Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
220
skills/morphological-analysis-triz/SKILL.md
Normal file
220
skills/morphological-analysis-triz/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: morphological-analysis-triz
|
||||
description: Use when need systematic innovation through comprehensive solution space exploration, resolving technical contradictions (speed vs precision, strength vs weight, cost vs quality), generating novel product configurations, exploring all feasible design alternatives before prototyping, finding inventive solutions to engineering problems, identifying patent opportunities through parameter combinations, or when user mentions morphological analysis, Zwicky box, TRIZ, inventive principles, technical contradictions, systematic innovation, or design space exploration.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Morphological Analysis & TRIZ
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
- [Purpose](#purpose)
|
||||
- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
|
||||
- [What Is It](#what-is-it)
|
||||
- [Workflow](#workflow)
|
||||
- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
|
||||
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
|
||||
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Systematically explore solution spaces through morphological analysis (parameter-option matrices) and resolve technical contradictions using TRIZ inventive principles to generate novel, non-obvious solutions.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
**Systematic Exploration:**
|
||||
- Explore all feasible configurations before committing
|
||||
- Generate comprehensive set of design alternatives
|
||||
- Create product line variations across parameters
|
||||
- Document complete solution space
|
||||
|
||||
**Innovation & Invention:**
|
||||
- Find novel, non-obvious solutions
|
||||
- Generate patentable innovations
|
||||
- Discover synergies between features
|
||||
- Break out of conventional thinking
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolving Contradictions:**
|
||||
- Improve one parameter without worsening another
|
||||
- Solve "impossible" trade-offs (faster AND cheaper)
|
||||
- Apply proven inventive principles
|
||||
- Resolve conflicts between requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Engineering & Design:**
|
||||
- Design new products/systems from scratch
|
||||
- Optimize existing designs systematically
|
||||
- Configure complex systems with many parameters
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is It
|
||||
|
||||
Two complementary methods:
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological Analysis:** Decompose problem into parameters, identify options for each, systematically combine to explore solution space.
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parameters: Power (3 options) × Size (4 options) × Material (3 options) = 36 configurations
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ:** Resolve contradictions using 40 inventive principles. Example: "Improve speed → worsens precision" solved by Principle #1 (Segmentation): fast rough pass + slow precision pass.
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this checklist:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Progress:
|
||||
- [ ] Step 1: Define problem and objectives
|
||||
- [ ] Step 2: Choose method (MA, TRIZ, or both)
|
||||
- [ ] Step 3: Build morphological box (if MA)
|
||||
- [ ] Step 4: Identify contradictions (if TRIZ)
|
||||
- [ ] Step 5: Apply TRIZ principles
|
||||
- [ ] Step 6: Evaluate and select solutions
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Define problem and objectives**
|
||||
|
||||
Clarify problem statement, key objectives, constraints (cost, size, time, materials), and success criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Choose method**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Morphological Analysis:** 3-7 clear parameters, each with 2-5 options, goal is comprehensive exploration
|
||||
- **TRIZ:** Clear contradiction (improving A worsens B), need inventive breakthrough
|
||||
- **Both:** Complex system with parameters AND contradictions
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Build morphological box (if using MA)**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify 3-7 independent parameters (changing one doesn't force another)
|
||||
2. List 2-5 distinct options per parameter
|
||||
3. Create parameter × option matrix
|
||||
|
||||
See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for structure.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4: Identify contradictions (if using TRIZ)**
|
||||
|
||||
State clearly:
|
||||
- **Improving parameter:** What to increase?
|
||||
- **Worsening parameter:** What degrades?
|
||||
- Look up in TRIZ contradiction matrix
|
||||
|
||||
See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for 39 TRIZ parameters and contradiction matrix.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5: Apply TRIZ principles**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Review 3-4 principles recommended by matrix
|
||||
2. Brainstorm applications of each principle
|
||||
3. Generate solution concepts
|
||||
4. Combine principles for stronger solutions
|
||||
|
||||
See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for all 40 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
For advanced techniques, see [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md).
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 6: Evaluate and select**
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological:** Identify promising combinations, eliminate infeasible, score on objectives, select top 3-5
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ:** Assess contradiction resolution, check side effects, estimate difficulty, select most promising
|
||||
|
||||
Use [resources/evaluators/rubric_morphological_analysis_triz.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_morphological_analysis_triz.json) for quality criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Typical Parameters (Examples)
