USIT Paper Q&A
Q&A on USIT and the OAF diagram (in relation to "Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics" by Ed Sickafus)
Q: Toru Nakagawa (Osaka Gakuin University); A: Ed. Sickafus (Ntelleck, LLC, USA)
Email communications from Jun. 27 to Jul. 21, 2015
Further Discussions among Ed Sickafus, Toru Nakagawa, and Shahid S. Arshad, Aug. 14 to Sept. 15, 2015
Posted:  Aug. 25, 2015; Sept. 17, 2015

For going back to Japanese pages, press buttons.

Editor's Note (Toru Nakagawa, Aug. 12, 2015)

This page records the Q&A communications recently carried out in relation to Ed Sickafus' paper "Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics". The paper is posted in Japanese translation on Jul. 29, 2015 and in English on Aug. 25, 2015

Communications posted are briefly summarized in the tables below:

Toru Nakagawa ==>  Ed Sickafus	Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa
[1] Jun. 27:  "TRIZ Home Page in Japan" posting USIT Documents
	[2] Jun. 28:  Congraturations
[3] Jun. 28: Japanese translation of Sickafus' "Subconscious PS" paper

[4] Jul. 1:  Request of an introductory article on the OAF diagram
	[5] Jul. 2: "Unification of USIT to One Graphic (OAF) Heuristics" (4 page manuscript)
	[6] Jul. 2:  On OAF
[7] Jul. 3:  Four more questions about OAF
	[8] Jul. 6:  Answers to the questions on OAF
[9] Jul. 7: On posting the communications
	[10] Jul. 7:  OK on posting the communications

[11] Jul. 20: Questions on the early history of USIT
	[12] Jul. 20: On the early history of USIT; earlier BS team in Ford
[13] Jul. 21:  Request of further clarification
	[14] Jul. 21: USIT started in 1985 (instead of 1995) in Ford
[15] Jul. 21:  Convinced with the USIT start in 1985

In particular, on my requests of explanation of the OAF diagram in USIT [4][7], Dr. Ed Sickafus kindly wrote a 4-page article and explaind it further [5][8].  The article and its contents are:

"Unification of USIT to One Graphic (OAF) Heuristics", Ed Sickafus, Jul. 2, 2015   PDF

Introduction
OAF Diagram
OAF solution space
Update: From USIT to a new methodology, Introspection-Insight-Inspiration

Dr. Sickafus explains the definition and usage of the OAF diagram concisely and describes his research motivation towards fundamental principles in problem solving thinking. 

In the later communications [11]-[14], the start of SIT (Structured Inventive Thinking, later renamed as USIT) in Ford was revealed to be 1985 instead of 1995; the year shown in his USIT Textbook (1997) and in his USIT paper (1999) was found to be a typo.

Editor's Additional　Note (Toru Nakagawa, Sept. 15, 2015)

After the initial posting of this page, further discussions were carried out among Ed Sickafus, Toru Nakagawa, and Shahid Saleem Arshad.   15 more emails are added at the bottom of this page, as tabulated below.

Toru Nakagawa ==>  Ed Sickafus	Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa
[16] Aug. 14:  Draft of 2 pages in English
	[17] Aug. 14:  Preparing for a new blog and ETRIA paper
[18] Aug. 14:  Possibility of back up
	[19] Aug. 15:  Reciprocal posting
	[20] Aug. 15:  'Solution concepts'

from Toru Nakagawa	from Ed Sickafus	from Shahid Saleeem Arshad
		[21] Aug. 29:  Comments and questions on Sickafus' Paper and Q&A
	[22] Sept. 1: Answers to Arshad
[23] Sept. 1: Visualization of Sickafus' paper
	[24] Sept. 2: On subconscious ideation
		[25] Sept. 2: On subcoscious ideation
	[26] Sept. 14: Answers to Nakagawa's comments
	[27] Sept. 15: On 'Solution concepts'
[28] Sept. 16:  Ideas and Conceptual solutions
	[29] Sept. 15: Answere so Arshad's questions
	[30] Sept 15: Glossary

Top of this page	Communication [1]	[4] Request	[5] Article "Unification of USIT to OAF"	[8] OAF Q&A	[11] Q: early history of USIT	[12] Answer	Sickafus' paper "Subconscious Problem Solving"		Japanese page
Further Discussions	[16] Draft of 2 pages	[17] Preparing for a blog	[21] Comments and questions by Arshad	[22] Sickafus' answers	[23] Visualization of Sickafus' paper	[26] Answers to Nakagawa's comments	[30] Glossary by Sickafus

  Communications (Jun. 27 - Jun. 28, 2015)   On Nakagawa's USIT Documents

[1] Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus and many subscribers    Jun. 27, 2015

"TRIZ Home Page in Japan" has been updated last night (dated Jun. 26. 2015) in the English pages.

A full set of documents of USIT originally posted here in Japanese on May 25, 2015 is now posted in English.
USIT: A Concise Process of Creative Problem Solving in the 'Six-Box Scheme'

[1] USIT Process Documents (Index page)
[2] USIT Manual
[3] USIT Case Studies (Index page + 5 Case Studies)
[4] USIT Operators
[5] USIT References

[2]  Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jun. 28, 2015

Congratulations Toru, nicely done.

And good luck with your tutorial in Hong Kong. Let me know how it goes.   Ed

[3]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jun. 28, 2015

Dear Ed, Thank you very much for your message. You are always my teacher in this field.

I am working for brushing up our Japanese translation of your paper at ICSI2014.  In the sequential collaboration by:   Takahara => Kosha => Nakagawa

Giving the Keynote (1hr) and Tutorial Lecture (3 hrs) at Hong Kong is a big challenge for me.  I have never talked for such a long time in English.   This challenge makes me work out these USIT documents.   My English speaking is poor, but the slides will help me and the audience, I hope.

Thanks again and best wishes, Toru

 

  Communications (Jul. 1- Jul. 7, 2015)  Q&A on the OAF Diagram

[4]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jul. 1, 2015

Dear Ed,   We have almost finished to translate your ICSI2014 paper into Japanese in collaboration of  Toshio Takahara, Hideaki Kosha and Toru Nakagawa. I am planning to post the paper both in English and in Japanese in my site "TRIZ Home Page in Japan", just after I come back from   Hong Kong. I got Prof. Sheu's permission of  reposting the English version.

