ASIT—a problem solving strategy for education and eco-friendly sustainable design



There is growing recognition of the role teaching and learning experiences in technology education can contribute to Education for Sustainable Development. It appears, however, that in the Technology Education classroom little or no change has been achieved to the practice of designing and problem solving strategies oriented towards sustainable design. Brainstorming, Brainwriting, SCAMPER, Metaphoric Thinking, Outrageous Thinking, Mind Mapping and other problem-solving strategies used in the classroom could be suitable for eco-design, however, there appears to be little research data on their use. This paper examines and presents the ‘Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking’ (ASIT) system as an eco-design strategy. ASIT is derived from a more complex engineering-based problem solving strategy known as TRIZ (the Russian acronym for The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems). Drawing on Stable’s (in press) call for new approaches to address sustainable design and achieve solutions through Technology Education, this article traces the history of TRIZ and the development of ASIT. It then argues that the ASIT strategy can be an effective methodology to be taught and used in the Technology Education classroom to solve problems in the ‘eco’ or sustainable design context. Several design scenarios have been included to illustrate how ASIT can deliver eco-design solutions to problems. These examples demonstrate the flexibility of the methodology and the diverse range of applications in which ASIT can be applied.


Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems Problem-solving strategies Eco-design Education for sustainable development 


  1. Biolytix. (2007). Biolytix Wastewater Treatment Technology. Retrieved 14–11, 2007, from
  2. DeLuca, V. W. (1992). Survey of technology problem-solving activities. The Technology Teacher, 51(5), 26–30.Google Scholar
  3. Glenn Research Centre. (2007). Aircrat Yaw Motion. Retrieved 08–11, 2007, from
  4. Griffith University. (2006a). 3140EBL Product design—Plastics.Google Scholar
  5. Griffith University. (2006b). 4245EBL Design and Technology Project—Course Outline.Google Scholar
  6. Hatch, L. (1988). Problem solving approach. In Instructional strategies for technology education (vol. 37, pp. 89). Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Horowitz, R. (2001). From TRIZ to ASIT in 4 steps. The TRIZ Journal. Retrieved 24/08, 2007, from .
  8. Ideation International Inc. (2006). Basic I-TRIZ Training. Southfield: Ideation International Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, S. (1996a). An introduction to TRIZ, The Russian theory of inventive problem solving. 1. Santa Monica, CA: Australia: Ideation International Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, S. (1996b). An introduction to TRIZ, The Russian theory of inventive problem solving. Santa Monica, CA: Australia: Ideation International Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Leonard, J. (2001). Twin engine Propeller-Driven Aircraft Configurations. Retrieved 08–11, 2007, from
  12. Malkin, S., & Malkin, A. (2003–2004). Eureka on demand. Santa Monica, CA: Australia: Ideation International Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Raymer, D. P. (2003). Simplified aircraft design for homebuilders. Los Angeles: Design Dimension Press.Google Scholar
  14. Stables, K. (in press). Educating for environmental sustainability and educating for creativity: actively compatible or missed opportunities? International Journal of Technology and Design Education.Google Scholar
  15. TRIZ Journal Archives. (1997). Contradiction Matrix. The TRIZ Journal. Retrieved 13/07, 2006, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations