| |
| |
| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Supported
by: |
|
| |
| Online
Media Partner: |
|
|
| |
“Wealth
flows directly from Innovation.. not optimization.. wealth
is not gained by perfecting the known”
IT
guru, Kevin Kelly
“An
established company which, in an age demanding innovation,
is not Capable of innovation, is doomed to decline and extinction”
Peter Drucker
“A
company can’t outgrow its Competitors unless it can
out-innovate them…..Innovation is the fuel for Growth.
When a company runs out of innovation, it runs out of growth”
Gray Hamel
“I
predict that TRIZ will become a Standard practice worldwide
and will be Widely taught to adults and students to assist
them in increasing innovation Skills”
Daniel Burrus, leading technology forecaster, author
of Technotrends.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| A 5-day Anticipatory Failure Determination Workshop |
|
|
| |
The successful completion of the attendance at the 3-day Inventive Problem Solving workshop makes an individual eligible to attend the next stage in the Innovation cycle - The Anticipatory Failure Determination Practitioner Program.
|
| |
| About Anticipatory Failure Determination: |
|
|
|
| |
What is Anticipatory Failure Determination ® (AFD)?
Using traditional methods to reveal the causes of a problem, we always deal with deficiency of the information, and that, sequentially, hinders the solution. The AFD method is capable of overcoming the "Denial Phenomenon" and, therefore, it could provide required information of the possible root causes for the existing problem.
Anticipatory Failure Determination is an application of I-TRIZ specifically designed for:
- Failure Analysis -- A systematic procedure for identifying the root causes of a failure or other undesired phenomenon in a system, and for making corrections in a timely manner.
- Failure Prediction -- A systematic procedure for identifying beforehand, and then preventing, all dangerous or harmful events that might be associated with a system
|
| |
| How does AFD® differ from other Failure Analysis Methods? |
|
|
| |
Systems in which failures have occurred -- or might occur -- are zones of "poor information." The reason? Little information is published about negative effects with unknown causes, or about the causes of dangerous or harmful failures. In fact, such information is often intentionally concealed. Without adequate information, it is very difficult to identify the root causes (existing or possible) of a failure. One must rely on guesswork -- as is the case with traditional failure methods. |
|
The principle difference between AFD and conventional techniques, such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP), is the perspective from which potential failures are determined. With conventional techniques, the process of failure prediction proceeds linearly from an articulation of the system's function(s) to what may occur if there is a failure (absence) in delivering these functions. In other words, the analytical line of reasoning follows design intent. Given a potential failure, the effect of the failure, the probability that it will occur, and the ability to detect it are determined. Once these parameters are quantified (often very subjectively), a calculation of risk is made. If the risk is determined to be unacceptably high, changes in design or in detection capability can be suggested.
|
| |
All of the structural deficiencies in the conventional processes have been designed out of AFD. First of all, the approach to determining potential failures is the reverse of the one used in conventional approaches. In AFD, the power of the technique comes from the process of deliberately "inventing" failures. The problem-solver has to transform himself or herself into a subversive. The idea is to invent, cause and create failures. In the case of past failures, the analytical process challenges one to invent a past failure. In future failure prevention, the logic proceeds along the lines of inventing, creating or devising the most catastrophic failures conceivable.
AFD also has an integrated problem formulation engine to fully exploit the power of TRIZ. Failure prevention is transformed from a defensive to an offensive "inventive" exercise creating a seamless process for failure determination and prevention.
The process is so effective that users will sometimes become disenchanted with their system as having so many drawbacks that it is a wonder it will work at all. This is normal as these are potential failures. It is incumbent on the technical analyst to prevent these from ever occurring. |
| |
|
| How does the AFD methodology work? |
|
|
|
| |
| AFD overcomes the above obstacles with a core 3-step model, providing unprecedented effectiveness: |
| |
STEP 1: INVERT THE PROBLEM |
| |
For Failure Analysis: Instead of asking " Why did the failure happen?" ask instead: " How can I make it happen?"
For Failure Prediction: Instead of asking " What failures might happen?" ask instead: " How can I make all possible dangerous or harmful failures happen?"
Now we can employ a wealth of available information based on what inventors have profited from since the dawn of mankind: how to make something happen. In other words, we have converted a failure problem into an inventive problem.
Find a method by which the known or potential failures can be intentionally produced. |
| |
| STEP 2: UTILIZE RESOURCES |
| |
Determine if all the components necessary to realize each hypothesis are available in your system, or if they can be derived from what is available: |
| |
- Are the required substances and materials present?
- Is the necessary energy available or producible?
- Is there time in which the failure can "mechanize"?
- Is the space available for the failure to take place?
. . . and more
|
| |
| The result... No more guessing |
| |
| Course Contents |
|
|
|
| |
Objective of the Failure Prediction workshop: To gain familiarity with Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD) ® , Ideation Failure Prediction process and software in order to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct Failure Prediction projects. |
| |
- I-TRIZ Overview
- Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD) ® Introduction
- Ideation Failure Prediction (IFP): Introduction
- Review of the IFP software
- Failure Prediction Questionnaire and Building the System Diagram
- Providing Failure Hypotheses and Generating Failure Scenarios
- Verifying Failure Hypotheses and Preventing Probable Failures
- Evaluating Results
- Selecting the project and completing Failure Prediction Questionnaire
- Building the System Diagram
- Providing Failure Hypotheses
- Generating Failure Scenarios
- Course Evaluation
|
| |
Objective of the Failure Analysis workshop: To gain familiarity with Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD)®, Ideation Failure Analysis process and software in order to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct Failure Analysis projects . |
| |
- Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD)® Introduction
- Ideation Failure Analysis (IFA): process and software
- Failure Analysis Modeling and other steps of IFA
- Evaluating Results
- Discussion, Q&A
- Selecting the project and completing Failure Analysis/Prediction Questionnaire
- Building the System Diagram
- Providing Failure Hypotheses
- Correcting the failure
- Course Evaluation
|
| |
| Benefits of using the AFD method? |
|
|
| |
The AFD Methodology can help with the following: |
| |
- Improving the quality and reliability of a process of system
- Reducing warranty costs
- Furnishing a systematic approach to overcoming potential design flaws
- Minimizing liability costs and concerns
- Providing results that can lead to competitive advantage
- Development of improved problem-solving skills
|
| |
As part of the AFD Practitioner Certification Program, you will be given a hands on training on Ideation AFD Software, during the training program. At the end of the training program and successful completion of the prerequisites, you will be awarded an AFD Practitioner Certification. |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
