METHODENMATRIX ZUR TECHNISCHEN PROBLEMLÖSUNG:
Die Ergebnisse und der Stand der Arbeit sollen nachfolgend kurz zusammengefasst werden:
Zu den verschiedenen Problemlösungsmethoden existieren zahlreiche Beschreibungen in der Fachliteratur. Als beispielhafte Veröffentlichung kann Eversheim(2003) genannt werden, welcher die Methoden klassifiziert und einen Überblick über ihren Einsatz bietet. In ähnlicher Weise werden in dieser Arbeit Problemlösungsmethoden dargestellt, klassifiziert und bewertet. Der Schwerpunkt dieser Arbeit ist jedoch eine explizite Berücksichtigung des Problemcharakters und der Methodenauswahl.
Dazu wurden zwei Kriterienkataloge entwickelt: einer zur allgemeinen Bewertung der Methodenleistung und einer zur Bewertung der problem-spezifischen Methodenleistung. An Hand dieser Kataloge und unter zu Hilfenahme von Literatur und Beispielproblemen wurden die Methoden bewertet. Die Beispielprobleme und ihre Lösungskonzepte dienten hauptsächlich der Bewertung der problem-spezifischen Methodenleistung.
Die Ergebnisse der Bewertungen werden in Form einer Matrix dargestellt. Diese so genannte Analyse- und Vergleichsmatrix (AC-Matrix) besteht aus drei Teilen. Sie bietet Unterstützung bei der Auswahl von Methoden zur systematischen Problemlösung. Zielsetzung ist dabei eine objektiv-zielgerichtete Methodenauswahl. In der Anwendung der Matrix auf ein spezifisches Problem werden Methoden vorgeschlagen, welche am besten geeignet sind, das Problem zu lösen. Dies erlaubt es, Problemlösungsmethoden einfacher und objektiver dem Problemlösungsprozess zuzuordnen. Kernelement dieses Vorgehens ist eine Charakterisierung des betrachteten Problems.
Eine grafische Darstellung der Matrix erhöht die Benutzerfreundlichkeit des Konzeptes.
Diese Arbeit muss als erster Beitrag zu einer systematischeren Methodenbeschreibung und Methodenauswahl betrachtet werden. Weitergehende Studien sind notwendig: Die Problemcharakterisierung und Methodenauswahl sollten differenziert werden. Die Grundlage der Matrix, d.h. die Methodenbewertung, sollte durch Industriebeispiele erweitert werden.
Nach einer nachfolgenden Verifikation und Validierung kann das AC-Matrix-Konzept in der F&E-Praxis und der Innovationsberatung zum Einsatz kommen.
Table of contents
1. Framework and context of the work
1.1. Objective and structure of the work
1.2. Keywords:
1.3. On the necessity of an analysis and classification matrix – context of the work
1.4. Limitations of this work
1.5. Problem, complexity and innovation – elaboration on central notions
1.5.1. Problems, problem solving and Problem Solving Methods
1.5.2. Complex systems, complexity and systems thinking
1.5.3. Innovation and invention
2. Problem Solving Methods (PSM)
2.1. Analysed and compared methods
2.1.1. Axiomatic Design
2.1.2. Quality function deployment (QFD)
2.1.3. Robust Design, Taguchi Method
2.1.4. Systematic Approach of Pahl and Beitz (SAPB or P&B)
2.1.5. TRIZ – Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
2.1.6. Value Engineering (VE)
2.2. Short suggestion of some other interesting methods
2.3. Positioning of the methods in the problem solving process or innovation process making use of the W-model
3. Development of criteria for classification, analysis and evaluation of Problem Solving Methods
3.1. Performance and characteristic of Problem Solving Methods
3.2. Criteria and characteristic to describe the problem
4. Development of the analysis and comparison matrix
4.1. Example problems and their solution concepts
4.1.1. Convey glass disc problem
4.1.2. Disperse varnish problem
4.1.3. Glass polishing problem
4.1.4. Powder Injection Moulding (PIM) problem
4.1.5. Tea ball problem
4.1.6. Supplemental problem
4.2. Evaluation of the performance of Problem Solving Methods
4.2.1. Validation of Axiomatic Design
4.2.2. Validation of QFD
4.2.3. Validation of Robust Design
4.2.4. Validation of the Systematic Approach of Pahl and Beitz
4.2.5. Validation of TRIZ
4.2.6. Validation of Value Engineering
4.3. Overall Analysis and Classification Matrix
4.3.1. Composition of the overall analysis and classification matrix
4.3.2. Depiction of the AC-matrix
4.3.3. Proceeding to read the matrix statement
5. Validation of the analysis and comparison matrix concept
5.1. Outline for the solution of a final example problem
5.2. Validation example problem
5.2.1. Description of the problem: Development of car tires for all-year usage
5.2.2. Statement of the matrix
5.2.3. Solution concepts
5.2.4. Conclusions
5.3. Validation of the concept with the help of the Validation Square
5.3.1. The Validation Square
5.3.2. Application of the Validation Square concept on the ACM
6. Conclusion, outlook and summary
6.1. Review of critical points and difficulties
6.2. Outlook
6.3. Summary
Objectives and Research Themes
The primary objective of this thesis is to develop a consistent matrix for the analysis and classification of problem-solving methods based on their problem-specific performance, facilitating a rational choice of methods for specific engineering tasks. The research addresses the challenge of identifying, describing, and evaluating frequently used problem-solving methods in the context of increasing product complexity and shortening product life cycles, with a particular focus on TRIZ.
