6.1. Introduction
In this chapter solutions will be generated for the contradiction that is considered the most important to be solved. The contradiction was selected in the previous chapter. Developing the solutions will be done using inventive standards and –principles (for more on these methods see annex 8 or Souchkov (2013)). These methods are part of TRIZ and can be used to generate inventive solutions by looking at common patters of innovations.
6.2. Taking a closer look at the chosen contradiction
Before starting to generate ideas, a closer look is given to the selected contradiction. This is done to create a clear idea of the solutions that are looked for. In order to do so the system and its
components, are described in the two different states they can be in. This allows for the formulation of the ideal result which will be the basis of the idea generating process.
First, the system will be described. In here the systems’ type and elements will be described. The type of the system is considered a social one as RPL requires interactions between people to take place before it occurs (recognition requires most of the time interaction between people. Either someone else does the actual recognition or someone else helps the individual to recognize his/her own learning outcomes). Furthermore, it fits the criteria of a social problem as described by Rubington & Weinberg (2011). These authors define a social problem as: “an alleged situation that is incompatible with the values of a significant number of people who agree that action is needed to alter the situation” (Rubington & Weinberg, 2011, p. 3).
The elements that make up the system can be derived from the contradiction that was chosen in the previous chapter (contradiction 1). In here, the many definitions of RPL are regarded as negative. On an abstract level, these definitions can be seen as a choice for the individual seeking RPL (as he/she has to decide what type of RPL to pursue). The second element of the contradiction is the ability to create personal value through RPL. The third element of the contradiction is the little consensus about RPL. To create consensus there is a need for a wide acceptance of what RPL is.
Using the description of the system, the elements it is made up of and using the formulation for system descriptions used in TRIZ, the chosen problem and it elements can be described as follows:
The social system for providing a common understanding of RPL includes choice, personal value and wide acceptance.
Based on this description, two technical contradictions (TCs) can be formulated by looking at extreme case scenarios. Technical contradictions describe contradictions that appear when one of the
elements of the system is varied. As the cause in the original contradiction (contradiction one) was ‘the many definitions of RPL’, ‘choice’ was selected as the variable. By varying this element the other elements are influenced. This influence is shown in the technical contradictions.
Technical contradiction 1 is: if there is a lot of choice, personal value of RPL is high, but the language used is confusing.
Technical contradiction 2 is: If there is little choice, personal value of RPL is low, but the language used is clear.
33
Based on the technical contradictions it is possible to formulate an ideal result. This combines the positive effects of both technical contradictions. In TRIZ this so call ‘Ideal Final Result’ uses a specific formulation. This result is formulated as follows:It is necessary to create high personal value and a lot of choices (of RPL) while maintaining a clear language by introducing minimal changes in the system.
6.3. Using inventive standards to generate solution
Based on the analysis done in the previous sub section, solutions can be generated using inventive standards (cf. annex 8 or Souchkov (2013)). The standards are a set of seventy-six abstract standards (divided into various groups) that can be used to solve problems. These can be used to overcome generic problems.
6.3.1. Defining the substance field
Before ideas can be generated, a substance field model hast to be defined. Substance-field models (cf annex 8 or Souchkov (2013)) are representations of interactions between elements used in TRIZ. This shows the interaction (between elements), their characteristics (positive, negative or insufficient) and the context in which they operate. It visualizes the interaction and is used in combination with the inventive standards.
A substance field model consists of four elements: the first element of the interaction, the second element of the interaction, the context (field) in which the interaction takes place (e.g. mechanical, electromagnetic, legal or social) and the interaction itself.
The aim of the project is to increase the personal value of RPL without creating too many choices for the individual seeking RPL and maintaining a clear language (see previous section). As the second technical contradiction shows, in case choice is limited language is clear. This is a positive interaction. However, personal value is low. In the ideal result this is high. Therefore in TC2, the relation between choice and personal value is insufficient (compared to the ideal final result) and has to be improved. A representation of this relationship and the field in which it operates can be made in a substance field model. A social field is used as the system is a social one (see previous section). The Su-field model is portrayed in figure 17.
Figure 17. Substance field model of the insufficient interaction
6.3.2. Selecting the principles
Not all of the principles can be used. Some of the principles focus on specific fields (such as
electromagnetism) or are not relevant to the problem a selection has to be made which will be used. To identify the appropriate standards the inventive standards selection tree (Souchkov, 2013) was used. This resulted in the principles from the groups 1-1-2 to 1-1-5, 1-1-7, 1-2-1 to 1-2-5 and 2-2-1 to 2-3 to be selected. Principles from groups 1-1-2 to 1-1-5 were selected as new components can be added to the system, those from group 1-1-7 as there is a restriction in the number of choices, groups 1-2-1 to 1-2-5 as the negative (insufficient) interaction can be eliminated and groups 2-2-1 to 2-3 as the RPL process in itself is already complex enough and adding components might increase complexity.
