Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 20:26:08 +0000
I have a doubt in formulating contradictions. In ARIZ85C, the technical contradiction is something like:
If A+ then x is improved but y is worsened
If A- then y is improved but x is worsened
Therefore, if I understood well, the technical contradictions must be between parameters “x” vs “y”. However, in some examples it seems confusing to me. For example, the classical problem of the icebreaker: http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/GF_triz_lies_part3.html
In the innovation algorithm book, Altshuller formulate the technical contradiction for the icebreaker as follow:
Step 5-1: From the vertical column of the Contradiction Matrix (see Appendix 1), choose the characteristic that must be improved.
It is required that we increase the ship’s speed (Matrix line 9) or productivity...
a. How can we improve this characteristic (from Step 5-1) utilizing any known means (if losses are not considered)?
b. Which characteristic is worsening if a known means is used?
A known way to increase the speed (productivity) of navigating through icy water is to increase the power of the engine.
Then he just considered in the matrix speed (or productivity) vs power.
It seems something like this:
If the power is increased, the speed (or productivity) is improved but… ??? the power is worsened????
--If A is increased, then "x" is improved but A is worsened
--If A is decreased, then A is improved but "x" is worsened
It sounds strange to me, in such situations A must be improved and worsened??? Sounds more correct something like: if the power of the engines is increased, the speed of icebreaker is improved but (i.e. the weight worsens, or the fuel consumption worsens…)