- Elaboration and differentiation of central notions: problems, complexity, and innovation.
- Introduction and evaluation of major problem-solving methods: Axiomatic Design, QFD, Robust Design, SAPB, TRIZ, and Value Engineering.
- Development of criteria for classifying and evaluating problem-solving methods based on general performance and problem-specific characteristics.
- Validation of the proposed matrix concept through example problems and a formal validation process.
Excerpt from the Book
1.5.1. Problems, problem solving and Problem Solving Methods
“Ein Individuum steht einem Problem gegenüber, wenn es sich in einem inneren oder äußeren Zustand befindet, den es für nicht wünschenswert hält, aber im Moment nicht über die Mittel verfügt, um den unerwünschten Zustand in den wünschenswerten Zielzustand zu überführen.“ /19/
Problems exist in all spheres of life: in economy, in our personal life, in technology, etc. However problems of whatever kind have three characteristics: an undesired initial state, a desired final state and barriers in between. These barriers prevent transforming the initial into the final state directly. /21/ and /42/
By this definition problems can be differentiated from mere tasks. For tasks the approach and mean to find the solution is already known and the solution is gained by reproductive thinking; what is described by the notion routine. For problems the approach is still unknown, a way to find a solution has still to be discovered. Therefore methods can provide help.
Summary of Chapters
1. Framework and context of the work: Defines the scope of the thesis and introduces key concepts like complexity and innovation, establishing the necessity for a systematic method analysis.
2. Problem Solving Methods (PSM): Introduces and characterizes frequently used methods, including Axiomatic Design, QFD, Robust Design, SAPB, TRIZ, and Value Engineering.
3. Development of criteria for classification, analysis and evaluation of Problem Solving Methods: Establishes criteria for both general method performance and specific problem characterization to enable an objective method evaluation.
4. Development of the analysis and comparison matrix: Applies the developed criteria to various example problems to evaluate method performance and constructs the final AC-matrix.
5. Validation of the analysis and comparison matrix concept: Validates the developed matrix approach by applying it to a final example problem, evaluating the usability and validity of the concept.
6. Conclusion, outlook and summary: Reflects on critical points, outlines potential future research, and summarizes the findings of the thesis.
Keywords
Innovation, problem solving methods, TRIZ, evaluation criteria, method comparison, complexity, systems thinking, Axiomatic Design, Quality Function Deployment, Robust Design, Pahl and Beitz, Value Engineering, design process, matrix development, problem characterization
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work focuses on the creation of a matrix designed to analyze and classify various Problem Solving Methods (PSMs) based on their performance in relation to specific problem characteristics.
Which methods are analyzed?
The primary methods examined are Axiomatic Design, Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Robust Design (Taguchi Method), the Systematic Approach of Pahl and Beitz (SAPB), TRIZ, and Value Engineering (VE).
What is the primary research goal?
The main goal is to provide a decision-making tool for engineers to choose the most suitable problem-solving method based on the specific nature of the problem, rather than relying on standard or arbitrary method selection.
What methodology is employed for the evaluation?
The evaluation is performed using a two-tier criteria system: one focusing on general method performance (inherent characteristics) and another on problem-specific performance (performance against problem characteristics), validated through practical example problems.
What is the function of the analysis matrix?
The matrix serves as a decision-aid to visualize the strengths and weaknesses of different PSMs, allowing users to map their specific engineering problem to the most effective method, thereby improving the problem-solving process.
Which key terms characterize this thesis?
Key terms include Problem Solving Methods, Performance Criteria, Complexity, Systems Thinking, and the AC-matrix (Analysis and Classification Matrix).
How does the work handle TRIZ?
Special attention is given to TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) due to its power in synthesis problems, though the work also notes that its application is complex and requires significant training.
How is the matrix concept validated?
The matrix concept is validated through a systematic approach, specifically by applying it to a final real-world-inspired engineering problem (the development of all-year car tires) and utilizing the "Validation Square" concept.
- Quote paper
- Martin Fritz (Author), 2006, Contribution to the design of a matrix to analyse and classify problem solving methods according to performance criteria, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/54642
