This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adams, J. (2009). Problem solving and creativity in engineering: Turning novices into professionals. Enhancing the Learner Experience in Higher Education, 1(1), 4–18.
Ball, L., Troness, D., Ariyur, K., Huang, J., Rossi, D., Krupansky, P., & Hickman, S. (2012). TRIZ power tools: Working with functions, April 2012, Copyright 2012 by Collaborative Authors.
Belski, I. (2005). Improving the skills of engineers in systematic thinking. Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE/AaeE 4th Global Colloquium on Engineering Education.
Belski, I. (2007). Improvement of thinking and problem solving skills of engineering students as a result of a formal course on TRIZ thinking tools. Melbourne: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Engineering Graduates for Industry. (2010). The Royal Academy of Engineering. http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/scet/pdf/Engineering_graduates_for_industry_report.pdf.
Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 185–202.
Expert Group on Future Skills Needs. (2009). Skills in creativity, design and innovation. Ireland: Forfas Group.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7–25.
Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education II: Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26–39.
Filmore, P. R. (April 2006). The real world: TRIZ in two hours for undergraduate and master’s level students. TRIZ Conference, TRIZCONF2006, Milwaukee, WI.
Filmore, P. R. (23rd–25th April 2007). Teaching TRIZ as a systematic problem solving method: Breaking mindsets. TRIZ Conference, TRIZCON2007, Louisville, KY.
Filmore, P. R. (2008a). A comparison of the problem solving and creativity potential of engineers between using TRIZ and Lean/Six Sigma. The Fourth TRIZ Symposium in Japan 2008.
Filmore, P. R. (13-15th April 2008b). Developing highly effective engineers: The significance of TRIZ. TRIZ Conference, TRIZCON2008, Kent State University, Ohio, USA.
Fink, F. K. (2002). Problem-based learning in engineering education: A catalyst for regional industrial development. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 1(1), 29–32.
Ghabra, S. (2010). Student-centered education and American-style universities in the Arab World. Higher education and the Middle East: Serving the knowledge-based economy, Viewpoint Special Edition, pp 21–26.
Grand Challenges for Engineering. (2012). National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies. The submit series on the grand challenges. http://www.engineeringchallenges.org.
Grolinger, K. (2011). Problem based learning in engineering education: Meeting the needs of industry. Teaching Innovation Projects, 1(2), 1–7.
Hitt, J. (2010). Problem-based learning in engineering. Center for teaching excellence. United States Military Academy. West Point, NY. (This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a 2-year faculty professional development program).
Issan, S. A., & Gomaa, N. M. M. (2010). Post basic education reforms in Oman: A case study. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 1(1), 19–27.
Kimmel, S. J., Kimmel, H. S., & Deek, F. P. (2003). The common skills of problem solving: From program development to engineering design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 810–817.
Liu, Z., & Schonwetter, D. (2004). Teaching creativity in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(5), 801–808.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville. (2007). The race to the top: A review of government’s science and innovation policies. London: HM Treasury.
Loveluc, L. (March 2012). Background paper education in Egypt: Key challenges. Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House.
Mrabet, J. G. (July 2010). Western education in the Arabian Gulf: The costs and benefits of reform. Higher education and the Middle East: Serving the knowledge-based economy, Viewpoint special edition, pp. 47–51.
Overton, T. (2003). Key aspects of teaching and learning in experimental sciences and engineering. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 255–277). London: Routledge Falmer.
Pappas, J., & Pappas E. (2003). Creative thinking, creative problem-solving and inventive design in the engineering curriculum: A review. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
Peace, N. (9th April 2012). Why most brainstorming sessions are useless. www.forbes.com.
Peirce W. (January 13, 2006). Designing Rubrics for Assessing Higher Order Thinking. Howard Community College Columbia, MD.
Petruska J. (2010). Introduction of the problem based learning to mechanical engineering curricula. 3rd International Symposium for Engineering Education, University College Cork, Ireland.
