TRIZ

Origin

TRIZ was developed by Genrich Altshuller, who from 1946 onwards systematically analysed patent literature and distilled regularities of successful inventions from it. The central account is Erfinden — Wege zur Lösung technischer Probleme (Russian original 1973; German edition Verlag Technik, 1984). Its core building blocks are the contradiction matrix, the 40 inventive principles, the concept of ideality — a system is the better, the more benefit it delivers at the less expense — and the evolution patterns of technical systems, which describe typical development paths.

Typical use

TRIZ is used above all in engineering and design: when a technical problem is stuck because improving one parameter worsens another — lighter but stiffer, faster but more precise. Beyond that, the evolution patterns serve technology foresight: they show in which direction a technical system typically develops — from rigid to segmented to flexible structures, for instance — and thus complement instruments such as S-curve analysis.

Procedure

1. Abstract the problem

   The concrete problem is stripped of its incidentals and formulated as a model: which function should the system fulfil, which harmful or missing effects interfere? This abstraction opens access to solutions from other industries and disciplines.

2. Formulate the contradiction

   The core of the problem is framed as a contradiction: which parameter should improve, and which deteriorates as a result? Only this sharpening makes the problem workable with the TRIZ tools — and prevents the premature escape into compromise.

3. Apply the principles

   Via the contradiction matrix, the empirically most successful of the 40 inventive principles are selected — segmentation, separation, inversion, or prior action, for example — and translated back to the concrete problem. The guiding ideal is ideality: maximum function with minimum system.

4. Evaluate solutions and check the line of evolution

   The candidate solutions are assessed technically and economically; in parallel, the evolution patterns are used to check whether the solution lies on the system’s natural development path — or whether the system itself is at the end of its evolution and a change of principle is due.

Limits and typical mistakes

TRIZ demands considerable training: contradiction matrix, principles and modelling only unfold their value with practice, and half-understood application produces mechanical lists of principles instead of solutions. The methodology is also technology-centred — it answers the question of how a technical problem can be solved, not whether it should be solved economically, or for whom. Market side, business model and willingness to pay remain outside its field of view. A typical mistake is therefore to confuse inventive elegance with market success: a resolved contradiction guarantees no customer. Equally widespread is its use as a creativity ritual in workshops, without the disciplined problem modelling on which the quality of the results actually depends.

Relation to the Innovator’s Dilemma