Mohammadi, A; Yang, J; Borgianni, Y and Zeng, Y (2024) Barriers and enablers of TRIZ: A literature analysis using the tasks framework. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(4), pp. 1206-1230. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyze theory of inventive problem-solving (TRIZ) in terms of knowledge, skill, workload and affect to understand its effectiveness in enabling designers to achieve their optimized mental performance. Design/methodology/approach: TASKS framework, which aims to capture the causal relations among Task workload, affect, skills, knowledge and mental stress, is adopted as our methodology. The framework supports the analysis of how a methodology influence designer’s affect, skills, knowledge and workload. TRIZ-related publications are assessed using the TASKS framework to identify the barriers and enablers in TRIZ-supported design. Findings: TRIZ has limitations on its logic and tools. Nevertheless, it could create a beneficial impact on mental performance of designers. Originality/value: This paper provides a theory-driven TRIZ usability analysis based on the materials in the literature following the TASKS framework. The impact of TRIZ, as an enabler or a barrier, has been analyzed in accomplishing a design task.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | mental effort; mental stress; tasks framework; TRIZ; usability |
| Index terms: | publication, methodology, usability, workload, TRIZ, effectiveness, designer |
| Subjects: | performance management, research methods, management, user-centered design, profession, research dissemination and communication, problem-solving |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Design Practice, Human Resources, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here