# 19. Interdisciplinary Seminar "Continuous Improvement, Engineering Systems, and Systems Engineering" ## Impulse Contribution Luisa Wagner Anton Ivanov: Luisa, do you think it is possible to combine the three required skills from the joint work of two (or more) specialists? Ralf Laue: The work transfers TRIZ trends (from the technical domain) to business models - which is great. But shouldn't we also identify trends that cannot be found when dealing with technical systems only? Business deals with humans, so psychological issues need to be taken into account. Graebe, Hans-Gert: Creativity and neurobiological foundations, creativity skills, professional skills, motivation. What is the role of interpersonal processes? Business Models - what is the role of the (technological) context, i.e. the production-organisational _abilities_ of both the company and the market segment? Is BM based on a _static_ perception of that context? What is the conceptual basis of TRIZ development trends? The TESE book mainly tries to invert the classical business approach of "market pull" and "technology push" to "technology pull". You emphasise the role of provocation to dissolve rigid thought structures. Can this be substituted by strong modelling (strong thinking - OTSM) along the TRIZ hill scheme? The "card approach" - is it about the mediation of TRIZ tools or TRIZ concepts? sergej modestov: How necessary is it to train TRIZ employees for its successful application in the company? Or is it enough that the facilitator is familiar with the theory? Siegfried Weigert: The common language to enable those mentioned different people to formulate their different views might be TRIZ? E.g. functional modelling. Functional modelling is pretty self explaining. The discussion while setting up ("parametrising") the models brings up the challenges and different views. sergej modestov: Thanks. I think this is a really good way to resolve the contradiction: "one knows TRIZ - everyone knows TRIZ." Ralf Laue: I like the comment by Siegfried Weigert: Modelling the problem exactly (i.e. understanding the problem) is a prerequisite for starting any creativity session. And this modelling can be done by an experienced expert (and explained to others). Siegfried Weigert: Traditional TRIZ is based on natural laws ("physics") and math. This is a good starting point as both are a basic requirements anyway. Anton Ivanov: My point: the need of modeling is due to the complexity of the context: simple, complicated, complex. Johanning, Simon: From my understanding, the core difference between complicated and complex systems is redundancy; if you remove a part of a complicated system, it will not work (e.g. a gear). For a complex system you can remove a significant amount of elements without affecting the system (adaptation). See as an example the human brain, societies, mashed networks etc. Johanning, Simon: other aspects are decentral processing of information, or the meso-level of the system (not few nor a huge amount of elements that have few connections and propagate system state or information in more 'heterogeneous' ways. Luisa Wagner: I need to step out. Thanks for the discussion. In case of any additional questions, don't hesitate to get in contact :) Wish you all a nice weekend! Siegfried Weigert (ibw): I like this (too?) simple differentiation: "A complicated system has known unknowns while a complex system has unknown unknowns." ## Presentation by Ralf Laue Graebe, Hans-Gert: Slide 10: This is the contradiction between (structural) decomposability and (processual) indecomposability of a system. "A system can be operated only if it is assembled". Engineers understand this contradition quite well. Slide 14: No idle time means to move to "just in time"? But this was criticised in the former discussion as reducing the resilience potential. ## Presentation of Darrell Mann Siegfried Weigert: First Principles II: So Politics is neither Correct nor True... Graebe, Hans-Gert: What is your relation to Business TRIZ as promoted by Valeri Souchkov? Is TRIZ an "exact science" as claimes by Altshuller? What do you mean with "knowledge generation"? What is your difference between "true" and "correct"? (3.1.1) ISO 56000:2000 Innovation = new or changed entity (3.2.5) that creates or redistributes value (3.7.6) Einstein: Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. Is "problem solution" the right question? IMP group speaks about "problem coping". Cynefin: How an _adaptive_ system fits into the picture? How "first principles" are connected to the progress of technology? What is the core of the "current crisis" (with climax 2020-2025)? "Ideal end state" - What about steady state systems, strange attractors and all that? Silvia Liubenova Popova: Thank you very much for all the interesting information! Have a great weekend. Darrell Mann: Siegfried's question: British politics is neither correct nor true... the situation is better in other countries. Ralf Laue: Once again... 100 years ago when the patents for Insulin were given for free to a university.