|
||||
|
||||
**Physical Products:** Materials, power source, form factor, control interface, manufacturing method
|
||||
**Software:** Architecture, data storage, UI, deployment, authentication
|
||||
**Services:** Delivery channel, pricing model, timing, customization, support level
|
||||
**Processes:** Automation level, batch size, quality control, scheduling, location
|
||||
|
||||
### Common Contradictions
|
||||
|
||||
| Improving ↑ | Worsens ↓ | Example TRIZ Principles |
|
||||
|-------------|-----------|------------------------|
|
||||
| Speed | Precision | Segmentation, Periodic action |
|
||||
| Strength | Weight | Anti-weight, Composite materials |
|
||||
| Reliability | Complexity | Segmentation, Beforehand cushioning |
|
||||
| Functionality | Ease of use | Segmentation, Universality |
|
||||
| Capacity | Size | Nesting, Another dimension |
|
||||
|
||||
**Full principles list:** See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for all 40.
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Combine MA + TRIZ
|
||||
|
||||
1. Build morphological box → Find promising configurations
|
||||
2. Identify contradictions in top configurations
|
||||
3. Apply TRIZ to resolve contradictions
|
||||
4. Re-evaluate configurations with contradictions resolved
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological Analysis:**
|
||||
- **Limit parameters:** 3-7 parameters (too few = incomplete, too many = explosion)
|
||||
- **Ensure independence:** Changing one parameter shouldn't force changes in another
|
||||
- **Manageable options:** 2-5 per parameter (practical range)
|
||||
- **Don't enumerate all:** Focus on promising clusters
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ:**
|
||||
- **Verify real contradiction:** Improving A truly worsens B (not just budget limit)
|
||||
- **Adapt principles:** Use as metaphors, not literal prescriptions
|
||||
- **Check new contradictions:** Solution may introduce new trade-offs
|
||||
- **Combine principles:** Often need 2-3 together
|
||||
|
||||
**General:**
|
||||
- Document rationale for parameters/options selected
|
||||
- Iterate if first pass reveals missing dimensions
|
||||
- Prototype top concepts - don't just analyze
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
**Resources:**
|
||||
- `resources/template.md` - Morphological structure, TRIZ contradiction matrix, 40 principles
|
||||
- `resources/methodology.md` - Advanced TRIZ (trends of evolution, substance-field, ARIZ algorithm)
|
||||
- `resources/evaluators/rubric_morphological_analysis_triz.json` - Quality criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** `morphological-analysis-triz.md` with problem definition, morphological matrix (if used), contradictions, TRIZ principles applied, solution concepts, evaluation, selected solutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria:**
|
||||
- Parameters independent and essential (3-7 with 2-5 options each)
|
||||
- Contradictions clearly stated (improving/worsening parameters)
|
||||
- Multiple principles applied per contradiction
|
||||
- Solutions are novel, feasible, address objectives
|
||||
- Top 3-5 selected with rationale
|
||||
- Score ≥ 3.5 on rubric
|
||||
|
||||
**Quick Decisions:**
|
||||
- **Simple configuration?** → Morphological only
|
||||
- **Clear contradiction?** → TRIZ only
|
||||
- **Complex with trade-offs?** → Both methods
|
||||
- **Unsure?** → Start TRIZ to identify contradictions, then build morphological box
|
||||
|
||||
**Common Mistakes:**
|
||||
1. Too many parameters (>7 = explosion)
|
||||
2. Dependent parameters (choosing A forces B)
|
||||
3. Vague contradiction ("better vs cheaper" - be specific)
|
||||
4. Literal TRIZ (principles are metaphors)
|
||||
5. No evaluation (generate but don't filter)
|
||||
|
||||
**Examples:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological (Portable Speaker):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Power: Battery | Solar | Hybrid
|
||||
Size: Pocket | Handheld | Tabletop
|
||||
Audio: Mono | Stereo | Surround
|
||||
Material: Plastic | Metal | Fabric
|
||||
Control: Button | Touch | Voice | App
|
||||
Result: 3×3×3×4×4 = 432 configs → Evaluate top 10
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ (Electric Vehicle Range):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Contradiction: Increase range → worsens cost (battery expensive)
|
||||
Principles: #6 (Universality - battery is structure), #35 (Parameter change - new chemistry)
|
||||
Solution: Structural battery pack + high energy density cells
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Combined:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Build morphological box for EV architecture → Top config has range/cost contradiction → Apply TRIZ Universality principle → Structural battery resolves both range and cost
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**For detailed principle explanations, contradiction matrix, advanced techniques (substance-field analysis, ARIZ, trends of evolution), and software/service adaptation, see [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) and [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md).**
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Evaluator",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluate systematic innovation work using morphological analysis (parameter-option exploration) and TRIZ (contradiction resolution). Assess completeness, rigor, inventiveness, and feasibility of solutions.",
|
||||
"version": "1.0.0",
|
||||
"criteria": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Parameter Selection (Morphological)",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates quality of parameters chosen for morphological box - independence, completeness, essentiality",
|
||||
"weight": 1.1,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Poor parameter selection",
|
||||
"description": "Parameters are dependent (choosing one forces another), redundant, or missing critical dimensions. <3 parameters or >7 parameters making analysis unmanageable."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Weak parameters",
|
||||
"description": "Some parameters are reasonable but significant dependencies exist, or key dimensions are missing. 3-7 parameters but some are trivial or redundant."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Acceptable parameters",
|
||||
"description": "3-7 parameters that are mostly independent and cover major dimensions. Some minor dependencies or missing dimensions acceptable. Parameters are relevant to problem."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Good parameters",
|
||||
"description": "3-7 parameters that are independent, essential (each meaningfully affects solution), and collectively cover solution space. Clear rationale for each parameter. Minor gaps acceptable."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Excellent parameters",
|
||||
"description": "3-7 parameters that are provably independent (changing one doesn't force changes in others), essential (each significantly affects objectives), complete (cover all major dimensions), with clear justification for inclusion/exclusion. Optimal granularity."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Option Generation (Morphological)",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates quality and completeness of options listed for each parameter",
|
||||
"weight": 1.0,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Inadequate options",
|
||||
"description": "Only 1 option per parameter (no alternatives), or options are not mutually exclusive (overlap significantly), or critical options missing."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Limited options",
|
||||
"description": "2-5 options per parameter but missing obvious alternatives, or options are too similar, or some overlap. Range is narrow."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Reasonable options",
|
||||
"description": "2-5 options per parameter covering reasonable range. Options are mostly distinct and mutually exclusive. May miss some edge cases or innovative options."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Comprehensive options",
|
||||
"description": "2-5 well-chosen options per parameter covering full practical range. Options are distinct, mutually exclusive, and include current state plus alternatives. Good mix of conventional and novel."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Optimal options",
|
||||
"description": "2-5 options per parameter that span the design space optimally - not too narrow (missing possibilities) or too broad (impractical). Includes creative/non-obvious options. Clear rationale for each option and why range is appropriate."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Configuration Evaluation (Morphological)",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates how well promising configurations were identified and evaluated from morphological box",
|
||||
"weight": 1.0,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "No evaluation",
|
||||
"description": "Morphological box created but no configurations generated or evaluated. Just lists parameters without exploring combinations."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Minimal evaluation",
|
||||
"description": "1-2 configurations identified without clear rationale. No systematic exploration or comparison. Feasibility not assessed."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic evaluation",
|
||||
"description": "3-5 configurations identified with some reasoning. Basic feasibility check and pros/cons listed. Comparison is qualitative only."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Systematic evaluation",
|
||||