On one point I wish to ask you for your favor:  
Could you please show me (or rather write newly for us) an introductory article on your OAF diagrams?   When I introduced USIT into Japan, I did not introduced your OAF diagrams because I thought they put burdens on us more than the functional diagrams.  But since you use the OAF diagrams as the most important tool in USIT and in the new Hazy Thinking, I wish to introduce them to the users    in Japan and also my Web site readers in the world.  Please assume the concepts and usage of the OAF diagrams are quite new to the readers.  We would like to post it in English and in Japanese translation in my Web site.

Looking forward to hearing from you, Best wishes, Toru

[5]  Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jul. 2, 2015           PDF

Hi Toru, attached is a draft of an OAF introduction. Let me know what you think and what changes you would recommend. Thanks Ed           

Unification of USIT to One Graphic Heuristic

Ed Sickafus, Ph. D., Jul. 2, 2015

Introduction

Key ingredients of successful problem solving have always been heuristics – the techniques, tricks, and tools of problem solving. They grew in popularity in the mid 1970s when they began to appear in bundled logically structured packages of verbal and graphic heuristics. Russian technologists immigrating to the USA were teaching a Russian methodology in university engineering departments and some began selling their services in industry. G. S Altshuller invented the Russia methodology TRIZ (Theory of inventive problem solving. Altshuller, G. 1988).

Unified structured inventive thinking (USIT) is a distant cousin of TRIZ.

TRIZ led the way and was followed on this branch of structured problem-solving methodologies by ==>

SIT (Systematic Inventive Thinking, Dr. Horowitz early 1980s) ==>

SIT (Structured Inventive Thinking, Sickafus 1997) adapted Horowitz’s SIT for use in Ford Motor Company and taught it there 1985-2000 retirement) ==>

Heuristic innovation (HI, Sickafus 2006), a thorough analysis and application of the object-attribute-function (OAF) heuristic of USIT ==>

OAF-unification of USIT (Sickafus 2014, ‘Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics’, presented at IJoSI (The International Journal of Systematic Innovation) also available at www.u-sit.net) ==>

[Sickafus 2015 ‘Introspection—Insight—Inspiration Problem Solving for Innovation’, a totally new problem-solving methodology to be published October 2015 in the proceedings of the ETRIA conference, TFC2015– TRIZ FUTURE 2015, Berlin, Germany  (also available in late October 2015, at www.u-sit.net)].

Professor Emeritus Toru Nakagawa has joined USIT and TRIZ in a complimentary combination.

The original work of Dr. Horowitz was devoted to finding simplifications of TRIZ that reduce its steep learning curve. While developing this methodology he taught SIT classes at the Open University in Tel Aviv, Israel, and on-site at local companies.

Following a fundamental interest in theories of problem solving, I continued the emphasis on simplification in adapting SIT to industrial design-type problems with focus on rapid innovation by automotive technologists. After retirement from Ford Motor Company, I developed and published HI in which the object-attribute-function graphic heuristic (OAF) is analyzed thoroughly along with demonstrations of applications in varying complexities. Emphasis was placed on discovering multiple thought paths from a single OAF diagram (Sickafus 2006, HI p.74) – a major reduction of heuristics.

OAF Diagram

In the adaptation of HI to unification of USIT to one graphic heuristic (Sickafus 2014), there has been a slow but steady trend to make it more compact. This trend culminated in recognizing that the OAF diagram contains all of USIT. That recognition is helped by much practice of detailed USIT until its conventional heuristics come to mind automatically without the use of formal analysis. Here’s how it works.

1. Collect information for constructing a single-unwanted-effect problem-statement. In the case of multiple unwanted effects, list and prioritize them for addressing individually in later iterations of solution searches. This important step adds knowledge to short-term memory. That, plus extant long-term memory, are all an experienced problem solver needs for generating innovative solution concepts.
2. Localize the unwanted effect to a point of contact of two objects. Objects and attributes are metaphors for physical things as well as imagined ones that fit the conditions of an OAF diagram. In most cases surfaces and volumes of homogeneous materials in contact can be reduced mentally to a point of contact. This makes it easier to concentrate on attributes active at a point. An exception can occur when shape of a body is an active attribute.
3. Identify all attributes of each object at the point of contact. These are of two types, active attributes and inactive attributes. A word printed in black ink on a sheet of white has attributes at the point of contact: e.g., color, contrast, resolution, readability, absorption, viscosity, bond strength, reflectivity, etc.
4. Select pairs of active attributes, one from each of the two contacting objects, that support an unwanted effect (a problem). Each pair can be addressed in iterations of the problem-solving process. In the current example, absorption could interact with viscosity causing an unwanted effect – blurred unreadable symbols. A possible pair of attributes supporting this unwanted effect could be absorption of paper and viscosity of ink. An OAF diagram with these components is shown below. The original design’s desired effect was to be readable.

This example fits the definition of an OAF diagram. The unwanted effect is an unreadable symbol (character, word, script, etc.). The attribute making it unreadable is its definition (notice how the choice of words starts you thinking immediately about possible meanings and perhaps solution concepts). The cause of the problem is at the point of contact of paper and ink, the paper has _____ absorption and/or the ink has _______ viscosity as active attributes. I left the blanks for you to fill in. They play the role of optional modifiers, but not numbers or specifications. Keep them generic for more interpretations, or leave them out. They are not needed explicitly in the OAF diagram. You will think of them as you read the diagram to yourself – over and over as you progress down different solution paths.

You might wonder, in this example, does absorption of paper really interact with viscosity of ink? Does it matter? Think of this way. You are trying to construct seeds for your brain that cause bright ideas to blossom. The specifics of physics and chemistry are useful to your depth of understanding. But you probably can invent new ideas from plausible seeds, which may skirt some technical details. Rather than be too critical of your ideas expand them by testing other wordings as you create new solution paths. The entire exercise is for your mind and no other person’s. You can straighten out details as you are writing your patent application.

If you understand the definition you can build a variety of diagrams for the same problem situation. Each offers more starting paths in solution space.

5. Here’s my wording of the OAF diagram. You may prefer another.

   ‘Two objects in contact at a point have an active attribute which, together, support an unwanted effect that modifies or sustains an attribute of an object.’

