Kim & Park Article (2001) - ASIT as a Thinking Tool for Creative Problem Solving

This scientific article published in 2001 presents ASIT as a structured thinking tool for creative problem solving, offering an accessible and pragmatic alternative to TRIZ. Seong-Dae Kim and Young-Taek Park, researchers at Sungkyunkwan University in South Korea, analyse in depth ASIT's conceptual foundations and compare this method to conventional creativity techniques and TRIZ.

Published in the Korean journal Quality Innovation in December 2001, this 10-page article constitutes one of the first academic publications detailing ASIT as a simplified version of TRIZ. The authors demonstrate that ASIT maintains TRIZ's effectiveness while drastically reducing learning time and necessary resources, making it particularly adapted to industrial contexts where intensive training is not possible.

Article Summary

Identified problem

The authors observe that in recent decades, creativity research has intensified and numerous tools have been developed to facilitate creative problem solving. Among these methods, TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) developed by Altshuller has established itself as a major reference. However, TRIZ presents a significant obstacle: its complexity and necessary learning time make it difficult to access in many industrial contexts.

Proposed solution: ASIT

Faced with this limitation, Roni Horowitz developed ASIT (Advanced Systematic Inventive Thinking) as a simplified and more usable extraction of TRIZ. By analysing the most elegant solutions generated by TRIZ, Horowitz identified recurring patterns that allowed distilling TRIZ's essence into a reduced number of operational principles, while maintaining its effectiveness for solving well-defined technical problems.

Research objective

The article aims to examine ASIT's fundamental concepts and basic procedures, to compare differences between conventional creativity techniques, TRIZ and ASIT, and to demonstrate ASIT's applicability as a thinking tool for creative problem solving in contexts where training resources are limited.

Scientific Approach

Comparative methodology

The article adopts a rigorous comparative methodology to position ASIT in the creativity methods landscape. The authors proceed in three stages: first a review of conventional creativity techniques based on Geschka's principles (1983), then a detailed analysis of TRIZ and its components, then a systematic presentation of ASIT with comparison of the three approaches.

Conceptual analysis framework

To structure their comparison, Kim and Park use several analysis dimensions: the objective pursued by each method, the type and nature of the approach, required training time, resource requirements for problem solving, methodological positioning and identified weaknesses. This analysis grid allows systematic and objective evaluation of different approaches.

Validation by example

The article illustrates theoretical concepts with a practical case of ASIT application to a mobile antenna problem. This concrete demonstration validates the method's applicability and illustrates how ASIT's five tools can be mobilised to generate creative solutions without adding new components to the system.

Academic credibility

The article rests on a solid bibliographic base of 24 references, including Altshuller's foundational works on TRIZ, Horowitz's recent publications on ASIT, as well as TRIZ Journal articles documenting these methods' application in various industrial contexts. This bibliographic foundation strengthens the scientific credibility of the proposed comparative analysis.

ASIT in this Research

ASIT as central object of comparative study

The authors position ASIT at the heart of their analysis by dedicating more than half the article to it. This centrality testifies to the importance they accord to ASIT as a credible and pragmatic alternative to TRIZ. Kim and Park do not treat ASIT as just another method among others, but as a major methodological innovation deserving in-depth academic analysis.

Validation of ASIT as accessible TRIZ version

The authors explicitly validate that ASIT constitutes "a simplified and more usable extraction of TRIZ" developed by Roni Horowitz. They explain that by analysing the most elegant solutions generated by TRIZ, Horowitz identified recurring patterns allowing distilling TRIZ's essence into reduced operational principles. This academic validation legitimises ASIT's simplification approach while confirming it maintains TRIZ's effectiveness for well-defined technical problems.

Quantification of ASIT's competitive advantage

The article provides precise data on ASIT's accessibility advantage: 24 hours of training (3 days) vs minimum 3 years for TRIZ. The authors also mention the Valeo Engine Cooling experience which tested TRIZ for over 600 hours, illustrating TRIZ's operational complexity in real industrial context. These figures objectively demonstrate that ASIT responds to a critical need: allowing structured innovation without prohibitive time investment.

