Problem Solving

Techniques

MST326 lecture 3

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Outline of lecture
• Brainstorming
• Mind maps
• Cause-and-Effect diagrams
• Failures Mode and Effects Analysis
• Fault Tree Analysis
• Design of Experiments

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Brainstorming
• proposed by Alex Osborn
“for the sole purpose of
producing checklists of ideas”
• technique to identify causes
and develop solutions to problems
• “seeking the wisdom of ten people
rather than the knowledge of one
person” [Kaizen Institute]
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
 Brainstorming
• no criticism is permitted
o “only stupid question is one that is not asked” [Ho]
• wild ideas are encouraged
o often trigger good ideas from someone else
• each person contributes one idea
o further single ideas on second circuit
o repeat until no further ideas
• all contributions are recorded in view
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
 Brainstorming
• Osborn proposed 75 fundamental questions
• can be reduced to:
 seek other uses?  adapt?
 modify?  magnify?
 minify?  substitute?
 rearrange?  reverse?
 combine?

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

 TRIZ
•  Teorija Reshenija Izobretatel'skih Zadach
• loosely translates as
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS)
• 40 Inventive Principles

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

40 inventive principles of TRIZ
IP 01: Segmentation IP 02: Taking out IP 03: Local quality
IP 04: Asymmetry    IP 05: Merging     IP 06: Universality
IP 07: Nested doll IP 08: Anti-weight IP 09: Preliminary anti-action
IP 10: Preliminary action IP 11: Prior cushioning IP 12: Equipotentiality
IP 13: The other way round IP 14: Spheroidality or curvature    IP 15: Dynamics
IP 16: Abundance IP 17: Another dimension IP 18: Mechanical vibration
IP 19: Periodic action IP 20: Continuity of useful action    IP 21: Rushing through    
IP 22: Blessing in disguise IP 23: Feedback IP 24: Intermediary
IP 25: Self-service IP 26: Copying     IP 27: Cheap short-lived objects
IP 28: Mechanics substitution IP 29: Pneumatics and hydraulics
IP 30: Flexible shells and thin films    IP 31: Porous materials IP 32: Colour change
IP 33: Homogeneity IP 34: Discarding and recovering    IP 35: Parameter change
IP 36: Phase transition IP 37: Thermal expansion IP 38: Strong oxidants
IP 39: Inert atmosphere IP 40: Composite materials

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Mind maps
• attributed to Tony Buzan
o classic book “Use Your Head”

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Mind maps

Image from http://www.loanedgenius.com/scrabble_2_letter_words.gif

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Cause-and-Effect diagrams
• Cause-and-Effect diagram
o often referred to as a fishbone diagram
o or an Ishikawa diagram
• introduced by Kaoru Ishikawa
o simple graphical method to record and
classify a chain of causes and effects in
order to resolve a quality problem

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

 Cause-and-Effect diagrams
• Clarify the object effect
• Pick causes
• Determine the priority causes
• Work out the counteractions
for priority causes
• implement appropriate solutions to
eliminate or reduce the causes of
problems
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Cause-and-Effect diagrams I
• Clarify the object effect
o a numerical measurement should be
established against which subsequent
improvement can be judged

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Cause-and-Effect diagrams II
Pick causes
• create a team of people to brainstorm
possible causes that may lead to the effect
• study the actual effect
in the problem environment
• on a horizontal line draw diagonal branches
for direct causes of the effect
• using arrows onto the branches create
sub-branches for appropriate secondary causes
• confirm all elements of the diagram
are correctly positioned
• quantify the causes wherever possible
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Cause-and-Effect diagrams III
• Determine the priority causes
o analyse any existing data for the problem
o if practical, create a Pareto diagram. 
o otherwise, determine a ranking of the
relative importance of each cause.

