Download the I-TRIZ Map

"…Finding solutions to complex technical

problems often requires thinking outside our
'knowledge-based box.' Anticipatory Failure
AFD Facts Determination® is a methodology to develop
AFD and Other Techniques creative solutions to complex technical
AFD Software problems and is effective in conducting system
AFD CASE STUDY: failure analysis…."
Walking Bearing Problem
– Dave Harrold in "New school of thought
produces safer process control designs,"
Technology Update, May 1999

AFD Facts

What is Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD)?

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 is 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.

AFD overcomes this obstacle 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.

STEP 2: IDENTIFY FAILURE HYPOTHESES. Find a method by which the known or potential
failures can be intentionally produced.

STEP 3: 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

AFD and Other Techniques

 How does AFD differ from other failure analysis methods?

 How does it differ from conventional failure prevention techniques?

 Synthesizing AFD into the failure analysis process

 Comparison of FMEA, AFD and FPDS

What's the difference between AFD and conventional failure prevention

techniques?

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.

On the surface, the process sounds logical. There are, however, serious structural weaknesses
with these traditional approaches. The first weakness stems from the process used to determine
failures. The process of failure determination is essentially a brainstorming exercise initiated by
probing what failures "might" occur. This process suffers from the same syndrome that the
original product design process is subject to -- psychological inertia. Also, because the analysis
of potential failures is accomplished within the same mental context that created the design in
the first place, there is a serious question of objectivity to be raised with this approach.
Engineers do not like to admit that their designs are failure prone. A second shortcoming of
traditional approaches is that the analysis of failures is based on intended or designed function.
The issue of "prohibited" functions is not considered. For example, the function of a handgun is
to shoot a bullet, and thus related failure analyses proceed along the lines of the original design
intent. The original designers did not intend to design a weapon used by children to shoot their
classmates; this prohibited function is not a part of conventional failure prevention techniques.
Additionally, to be more complete, functions must be analyzed not only from the absence of
intent, but also from the perspective of the function being performed insufficiently or excessively.

The most serious drawback of traditional approaches, however, is the absence of an integrated
problem solving mechanism to accurately pinpoint design deficiencies as a series of "inventive"
problems. An inventive problem is one characterized by an inherent conflict. Traditional
techniques do not make provisions for solving difficult technological problems in an inventive
way. An inventive approach recognizes system conflicts and attacks them head-on. In traditional
approaches, if the design is deemed to be too risky, correction of the problem is accomplished
through a number of design and redesign iterations or, as a stopgap -- redesign of the detection
systems. When the system deficiency is not defined as an inventive problem, the results are
often costly over designs, or the addition of auxiliary compensating systems making the original
design more complex.

All of the structural deficiencies noted above 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 engineer 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.

In both instances, the engineer inverts the problem. The advantage to this approach is
analogous to a defense attorney becoming a prosecutor. The system's potential flaws are viewed
from a perspective that allows for full exploitation of a system's weaknesses. It is obvious that,
when all system deficiencies are made explicit, the team or individual can take more effective
countermeasures.

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.

Comparative Traditional (FMEA) AFD

Criteria

Purpose of the  Identify potential failure  Analyze previous failures and be

  "Blending in" defects

 Transient using of a harmful effect

 Facilitating detection

Comparison of FMEA, AFD and FPDS

Figure 1, below, depicts a typical FMEA document with Steps 2 through 9 called out. Reference
this figure to follow the discussion below.

Figure 1. FMEA

FMEA Step AFD Notes

2. Define  In the AFD process, this step starts with the definition of the
Functions Primary Useful Function (PUF) for the "ideal" system.

 This creates a hierarchical cause/effect function diagram that

will be utilized throughout the process to formulate failure
prediction and failure prevention scenarios.

3. Identify Failure The AFD process is more robust because:

Modes  There is an extensive knowledge base from which potential
failures can be identified.
 The failure modes are designated as failures of cause or a failure
of an effect (Note: a cause at one level may be an effect at
another level).
 The recommendations relative to failures are derived from an
automatic identification of where they reside in the cause/effect
hierarchy.
 The recommended treatment of the failure is a function of its
designation as either a cause or an effect.
  Ideation Failure Analysis -- for revealing the root causes
® of a failure or drawback in a
systemAnticipatory
(i.e., product orFailure
process),Determination (AFD)
and developing solutions Software
to eliminate them.