When selecting an object, attribute, or unwanted effect to use in the OAF diagram it must fit the details of this wording. In the first OAF diagram, ink and paper interact at a point to sustain the readability of symbol. At least, that was the designer’s intention. Now the design has failed. The first idea to come to my mind is to change the paper material and/or the viscosity of the ink. (Now you try it.)

Bear in mind that more generic your description the more generic solution concepts you may find. Everything is a metaphor. With some thought and practice the three objects can become two or one, depending on the specific conditions of the problem or your choice of words.

OAF solution space

The OAF problem and solution space are generalized in this graphic heuristic, where an effect, F, with a strikeout, F, becomes an unwanted effect. To emphasize logic and clear thinking it can be helpful to practice consistent word types for Os, As, and Fs: use nouns for objects, adjectives for attributes, and infinitives for effects. Adjectives may have modifiers that quantify or restrict – but these are not required.

You can eliminate, activate, exchange, leave as is, or modify any O, A or even F to discover solution concepts. Making F into a solution concept, F, is like selling Post Office misprinted stamps at a high price for their rarity. Unused attributes can be activated for different results. Breaking any of the joining lines destroys F and opens opportunity for new perspective of the problem. Each change made to an OAF diagram becomes the starting point of a search path in solution space.

Update: From USIT to a new methodology, Introspection-Insight-Inspiration

All of USIT, HI, and OAF, plus other heuristics, have referenced the lateralization of the brain model to rationalize separation of the brain hemispheres into different types of functions – a pseudo logical basis. This fall I will be presenting a wholly new problem solving methodology having a basis in the amazing findings in this century from the laboratories of cognitive scientists (Sickafus 2015). The two-hemisphere model has been dropped and the two-thinking-level model of cognitive scientists has been adopted.

References

Altshuller, G. 1988, ‘Creativity as an Exact Science’ Gordon and Breach, by G. Altshuller and translated from the Russian by A.Williams.

Sickafus, E. N.

1997, ‘Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent’, ISBN 0-9659535-0-X, (self published, see www.u-sit.net).

2006, ‘Heuristic Innovation’, (self published, see www.u-sit.net).

2014, ‘Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics’, IJoSI (The International Journal of Systematic Innovation), proceedings of ICSI2014, see also www.u-sit.net.

2015, ‘Introspection—Insight—Inspiration Problem Solving for Innovation’, to be published October 2015 in the proceedings of the ETRIA conference, TFC 2015– TRIZ FUTURE 2015  (also available in October at www.u-sit.net).

 

[6]  Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jul. 2, 2015

Toru, I thought about your comment in the last email,
       '...they put burdens on us more than the functional diagrams. ',
and wonder how OAFs should be presented?

You've probably noticed that they were developed after I had used USIT several years and had taught it monthly. So I found myself skipping over  a lot of the USIT structure because it came to mind naturally by then.

I  have made a habit of talking about the later developments in USIT (and more to come) as appropriate to those who are practiced in structured problem solving. Such practice doesn't have to be USIT. But it needs to be learned well enough that heuristics come to mind when needed.

By the way, OAFs are the only structure I use when doing USIT. An even simpler methodology will be published in October at ETRIA.

It seems to me that the amount of structured problem solving experience needed to move to OAF is a  rather personal thing. I have no idea how to judge that for a particular person. To test an answer, I took it to the extreme and wondered if a person could start at OAF without any other SPS training? I concluded it could be done easily, but would require a different approach in teaching, My method would be to teach examples first and then introduce theory.

Any ideas?     All the best, Ed

[7]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jul. 3, 2015

Dear Ed, Thank you very much for your messages and a new introduction to OAF. Today I was out full day and have just read your article and message tonight, and am thinking over them.

(1) Your introductory article is nice to understand your principal motive of research. Simplification, generification, and unification are all important direction for us to understand the essence of anything.

Our knowledge and human culture always have the repeating movements of divergence/complification and then convergence/simplification. Without simplification, any person and any culture can not be understandable and operable.

(I feel my motive in research is also this sense of simplification: USIT Operators, Six-Box Scheme, and CrePS are all for simplifying/unifying the divergent complex TRIZ methodology.)

(2) The definition and how to write the OAF are not clear in the article, I feel.

(a) We would like to have your basic diagram first.

And please explain what are Os, As, and F.

(b) Your sentence in 5. expresses the intention, 'What is expressed in an OAF'.
            " Two objects in contact at a point have an active attribute (each) which, together,
              support an unwanted effect that modifies or sustains an attribute of an object. "

Here you mention the case of an unwanted effect only, but you actually use OAF for expressing the original designer's intention and possible solution concepts.

(c) You recommend to use nouns for O, adjectives for A, and infinitives for F. But your examples do not follow this recommendation.

(d) We would like to learn several examples of pairs of 'What you want to express' and 'How you express it'.

(3) Your explanation on how to build OAF and how to use it is illustrative.

One point difficult for us is
        '3. Identify all attributes of each object ' and
        '4. Select pairs of attributes, '

We are apt to try to identify 'a correct pair of attributes' and are rather puzzled to see your choice is different.

(4) In your USIT textbook, you show tables (or chains) of OAF statements among all the relevant objects.

In those years (and still now), people were advised to draw functional diagrams in a complicated way in TRIZ. So I thought promoting the functional diagram in the USIT manner (i.e., in the simple and essential manner) was more important than OAF.

Recently you use OAF only at the focal point of the problem. I agree with your choice.

(5) I am very glad to learn that you are coming to ETRIA TFC 2015 and presenting a paper. I am very much looking forward to seeing you there and to learn your new paper.

Best wishes, Toru

 

[8] Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jul. 6, 2015

Toru, see attached.       ==> PDF        

 

[9]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jul. 7, 2015

Dear Ed, Thank you so much for your reply discussions. They are helpful indeed for me. I am sending to Toshio and Hideaki the recent communications between you and me since July 1.

May we post these communications in English and in Japanese translation in my Web site some time in July or August?            Best wishes, Toru

[10]  Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jul. 7, 2015

Hi Toru, yes you may post them. Thanks for your interest. Let me know if you have more questions. All the best, Ed

  Communications (Jul. 20 - Jul. 21, 2015)  Q&A on the early history of USIT

[11]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jul. 20, 2015

Dear Ed, I have just prepared a Japanese page of your ICSI2014 paper. (OAF discussions will be delayed.)

I have questions:

(1) In the References you write: Sickafus (1999) Heuristic Innovation
           --- Is the year correct? 2006 or 2007 ?

(2) In the Author Biography: In 1985 he introduced SIT ...    
          ==> 1995

(3) In the text you mention 'Brainstorming Team' at several places.
        What is it? How is the position of the USIT problem solving team to this?
         (Not the specific USIT team in Ford.) ----

(4) I tried to access to your Web site www.u-sit.net today, but the access was blocked by Google (on the firefox browser) and by Anti-virus ( on the IE browser) saying 'Unsafe' or 'Attacking' site.
Could you clear these blockings?

Best wishes, Toru

[12]  Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jul. 20, 2015

HI Toru, You are very observant.

(1) In the References you write:       Sickafus (1999) Heuristic Innovation          
        --- Is the year correct?  2006 or 2007 ? 

The book was copyrighted in 2006.

(2) In the Author Biography:       In 1985 he introduced SIT ...         
         ==> 1995                

SIT was introduced in Ford Motor Company  Research Laboratory in 1985. The USIT textbook  was published in  1997.

(3) In the text you mention 'Brainstorming Team' at several places.
       What is it?  How is the position of the USIT problem solving team to this?          
        (Not the specific USIT team in Ford.)

See Brainstorming Guidelines at Wikipedia. Here they discuss it used in SIX SIGMA work. However, brainstorming goes back a long way. I don't know how long. It is so common it is an accepted individual practice where few rules apply. Teams tend to be a bit more strict in establishing  a set of rules for any ad hock brainstorming team.

I set up several brainstorming-type teams in Ford I called Cloistered Fresh Eyes Teams. These had 8 to 12 experts selected to go off site for 4 to 5 days and work on one specific company problem. That was before 1985 when I started studying SIT. 

Brainstorming is a rather common practice in US industries. At Ford I organized the word is  used two ways; it is used sort of formally when referring brainstorming teams that use team guidelines published some years ago (I don't know when. A book or paper was published on it then.) It is common usage now is simply to refer to rapid idea generation without any structured formalities as brainstorming -- sort of a brain-dump of ideas. When I mention Brainstorming Team at Ford I have in mind the Cloistered Fresh Eyes Teams.

(4) I tried to access to your Web site www.u-sit.net today, but the access was blocked by Google (on the firefox browser) and by Anti-virus ( on the IE browser) saying 'Unsafe' or 'Attacking' site.

Yes,  that's been a problem on my web site for some time. I actually started to work on it again this morning. It is working now but could regress at any time while I testing specific scripts on my u-sit.net to find how it was hijacked and to fix it.  I've tried a number of malware search programs but none have found the problem. When Google's warning window appears -- (on my machine it's a red background with white characters for words) -- there is an option to go ahead and ignore the warning. That's what I do because no viruses are currently present.

I hope to have it solved in the near future. I have 91 files in 29  directories to investigate. This will be a slow systematic investigation.
Unfortunately, this is not the only problem on my plate at the moment. I'll let you know when it's fixed.
All the best     Ed

[13]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jul. 21, 2015

Dear Ed, Thank you for your clarification.

I learned the early history of USIT in your two papers:

(A) "Injecting Creative Thinking into Product Flow" 4th Annual International TPD Symposium - TRIZ Conference, Nov. 1998
(B) "A Rationale for Adopting SIT into a Corporate Training Program" TRIZCON99, Mar. 1999

BTW: Both of them are accessible in Japanese translation in my site; but not in English (in my Web site, only links to your old site are shown).
Could you allow me to post your original English papers in my site?

In these papers you wrote that you started the SIT (Structured Inventive Thinking) training in Ford in 1995.

You did not mention of the years when you encountered Israeli SIT at Berkeley, when you held the 1 week seminar of Israeli SIT in Ford, and when you visited Israel for their Train-the-trainer SIT course.

So do you mean that in 1985 you held the 1 week seminar of Israeli SIT in Ford?

The early history of the USIT development is interesting for me, in order to understand how you build up the structured problem solving method.

In the Japanese page of your ICSI 2014 paper, I inserted some short comments.
I would like to prepare a second page assembling the Q&As and discussions between you and us. It will take some time.

Best wishes, Toru

[14]  Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa   Jul. 21, 2015

Dear Toru, Thanks for your continued interest in the history of USIT.

1st, yes you may include the English versions of the two papers on your sight.

2nd, the 1999 (1995) is a typo. I began  studying the Israeli SIT in 1985 and later that year began teaching a modified version of it in Ford Research Laboratory. That program continued until my retirement in 2000. I taught a few classes in the Electronics Division of Ford (a now defunct division) as I began testing some ideas. Then started the program in Research where Dr. Craig Stephan joined me. He continued the program in Research for a short period after my retirement.

As I studied the theory of problem solving based on structured methodologies I began to look for more simplifications. I felt that a weak point in these methodologies is that they had no basis in how the human brain processes information. A second weak point was that they had, in my opinion, to much pseudo logic in them. My paper for the ETRIA meeting will emphasize the minimization of logic in problem solving using a totally new methodology.

Looking forward to seeing you at ETRIA.    All the best     Ed

[15]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Jul. 21, 2015

Dear Ed, Thank you for your reply and clarification.

(1) I am happy to learn that you started your SIT (Structured Inventive Thinking) training in Ford in 1985 (instead of 1995) and you had even earlier experiences of Brainstorming Teams.   

Experiences of over 10 years before your USIT textbook seem to me quite natural for the rich contents of the textbook.

(2) Thank you for your approval of my posting your 1998 and 1999 papers in English in my Web site.

I have looked for any file of them in my PC and HDD, in vain.   I have found the Proceedings of both conferences.  So I will be able to scan them to get the PDF files. If you have their DOC or PDF files, could you please send them to me?

Best wishes, Toru

 

  Further Discussions (in mid August)

[16]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Aug. 14, 2015   Draft of 2 pages

Dear Ed,   How are you and how are your PC and your site coming?

(1) I have prepared two English pages for my Web site THPJ and tentatively posted them for your review only.
     (A) "Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics"  Ed. Sickafus
     (B) "Q&A on USIT and the OAF diagram" (Q: Toru Nakagawa; A: Ed. Sickafus)
Could you please check them through and tell me about anything you recognized?