ASIT as methodological middle ground

Kim and Park position ASIT as an optimal balance in the creativity methods landscape. The presented conceptual diagram shows that ASIT situates itself at the heart of truly inventive solutions, between conventional methods (too little structured) and complete TRIZ (too complex). The authors emphasise that ASIT offers "a middle ground between accessibility and methodological power", allowing companies to benefit from a systematic approach without TRIZ's obstacles.

Exhaustive documentation of ASIT foundations

The article rigorously details ASIT's two fundamental conditions (Closed World and Qualitative Change) and the five operational tools. This complete documentation, accompanied by conceptual graphics, provides a valuable reference base for researchers and practitioners. Kim and Park explain how these conditions effectively replace TRIZ's more complex concepts (IFR and contradictions), thus establishing the intellectual coherence of the simplified approach.

Academic importance for ASIT diffusion in Asia

This publication constitutes one of the first detailed academic presentations of ASIT in Asia. In 2001, ASIT was still relatively unknown outside Israel and Western TRIZ circles. By publishing this analysis in a Korean academic journal with English abstract, Kim and Park played a pioneering role in diffusing ASIT in Asian academic and industrial community. The article contributed to legitimising ASIT as a method worthy of scientific interest and industrial application in this world region.

Honest recognition of limitations

The authors frankly recognise that, like TRIZ, ASIT is particularly adapted to relatively well-defined problems with technical character, but may be less relevant for poorly structured problems. This intellectual honesty reinforces the article's credibility and helps readers make appropriate methodological choices. The authors do not oversell ASIT, but clarify its domain of excellence, which better serves the method's long-term interests.

Contributions

First detailed academic presentation of ASIT in Asia

This Kim and Park article constitutes one of the first detailed academic publications on ASIT published in Asia. In 2001, ASIT was still relatively unknown outside TRIZ insider circles. This publication contributed to diffusing the method in Korean academic and industrial community, then more broadly Asian, playing a pioneering role in ASIT's internationalisation beyond its initial Israeli base.

Academic validation of TRIZ simplification

The article brings important academic validation to the simplification process performed by Horowitz. By methodically demonstrating how ASIT eliminates dozens of TRIZ elements while maintaining its effectiveness for appropriate problems, Kim and Park scientifically legitimise ASIT's minimalist approach. This rigorous demonstration responds to potential criticisms that such radical simplification would necessarily degrade method performance.

Clarification of methodological positioning

A major contribution lies in clarifying ASIT's positioning in the creativity methods landscape. By systematically comparing ASIT to conventional techniques and TRIZ according to several analysis dimensions, the authors establish a reference framework allowing practitioners to choose the most appropriate method according to their specific context. This comparative analysis did not previously exist in such structured form in literature.

Exhaustive comparative table

The comparative table of the three approaches (conventional techniques, TRIZ, ASIT) constitutes a valuable reference tool. It synthesises differences according to objective, method type, approach nature, required training time, resource requirements, positioning and weaknesses. This visual synthesis facilitates understanding trade-offs between accessibility and methodological power.

Theoretical formalisation of ASIT foundations

Kim and Park clearly explicate ASIT's theoretical foundations, in particular the two conditions of Closed World and Qualitative Change. This theoretical formalisation helps understand why ASIT works and within what limits. By showing how these two conditions effectively replace TRIZ's more complex concepts (IFR and contradictions), the authors establish the intellectual coherence of the simplified approach.

Honest recognition of limitations

The authors frankly recognise ASIT's limitations: the method is particularly adapted to relatively well-defined problems with technical character, but may be less relevant for poorly structured problems or requiring access to very specialised technical knowledge from distant domains. This honesty reinforces the article's credibility and helps readers make appropriate methodological choices.

Impact on ASIT diffusion

This publication contributed to ASIT's diffusion in Asian academic and industrial milieus. By providing an accessible reference in English with Korean abstract, the article allowed researchers and practitioners to discover ASIT and consider its application in their own contexts. This article can be considered an important milestone in ASIT's international recognition as a pragmatic alternative to TRIZ.

Bibliographical Information

Complete reference

Document access

Canonical link (official source) : https://kiss.kstudy.com/Detail/Ar?key=1952823

Access to this document requires subscription to the KISS database (Korean studies Information Service System). We recommend consulting the document via the official link to respect copyright.

Cite this document

 
More Information

Contact Us

For any information request, demonstration or quote, our team is at your disposal.