TRIZ - What Is TRIZ?
During my search for clarity and solutions on bringing circular economics in sanitation in practise via tools like "turntoo", a female colleague, who is writing her PhD-thesis (Dissertation) on methodologies for future sanitation approaches, suggested a Russian TRIZ-methodology as a possible great help. E.g. Siemens, GE, Phillips etc. is using it already and it would have more advantages them the often used collective "Brainstorming (e.g. GTZ/GiZ-ZOPP)"...

"...TRIZ is a problem solving method based on logic and data, not intuition, which accelerates the project team's ability to solve these problems creatively. TRIZ also provides repeatability, predictability, and reliability due to its structure and algorithmic approach...." www.triz-journal.com/archives/what_is_triz/
TRIZ for Engineers www.wiley-vch.de/publish/dt/books/ISBN978-0-470-74188-7

"...TRIZ research began with the hypothesis that there are universal principles of creativity that are the basis for creative innovations that advance technology. If these principles could be identified and codified, they could be taught to people to make the process of creativity more predictable. The short version of this is:
In other words and extremely simplified, a bit of "copy and paste" like many sanitation experts and others do, is already a bit of that methodology?

Example:
"Waste processing: Dairy farm operators could no longer dry the cow manure due to increased cost of energy. TRIZ led the operators to a method used for the concentration of fruit juice, which requires no heat."
...seams to me a kind of TRIZ- appetizer...

Do you heard already about TRIZ?
Regards,
Detlef

Attachment: "TRIZ Logic and the Tools for Innovation and Clarity of Thought" (TRIZ for Engineers, one part of book only)

copy and paste with permission of Mr. Charles Thibodeau, Canada

25. Januar 2013 um 16:17 Uhr
Von: "Charles Thibodeau" <charles.thibodeau.1@....ca>

Hello Detlef,

Well, I knew already the "turntoo cycle", it exists in many economic sectors. I think it's a good way of redefining the life cycle of a product transforming it to a service.

Related to sanitation, I don't think it's the same thing, at least for developed countries. Usually people change when they have to do it, e.g. when you have to pay your fertilizers twice or triple the price, you will try to find substitute, as organic fertilizers are (e.g. kitchen waste or sludge).

In Quebec, about 20% of sludge is spread as fertilizer, the rest is buried or incinerated. The government's goal is to reach 60% of the sludge to be spread by 2015 (they won't do it) and to ban landfill and incineration in 2020 (they won't do it neither, but it's a noble goal!). So, organic and nutrients will return completely to land in a near/long future. But I think industries must do an additional effort to cut down chemicals and metals discharged in sewer.

As you know the context in developing countries is quite different and may be that the Turntoo concept can be applied over there. Is people ready to pay for any kind of sanitation?? Not everybody for sure! That's the big issue encountered I think.

Finally, it's my first time thinking about this concept, so I can't say much about it. Maybe other theoricians would have already though about it...

Have a good night,

Charles

Which innovative "jumps" are needed?

A nice and short comparison:
Getting to Zero, by Elephant or F-18
by John Elkington: ... My point here was to remind people that, as recently as the 1940s, many people thought that the sound barrier was unbreakable. Planes that approached the speed of sound experienced severe buffeting that cut their acceleration. While it was theorized that, at supersonic speed, the flying could become smooth again, no pilot had experienced that yet. That changed, of course, when Chuck Yeager and others broke through, and proceeded to fly at ever-higher Mach numbers. We are now banging up against a sustainability barrier, with many businesses having accelerated their efforts relatively easily and now hitting what feel like practical limits. Many leaders are unable to conceive of the new economic and business models that will allow them to break through and pick up speed again in achieving ever more audacious goals. But just as the ingenuity of the aerospace industry managed to break through the sound barrier, I am optimistic that inspired businesses can break through the sustainability barrier.

A phrase that rings on in my mind from Rotterdam came from Thomas Rau , the leading German eco-architect based in Amsterdam, who said that he is not interested to work on the old mistakes, but instead wants to "work on the new mistakes." An aerospace engineer would call this pushing the envelope. With enough experimentation at the very edges of the possible, we will find ways to do the apparently impossible.
source blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/06/getting_to_zero_by_elephant_or.html

I hope John Elkington helped to clarify my long text on possible exchanges on ideas on the subject.

I recognise, technical invention and related technical innovations for business models maybe simpler to follow and to understand, them to understand the need of new business models and approaches in a well known field like sanitation.

Best Regards,

Detlef SCHWAGER

PS: Thanks Jürgen for your real helpful link on the text-issues involved. I try my limited best to go for it.

Dear JK Makowka,

Thanks for your discourse contribution.

On the needed responsible investments you mentioned:
Only on the „technical cycle“, it is to me quite clear, normal entrepreneurs without military “state-support” for raw-material “pur-chasing” will get out of business (horror scenario? but already ongoing), because needed resources are limited, climbing prices on speculative market do not allow any-more profit margin for products.

“Normal” entrepreneurs (e.g. medium size companies in family driven business) have survival-instincts, they will look for and will invest in more peaceful alternatives and therefore more in reliable raw-material sources, to keep business and family alive. Only indirect they care for the employees and environment too, through responsible new investments.

I am not a friend of direct government investments in this sector (direct funding and substitutions with taxpayers money) as it is source for most dodgy “business” and for their Party-“friends” too. Indirect government incentives (e.g. via tax) maybe a better way.

On the “biological cycle” on which EcoSan is connected to, I am still too much puzzled by my self, to put the many puzzles in the right order together …

Any ideas on the “biological cycle” are welcome!

Best Regards,

Detlef SCHWAGER

I guess that problem is that it isn't really a highly profitable business, or at least no-one found a solution yet that is highly profitable.

It would be probably possible to cover the costs and salaries, but it needs investment. And there are just many other, more profitable ways to invest money into, so unless you have the government to invest, there is little opportunity for someone to start it up.

From a business perspective it probably makes the most sense if you are a "producer" to include it in your running and profitable business as a side venture... paying an external service provider will just eat away the potential small profits though.

Dear Colleagues,

I am cracking my small head on the "biological cycle" of business orientated “NASS=EcoSan” systems. Maybe you have a better thinking and more ideas on this with your bigger heads ?
May you have a look at this business model and maybe its worth to have a constructive discourse in this forum about this "new thinking":

On circular economy (C2C) a realistic linking between producer and customer is still missing, which means an appropriate business model is missing to bring it to real life. E.g. an economical viable system to transfer "used" raw-material from USER back to Producer. Producers are interested in circular economy for economic benefits only, but still have problems to make it work on larger scale for their own and USERs benefits. Additional, peaceful international systems aren't in place & will not be put in place, to have raw-materials secured and equally distributed.

Thomas RAU is trying to make the philosophy of circular economy (C2C) work in reality, through a "performance based system" to secure raw-materials, with an environmentally friendly "moneymaking" business model, called "TURNTOO".

As far as I understand, the "SERVICE-Provider TURNTOO" starts to make it work on the "technical cycle", for the beginning circular economy (C2C). Basically in order to keep technical raw-materials "alive & available" for future users (future generations of producers & USERs), this will stop the accelerating paste of permanent wasting/destroying of more and more raw-materials.

This approach is acting as a kind of "SERVICE-Provider" between Customer & Producer. The former Customer is becoming a USER and only purchases from Producer the "performance of a product", but not the raw-material by itself, instead of the whole product (e.g. 10,000 hours washing, but not the whole washing machine). Therefore the product is cheaper for the USER too. After end of performance period with USER, the "SERVICE-Provider" is collecting as a service mainly for the Producer, the used product (raw-material) and returning it to its raw-material-bank (pool) and finally back to the owner.

Through this kind of SERVICE the Producer becomes an economic benefit of secured availability on raw-material and security on future price developments outside the speculative commodity market.

As far as I understand, the profit margin + costs + risks share involved for the "Raw-material- SERVICE-Provider" is paid by the Producer only & very direct. This amount is near equal to the amount the customer pays less for the product. To start production process and cycle, the SERVICE-Provider has to pre-purchase raw-material from the speculative commodity market (e.g. from steel providers). The Producer is purchasing from the "SERVICE-Provider`s" raw-material bank (pool). The ownership and return of raw-material is later secured by the paid service-provider. As a "by effect", a system like that has many more them only economical benefits. Social, ecological and health: e.g. jobs through service providing; through less raw-material exploration and less energy intensive base-material converting.

www.turntoo.com/en/how-turntoo-functions/







What do you think and what would be your advice on "biological cycles" (consumed biological raw-materials) via a business orientated Service-Provider, like TURNTOO in SANITATION?

The business model on "technical cycle" to re-use technical raw-material, like alum and steel is easier to understand.

In my opinion, "consumed" biological raw-materials in a "biological cycle" have high complexity because of many players involved. On the other side many players are needed, in order to make them finally reusable raw-material, plus having an equal sound environmentally friendly moneymaking business model like TURNTOO.


E.g. Phosphate, Humus and Energy in food and in ("used") digested human and animal food (urine and faeces in human and animal sanitation). In near future Agricultural Producers would still like to keep payable price for this precious raw-material as fertiliser & humus back on their field for new food production. The Phosphates reserves are limited, the prices will climb up without re-use-systems.

How could a "SERVICE-Provider" like "TURNTOO" do this "job" between USER and Producer in a profitable way and with economic benefit for USER and Producer for the "biological cycle" of consumed biological raw-materials? In a "performance based system" also?

The old business model for "centralised sewage collection, -treatment and -discharge", with their own lobby organisation is often profitable for a very limited number of beneficiaries. It is still spilling fertiliser, humus and energy through treatment plants via rivers to the sea. "Certification-condoms", gild, shame and horror scenarios about our all future, will not change anything or at least the mindset of the current beneficiaries of thatch systems. In developed countries, centralised sanitation infrastructure without source separation (Urine & Faeces) are in places, after many years of "trial and error".

Therefore any costly and rough "Sustainability-Revolution" will not be successful, but an evolution through "trail and error" on new business models which have more beneficiaries involved, will be successful. Any new estate development might be the best option for a wanted “Sanitation-Revolution”, for centralised new business models on decentralised and semi-centralised services (e.g. Urine Diverting Dehydration Toilets, UDDTs), providing to offer to Agricultural Producer biological raw-material by "biological cycles" (re-use).

To start an evolution (Via trail and error?) on new business models like the inventive Service-Provider "TURNTOO", the existing Centralised Sanitation System has to be used for a “Resource Securing Sanitation” (maybe aka EcoSan). In a first business step to take out Humus & Energy for sale, via low-tech, e.g. by CHP, and in a future business step, taking out the Phosphate also for sale, via high-tech equipment.

First equation (with the help of a BORDA e.V.- spreadsheet) concludes, that a minimum of 10.000 p.e. would be required, to make an investment for a possible service provider viable (this is under typical German conditions, with CHP installation cost 5.000 EUR/kW_el). The surplus sludge of existing sewage treatment plant would mainly be used. This calculation is based only on sale of renewable electrical power generated. But selling additional heat for warming up buildings, might lower the number to 5.000 p.e. (by my educated guessing). Having Phosphate in future included would make smaller "re-use systems" viable too.

!!! E.g. already now, farmers in DK deliver their animal manure to a large bio-gas plant and get paid depending on nutrient and caloric value of manure. Through CHP the plant sales heat and power to a nearby small town and the grid. The same farmers purchase biological fertiliser & humus with a clear stated nutrient content from the plant.

Maybe I see this all too narrowed and too complicated?

Could you follow my German-English? Are the issues involve in a "biological cycle" too complex for a profit orientated Service-Provider in “Resource Securing Sanitation”?

Best Regards,

Detlef SCHWAGER

MSc. Tropical Water Engineering

by Roger Cox (NL): Cradle to Cradle seems to be the first sound environmentally friendly moneymaking business-proposal.