"description": "5-10 promising configurations identified with clear selection criteria. Infeasible combinations eliminated with justification. Configurations scored on key objectives. Top 3-5 selected."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Rigorous evaluation",
|
||||
"description": "Comprehensive exploration with 5-10+ configurations spanning solution space. Systematic scoring matrix with weighted objectives. Infeasible combinations documented with reasons. Clusters of similar configs identified. Clear winner with quantified rationale. Sensitivity analysis performed."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Contradiction Identification (TRIZ)",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates how clearly and accurately technical contradictions are stated",
|
||||
"weight": 1.2,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "No contradiction identified",
|
||||
"description": "Problem stated but no contradiction identified, or problem is not actually a contradiction (just an optimization or constraint)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Vague contradiction",
|
||||
"description": "Contradiction mentioned but poorly defined. Unclear which parameters conflict or why. Example: 'need better performance and lower cost' without specificity."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic contradiction",
|
||||
"description": "Contradiction stated with improving and worsening parameters identified. Correct format ('improve X worsens Y') but mapping to TRIZ 39 parameters may be imprecise or missing."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Clear contradiction",
|
||||
"description": "Contradiction clearly stated with specific improving and worsening parameters. Correctly mapped to TRIZ 39 parameters. Physical/technical reason for trade-off explained. Verifiable as real contradiction."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Precise contradiction",
|
||||
"description": "Contradiction precisely formulated with quantified parameters (e.g., 'increase strength from X to Y MPa worsens weight from A to B kg'). Correctly mapped to TRIZ parameters. Physical mechanism of trade-off explained. Evidence that traditional approaches require compromise. Multiple contradictions identified and prioritized if applicable."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "TRIZ Principle Application",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates how effectively TRIZ inventive principles are applied to resolve contradictions",
|
||||
"weight": 1.2,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "No principles applied",
|
||||
"description": "TRIZ principles listed but not applied to specific problem. No solution concepts generated."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Superficial application",
|
||||
"description": "1-2 principles applied literally without adaptation. Solutions are generic or don't actually resolve contradiction. Principles may be inappropriate for this contradiction."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic application",
|
||||
"description": "2-3 principles applied with some adaptation to problem. Solution concepts generated but may not fully eliminate trade-off. Principles are from recommended list (contradiction matrix)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Effective application",
|
||||
"description": "3-4 principles from contradiction matrix applied creatively. Multiple solution concepts per principle. Solutions address contradiction and are technically feasible. Some principles combined for stronger solutions."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Masterful application",
|
||||
"description": "3-5 principles applied with deep adaptation and creativity. Solutions are novel, non-obvious, and fully resolve contradiction (improve A without worsening B, or improve both). Principles combined synergistically. Solutions validated against physical constraints. Evidence that contradiction is eliminated, not just mitigated."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Solution Inventiveness",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates novelty and creativity of solutions - do they represent true innovation or just conventional approaches?",
|
||||
"weight": 1.1,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "No novelty",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are existing/obvious approaches. No departure from conventional thinking. Could have been generated without TRIZ."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Minor novelty",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are mostly conventional with small tweaks. Incremental improvements only. Similar to existing solutions in field."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Moderate novelty",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions combine existing ideas in new ways or adapt proven approaches from other fields. Some inventive steps. May have patentability."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Significant novelty",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are non-obvious and represent genuine innovation. Apply TRIZ principles in unexpected ways. Likely patentable. Break from conventional approaches in field."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Breakthrough innovation",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are highly novel, potentially disruptive, opening new possibilities not previously considered. Elegant resolution of contradiction that seems obvious in hindsight but wasn't before. High patent potential. Could redefine category."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Technical Feasibility",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether solutions are actually implementable given current technology and constraints",
|
||||
"weight": 1.0,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Infeasible",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions violate physical laws, require unavailable technology, or are completely impractical given constraints (cost, time, resources)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Highly uncertain",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are theoretically possible but require major breakthroughs or are at edge of current capabilities. Very high risk. Costs/timelines unknown."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Challenging but possible",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are achievable with current technology but require significant development effort, specialized expertise, or high investment. Risks identified. Feasibility demonstrated for similar problems."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Practical",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions are implementable with available technology and within constraints. Clear path from concept to prototype. Risks are manageable. Similar approaches proven in adjacent fields."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Readily implementable",
|
||||
"description": "Solutions can be implemented quickly with existing technology, materials, and processes. Low technical risk. Clear implementation plan. Costs and timelines estimated. Prototyping straightforward."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Overall Completeness",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether all necessary components of morphological/TRIZ analysis are present and well-integrated",
|
||||
"weight": 1.0,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Incomplete",
|
||||
"description": "Missing major components (morphological box incomplete, no TRIZ principles applied, no solution concepts, etc.). Analysis cannot be used for decision-making."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Partially complete",
|
||||
"description": "Major components present but underdeveloped. Morphological box exists but shallow evaluation. TRIZ principles listed but poorly applied. Limited solution concepts."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Mostly complete",
|
||||
"description": "All major components present (parameters, options, configurations, contradictions, principles, solutions) but some lack depth or integration. Can be used for decisions with additional work."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Complete",
|
||||
"description": "All components well-developed. Morphological analysis is thorough. TRIZ contradictions clearly stated and principles applied. Multiple solution concepts. Evaluation criteria applied. Integration between MA and TRIZ (if both used). Ready for decision-making."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Comprehensive",
|
||||
"description": "Exceptional completeness and integration. Morphological analysis spans full design space systematically. All contradictions identified and addressed with TRIZ. Rich solution concepts (10+). Rigorous evaluation. Clear recommendations with rationale. Documentation enables replication and future refinement. Next steps defined."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"guidance": {
|
||||
"by_method": {
|
||||
"morphological_only": {
|
||||
"focus": "Emphasize parameter selection, option generation, and configuration evaluation. TRIZ criteria not applicable.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "Parameter selection and option generation weighted most heavily. Configuration evaluation distinguishes good from excellent.",
|
||||
"common_issues": "Too many or too few parameters, dependent parameters, insufficient option variety, no systematic evaluation"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"triz_only": {
|
||||