Poikela, E., & Poikela, S. (Eds.). (2005). PBL in Context-Bridging Work and Education. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Pop-Iliev, R., Platanitis, G. (2008). A rubrics based methodological approach for evaluating the design competency of engineering students. Proceedings of the TMCE 2008.
Reidsema, C. (2005). Fostering creative problem solving and collaborative skills through impromptu design in engineering design courses. Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE/AaeE 4th Global Colloquium on Engineering Education.
Rhodes, T. L. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievements: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington DC.
Sager, A. (December 2007). The Private Sector in the Arab World – Road Map towards Reform *, Arab Reform Initiatives, Arab Reform Brief, V 19.
Samuel, P., Jablokow, K. (October 15–16 2010). Psychological inertia and the role of idea generation techniques in the early stages of engineering design. Fall 2010 Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, Villanova University.
San, Y. T., Jin, Y. T., & Song, C. L. (2011a). TRIZ: Systematic innovation in manufacturing (2nd ed.). Firstfruits Publications, Malaysia.
San, Y. T., Jin, Y. T., & Song, C. L. (2011b). TRIZ: Theory of inventive problem solving—systematic innovation in manufacturing. Fruits Publication, Malaysia.
Souchkov, V. (2006). Annotated list of key TRIZ components. ICG Training & Consulting.
Steiner, T., Belski, I., Harlim, J., Baglin, J., Ferguson, R., & Molyneaux, T. (2011). Do we succeed in developing problem-solving skills-the engineering students’ perspective? Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Stratton, R., & Mann, D., Otterson, P. (2010). The theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) and systematic innovation: A missing link in engineering education? www.system-innovation.com\.
Walsh, P. (2007). Problem based learning in engineering. International Symposium for Engineering Education, Dublin City University, Ireland.
Walters, T., Walters, L., Barwind, J. (July 2010) Tertiary education in the Arabian Gulf: “A Colossal Wreck, Remaining Boundless and Bare?” higher education and the Middle East: Serving the knowledge-based economy, Viewpoint Special Edition, pp. 18–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix 1: Annotated list of key TRIZ components (Souchkov 2006)
TRIZ tool | Characteristics |
|---|---|
Theory of technical systems evolution | Main theoretical foundation of TRIZ. A philosophy behind the theory of technology evolution is that every man-made product which was designed to deliver certain functional value tends to evolve in a systematic way according to generic patterns and trends of evolution |
Laws and trends of technology evolution | The TRIZ trends and laws are very powerful knowledge which provides the basis to predict what will happen next with a selected product or a technology from the perspective of internal evolutionary potential of a system |
Multiscreen diagram (also known as 9 windows, or 9 screens, or system operator) | The multiscreen diagram of thinking specifies that any specific system (product, technology, organization, etc.) can be viewed at least from three layers: system (the system itself within its boundaries), its subsystems, and supersystem. Although not easy to use, the multiscreen diagram of thinking is a very powerful tool of system analysis and forecast |
Ideality | Ideality of a major trend of man-made systems evolution. The degree of ideality is defined as a ratio of the overall performance of a system (everything that creates value) minus harmful effects produced by the system (everything that diminishes its value) to costs necessary to achieve its performance (everything which is needed to create value). Ideality in TRIZ is a qualitative measure which is not directly calculated but serves as a major guideline during processes of problem solving and new idea generation |
Ideal final result (IFR) | Enables formulating target solutions in terms of ideality. Formulation helps to correctly set up goals, fight mental inertia, and design cost-effective products and services |
Contradiction | A contradiction in TRIZ is a primary problem model which is used to formulate inventive problems. Contradiction is a main feature which distinguishes an ordinary problem from an inventive problem |
Resource analysis | During problem solving, resources play a major role in TRIZ. The proper use of available resources helps to obtain more cost-effective and ideal solutions without complicating a system and introducing new expensive components and materials |
Function analysis (also known as function-attribute analysis) | Utilizing the same basic approach to modeling existing products in terms of components and functions delivered by the components, FA differs from VEA in a way of how function is defined. In FA, the function is regarded as an effect of a physical interaction between two system components. FA is very useful to conduct a systematic analysis of products and formulate problems in terms required by the other TRIZ problem-solving techniques |