(2) Particularly, please note the 'Japanese translator's comment' at the end of section 4 of (A).  This comment is posted in the Japanese page already, and is going to be posted in the English page as well.

My question (3) of Jul. 20 email is related to this point.

(3) In the text you mention 'Brainstorming Team' at several places.  What is it?  How is the position of the USIT problem solving team to this?  (Not the specific USIT team in Ford.)

Probably you are thinking about the USIT Team in Ford and BS Team in Ford, but I (as well as general readers of your paper) think of the Problem Solving Team using USIT in various industries.  The Problem Solving Team using USIT is composed mostly of engineers with one or few who knew or mastered USIT.

Another issue is related to your wording of 'solution concepts'.  I feel you use the word in a much wider sense than I.  And it causes some confusion when we talk about the goal of USIT and the Structured Problem Solving.

I  will be happy if we can post your reply inserted at the end of page (B).

(3) By the way, Mr. Akihiro Katahira read your ICSI2014 paper closely in the Japanese version and visualized the full logic of your paper in the Visual Thinking Diagrams (or Fuda-Yose Diagrams in Japanese).  An example of such a diagram is shown in the English Top Page of my site updated on Jul. 29, 2015. Amazingly, he made all the sentences of your paper into the labels (i.e., Fuda in Japanese), and showed the relationships of them in the diagrams chapter by chapter. We are going to post the diagrams in near future.

At moment we are not satisfied with the diagram of your Abstract. Probably, since Abstract is a compact expression, some of individual sentences should better be decomposed into multiple labels to show their logical relationships in a more illustrative manner.

Best wishes,  Toru

[17]  Ed Sickafus ==>  Toru Nakagawa  Aug. 14, 2015     Preparing for a new blog and ETRIA paper

HI Toru,   Wow! You've done a lot of translation work. Your dedication is very impressive and I, for one, really appreciate it.

Let me try to bring you up to date on my situation and timing pressure related to the fall ETRIA2015 meeting.

First, my website has been hacked so many times that it will take a major chunk of time and effort to rectify it. My son, a self trained computer nerd, has his own blog that the newspaper he works for publishes. On hearing of my website problem and the effort I'm facing to solve it, he immediately discouraged work on the website and encouraged a complete change to building a blog. After some thought, I decided to forgo work on the website and to invest my time in building a blog. I'm currently working full time (that is, full time for an 84 year old scientist) on it and still have a couple of weeks to go. It has not been discovered by the crawlers yet so the public has not seen it. I'll give  you the url so that you can have a look and let me know what it needs. It is ... edsickafus.wordpress.com

I started reading your translation  of Hazy Heuristics. It strikes me that something is missing, not so much in translation but in the overall picture or what my interests and strategy is in problem solving.

From my perspective, the Dehaene publication summarizing cognitive scientists research in this century, has produced a major change in how problem solving should be understood, taught, and practiced. The discovery that the non-logical unconscious does not use logic and that it proposes ideas before the conscious is aware, has truly amazing implications regarding any theories extant of problem solving. On first sight, it is also rather confusing and difficult to think about. I know of no problem solving theories in the last century that invoked any cognitive science research to give them credence.

As I assemble my new blog I am planning on an essay that will explain the implications of the new bi level model of thinking in problem solving. They will appear on the blog as soon as I can write them or edit previous essays that may be relevant. It is interesting to note that this new discovery does not change any results from previous problem-solving activities such as case studies. What it does is to show how previous heuristics may have been too limiting for the capabilities of the human brain.

In view of the potential impact of the bi-level model I would like to finish this transition period so as properly to represent current problem-solving theory and the new theory I am proposing. Therefore, I would like to beg off any further change in effort until I can complete the blog and a couple of short essays explaining the transition we find ourselves in.

Thank you Toru for your support and interest.  ed

[18]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Ed Sickafus    Aug. 14, 2015     Possibility of back up

Dear Ed,    Thank you for your reply.   It' s a pity for you to have to work so hard for stopping your Web site and for building a new blog site.

For keeping your previous works widely accessible, could you please allow me to back up your (previous) works in my Web site? Fortunately, my site in the OGU Web server has a large enough capacity and is maintained securely by a professional team supporting OGU.   (** snip **)

We are very much looking forward to your new bi-level thinking methodology.
Best wishes,  Toru

[19]  Ed Sickafus ==>  Toru Nakagawa  Aug. 15, 2015      Reciprocal posting

Dear Toru,   maybe we can reciprocate. At some point, not now, I'd like to have copies of your Japanese translations of my essays and papers on my blog (and if it ever happens, on the usit website as well). Yes, you have my permission to backup my translated papers on your site.

Looking forward to seeing you in Berlin.   All the best, ed

  [20]  Ed Sickafus ==>  Toru Nakagawa  Aug. 15, 2015     'Solution concepts'

Dear Toru,  Thanks for your permission to have your translations on my website and blog. I’ll let you know when I’m ready.

You made a very cogent observation in the last email that I let go by without comment. I’ve thought about the observation and have some comments.

(Toru, Aug. 14, 201)>>  Another issue is related to your wording of 'solution concepts'. I feel you use the word in a much wider sense than I. And it causes some confusion when we talk about the goal of USIT and the Structured Problem Solving.”

First, I’ll give you a specific answer for my use of ‘solution concept’, as opposed to ‘solution’, in my essays on problem solving. Then I’ll give more of an overview of my strategy in these writings.

1. Solution concepts are the first ideas to arise in a problem-solver’s mind during rapid brainstorming. The problem solver often sees these ideas as relevant and useful. While at other times they may be seen as irrelevant and a waste of time. They have not been filtered (not allowed in USIT), they have no engineering improvements, and no crutches were used in the process of their discovery. They are ‘raw’ thoughts pregnant with possibilities.

A solution, by comparison with a solution concept, is the end product of solving a problem. It has benefited from culling of irrelevance, poor logic, and bad syntax, as well as engineered polishing.

2. Strategy in my writings: Since my introduction to structured problem solving in the 1980s, I have been interested in how the brain processes information to understand, construct, and solve a problem. As I look at this history I recognize my intent of weaning oneself from thinking with crutches like computers, tables, handbooks, etc. This has led to my continuing critique of structure in trying to understand how it works, i.e., how the brain uses it. My goal is to improve the quality and efficiency of solving problems, any kind of problems.