 Ideation Failure Prediction -- to predict all dangerous or harmful side effects that might
be associated with a system, and find means of preventing them.

Screen shot from the Ideation Failure Analysis software:

Who should use the AFD software?

AFD software can aid the following individuals:

 process and design engineers

 quality engineers

 engineering and environmental consultants

  manufacturing and environmental engineers

 reliability engineers

 students

 anyone interested in improving his/her technical innovative skills and thought processes

What are the benefits of using AFD software?

AFD software can help with the following:

 improving the quality and reliability of a process of system

 reducing warranty costs

 reducing the potential for environmental emissions

 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

How does the software implement the AFD method?

The AFD® Failure Analysis software guides the user through the following process:

1. Document and analyze the system and failure using the Failure Analysis
Questionnaire.

2. Use the Problem Formulator® to create a graphic model of the system/failure,

localize the problem, and formulate the inverted problem statement.

3. Use the I-TRIZ operators corresponding to the inverted problem statement to

generate failure hypotheses.

4. Categorize and validate the failure hypotheses; select those deemed

significant.

to create a5. For each selected hypothesis, use the Problem Formulator
graphic model depicting the revealed root cause(s) of the failure; generate a set
of problem statements for each model.

6. Develop concepts for preventing/eliminating the failure using the I-TRIZ

operators corresponding to the type of failure identified.

7. Evaluate each concept; predict and resolve possible harmful consequences

or undesired drawbacks associated with each one.

The AFD Failure Prediction software guides the user through the following process:

1. Document and analyze the system using the Failure Prediction Questionnaire.

2. Use the Problem Formulator® to create a graphic model of the system, identify
the focal points by evaluating the system against a set of checklists, describe
the system’s relationships to its environment, and formulate inverted problem
 statements for each focal point.

3. Use the I-TRIZ operators associated with each inverted problem statement to
generate failure hypotheses for the system and its external relationships.

4. Develop a set of failure scenarios (multi-stage failure hypotheses) using

checklists and I-TRIZ operators.

5. For each scenario, identify the components required for it to be realized and
verify (using a set of checklists) whether the necessary resources are present.

6. Categorize the failure scenarios according to likelihood and consequences.

Select those deemed significant.

7. Create a set of graphic models depicting the relationships between each

selected scenario and the functioning of the system; generate a set of problem
statements for each model.

8. For each selected scenario, develop concepts for failure

prevention/elimination using the I-TRIZ operators corresponding to the type of
failure identified.

9. Evaluate each concept; predict and resolve possible harmful consequences

or undesired drawbacks associated with each one.

Software modules

Both AFD® Failure Analysis and AFD® Failure Prediction software include the following modules:

 Failure Analysis Questionnaire – a tool for identifying and documenting the root
cause(s) of a system or process failure.

 Problem Formulator – a tool for creating a structured description of the technological

system under consideration by modeling its functional characteristics and inherent
weaknesses. Using this model, the Problem Formulator generates a list of inverted
problem statements that guide the user in the development of multiple failure
hypotheses, and a list of direct problem statements that guide the user toward multiple
solution approaches.

An example of a Problem Formulator model:

 Navigator – context-sensitive Help for the Problem Formulator.

A screen from the AFD System's Navigator:

 System of Operators – a comprehensive knowledge base of over 100 Operators
("pathways to innovation") embodying poven design change recommendations for
dealing with the prevention and elimination of failures.

A screen from the System of Operators:

 Evaluating Results – a tool that provides the user with benchmarking capabilities and
assists in the identification of the most effective solution concepts. Helps reveals
secondary problems (which are the possible by-products of system improvement) and
supports the prediction of the undesirable consequences of implementing a solution.

A screen from the Evaluating Results module:

 Innovation Illustration Library – includes over 700 innovative design solutions used to
stimulate creativity and launch innovative solution concepts through user-generated
analogies.

An example of an AFD Illustration:

  Innovation Guide – a compendium of over 150 articles describing physical, chemical
and geometric effects useful in solving technological problems associated with failure
mechanisms and for analyzing failures for which these mechanisms are unknown.
Inludes more than 1,000 engineering applications.

Screen shot from the Innovation Guide module of the Ideation Failure Analysis software:
System requirements

 Microsoft Windows™ 95 or higher

 VGA monitor (800x600x256 color)

 16 MB RAM memory

 10MB available hard disk space