Optionally
AIPS-2015
- AIPS. Stage 1.
- AIPS. Stage 2.
- AIPS. Stage 3.
Functional model
Causal model
Hierarchical process model
Analogies
Useful technical system
Principles of resolving technical contradictions
- Principle 1. Segmentation Principle
- Principle 2. Separation Principle
- Principle 3. Local Quality Principle
- Principle 4. Symmetry Change Principle
- Principle 5. Merging Principle
- Principle 6. Multifunctionality Principle
- Principle 7. Nesting Principle
- Principle 8. Weight Compensation Principle
- Principle 9. Preliminary Counteraction Principle
- Principle 10. Preliminary Action Principle
- Principle 11. Beforehand Compensation Principle
- Principle 12. Equipotentiality Principle
- Principle 13. The Other Way Around Principle
- Principle 14. Curvature Increase Principle
- Principle 15. Dynamic Parts Principle
- Principle 16. Partial or Excessive Actions Principle
- Principle 17. Dimensionality Change Principle
- Principle 18. Mechanical Vibration
- Principle 19. Periodic Action Principle
- Principle 20. Continuity of Useful Action Principle
- Principle 21. Skipping Principle
- Principle 22. Blessing in Disguise
- Principle 23. Feedback Principle
- Principle 24. Intermediary Principle
- Principle 25. Self-Service Principle
- Principle 26. Copying Principle
- Principle 27. Cheap Disposables
- Principle 28. Mechanical Interaction Substitution
- Principle 29. Pneumatics and Hydraulics
- Principle 30. Flexible Shells and Thin Films
- Principle 31. Porous Materials
- Principle 32. Optical Property Changes
- Principle 33. Homogeneity Principle
- Principle 34. Discarding and Recovering Principle
- Principle 35. Parameter Changes
- Principle 36. Phase Transitions
- Principle 37. Thermal Expansion
- Principle 38. Strong Oxidants
- Principle 39. Inert Atmosphere
- Principle 40. Composite Materials
Standard problem solutions
- Class 1
- Class 2
- Class 3
- Class 4
- Class 5
Lines of development
- 1. Mono-bi-poly of identical objects
- 2. Mono-bi-poly of various objects
- 3. System composition scaling-down
- 4. Segmentation
- 5. Evolution of surface
- 6. Internal structure evolution
- 7. Geometric evolution
- 8. Dynamisation
- 9. Controllability
- 10. Сoordination
Glossary
Literature

Stage 3. Analysis of the situation changed

The algorithm is completed with the testing stage. It is necessary to understand whether the issue has changed and whether these changes are positive enough.

During the testing stage, the final solution should be transformed into a specific technical proposal and it should be found out whether the conflict is resolved and the problem is remedied.

This testing can be done either at the end of solving the problem or, optionally, at any of its steps.

Step 3.1. Prepare a technical proposal

Input: the final solution.

Action: describe the system transformed in technical terms.

Output: a technical proposal

Based on the final solution, the technical proposal, i.e. a detailed description of the system transformed and involved in the situation, is formulated.

When preparing the description, mental or real-world experiments, an expert assessment is carried out. To do this, a number of methods exist: the DOE (design of experiment), the Taguchi method, the multifactor experiment planning, computer modelling, etc.

Step 3.2. Assess the system conflict resolution

Input: the technical proposal.

Action: assess whether the solution offered resolves the system conflict.

Output:

system conflict resolved > proceed to the issue addressed;
system conflict unresolved > proceed to step 1.3 (develop conflict resolution hypotheses and state the problems).

At this step, we should check whether the system change offered actually removes the interaction among the components which does not satisfy us. Engineering experience and an expert assessment can be of use in this case.

Then we check whether the issue has been addressed. The actions at this step and at step 1.2 are similar to a great extent.

It is required to develop the desired model of the issue addressed in accordance with the laws of development of technical systems and to assess the degree of approximation of the real-world situation to the desired one.

If the degree of approximation is high enough, then the conflict can be deemed resolved, we have the issue addressed which satisfies us. The project is completed successfully.

If the situation changed does not correspond to the desired one, the conflict is not resolved. Lack of the positive result can have four reasons:

we have selected the key problem incorrectly;
we have not solved it good enough;
we made a mistake when formulating the problem from the hypothesis;
the hypothesis of how to resolve the conflict is not true.

It is necessary to select the problem formulated on the basis of another hypothesis or to develop new hypotheses of the conflict resolution and to repeat the complete cycle.