More recently, I have moved toward writing on theories of problem solving. In my opinion, structured problem solving methodologies have suffered for lack of supporting theoretical models that address how the brain processes information. As a result of this focus I find that my sentences need careful scrutiny of fact and semantics. Once I recognized this, I made the decision to yield first to fact and semantics in lieu of  pandering to popularization of writing (‘dumbing down in the current vernacular’). I see this as an essential criterion for communicating theory and a challenge to my often use of poor syntax.

This raises an issue with translations of my writing and translator difficulties. It brings to the fore a concern about the translation of nuisances of English, which often are stymies to a translator. You have one good advantage of team-type translating with built in experts who can test their ideas with each other.

You also have several points that I apparently didn’t see and have not responded to -- more on those later.          [Editor's note (Sept. 15, 2015): Sickafus' responses restarted on Sept. 14, 2015.  See below.]

All the best,   ed

 

  Further Discussions (late August - September)

[21]  Shahid Saleem Arshad (Australia)  ==> Toru Nakagawa     Aug. 29, 2015    Comments and Questions on Sickafus' Paper and Q&A

Letters to Editor:
Dear Professor Nakagawa,

I found the latest (August 26) update to the TRIZ Home Page in Japan of particular interest.  Although the THPJ regularly provides its readers with valuable knowledge, in this case the exchange of correspondence between Dr. Ed. Sickafus, the original developer of USIT, and yourself as its further developer and champion is of particular interest.

I have a few observations which I would like to put to the readers, and hope that you and Dr. Sickafus would be able to shed some further light on the ongoing progress of the work.

1.  Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics is a very correct term.  I was hoping to find some information on what "Hazy Heuristics" are.  If they are a separate class of heuristics to those in TRIZ, or in USIT or mentioned in his later book "Heuristic Innovation',  then these should ideally be introduced and highlighted individually.

2.  If on the other hand, it is the Hazy Use of Existing Heuristics, or the use of heuristics in the subconscious, which is what I understand Dr. Sickafus means, then it may be useful to contrast the use of the same heuristic in a normal, and then hazy manner. 

3.  In my own ideation and problem solving activities, I have found that the needed insight occurs out of a mellow, trance-like state, often just when you wake up or when the mind has been working on a problem for quite some time, is fatigued, and a chance word or phrase used by someone in a conversation registers in the mind and then spawns an insight connected with the problem residing in the background. 

For instance, for my PhD research in a very difficult manufacturing automation problem at Purdue University, I had a meeting with a professor from a different department and he used the phrase "it would be good if your system hunts for an optimal solution".  As I walked back across campus, I thought of the word hunted, then hunters, then thought of African Masai warriors who had felled an elephant, had surrounded it and were probing  it from all sides with their spears.  This led to the concept of 2D arrays surrounding the work-piece and bridged a gap in my thinking very efficiently.  As an example of the important role of the subconscious, the first complex CAD work-piece I quickly made up for a test of the system looked like an elephant lying on its side with four stubby legs and a round head, a connection I did not realize at the time.

4.  Perhaps the most important rule of innovation is to minimize the information content provided to the problem solvers.  Dr. Sickafus has covered this point well.  The biggest problem in practical problem solving is the over-supply of information, which tends to restrict the available scope of ideation.  Is this an aspect of Hazy Heuristics or Hazy Information?  Which is more important?

5.  The O-A-F graphic needs to be developed to the point when it becomes one of the standard way of problem representation.  There is quite some way to go however.  Would the use of images in place of words be an advantage in some cases.  Perhaps Dr. Sickafus would like to comment further.

6.   The fish lure problem brought some interesting ideation to mind.  The use of some mechanism to retract and then deploy the hook will tend to make it weaker than a fixed strongly attached hook.  How then does one make its operation conditional?

7.   There is no information available in English on the Fuda-Yose method, I do understand from your introduction that a translation will be published soon in the THPJ.

With my thanks and best wishes,  Shahid

[22]  Edward Sickafus  ==> Shahid Saleem Arshad, Toru Nakagawa    Sept. 1, 2015   Answers to Arshad

Dear Dr. Arshad and Toru,
I am resending last night's response to Dr. Arshad's letter with a little more expansion on my original answers. I hope they are not too tiring.

1.  =>
Hazy heuristics are intentionally short on logic and long on metaphor. Logic is minimized in order not to limit the subconscious’ search for ideas. Thus, the OAF trio is best activated (so to speak) with more broadly interpreted generic words.

For example: ‘Masai with spears surround and probe’ might be generified to ‘cautious probes detect’. It’s not a one to one generification but then we are subduing logic to gain a wider bandwidth search of solution space.

2.  =>
USIT already teaches generification as a hazy heuristic. Generification can be applied to any heuristic. The word hazy was not used originally in USIT but metaphor was – a poet’s hazy heuristic. My view is that the conscious logically constructs a heuristic and then foists it off onto the subconscious as though it is an appropriate seed for the subconscious’ way of thinking, which we don’t know. This, I think, risks limiting the scope of ideas the subconscious may discover.

‘…to contrast the use of the same heuristic in a normal, and then hazy manner.’

This is a very important point in structured problem solving. It brings up a philosophical issue regarding the use of heuristics. I will address this issue candidly and hope that I don’t offend anyone. My comments are based on my personal history of learning mathematics, and my eventual teaching of a graduate course in theoretical physics – all applied mathematics.

Beginning with algebra, I learned the algorithmic method of solving problems – plug in numbers and the template delivers a beautiful answer. For many years this was my way of seeing mathematics. Then one day in a transform calculus class my turn came up to deliver one lecture in how and why Fourier transforms work. By the time I had prepared the lecture my attitude about mathematics changed drastically. I became far more interested in the mental process than in the answer. Later, when teaching a graduate course, I decided to find as many different ways as I could to solve the vibrating string problem (it included Green’s functions and a number of others). Later still, when I started teaching structured inventive thinking I got hooked on models of how the brain works in solving problems.