"focus": "Emphasize contradiction identification, principle application, and solution inventiveness. Morphological criteria not applicable.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "Contradiction clarity and principle application are most critical. Inventiveness distinguishes good from excellent.",
|
||||
"common_issues": "Vague contradictions, literal principle application, no adaptation, solutions don't actually resolve contradiction"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"combined_ma_triz": {
|
||||
"focus": "Evaluate both morphological exploration and TRIZ contradiction resolution. Integration between methods is key.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "All criteria apply. Integration shown by: MA reveals contradictions, TRIZ resolves contradictions in configs.",
|
||||
"common_issues": "Methods used separately without integration, contradictions in configs not addressed, MA too shallow to reveal trade-offs"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"by_domain": {
|
||||
"physical_product": {
|
||||
"parameter_examples": "Materials, manufacturing method, form factor, power source, control interface",
|
||||
"contradiction_examples": "Strength vs weight, speed vs precision, durability vs cost, capacity vs size",
|
||||
"triz_application": "40 principles apply directly. Use physical fields (mechanical, thermal, electromagnetic).",
|
||||
"feasibility_focus": "Material properties, manufacturing capabilities, physical constraints"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"software_digital": {
|
||||
"parameter_examples": "Architecture, data storage, interface, deployment, authentication",
|
||||
"contradiction_examples": "Speed vs memory, features vs simplicity, security vs usability, scalability vs cost",
|
||||
"triz_application": "Principles are metaphorical. Translate: weight→code size, segmentation→modularization, fields→abstractions.",
|
||||
"feasibility_focus": "Technology stack maturity, development effort, performance characteristics"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"service_process": {
|
||||
"parameter_examples": "Delivery channel, pricing model, timing, customization, support level",
|
||||
"contradiction_examples": "Quality vs throughput, personalization vs efficiency, convenience vs cost, speed vs accuracy",
|
||||
"triz_application": "Highly metaphorical. Substances→people/materials, fields→interactions/information flows.",
|
||||
"feasibility_focus": "Operational capacity, training requirements, cost structure, customer acceptance"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"common_failure_modes": {
|
||||
"parameters_not_independent": "Choosing option A for parameter 1 forces specific choice in parameter 2. Fix: Redefine parameters or merge dependent ones.",
|
||||
"too_many_parameters": ">7 parameters creates exponential explosion (5^8 = 390,625 configs). Fix: Combine or eliminate less critical parameters.",
|
||||
"options_overlap": "Options are not mutually exclusive (e.g., 'small', 'medium-small', 'medium'). Fix: Define clear boundaries or use different parameter.",
|
||||
"no_evaluation": "Morphological box created but no configurations explored. Fix: Generate 5-10 promising combinations and evaluate.",
|
||||
"contradiction_not_real": "Stated contradiction is actually budget/political constraint, not physical/technical. Fix: Verify improving A truly worsens B with current approaches.",
|
||||
"principles_not_adapted": "TRIZ principles applied literally without translation to problem context. Fix: Use principles as metaphors, adapt creatively.",
|
||||
"solution_doesnt_resolve": "Solution concept doesn't actually eliminate trade-off, just shifts it. Fix: Verify both parameters improve (or one improves with no worsening).",
|
||||
"unfeasible_solutions": "Creative solutions that violate constraints or require impossible technology. Fix: Ground-truth against current capabilities."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"excellence_indicators": [
|
||||
"Parameters are provably independent (tested by varying one while holding others constant)",
|
||||
"Options span full practical design space without gaps or excessive breadth",
|
||||
"10+ configurations evaluated systematically with scored comparison matrix",
|
||||
"Contradictions are quantified (specific values for improving/worsening parameters)",
|
||||
"3-5 TRIZ principles applied with multiple creative adaptations per principle",
|
||||
"Solutions are non-obvious, patentable, and demonstrably resolve contradictions",
|
||||
"Feasibility validated through analysis or analogous examples from other fields",
|
||||
"Integration between methods: morphological analysis identifies contradictions, TRIZ resolves them",
|
||||
"Clear recommendations with ranked alternatives and implementation roadmap",
|
||||
"Documentation enables replication and extension by others"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"evaluation_notes": {
|
||||
"scoring": "Calculate weighted average across applicable criteria. For morphological-only, exclude TRIZ criteria. For TRIZ-only, exclude morphological criteria. Minimum passing score: 3.0 (basic quality). Production-ready target: 3.5+. Excellence threshold: 4.2+.",
|
||||
"context": "Adjust expectations based on problem complexity and domain. Physical products should score higher on feasibility (proven physics). Software/services may score lower on feasibility (unproven approaches acceptable). Breakthrough innovations may score lower on feasibility but higher on inventiveness.",
|
||||
"iteration": "Low scores indicate specific improvement areas. Prioritize fixing contradiction clarity and parameter independence first (highest impact). Then improve principle application and evaluation rigor. Iterate based on prototyping/testing results."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
477
skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/methodology.md
Normal file
477
skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/methodology.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,477 @@
|
||||
# Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
1. [Trends of Technical Evolution](#1-trends-of-technical-evolution)
|
||||
2. [Substance-Field Analysis](#2-substance-field-analysis)
|
||||
3. [ARIZ Algorithm](#3-ariz-algorithm)
|
||||
4. [Combining Morphological Analysis + TRIZ](#4-combining-morphological-analysis--triz)
|
||||
5. [Multi-Contradiction Problems](#5-multi-contradiction-problems)
|
||||
6. [TRIZ for Software & Services](#6-triz-for-software--services)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Trends of Technical Evolution
|
||||
|
||||
### Concept
|
||||
Technical systems evolve along predictable patterns. Understanding these trends helps predict future states and design next-generation solutions.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8 Key Trends
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 1: Mono-Bi-Poly (Increasing Complexity Then Simplification)**
|
||||
- Mono: Single system
|
||||
- Bi: System + counteracting system
|
||||
- Poly: Multiple interacting systems
|
||||
- Then: Integration/simplification
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- Mono: Manual transmission (single system)
|
||||
- Bi: Manual + automatic (two options)
|
||||
- Poly: CVT, dual-clutch, automated manual (many variants)
|
||||
- Integration: Seamless hybrid transmission
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** If stuck at Bi-Poly stage, look for integration opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 2: Transition to Micro-Level**
|
||||
- Macro → Meso → Micro → Nano
|
||||
- System operates at smaller scales over time
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- Macro: Room air conditioner
|
||||
- Meso: Window unit
|
||||
- Micro: Personal cooling device
|
||||
- Nano: Fabric with cooling nanoparticles
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** Can your solution work at smaller scale?
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 3: Increasing Dynamism & Controllability**
|
||||
- Fixed → Adjustable → Adaptive → Self-regulating
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- Fixed: Solid chair
|
||||
- Adjustable: Height-adjustable chair
|
||||
- Adaptive: Chair that conforms to posture
|
||||
- Self-regulating: Chair that actively prevents back pain
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** Add adjustability, then feedback control, then autonomous adaptation
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 4: Increasing Ideality (IFR - Ideal Final Result)**
|
||||
- System delivers more benefits with fewer costs and harms
|
||||
- Ultimate: All benefits, no cost/harm (ideal is unattainable but directional)
|
||||
|
||||
**Formula:** Ideality = Σ(Benefits) / [Σ(Costs) + Σ(Harms)]
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** Systematically increase numerator (add benefits) and decrease denominator (remove costs/harms)
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 5: Non-Uniform Development**
|
||||
- Different parts evolve at different rates → contradictions emerge
|
||||
- Advanced subsystem bottlenecked by primitive subsystem
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** High-performance engine limited by weak transmission
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** Identify lagging subsystems and bring them to parity
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 6: Transition to Super-System**
|
||||
- Individual system → System + complementary systems → Integrated super-system
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- Computer alone
|
||||
- Computer + printer + scanner (separate)
|
||||
- All-in-one device (integrated super-system)
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** What complementary systems can be integrated?
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 7: Matching/Mismatching**
|
||||
- Matching: All parts work in coordination (efficiency)
|
||||
- Mismatching: Deliberate asymmetry for specific function
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** Matched: All wheels same size (car). Mismatched: Different front/rear tires (drag racer)
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** Sometimes deliberate mismatch creates new capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
**Trend 8: Increasing Use of Fields**
|
||||
- Mechanical → Thermal → Chemical → Electric → Magnetic → Electromagnetic
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- Mechanical: Manual saw
|
||||
- Thermal: Hot wire cutter
|
||||
- Electric: Powered saw
|
||||
- Magnetic: Magnetic coupling
|
||||
- Electromagnetic: Laser cutter
|
||||
|
||||
**Application:** Can you replace mechanical action with a "higher" field?
|
||||
|
||||
### How to Apply Trends
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1:** Identify where current system is on each trend
|
||||
**Step 2:** Predict next stage in evolution
|
||||
**Step 3:** Design solution that leapfrogs to next stage
|
||||
**Step 4:** Look for contradictions that arise and resolve with TRIZ principles
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Substance-Field Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Concept
|
||||
Model systems as interactions between substances (S1, S2) and fields (F) to identify incomplete or harmful models and transform them.
|
||||
|
||||
### Basic Model: S1 - F - S2
|
||||
- **S1:** Object being acted upon (workpiece, patient, user)
|
||||
- **F:** Field providing energy (mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical, magnetic)
|
||||
- **S2:** Tool/agent acting on S1 (cutter, heater, medicine, interface)
|
||||
|
||||
### Complete vs Incomplete Models
|
||||
|
||||
**Incomplete (Doesn't work well):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
S1 ---- S2 (No field, or field too weak)
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Solution:** Add or strengthen field
|
||||
|
||||
**Complete (Works):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
S1 <-F-> S2 (Field connects substances effectively)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 76 Standard Solutions
|
||||
|
||||
TRIZ catalogs 76 standard substance-field transformations. Key examples:
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem: Incomplete model (S1 and S2 not interacting)**
|
||||
- **Solution 1:** Add field F between them
|
||||
- **Solution 2:** Replace S2 with more reactive substance S3
|
||||
- **Solution 3:** Add substance S3 as intermediary
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem: Harmful action (field F causes unwanted effect)**
|
||||
- **Solution 1:** Insert substance S3 to block harmful field
|
||||
- **Solution 2:** Add field F2 to counteract F1
|
||||
- **Solution 3:** Remove or modify S2 to eliminate harmful field
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem: Need to detect or measure S1 (invisible, inaccessible)**
|
||||
- **Solution 1:** Add marker substance S3 that reveals S1
|
||||
- **Solution 2:** Use external field F2 to probe S1
|
||||
- **Solution 3:** Transform S1 into S1' that's easier to detect
|
||||
|
||||
### Application Example
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem:** Need to inspect internal pipe for cracks (S1 = pipe, can't see inside)
|
||||
|
||||
**Substance-field analysis:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Current: S1 (pipe) - no effective field - S2 (inspector)
|
||||
Incomplete model
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Solutions via standard models:**
|
||||
1. Add ferromagnetic particles + magnetic field (field F reveals cracks)
|
||||
2. Add ultrasonic field (detect reflection changes at cracks)
|
||||
3. Add pressurized dye penetrant (substance S3 reveals cracks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Selected:** Magnetic particle inspection (proven technique)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. ARIZ Algorithm
|
||||
|
||||
### Concept
|
||||
ARIZ (Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving) is systematic step-by-step process for complex problems where contradiction isn't obvious.
|
||||
|
||||
### ARIZ Steps (Simplified)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Problem Formulation**
|
||||
- State problem as given
|
||||
- Identify ultimate goal
|
||||
- List available resources (time, space, substances, fields, information)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Mini-Problem**
|
||||
- Define "ideal final result" (IFR): system achieves goal with minimal change
|
||||
- Formulate mini-problem: "Element X, using available resources, must provide [desired effect] without [harmful effect]"
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Physical Contradiction**
|
||||
- Identify conflicting requirements on single element
|
||||
- Example: "Element must be hard (for strength) AND soft (for flexibility)"
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4: Separate Contradictions**
|
||||
Four separation principles:
|
||||
- **In space:** Hard in one location, soft in another
|
||||
- **In time:** Hard during use, soft during installation
|
||||
- **Upon condition:** Hard under load, soft when relaxed
|
||||
- **Between system levels:** Hard at macro level, soft at micro level
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5: Application of Resources**
|
||||
- What substances are available? (in system, nearby, environment, products/derivatives)
|
||||
- What fields are available? (waste heat, vibration, gravity, pressure)
|
||||
- How can cheap/free resources substitute for expensive ones?
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 6: Apply Substance-Field Model**
|
||||
- Model current state
|
||||
- Identify incomplete or harmful models
|
||||
- Apply standard solutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 7: Apply TRIZ Principles**
|
||||
- If not solved yet, use contradiction matrix
|
||||
- Try 2-3 most relevant principles
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 8: Analyze Solution**
|
||||
- Does it achieve IFR?
|
||||
- What new problems arise?
|
||||
- Can solution be generalized to other domains?
|
||||
|
||||
### ARIZ Example (Abbreviated)
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem:** Bike lock must be strong (resist cutting) but lightweight (portable)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1:** Goal = secure bike, Resources = lock material, bike frame, environment
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2:** IFR = Lock secures bike without added weight. Mini-problem: Lock, using available resources, must resist cutting without being heavy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3:** Physical contradiction - Lock material must be thick/strong (resist cutting) AND thin/light (reduce weight)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4:** Separation - In space (strong in critical area only), Upon condition (hard when attacked, normal otherwise)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5:** Resources - Can we use bike frame itself? Environment (anchor to heavy object)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 6:** Substance-field - Add alarm field (makes cutting detectable even if lock is light)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 7:** TRIZ - Principle #40 (composite materials): Use hardened steel inserts in lightweight frame. Principle #2 (taking out): Secure bike to immovable object, lock just prevents separation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 8:** Solution - Lightweight cable with selective hardening + alarm. Achieves security without excessive weight.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Combining Morphological Analysis + TRIZ
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Combine
|
||||
|
||||
**Use case:** Complex system with multiple parameters (morphological) AND contradictions within configurations (TRIZ)
|
||||
|
||||
### Process
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1:** Build morphological box for overall system architecture
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2:** Identify promising parameter combinations (3-5 configurations)
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3:** For each configuration, identify embedded contradictions
|
||||
- Does this configuration create any trade-offs?
|
||||
- Which parameters conflict within this configuration?
