TRIZ
TRIZ is a method for solving inventive problems. The name is the Russian acronym for "theory of inventive problem solving". The method starts from a contradiction: improving one characteristic of a system degrades another. Instead of looking for the best compromise, the analyst resolves the contradiction with generic solution principles. Genrich Altshuller drew these principles from a study of patents: inventions from different fields resolved the same contradiction in the same way. TRIZ comprises the contradiction matrix, the 40 inventive principles, the separation principles and the ARIZ algorithm, which chains these tools together. The deliverable is a written contradiction and a list of solution concepts that resolve it.
Goal
TRIZ is a method for problems where every known solution improves one characteristic and degrades another. One option tightens security and makes the system harder to use. The opposite option makes it easier to use and weakens security. The usual answer is the compromise: a little of each drawback. TRIZ writes the problem as a contradiction, then looks for a solution that obtains the gain without the loss.
The technique helps the team choose the solution concept to develop. It delivers concepts that the team then costs with a cost-benefit analysis or tests with a prototype.
Brainstorming produces options without a rule. TRIZ derives them from the contradiction: the principles show where to look. The team judges each concept on one question: does it resolve the contradiction?
Usage
When to use
- Two requirements contradict each other: each option satisfies one and degrades the other (security versus usability, performance versus operating cost). Formulate the contradiction before you decide.
- Compromise already tried: nobody is satisfied with it. Look for a solution that removes the loss.
- Brainstorming produces variants of the same compromise: the written contradiction steers the search.
- Two stakeholders demand opposite values of the same property: this is a physical contradiction. Separate it.
- Analyst working alone: the contradiction and its separations fit on one page. Preparation aside, the analyst writes them in two hours.
- Distributed team: its members formulate the contradiction in a shared document.
- Contradicting a superior is costly in the group: the contradiction pits two characteristics of the system against each other, so that nobody has to take a position against a superior.
When not to use
- Cause of the problem unknown: there is no contradiction to formulate. First find the cause with a root cause analysis.
- Options known and compromise acceptable: decide with a decision matrix.
- Open-ended innovation topic with no existing system: nothing contradicts anything yet. Open up the options with brainstorming.
Description
What TRIZ comprises
The Altshuller Institute, the international association MATRIZ and the European association ETRIA jointly defined a classical body of knowledge. It comprises the ideal final result, the contradictions, the 40 inventive principles with the contradiction matrix, the separation principles, substance-field analysis with its 76 standard solutions, the trends of system evolution and ARIZ. An analyst starting out works with the contradiction, the principles and the separations. Substance-field analysis and ARIZ require training that the Altshuller Institute and MATRIZ certify.
The ideal final result
The ideal final result (IFR) describes the problem solved with no trade-off. ARIZ-85C sets the rule: obtaining a useful effect or removing a harmful one must neither degrade another characteristic nor create a new harmful effect.
Mann and Domb suggest writing the IFR first, then asking why it is out of reach. The answers usually lead to the contradictions. The IFR also judges the concepts: ARIZ-85C accepts only those that reach it or come close to it.
Technical contradiction and physical contradiction
A technical contradiction sets two parameters against each other: a gain on one degrades the other. ARIZ-85C writes it as two opposite states of the same element. Its example is a radio antenna protected by lightning rods. TC-1: many lightning rods protect the antenna from lightning but absorb the radio waves. TC-2: few lightning rods let the waves through but no longer stop the lightning.
A physical contradiction concerns a single element that must have a property and the opposite property. The lightning rods must be many to protect the antenna and few to let the waves through. The physical contradiction names the property that produces both the gain and the loss. The analyst resolves it by separation without going through the matrix.
Property: their number
The matrix route
The contradiction matrix crosses 39 engineering parameters, among them the weight of a moving object, speed, reliability, loss of time, device complexity and ease of use. The row holds the parameter to improve. The column holds the parameter that worsens. Each cell gives the numbers of the principles that the patents in the study applied most often to that contradiction. According to Savransky, Altshuller built the matrix by studying about 40'000 highly inventive patents. These patents came from a set of about 400'000 patents examined in the 1960s and 1970s.
Formulate the technical contradiction. "If [action], then [gain], but [loss]." Also write the opposite state: TC-1 and TC-2. ARIZ-85C asks for a formulation without specialist terms. It replaces "lightning rod" with "conducting rod". The specialist term carries the usual solution.
Name the improved parameter and the degraded parameter. The gain in the sentence gives the first. The loss gives the second.
Match each to the nearest of the 39 parameters. Domb and her co-authors published a definition of each parameter, so the choice does not rest on the label alone.
Read the cell. It gives a few principle numbers.
Interpret each principle for the real system. The analyst draws one or more concepts from it.
Test each concept against the ideal final result. A concept that reduces the loss without removing it is a compromise. The analyst drops it or keeps it for the final sort with the label "compromise".
The matrix crosses only two parameters. When three characteristics get in each other's way, the analyst reads the problem in pairs. The analyst can also move to the physical contradiction on the element they share. The matrix comes from engineering patents: its parameters are physical. In 1999 Mann and Domb noted that no version of the matrix existed for business.
Outside engineering, the analyst goes through the principles without a matrix or moves to the physical contradiction. Mann and Domb advise reading the list in random order so that the search does not always start from principle 1.
The inventive principles
Each inventive principle (also called an "innovation principle") states a generic transformation. Domb and Tate published the list with technical examples in 1997. Mann and Domb transposed it to organisations in 1999.
| No. | Principle | Generic statement | Example in an organisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Segmentation | Divide an object into independent parts. | Break a large project down with a work breakdown structure. |
| 2 | Taking out | Separate from an object the part or property that gets in the way. | Move development away from production into a dedicated team. |
| 3 | Local quality | Make a uniform structure or environment non-uniform. | Flexible working hours instead of a single timetable. |
| 10 | Preliminary action | Carry out all or part of the required change in advance. | Publish the agenda before the meeting. |
| 13 | The other way round | Invert the action that solves the problem. Make movable what is fixed. | Bring the service to the customer instead of the customer to the counter. |
| 15 | Dynamics | Let the characteristics of an object change so that they stay optimal. | Cafeteria-style benefits that each employee chooses. |
| 23 | Feedback | Introduce feedback into a process. | Involve customers in the design. |
| 24 | Intermediary | Go through an intermediary object or process. | Hand a difficult negotiation to an impartial mediator. |
The separation principles
A separation lets the element keep the property where it produces the gain and gives it the opposite property where it would produce the loss. In 1999 Hipple applied the separations to the contradictions of an organisation that must innovate while it runs its day-to-day business.
| Separation | Question put to the element | Organisational example (Hipple) |
|---|---|---|
| In time | When must it have the property? When the opposite property? | A fixed share of working time reserved for innovation projects. |
| In space | Where the property? Where its opposite? | A room reserved for innovation activities. |
| Upon condition | Under which condition the property? Under which other condition its opposite? | A new customer's arrival triggers a free-form brainstorming session. |
| Between the parts and the whole | Can the parts have the property and the whole its opposite? | A small group looks for new ideas. The rest of the organisation keeps its discipline. |
The ARIZ algorithm
ARIZ is the Russian acronym for "algorithm of inventive problem solving". Altshuller wrote and revised it. ARIZ-85C is the last version published under his name. MATRIZ intends it for projects where the system cannot undergo major change. There it targets the complex problems that the other TRIZ tools do not solve.
ARIZ starts from a mini-problem that the analyst writes to a fixed template: "A technical system for [purpose] includes [parts]. TC-1: […]. TC-2: […]. It is necessary, with minimum changes to the system, to [result]." The minimal-change constraint rules out the compromise from the start.
The nine parts of ARIZ form three blocks. The first restructures the problem up to the IFR and the physical contradiction. The second resolves the contradiction with the system's resources, the separations and the knowledge base. It reformulates the mini-problem when nothing works. The third checks the solution, looks for its other uses and analyses the process. Marconi estimates that reformulating the problem takes more than half of the work. ARIZ plans for several cycles: the first does not always give a sufficient result.
The traps
The solution disguised as a problem closes the search before it starts. "How do we install fewer lightning rods?" already contains its answer. Marconi describes ARIZ as solution-neutral: it strips preconceived solutions out of the problem. The analyst states the gain and the loss, never the means.
Jargon keeps the analyst inside the solutions of their domain. The analyst replaces each specialist term with an everyday one: "form" becomes "list of questions" and "sign-off" becomes "written approval".
The renamed compromise passes for a resolution. The IFR test exposes it: does the loss still exist?
The cell read as an answer stops the search at the principle number. The cell shows where to look. The analyst still has to produce the concept.
The analogy taken for a measurement lends false authority to the numbers. The 39 parameters describe physical systems. Matching a processing time to "loss of time" or a form to "ease of use" remains an analogy. On a business process, the matrix cell is one lead among others.
Related techniques
| Technique | What it does | When to prefer it to TRIZ |
|---|---|---|
| Brainstorming | Produces options without a derivation rule. | The topic is open. No contradiction is visible yet. |
| SCAMPER | Puts seven questions to an existing object to draw variants from it. | The object must evolve without one gain degrading another. |
| Morphological box | Breaks the object down into parameters and goes through their combinations. | The full solution space must be visible. |
| Root cause analysis | Traces an effect back to its causes. | The cause of the problem is unknown. The analyst then formulates the contradiction on the cause found. |
AI considerations
A language model rewrites a situation described in a few lines as two technical contradictions and one physical contradiction. ARIZ-85C requires removing jargon from Part 1 onwards. The model does this on request. The analyst rereads each formulation: a model can mistake a cause or a solution for the contradiction.
For a given contradiction, the model transposes the inventive principles and the four separations to the domain in a few minutes. The analyst then tests each proposal against the IFR. A model can present a compromise as a resolution.