I came to see structured heuristics as being templates for plug-and-play problem solving, or as seeds to spark inventive thinking. The concept of plug and play seems to imply that there is one answer out there and the right heuristic can find it. If this is true, I thought, then answers belong to problems and all problem solvers should find the same answers. I knew from leading brainstorming fresh-eyes at Ford Motor Co. that this could not be true. There should be many answers in inventive thinking. This observation led me to see heuristics as a presumptuous limitation on the subconscious. So I began looking for ways to minimize their number. This led to a single generic heuristic I now use for all of USIT, the OAF triad graphic.

That is a very long answer to a simple query – but I’m not done yet. The upshot of this mode of thinking, in my mind, has four outcomes:

•        Creative thinking should be encouraged to find as many solution concepts as possible, where concepts are generic themselves – they are unfinished, non-engineered ideas.

•        Critiques of concepts should open additional insights from solution space; i.e., concepts beg for more concepts (problems produce problems).

•        A solution methodology that is worth its salt should restart the solution process.

•        Creative thinking is personal.

3.  =>
The first sentence is an excellent observation.

Consciousness is characterized in three states: vigilance – the state of wakefulness; attention – the focusing onto a specific piece of information; and conscious access – when some attended information enters awareness and can be communicated to others. Current feeling in the cognitive science field is that conscious access is necessary and sufficient. Vigilance and awareness alone are not sufficient.

The Masai probing the elephant is an excellent example. I would like to have your permission to include it in the blog and perhaps in my paper at ETRIA (TBD).

4.  =>
Minor difference in information and logic: I argue that information should be accumulated en masse at the beginning of defining a problem so as to supplement one’s short-term and long-term memories. However, in constructing the problem statement logic is minimized. Furthermore, the problem situation is reduced to a single problem and expressed in OAF triads. This reduction also reduces information that may distract from the selected single problem. After that, the process of solving a problem can be done without any crutches – strictly an intense brainstorming event.

5.  =>
In the latest version of USIT all heuristics (old and new that may arise) are contained in the three-forked OAF-graphic heuristic. (See the blog; edsickafus.wordpress.com. ) Figures work also. I use them occasionally, but often find them to be more difficult to generify. For this reason I tend to use stick figures and to minimize other detail.

6.   => 
That observation raises two issues. Making it weaker assumes it was weak to start with. Was that necessary? The other issue is that this simply is a new problem waiting solution concepts. Problems create problems.

Best wishes,      ed

[23]  Toru Nakagawa ==> Edward Sickafus, CC:S. S. Arshad, A. Katahira    Sept. 1, 2015   Visualization of Sickafus' Paper

Thank you, Ed, for your message in the form of response to Shahid.

I have just made an English translation version of my Fuda-Yose Diagram posted on Aug. 25 in Japanese. Abstract of your 'Subconscious Problem Solving..." is illustrated in English. Excel and PDF files are attached.

[See the the Communications in the page of "Visual Thinking with 'Fuda-Yose' (3) - Visualizing the logic of Sickafus' Paper"  . (Posted on Sept. 15, 2015)]

[24]  Shahid Saleem Arshad  ==> Edward Sickafus, Toru Nakagawa, Akihiro Katahira   Sept. 2, 2015    On subconscious ideation

It is very advantageous to see that the subject of ideation and inventive problem solving is being actively discussed by two of the best minds in the field.  I am really obliged that on my request Toru and his associates have translated into English the application of the Fuda-Yose Tool  to Ed's paper on Subconscious Problem Solving Using Hazy Heuristics.  At the same time Ed has provided further details and insights on his paper and on his thinking.  All this done in 2 - 3 days is indeed remarkable, and should be a treat for the readership of the TRIZ Home Page in Japan.

On the subject of subconscious ideation, the main difficulty I have observed is that the inspiration or ideative thought is somewhat fleeting, it arrives unexpectedly and does not persist for long.   I therefore have a small notebook by my bedside to jot down an idea, otherwise I find that some thought, apparently robustly lodged in the mind at the time, is untraceable even a short while later.

Ed has liked my analogy of the Masai spear warriors and I would be very happy to see him use it as an example in a paper or talk.  I looked for the image of the first work-piece, but could not locate it at this time.  This attached image is of a later work-piece modified with some details changed, but the concept of it being probed by multiple spear like objects can be seen.  It is not often that I am able to capture a subconscious thought and its further development in a seamless manner.   This image was from a fairly early model graphics work station, by today's standards,  and I photographed several images into presentation 35MM slides.

On the subject of capturing ideas appearing in the subconscious, I remember watching a TV documentary on 85 year old Dr. Yoshiro Nakamatsu, who claims to have over 4000 patents.  At his palatial home, he was shown swimming in his large swimming pool, with a small notebook strapped to his wrist, and writing on it underwater.  What I found truly remarkable was how this distinguished gentleman was able to concentrate on the more productive pursuits even when surrounded by the most beautiful young ladies underwater.

After a few days I would like to submit some thoughts on analogy-based ideation, as contrasted with abstraction-based ideation.  I find analogous reasoning has the advantage of providing greater flow to the ideation process and would look forward to your views at that time.

With best wishes,    Shahid

[25] Edward Sickafus  ==> Shahid Saleem Arshad, Toru Nakagawa   Sept. 2, 2015  On subconscious ideation

Dear Shahid and Toru,

> On the subject of subconscious ideation, the main difficulty I have observed is that the inspiration or ideative thought is somewhat fleeting, it arrives unexpectedly and does not persist for long.

See the attached drawing. I'd like to comment on Shahid's neat observation quoted above. He has an excellent description that likely everyone has experienced in one form or another. This is an example of an unstable subjective awareness. You have conscious awareness of the central cross but subjective awareness of the circles. Thanks for sharing your experience. All the best,   Ed

[26] Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa  Sept. 14, 2015    Answers to Nakagawa's comments

Hi Toru,  Time to play catch up.  I'm way behind in answering your questions.  So here goes ...    I'll start with the above letter of yours and work through them in order.

(Toru, Aug. 15, 201)>> 1. For keeping your previous works widely accessible, could you please allow me to back up your (previous) works in my Web site?

I would prefer that you offer a link to my new  blog,  edsickafus.wordpress.com .  Everything there is already backed up in the cloud, and is more secure than web sites. Each essay I write is now going on the blog. I don't have a table of contents for it yet -- that's a next project.