6.3.3. Generating the ideas
The standards that are selected give suggestions about the direction of thinking in which good solutions can be found. The actual generation of ideas still requires brainstorming and creativity.
34
However, as the abstract idea is already present in the principle it makes the process easier and points researchers/developers in the right direction. Using the principles described in the previous section 13 ideas were generated. These are presented in table 10.Table 10. Overview of ideas generated using inventive principles
Inventive principle Idea number Idea
1-1-2 1 Creation of multiple tools within a single framework. Tools have the same aim and use the same language.
2 Limit the number of choices. The number of choices is linked to the types/groups of value.
1-1-3 3 Creation of a ‘validation authority’ to validate the multiple options that can lead to RPL.
4 Provide other means of personal value alongside RPL. 1-1-4 5 Increase social awareness about the various types of RPL. 1-1-5 6 Increase awareness of learning more explicitly to the non-formal
and informal learning environment.
1-1-7 7 Develop RPL choices based on personal value (or of groups of values).
1-2-1 - No idea generated.
1-2-2 - No idea generated.
1-2-3 8 Make learning the goal instead of recognizing this learning (e.g. through policy).
1-2-4 9 Create a tool to select an appropriate RPL choice based on personal preference.
1-2-5 - No ideas generated.
2-2-1 - No ideas generated.
2-2-2 10 Create choice categories in which different tools for RPL can be developed.
2-2-3 - No ideas generated.
2-2-4 11 Create personalization options within the choices given. 2-2-5 12 Create a translation tool which structures choices and types of
value created.
2-2-6 13 Classify the various options into a model.
2-3-1 - No ideas generated.
2-3-2 - No ideas generated.
2-3-3 - No ideas generated.
6.4. Using inventive principles to generate ideas
Besides the inventive standards, inventive principles (cf. annex 8 or Souchkov (2013)) were used to generate ideas. The inventive principles are the tool that is most used in TRIZ to generate solutions. It consists of forty abstract principles that can be used to solve problems. In order to select the most appropriate principles, a matrix was developed linking the principles to technical properties by Mann, Dewulf, Zlotin & Zusman (2003). This allows for a selection based on the problem characteristics.
6.4.1. Defining the problem in an abstract manner
Before generating solutions using inventive principles the positive and negative effects of the problem have to be formulated in terms these principles. Using the list of negative and positive effects of the inventive principle matrix (Souchkov, 2013) five negative and one positive effect were found. The negative effects are: information quantity, efficiency of functioning, compatibility/connectivity, convenience/usability and complexity of a system. The positive effect found was:
35
6.4.2. Selecting the principlesThe selected negative and positive effects were looked up in the TRIZ contradiction matrix (Souchkov, 2013). This resulted in the selection of the principles that are displayed in table 11.
Table 11. Overview of the selected principles
Effect Principles
Negative Positive 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Information quantity Aesthetics / Appearance 7 3 32 19 25 Efficiency of functioning Aesthetics / Appearance 2 22 32 3 4 Compatibility / Connectivity Aesthetics / Appearance 28 7 13 17 - Convenience / Usability Aesthetics / Appearance 28 29 22 32 - Complexity of a system Aesthetics / Appearance 5 32 35 22 -
The final selection of the four principles to be used was based on the number of appearances and rank in the table. For this the following equation was used (equation 1).
Equation 1. Inventive principles ranking formula
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒
=𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑒 1𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑤 ∗5 + 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑒 2𝑛𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑤 ∗4 + 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑒 3𝑟𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑤 ∗3 + 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑒 4𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑤 ∗2 + 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑒 5𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑤 ∗1
The scores of the various principles are displayed in table 12.
Table 12. Selected inventive principles and their scores
Rank Principle Score
1 32 11 2 28 10 3 7 9 4 22 9 5 3 6 6 2 5 7 5 5 8 29 4 9 13 3 10 35 3 11 19 2 12 17 2 13 25 1 14 4 1
Based on these scores, principles 32, 28, 7 and 22 were selected. These principles are: colour and transparency change (32), principle replacement (28), nesting (7) and blessing and disguise (22).
6.4.3. Generating the ideas
The principles that are selected give suggestions about the direction of thinking in which good solutions can be found. The actual generation of ideas still requires brainstorming and creativity. However, as the abstract idea is already present in the principle it makes the process easier and points researchers/developers in the right direction. Using the principles described in the previous section 13 ideas were generated. These are presented in table 13.
36
Table 13. Overview of ideas generated using Inventive standards
Inventive standard Idea number Idea
32 14 Colour code types of recognition based on how much people seeking RPL like it.
28 - No ideas generated
7 15 Nest various RPL tools inside each other. As multiple tools are used it is more likely one is liked by the person seeking RPL. 22 16 Develop a set of simple tools which are easy to complete but
can be used in a very limited way.
Note: The numbering of ideas continues from table 10
6.5. Conclusion
In this chapter ideas were generated for the contradiction between consensus and personal value. This was done by using inventive standards and –principles resulting in a total of 16 ideas. These ideas will be ranked based on various criteria in the next chapter.