Root conflict analysis | A technique for casual decomposition of complex problems and invention situations into effects and causing conflicts (contradictions). Helps to map and visualize all system conflicts as well as reveal hidden conflicts. Root cause analysis to identify root problems in inventive situations |
40 inventive principles for resolving technical contradictions | Inventive principles for technical contradiction elimination are used to eliminate problems represented in terms of technical contradictions. Inventive principles describe either solution pattern which can be applied to resolve the contradiction or a direction in which a problem has to be solved. There are 40 inventive principles for resolving technical contradictions available in TRIZ |
Contradiction matrix | The first technique and still the most popular. TRIZ states that to obtain inventive solution, the contradiction has to be eliminated while no compromise is allowed. The necessity to eliminate contradictions is the driving force of technological progress. The matrix was designed on the basis of 39 generalized parameters. The same lists of parameters are placed along vertical and horizontal axes of the matrix. A point of intersection of two generalized parameters indicates which inventive principle(s) is to be used in each particular situation |
Substance-field analysis | Any technical system (product, machinery, technology) or its part can be modeled as a number of substance components interacting with each other via fields. Unlike physics, TRIZ introduces six types of fields: mechanical, acoustic, thermal, chemical, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic. Abstract physical modeling of the system’s part which causes a problem helps to identify and classify a specific interaction which does not meet the required specifications. The unsatisfactory interaction might be of four types: (i) insufficient or poorly controllable to obtain the desired result, (ii) excessive and produces more action than required, (iii) harmful, when the interaction is necessary to obtain a positive effect but results in a negative side effect, and (iv) missing—an interaction is necessary in the system but we do not know how to introduce it. Substance-field modeling and analysis are used for problem modeling and further solving with 76 inventive standards |
76 inventive standards | In case a system is modeled in terms of physical components and interactions via substance-field modeling, and a problem is represented as an unsatisfactory interaction, TRIZ recommends to use special rules which contain abstract patterns indicating how the physical model given has to be modified by: (a) replacing the existing components with other components, (b) introducing new components, (c) modifying the existing components, and (d) changing a system structure |
Algorithm for inventive problem solving (ARIZ) | One of the most powerful and complex analytical TRIZ techniques which helps in solving those problems that cannot be solved with the use of other TRIZ techniques. Since the abovementioned TRIZ techniques operate with direct modeling of a problem and finding a relevant solution pattern or a principle from the TRIZ databases, it is not always possible to formulate the problem directly in the right way. ARIZ helps to extract a core problem through comprehensive analysis of the problem conditions and fighting mental inertia |
Trimming (also known as idealization) | A technique which helps to make existing systems and products more ideal by eliminating their components without impairing overall system’s performance, functionality, and quality. Usually performed after a system is represented as a function model with the help of function analysis |
Alternative system merging (also known as feature transfer, hybridization) | A technique which helps to develop new products on the basis of combining features of two competitive products. Usually competitive products are featured by different sets of advantages and disadvantages. The technique helps to design a new product that inherits advantages of the competitive products while disadvantages are eliminated. However, direct merging of features might be difficult due to a number of contradictions arising when we attempt to develop such product. For this reason, the TRIZ techniques are recommended to use after the contradictions are identified |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tarlochan, F., Hamouda, A. (2016). A Framework for Developing Innovative Problem-Solving and Creativity Skills for Engineering Undergraduates. In: Abdulwahed, M., Hasna, M., Froyd, J. (eds) Advances in Engineering Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15323-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15323-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15322-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15323-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)