(Toru, Aug. 15, 2015)>> 2.  We are very much looking forward to your new bi-level thinking methodology.

I have completed the manuscript for ETRIA-2015 in which the bilevel model of the brain is explained and demonstrated.

(Toru, Aug. 14, 2015) >>   Could you please check them through and tell me about anything you recognized?   (2) Particularly, please note the 'Japanese translator's comment' at the end of section 4 of (A). 

Brainstorming is a generic term for how modern day problem solvers usually think. I say modern day because half-century ago or older, brainstorming had a somewhat formal definition for an organized team exercise in problem solving. I haven't seen any references to this in many years. Hence, I use it generically. A brainstorming team is a group of problem solvers working rapidly, with lots of feedback and response, to solve the same problem. The groups of fresh-eyes teams that I organized at Ford performed as brain-stormers.

The Ford brainstorming teams did not use USIT or any other structured methodology. Brainstorming is an open ended, unstructured process.

On reading the discussions of OAF diagrams at , I get the impression that there is still confusion about it.   Please bear in mind that all of USIT is about simplification of TRIZ and its spin-offs. There is no intent to make things more complex. Perhaps it would be helpful to show a simpler form of the OAF diagram, which has all of its symmetry. This becomes evident when the subscript notation is dropped, i.e., the 1, 2, and 3 object identifiers. Here it is:

Note that in this symmetric form, which should have the  three legs separated 120 deg, the three legs can be assigned to any 3 objects. Furthermore the OAF diagram can be reduced to 2 or 1 objects.  For students new to USIT they will need to become proficient in generification before tackling metaphorical thinking. This will all become more clear in the new methodology, I3.

I'll answer Shahid's questions next in a separate email.

All the best,  ed

[27] Ed Sickafus ==> Toru Nakagawa  Sept. 15, 2015    On 'Solution concepts'

PS.  I found the comment ...   [Japanese translator's comment (Toru Nakagawa, Jun. 30, 2015) inserted at the end of Section 4. of Sickafus' ICSI2014 Paper ]:

According to Nakagawa's understanding of USIT (and SPS), the USIT Team is requested not only to generate 'Ideas' (Box 4) but also to construct 'Solution Concepts' (Box 5). The goal of USIT (and SPS) is not the stage of 'Ideas' (coming up to our mind) but the stage of more elaborate 'Solution concepts'. Thus the USIT Team plays the role of expanding the 'Ideas' to 'Solution concepts'.  

I think we are talking about the same thing. In my use of USIT, solution concept and idea are the same thing. It's not a two-step process because it comes to mind as one thought. By the way, during USIT execution solution concepts can come to mind anywhere from start to finish. That phenomenon is not controlled by any problem solving structure.

If this doesn't help, ask again.  All the best  ed

[28] Toru Nakagawa Sept. 16. 2015 (inserted here while editing this page)  Ideas and Conceptual solutions

Probably my wording should better be corrected as follows:

[Box 4]  "Ideas"
[Box 5]   "Conceptual solutions" (instead of "Solution concepts")

"Solution concepts" are the core concepts contained in any of the "Ideas" [Box 4], "Conceptual solutions" [Box 5] and "Implemented solutions" [Box 6].

[29] Ed Sickafus ==> Shahid S. Arshad,  Toru Nakagawa  Sept. 14, 2015   Answers to Arshad questions

Dear Shahid and Toru, The following is in response to Shahid's interesting questions. I apologize for the delay, but have just sent the final I3 manuscript and am now trying to catch up with a backlog of work.

(Arshad, Aug. 29, 2015) 1.  =>

Hazy heuristics developed out of generification in the original USIT. It's part of the ongoing effort to simplify structured problem solving. In this case it assumes that the problem solver is already proficient in generification. Now, in order to move away from logical structure toward more creative intuition, heuristics are viewed as, and changed to, metaphors to mitigate their logical constraints on the subconscious. Hence, I call them hazy.

(Arshad, Aug. 29, 2015) 2.  =>

It is both. It is the hazy use of existing heuristics for applicaton by the subconscious.

(Arshad, Aug. 29, 2015) 4.  =>

I fear that I may have misspoken. The problem solver starts with a typically ill-defined problem and often collects an oversupply of irrelevant information. Conventionally, he attempts to improve on the statement to make it more logical and informative. Here lies the conflict with current cognitive science. The brain needs more  relevantinformation but fewer less logic constraints in order to be more creative. My current approach is to maximize relevant information and minimize logic constraints. This is elaborated on in I3.

(Arshad, Aug. 29, 2015) 5.  =>

Pictures would work if the problem solver prefers. Remember that the OAF diagram is a metaphorical representation of a generified problem statement. That's a bit of double talk in that generification and metaphor have similar meanings. I use them in an attempt to indicate progression away from strict logic. Again, the problem solver may need to be proficient in generification. All the best ed

[30] Ed Sickafus ==> Shahid S. Arshad, Toru Nakagawa  Sept. 15, 2015      Glossary

Dear Toru and Shahid,
I have updated the Glossary for USIT (and I3), dated 15SPT2015. It's available at
    edsickafus.wordpress.com/2015/09/glossary-7_14spt15.pdf  

Both of you have recently asked pertinent questions and I've responded now in the above glossary.  If you see errors, incompleteness, or have new questions, please ask and I'll be updating the glossary with them.

All the best, ed.

 

Top of this page	Communication [1]	[4] Request	[5] Article "Unification of USIT to OAF"	[8] OAF Q&A	[11] Q: early history of USIT	[12] Answer	Sickafus' paper "Subconscious Problem Solving"		Japanese page
Further Discussions	[16] Draft of 2 pages	[17] Preparing for a blog	[21] Comments and questions by Arshad	[22] Sickafus' answers	[23] Visualization of Sickafus' paper	[26] Answers to Nakagawa's comments	[30] Glossary by Sickafus

General Index	(A) Editorial	(B) References	Links	News & activities	Software tools	(C) Papers, case studies, articles,	Lectures, course materials			(D) Forum	General Index
Home Page	New Information		for children and highschool students	for students and the general public	for engineers (introduction)	for Practitioners	Publications: "TRIZ Practices and Benefits" Series			Search in this site	Home Page

Last updated on Sept. 17, 2015.     Access point:  Editor: nakagawa@ogu.ac.jp