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4:** Apply TRIZ to resolve contradictions within each configuration
|
||||
- Use TRIZ principles to eliminate trade-offs
|
||||
- Improve configurations to be non-compromise solutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5:** Re-evaluate configurations now that contradictions are resolved
|
||||
- Configurations that were inferior due to contradictions may now be viable
|
||||
|
||||
### Example: Designing Portable Speaker
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological Parameters:**
|
||||
- Power: Battery | Solar | Wall plug | Hybrid
|
||||
- Size: Pocket | Handheld | Tabletop | Floor
|
||||
- Audio tech: Mono | Stereo | Surround | Spatial
|
||||
- Material: Plastic | Metal | Wood | Fabric
|
||||
- Price tier: Budget | Mid | Premium | Luxury
|
||||
|
||||
**Configuration 1: Pocket + Battery + Stereo + Plastic + Mid**
|
||||
- Contradiction: Pocket size (small) vs Stereo (needs speaker separation for stereo imaging)
|
||||
- TRIZ Solution: Principle #17 (another dimension) - Use beamforming or psychoacoustic processing to create virtual stereo from single driver
|
||||
|
||||
**Configuration 2: Tabletop + Solar + Surround + Wood + Premium**
|
||||
- Contradiction: Solar (needs light, outdoor) vs Wood (damages in weather)
|
||||
- TRIZ Solution: Principle #30 (flexible shell) - Protective cover deploys when outdoors, retracts indoors
|
||||
|
||||
**Outcome:** Both configurations now viable without compromises
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Multi-Contradiction Problems
|
||||
|
||||
### Challenge
|
||||
Real systems often have multiple contradictions that interact.
|
||||
|
||||
### Approach
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Map all contradictions**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Contradiction 1: Improve A → worsens B
|
||||
Contradiction 2: Improve C → worsens D
|
||||
Contradiction 3: Improve A → worsens D
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Identify primary contradiction**
|
||||
- Which contradiction, if resolved, eliminates or eases others?
|
||||
- Which contradiction is most critical to success?
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Resolve primary contradiction first**
|
||||
- Apply TRIZ principles
|
||||
- Generate solution concepts
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4: Check if resolving primary affects secondary contradictions**
|
||||
- Did solution eliminate secondary contradictions?
|
||||
- Did solution worsen secondary contradictions?
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5: Resolve remaining contradictions**
|
||||
- Apply TRIZ to each remaining contradiction
|
||||
- Check for conflicts between solutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 6: Integrate solutions**
|
||||
- Can multiple TRIZ principles be combined?
|
||||
- Are there synergies between solutions?
|
||||
|
||||
### Example: Electric Vehicle Design
|
||||
|
||||
**Contradictions:**
|
||||
1. Improve range → worsens cost (large battery expensive)
|
||||
2. Improve acceleration → worsens range (high power drains battery)
|
||||
3. Improve safety → worsens weight (reinforcement adds mass)
|
||||
4. Reduce weight → worsens safety (less structure)
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary:** Range vs Cost (most critical for market adoption)
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ Solutions:**
|
||||
- Principle #6 (universality): Battery also serves as structural element (improves range without added weight/cost)
|
||||
- Principle #35 (parameter change): Use different battery chemistry (higher energy density)
|
||||
|
||||
**Secondary contradictions affected:**
|
||||
- Weight reduced (battery is structure) → helps safety-weight contradiction
|
||||
- Can now afford stronger materials with weight/cost savings
|
||||
|
||||
**Integrated solution:** Structural battery pack with high energy density cells
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. TRIZ for Software & Services
|
||||
|
||||
### Adapting TRIZ to Non-Physical Domains
|
||||
|
||||
**Key insight:** TRIZ principles are metaphorical. Translate physical concepts to digital/service equivalents.
|
||||
|
||||
### Software-Specific Mappings
|
||||
|
||||
| Physical | Software/Digital |
|
||||
|----------|------------------|
|
||||
| Weight | Code size, memory, latency |
|
||||
| Strength | Robustness, security, reliability |
|
||||
| Speed | Response time, throughput |
|
||||
| Temperature | CPU load, resource utilization |
|
||||
| Pressure | User load, traffic |
|
||||
| Shape | Architecture, data structure |
|
||||
| Material | Technology stack, framework |
|
||||
| Segmentation | Modularization, microservices |
|
||||
| Merging | Integration, consolidation |
|
||||
|
||||
### TRIZ Principles for Software (Examples)
|
||||
|
||||
**#1 Segmentation:**
|
||||
- Monolith → Microservices
|
||||
- Single database → Sharded databases
|
||||
- Batch processing → Stream processing
|
||||
|
||||
**#2 Taking Out:**
|
||||
- Extract auth into separate service
|
||||
- Externalize config from code
|
||||
- Offload computation to client (edge computing)
|
||||
|
||||
**#10 Preliminary Action:**
|
||||
- Caching, pre-computation
|
||||
- Ahead-of-time compilation
|
||||
- Pre-fetch data
|
||||
|
||||
**#15 Dynamics:**
|
||||
- Adaptive algorithms (change based on load)
|
||||
- Auto-scaling infrastructure
|
||||
- Dynamic pricing
|
||||
|
||||
**#19 Periodic Action:**
|
||||
- Polling → Webhooks (event-driven)
|
||||
- Batch jobs on schedule
|
||||
- Garbage collection intervals
|
||||
|
||||
**#23 Feedback:**
|
||||
- Monitoring and alerting
|
||||
- A/B testing with metrics
|
||||
- Auto-tuning parameters
|
||||
|
||||
**#28 Mechanics Substitution:**
|
||||
- Physical token → Digital certificate
|
||||
- Manual process → Automated workflow
|
||||
- Paper forms → Digital forms
|
||||
|
||||
### Service Design with TRIZ (Examples)
|
||||
|
||||
**#1 Segmentation:**
|
||||
- Self-service tier + premium support tier
|
||||
- Modular service packages (pick what you need)
|
||||
|
||||
**#5 Merging:**
|
||||
- One-stop shop (multiple services in one visit)
|
||||
- Bundled offerings
|
||||
|
||||
**#6 Universality:**
|
||||
- Staff cross-trained for multiple roles
|
||||
- Multi-purpose facilities
|
||||
|
||||
**#10 Preliminary Action:**
|
||||
- Pre-registration, pre-authorization
|
||||
- Prepare materials before appointment
|
||||
- Send info in advance (reduce appointment time)
|
||||
|
||||
**#24 Intermediary:**
|
||||
- Concierge service
|
||||
- Service coordinator between specialists
|
||||
- Customer success manager
|
||||
|
||||
**#25 Self-Service:**
|
||||
- Online booking, FAQ, chatbots
|
||||
- Self-checkout, automated kiosks
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Decision Trees
|
||||
|
||||
### "Should I use morphological analysis or TRIZ?"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Do I have clearly defined parameters with discrete options?
|
||||
├─ YES → Is there a performance trade-off/contradiction?
|
||||
│ ├─ YES → Use both (MA to explore, TRIZ to resolve contradictions)
|
||||
│ └─ NO → Use morphological analysis only
|
||||
└─ NO → Do I have "improve A worsens B" situation?
|
||||
├─ YES → Use TRIZ only
|
||||
└─ NO → Neither applies; use other innovation methods
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### "Which TRIZ technique should I use?"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Is problem well-defined with clear contradiction?
|
||||
├─ YES → Use contradiction matrix + principles (template.md)
|
||||
└─ NO → Is problem complex/ambiguous?
|
||||
├─ YES → Use ARIZ algorithm (Section 3)
|
||||
└─ NO → Model as substance-field (Section 2)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### "How many TRIZ principles should I try?"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Did first principle fully solve contradiction?
|
||||
├─ YES → Done, move to evaluation
|
||||
└─ NO → Try 2-3 principles recommended by matrix
|
||||
Partial solution?
|
||||
├─ YES → Combine principles (Section 5)
|
||||
└─ NO → Re-examine contradiction (may be mis-stated)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary: When to Use What
|
||||
|
||||
| Situation | Method | Section |
|
||||
|-----------|--------|---------|
|
||||
| **Explore design space systematically** | Morphological Analysis | template.md |
|
||||
| **Clear "improve A worsens B" contradiction** | TRIZ Contradiction Matrix | template.md |
|
||||
| **Complex problem, unclear contradiction** | ARIZ Algorithm | Section 3 |
|
||||
| **Modeling interactions, detecting issues** | Substance-Field Analysis | Section 2 |
|
||||
| **Predict future product evolution** | Trends of Evolution | Section 1 |
|
||||
| **Multiple related contradictions** | Multi-Contradiction Process | Section 5 |
|
||||
| **Software/service innovation** | Adapted TRIZ Principles | Section 6 |
|
||||
| **Complex system with trade-offs** | MA + TRIZ Combined | Section 4 |
|
||||
298
skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/template.md
Normal file
298
skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/template.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
|
||||
# Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Template
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Start
|
||||
|
||||
**For Morphological Analysis:**
|
||||
1. Define 3-7 parameters → 2-5 options each → Build matrix → Evaluate combinations
|
||||
|
||||
**For TRIZ:**
|
||||
1. State contradiction (improve A worsens B) → Look up in matrix → Apply 3-4 recommended principles
|
||||
|
||||
**For Both:**
|
||||
Use morphological analysis to explore space, TRIZ to resolve contradictions in configurations.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 1: Problem Definition
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem Statement:** [Clear, specific description]
|
||||
|
||||
**Objectives:**
|
||||
1. [Primary objective - measurable]
|
||||
2. [Secondary objective]
|
||||
3. [Tertiary objective]
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints:**
|
||||
- Cost: [Budget limit]
|
||||
- Size/Weight: [Physical limitations]
|
||||
- Time: [Timeline]
|
||||
- Materials: [Allowed/prohibited]
|
||||
- Performance: [Minimum requirements]
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria:**
|
||||
- [ ] [Measurable criterion 1]
|
||||
- [ ] [Measurable criterion 2]
|
||||
- [ ] [Measurable criterion 3]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 2: Morphological Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Identify 3-7 Independent Parameters
|
||||
|
||||
**Parameter 1:** [Name] - [Why essential]
|
||||
**Parameter 2:** [Name] - [Why essential]
|
||||
**Parameter 3:** [Name] - [Why essential]
|
||||
[Continue for 3-7 parameters]
|
||||
|
||||
**Independence check:** Can I change Parameter 1 without forcing changes in Parameter 2? (Yes = independent)
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: List 2-5 Options Per Parameter
|
||||
|
||||
**Parameter 1: [Name]**
|
||||
- Option A: [Description]
|
||||
- Option B: [Description]
|
||||
- Option C: [Description]
|
||||
[2-5 mutually exclusive options]
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for all parameters]
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Build Morphological Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
| Parameter | Opt 1 | Opt 2 | Opt 3 | Opt 4 | Opt 5 |
|
||||
|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
|
||||
| [Param 1] | [A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | - |
|
||||
| [Param 2] | [A] | [B] | [C] | - | - |
|
||||
| [Param 3] | [A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | [E] |
|
||||
|
||||
Total: [N1 × N2 × N3...] = [Total configs]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Generate 5-10 Promising Configurations
|
||||
|
||||
**Config 1: [Name]**
|
||||
- Parameter 1: [Selected option]
|
||||
- Parameter 2: [Selected option]
|
||||
- Parameter 3: [Selected option]
|
||||
- **Rationale:** [Why promising]
|
||||
- **Pros:** [Advantages]
|
||||
- **Cons:** [Disadvantages]
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for 5-10 configurations]
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Score and Rank
|
||||
|
||||
| Config | Obj 1 | Obj 2 | Obj 3 | Cost | Feasibility | Total | Rank |
|
||||
|--------|-------|-------|-------|------|-------------|-------|------|
|
||||
| Config 1 | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Sum] | [#] |
|
||||
| Config 2 | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Sum] | [#] |
|
||||
|
||||
**Selected:** [Top-ranked configuration]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 3: TRIZ Contradiction Resolution
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: State Contradiction
|
||||
|
||||
**Improving Parameter:** [What we want to increase]
|
||||
- Current: [Value]
|
||||
- Desired: [Target]
|
||||
|
||||
**Worsening Parameter:** [What degrades when we improve first]
|
||||
- Acceptable degradation: [Threshold]