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Cause-and-Effect diagrams IV
• Work out the counteractions
for priority causes
o put in place appropriate solutions
to eliminate or reduce
the causes of problems

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Cause-and-Effect diagram:

• Image from
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/gif/ishika.gif
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Failures Mode and Effects Analysis

• FMEA is
o a useful tool for reliability analysis
o systematic check of a product or process
• function
• failure causes
• failure modes
• failure consequences

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Failures Mode and Effects Analysis

• Requires a thorough knowledge of

o functions of the components
o contribution of those components
to function of the system
• For every failure mode at a low level,
failure consequences are analysed at
o the local level
o the system level

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Failures Mode and Effects Analysis

• FMEA is usually qualitative

but may also be quantitative
• initiated during planning and definition
of a project to investigate qualitative
reliability demands of the market
• during design and development, for
quantitative reliability activities

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

 Table From Evans and Lindsay Chapter 13
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Failures Mode and Effects Analysis
• design-FMEA for design reviews
o definition and limiting of the system
o choice of complexity level
o check of component functions
o check of system functions
o identification of possible failure modes
o identification of consequences of failures
o possibility of failure detection and failure localisation
o assessment of seriousness of failure
o identification of failure causes
o interdependence of failures
o documentation

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Failures Mode and Effects Analysis
• quantitative design-FMEA a.k.a. FMECA
Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis
o consider every component
o quantify and rank different failure modes
• F = probability of failure
• A = seriousness (consequences of failure)
• U = probability of detection
o subjective judgements on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10
o Product (F*A*U) = Risk Priority Number (RPN)

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Failures Mode and Effects Analysis

• Process-FMEA for
o pre-production engineering
o design of process control
o process improvement
• FMEA is efficient where component failure
leads directly to system failure
• for more complex failures, FMEA may be
supplemented by Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Some URLs for FMEA
• http://www.fmeainfocentre.com/
• http://supplier.intel.com/ehs/fmea.PDF
• http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/puma/wp18.pdf
• http://www.sverdrup.com/safety/fmea.pdf
• http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/fmea.doc
• http://www.competitiveedge.net/pdfs/fmea.pdf
• http://www.fmeca.com/ffmethod/methodol.htm
• http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wmkeyser/ioe539/fmea.pdf
• http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/eng401/003/LCNotes/fmea.pdf
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Fault Tree Analysis
• Logical chart of occurrences
to illustrate cause and effects
• developed by DF Haasl, HA Watson,
BJ Fussell and WE Vesely
• initially at Bell Telephone Laboratories
then North American Space Industry

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Fault Tree Analysis

• Common symbols used 1

o main event
o basic event
o incompletely analysed event
o restriction

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Fault Tree Analysis

• Common symbols used 2

o or-gate + 1

o and-gate &

o transfer to or from another place

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

 Figure From Evans and Lindsay Chapter 13
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Design of Experiments

• originally conceived by
Ronald Aylmer Fisher
at Rothampstead Experimental Station
during the 1920s
o analysing plant growing plots
under different conditions, and
needed to eliminate systematic errors.

Image from http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeImages/People/Fisher.RA/

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Experimental design
• Randomisation
• Replication - repetition
so that variability can be estimated
• Blocking - experimental units in groups
(blocks) which are similar
• Orthogonality - statistically normal.
• Use of factorial experiments
instead of one-factor-at-a-time

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Design of Experiments
• full factorial experiment
o where a number of factors
may influence the output of a process,
it is possible to study all combinations
of levels of each factor
o if the number of factors considered increases,
then number of experiments required
increases more rapidly. 

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Design of Experiments
• For two levels of n-variables,
the number of experiments required is 2n
o 4 experiments for two variables
(low-low, low-high, high-low and high-high)
o 16 experiments for four variables
o 64 experiments for six variables.
• If three levels (low - normal - high) or more
are to be studied, then a full factorial
experiment soon becomes impractical.
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Design of Experiments
• results plotted to indicate the influence of
each of the factors studied
• when one factor affects the response,
this is known as the main effect.
• when >1 factor affects the response,
this is termed an interaction.

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Design of Experiments
Genichi Taguchi developed orthogonal arrays
• fractional factorial matrix
• permits a balanced comparison
of levels of any factor
with a reduced number of experiments.
• each factor can be evaluated independently
of each of the other factors. 

25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt

Orthogonal arrays

L4: three two-level factors

L9: four three level factors
Arrays from http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/tables/orthogonal.htm
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Common orthogonal arrays
Array Levels Equivalent
Full Factorial
L4 3x2 8
L8 7x2 128
L9 4x3 81
L12 11 x 2 2 048
L16 15 x 2 32 768
L25 6x5 15 625
L27 13 x 3 1 594 323
Table from Tony Bendell “Taguchi Methods”, 1989
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt
Taguchi
• Quality Loss Function
L(x) = k ( x - t )2
o L = the loss to society
of a unit of output at value x  
o t = the ideal target value
o k = constant
• as non-conformance increases,
losses increase even more rapidly
25 January 2007 MATS326-3 problem.ppt