Ideal Final Result (IFR)

Observations:

1. Differentiating between what the client wants and what the manufacturer or supplier is prepared to deliver is one of the main obstacles when using the ideality/IFR tool as a problem definition mechanism. The 9-windows tool could be used to specify what the ideal outcome might be from each window’s perspective. 

2. Forward-thinking businesses satisfy customers’ IFR and hold the notion that the customer is always right. Always correct is the customer’s IFR, and chances are they’ll get it sooner or later. The adage “free, perfect, and now” gives a clear, approachable declaration of what the ideal result entails. 

3. The ideality and IFR notions provide a methodical manner to at least speculate about potential evolution or innovation pathways. Most organisations use the approach depicted, which takes the “current system” as its starting point. This first model then serves as the foundation for all improvement efforts. This kind of “start from the present” mentality has directly led to the concept of “continuous improvement.” But we are aware that, in accordance with the rule of diminishing returns (the basic mechanics of evolutionary s-curves), as time goes on, we will make ever-smaller improvements to a system while exerting ever-greater amounts of effort. 

4. Even though performing an Ideal Final Result analysis is not a required step in the problem definition process, it is nonetheless highly advised that it be done. Most individuals do not intuitively understand the concept of establishing an ideal result (especially one as broad as accomplishing the function without cost or harm) and then working backward from it to something that is realistic. Nevertheless, it is a very effective method for reaching the frequently cited objective of “thinking outside the box.”

5. Adding a time component to the IFR formulation process is a frequently helpful expansion to the fundamental ideality/IFR concept. This accomplishes two things: first, it promotes a more comprehensive understanding of the ideality picture; and second, it acknowledges that ideality definitions can—and frequently do—change over time.

6. The identification and optimal use of resources inside a system are integral parts of TRIZ. The goal to accomplish usefulness with ever-reduced resources is the fundamental principle behind growing ideality. Thus, identifying resources is a crucial component of the TRIZ philosophy.

7. An often useful extensive to the basic ideality/IFR concept is to incorporate an element of time into the IFR definition process. This achieves two things; first of all, it encourages a more holistic view of the ideality picture, and second it recognise that the definitions of ideality can (and often do) change as a function of time.

8. The ideality part of TRIZ is closely linked to the identification and maximal utilisation of resources within a system. The underlying concept of increasing ideality involves the desire to achieve functionality with ever fewer resources. The identification of resources is thus a very important aspect of TRIZ philosophy.

9. According to the concept of “trimming,” systems will eventually develop to provide the same or higher levels of functionality with progressively fewer components. A very helpful first step in identifying the resources that will hopefully allow us to evolve systems and system components toward ideality is the creation of this kind of system hierarchy.

10. In a world where rising ideality is the main driver of technology growth, solutions that accomplish functions “by themselves” are crucial. In this regard, the idea of the ideal end or final result and the search for solutions that include the word “self,” i.e., the problem solves itself, are particularly potent weapons in the TRIZ toolbox. The goal of IFR thinking is to get issue owners to first identify the function they want to accomplish, and then to consider how the system might accomplish that function without the added complexity that comes with conventional problem-solving techniques.

11. One or more of three alternatives exist when applying the ideality and ideal end outcome notions to problem-solving situations: I Make greater sense of your problem circumstance and how to reach the specified goal by using the questionnaire. (ii) Prefix a function you need to be performed with the word “self,” then use the description of this “self-x” function as a catalyst to first see if anyone else has already addressed a related issue (for example, by examining patent databases), and then as a prompt to come up with solution (iii) In order to find a resource that could help you achieve an IFR outcome for the component or assembly you are considering, create a system hierarchy. In other words, can something else already in the system carry out its helpful function(s)?