|
||||
|
||||
**Contradiction Statement:** "To improve [X], we must worsen [Y], which is unacceptable because [reason]."
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Map to TRIZ 39 Parameters
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ 39 Parameters (Quick Reference):**
|
||||
1. Weight of moving object
|
||||
2. Weight of stationary object
|
||||
3-4. Length (moving/stationary)
|
||||
5-6. Area (moving/stationary)
|
||||
7-8. Volume (moving/stationary)
|
||||
9. Speed
|
||||
10. Force
|
||||
11. Stress/pressure
|
||||
12. Shape
|
||||
13. Stability of composition
|
||||
14. Strength
|
||||
15-16. Duration of action
|
||||
17. Temperature
|
||||
18. Illumination
|
||||
19-20. Energy use
|
||||
21. Power
|
||||
22-26. Loss of (energy, substance, info, time, quantity)
|
||||
27. Reliability
|
||||
28-29. Measurement/manufacturing accuracy
|
||||
30-31. Harmful factors (external/internal)
|
||||
32-34. Ease of (manufacture, operation, repair)
|
||||
35. Adaptability
|
||||
36. Device complexity
|
||||
37. Difficulty of detecting/measuring
|
||||
38. Automation
|
||||
39. Productivity
|
||||
|
||||
**Map your contradiction:**
|
||||
- Improving: [Map to one of 39]
|
||||
- Worsening: [Map to one of 39]
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Lookup Recommended Principles
|
||||
|
||||
**From TRIZ Contradiction Matrix:** [Lookup improving × worsening]
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Principles:** [#N, #M, #P, #Q]
|
||||
|
||||
**40 Inventive Principles (Brief):**
|
||||
1. Segmentation - Divide into parts
|
||||
2. Taking Out - Remove disturbing element
|
||||
3. Local Quality - Different parts, different functions
|
||||
4. Asymmetry - Use asymmetric forms
|
||||
5. Merging - Combine similar objects
|
||||
6. Universality - Multi-function
|
||||
7. Nesting - Matryoshka dolls
|
||||
8. Anti-Weight - Counterbalance
|
||||
9. Preliminary Anti-Action - Pre-stress
|
||||
10. Preliminary Action - Prepare in advance
|
||||
11. Beforehand Cushioning - Emergency measures
|
||||
12. Equipotentiality - Eliminate lifting/lowering
|
||||
13. The Other Way - Invert
|
||||
14. Spheroidality - Use curves
|
||||
15. Dynamics - Make adaptable
|
||||
16. Partial/Excessive - Go over/under optimal
|
||||
17. Another Dimension - Use 3D, layers
|
||||
18. Mechanical Vibration - Use oscillation
|
||||
19. Periodic Action - Pulsed vs continuous
|
||||
20. Continuity - Eliminate idle time
|
||||
21. Rushing Through - High speed reduces harm
|
||||
22. Blessing in Disguise - Use harm for benefit
|
||||
23. Feedback - Introduce adjustment
|
||||
24. Intermediary - Use intermediate object
|
||||
25. Self-Service - Object services itself
|
||||
26. Copying - Use cheap copy
|
||||
27. Cheap Short-Living - Replace expensive with many cheap
|
||||
28. Mechanics Substitution - Use fields instead
|
||||
29. Pneumatics/Hydraulics - Use gas/liquid
|
||||
30. Flexible Shells - Use membranes
|
||||
31. Porous Materials - Make porous
|
||||
32. Color Changes - Change color/transparency
|
||||
33. Homogeneity - Same material
|
||||
34. Discarding/Recovering - Discard after use
|
||||
35. Parameter Changes - Change physical state
|
||||
36. Phase Transitions - Use phenomena during transition
|
||||
37. Thermal Expansion - Use expansion/contraction
|
||||
38. Strong Oxidants - Enrich atmosphere
|
||||
39. Inert Atmosphere - Use inert environment
|
||||
40. Composite Materials - Change to composite
|
||||
|
||||
**For detailed principle examples, see [methodology.md](methodology.md).**
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Apply Principles
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle #[N]: [Name]**
|
||||
- **How to apply:** [Specific adaptation to problem]
|
||||
- **Resolves contradiction:** [Explain how]
|
||||
- **Feasibility:** [High/Medium/Low]
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for 3-4 principles]
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Combine Principles (Optional)
|
||||
|
||||
**Combined Solution:**
|
||||
- **Principles:** [#N + #M]
|
||||
- **Synergy:** [How they work together]
|
||||
- **Result:** [Concrete design concept]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 4: Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
Create `morphological-analysis-triz.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# [Problem Name]: Systematic Innovation
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
[Problem statement, objectives, constraints]
|
||||
|
||||
## Morphological Analysis (if used)
|
||||
|
||||
### Matrix
|
||||
[Parameter-option table]
|
||||
|
||||
### Top Configurations
|
||||
1. [Config name]: [Parameters] - Rationale: [Why] - Score: [X]
|
||||
2. [Config name]: [Parameters] - Rationale: [Why] - Score: [Y]
|
||||
|
||||
## TRIZ Analysis (if used)
|
||||
|
||||
### Contradiction
|
||||
Improve [X] → Worsens [Y]
|
||||
|
||||
### Applied Principles
|
||||
- Principle #[N] ([Name]): [Application] → [Result]
|
||||
- Principle #[M] ([Name]): [Application] → [Result]
|
||||
|
||||
### Solution Concepts
|
||||
1. **[Concept name]:** [Description] - Pros: [X] - Cons: [Y]
|
||||
2. **[Concept name]:** [Description] - Pros: [X] - Cons: [Y]
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation
|
||||
**Primary Solution:** [Name]
|
||||
- Description: [What it is]
|
||||
- Why: [Rationale]
|
||||
- Next Steps: [Actions]
|
||||
|
||||
**Alternative:** [Name] (if primary fails/too risky)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Examples
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological Analysis (Lamp Design):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parameters: Power (battery/wall/solar), Light (LED/halogen), Control (switch/app/voice), Size (desk/floor/wall)
|
||||
Total: 3 × 2 × 3 × 3 = 54 configurations
|
||||
Promising: Battery + LED + App + Desk (portable smart lamp)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ (Electric Vehicle):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Contradiction: Increase range → worsens cost (large battery expensive)
|
||||
Principles: #6 (Universality - battery is structure), #35 (Parameter change - different chemistry)
|
||||
Solution: Structural battery pack with high energy density cells
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Combined MA + TRIZ:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Build morphological box → Find promising configurations
|
||||
2. Identify contradictions in top configs
|
||||
3. Apply TRIZ to eliminate trade-offs
|
||||
4. Re-evaluate configs with contradictions resolved
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Morphological Analysis:**
|
||||
- Keep 3-7 parameters (too many = explosion)
|
||||
- Ensure independence (changing one doesn't force another)
|
||||
- Don't enumerate all combinations (focus on promising clusters)
|
||||
|
||||
**TRIZ:**
|
||||
- Verify real contradiction (not just budget constraint)
|
||||
- Adapt principles creatively (metaphorical, not literal)
|
||||
- Combine multiple principles for stronger solutions
|
||||
- Check for new contradictions introduced by solution
|
||||
|
||||
**For advanced techniques:**
|
||||
- Trends of evolution → See methodology.md Section 1
|
||||
- Substance-field analysis → See methodology.md Section 2
|
||||
- ARIZ algorithm → See methodology.md Section 3
|
||||
- Detailed principle examples → See methodology.md Section 4
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user