008 by TRIZ Consulting, Inc.