A model that cites a matrix cell can invent its numbers. The analyst checks any cell against a published matrix. The model also matches a business problem to the 39 parameters with the same confidence as a mechanical one. The match remains an analogy.
Describing an internal process to a public model exposes its actors, its amounts and sometimes personal data. The Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP) governs that data. The analyst describes the system without real names or figures. A provider that processes real data on the organisation's behalf is a processor under the FADP: the organisation entrusts that processing to it by a contract that complies with Art. 9 FADP.
Examples
A cantonal scholarship office wants to reduce drop-outs on its online form without losing the data its decision rests on.
| System | Online scholarship application form: questions, supporting documents, applicant, scholarship office. |
|---|---|
| TC-1 | If the form asks for all data and all documents at submission, then the office decides without chasing anything, but some applicants give up before the end. |
| TC-2 | If the form asks only for the basic data, then the applicant completes it, but the office chases the missing documents and the decision is delayed. |
| Physical contradiction | The form must be long so that the file is complete and short so that the applicant completes it. |
| IFR | The office has all the data at decision time without the applicant entering any more of it. |
TC-1 and TC-2 concern the same element and the same property: the form and its length.
| Separation | Concept | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| In time | At submission the form asks for the data the office needs to decide whether to consider the application. The supporting documents follow before the final decision. | Adopted: a shorter submission and a complete file at decision time. |
| In space | The office takes the parents' income and assets from their tax assessment. The form asks for what no register holds. | To be investigated: the data exchange needs a cantonal legal basis. |
| Upon condition | A question appears only if an earlier answer makes it necessary. A financially independent applicant sees no question about their parents. | Adopted: each applicant sees only their own questions. |
| Between the parts and the whole | The form splits into short steps that the system saves one by one. The applicant resumes where they stopped. | Adopted: the steps are short and together cover the whole form. |
Each concept gives the form its two lengths at two moments, in two places, under two conditions or at two levels. No row proposes an average length.
Visualizations
The contradictions of the example, the principles and the separations fit in rows and columns: HTML tables. The paths of TRIZ, the step from the technical to the physical contradiction and the blocks of ARIZ link elements with arrows and loops. These links call for diagrams.
Cost
| Phase | Level | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Medium | Formulating the contradiction requires knowing the system and the requirements of each stakeholder. Half a day with the people who know the system. |
| Execution | Low to high | Principles and separations: two hours whether a workshop does the work or the analyst works alone. ARIZ: several days of work led by a trained practitioner. |
| Documentation | Low | One page: system, contradictions, IFR, concepts and verdicts. |
Tooling
A whiteboard or a spreadsheet is enough to write down the contradictions and the concepts. One row per separation or per principle keeps each concept attached to its source.
The TRIZ Journal publishes the matrix, the list of the 40 principles and transpositions by domain: business, software, quality, services, education, finance. Its page "Contradiction Matrix & 40 Principles" indexes them and links to an automated matrix. MATRIZ distributes the text of ARIZ-85C. This text supplies the templates for formulating the mini-problem, the IFR and the physical contradiction. Formulating the contradiction remains the analyst's work.
The spreadsheet suits the separations and a pass through the principles. The published matrix suits a contradiction between physical parameters. The transposition by domain suits an organisational or software problem.
Sources
- Altshuller, G., Philatov, V., Zusman, A., Zlotin, B., Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving (ARIZ-85C), text published by MATRIZ from Tools of Classical TRIZ: the last version of ARIZ published under Altshuller's name, with the mini-problem, the contradictions and the IFR.
- MATRIZ, "ARIZ", knowledge base: the scope of ARIZ and its structure in nine parts across three blocks.
- MATRIZ, "TRIZ Methodology": the international association's definition of TRIZ.
- Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies, "TRIZ Body of Knowledge": the classical body of knowledge that the Altshuller Institute, MATRIZ and ETRIA defined together.
- Domb, E., Tate, K., "40 Inventive Principles With Examples", The TRIZ Journal, July 1997: the inventive principles and their technical examples.
- Savransky, S. D., "A few words about Altshuller's contradiction matrix", The TRIZ Journal, August 1997: the origin of the matrix and its limits.
- Domb, E., Miller, J., MacGran, E., Slocum, M., "The 39 Features of Altshuller's Contradiction Matrix", The TRIZ Journal, November 1998: the definition of the 39 parameters.
- Mann, D., Domb, E., "40 Inventive (Business) Principles With Examples", The TRIZ Journal, September 1999: the principles transposed to organisations and the finding that no matrix existed for business.
- Hipple, J., "The Use of TRIZ Separation Principles to Resolve the Contradictions of Innovation Practices in Organizations", The TRIZ Journal, August 1999: the separation principles applied to an organisation.
- The TRIZ Journal, "Contradiction Matrix & 40 Principles", December 2006: the index of the matrix, the principles and their transpositions by domain.
- Marconi, J., "ARIZ: The Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving", The TRIZ Journal, April 1998: the share of reformulation in ARIZ.
TRIZ is the method of Altshuller and his school. No business analysis or project management body of knowledge describes it.