This article  lacks any reason to be read and wouldn't be reviewed if not for one curious coincidence. The premise of the article is, that ARIZ is applicable to level 2-3 problems, while NM Method is applicable to level 4-5 problems, and a combination of the two should be applicable to all level 2-5 problems. What example does the author use to demonstrate the NM Method? Mass production of flat glass sheets by pouring glass onto molten tin in a bath. The author probably doesn't know, but this is a classical TRIZ example.
This example was used by Altshuller in the 60's and 70's, appears in various TRIZ books and articles, and this problem was solved on TRIZ courses innumerable number of times. Thus, it's either a level 2-3 problem, and the claim that NM solves level 4-5 problems is doubtful, or it's a level 4-5 problem, and the claim that TRIZ is limited to level 2-3 problems, is refuted. In any case, this example rather shows that there is no point in combining ARIZ with NM.
My guess is that the entire author's knowledge of TRIZ based on the book by B.Zlotin and A.Zusman, the article refers to. This is not a good basis to start improving TRIZ already.
The article also says that it was presented at the Altshuller Institute's TRIZCON2003. Wasn't anybody there to tell the author that this is a bad example for the premise?
Editors of The TRIZ Journal say they met the author of the article at that meeting . One would expect THEM to know better. Obviously, this would be a wrong expectation. Such is a TRIZ expertise level of The TRIZ Journal editors!
R E F E R E N C E S: