triz

name

triz

description

Use when solving engineering, hardware, manufacturing, or software design problems involving contradictions — where improving one parameter worsens another (e.g., faster but less reliable, simpler but less flexible), or a component must exist in two conflicting states simultaneously. Also use when asked to invent, optimize a technical system, or find breakthrough solutions beyond brainstorming. Do NOT trigger for routine bug fixes or implementation tasks without a genuine trade-off contradiction.

TRIZ – Theory of Inventive Problem Solving

Overview

TRIZ is a systematic reasoning protocol for engineering problems. It eliminates trial-and-error by resolving contradictions (not compromising them) to reach the Ideal Final Result (IFR) — the desired function delivered with zero added cost, harm, or complexity.

Core principle: Inventions follow laws, not luck. Find the contradiction → resolve it → reach ideality.

Required Workflow — Follow Every Step

Raw problem → 1. Decompose IS/IT → 2. Deepen AC→TC→PC → 3. Vepol model → 4. State IFR → 5. Inventory VPR → 6. Resolve → 7. Generate concepts → 8. Evaluate

Step 0 — Triage

Before proceeding: does the problem contain an explicit or latent contradiction — an element or parameter that must simultaneously satisfy two opposing requirements?

• If NO — this problem does not require TRIZ; provide standard engineering advice and stop.
• If YES — proceed to Step 1.

Step 1 — Problem Decomposition

List all Undesirable Effects (NEs). Check pairwise causality. Write the Inventive Situation (IS):

System [X] performs [function] via [mechanism], producing undesirable effect [NE]. Inventive Goal: eliminate NE while preserving function.

Reduce to one Inventive Task (IT) focused on the key NE (root cause, lowest-rank function).

Verification: Every NE listed must be traceable to the problem description as given — do not introduce effects not stated or clearly implied by the user.

Step 2 — Contradiction Deepening

Always deepen in order:

• Administrative Contradiction (AC): "We need X but can't achieve it."
• Technical Contradiction (TC): Improving parameter A worsens parameter B.
• Physical Contradiction (PC): Object must be simultaneously in two opposite states (e.g., hot AND cold).

PC is the most powerful — resolve it with separation:

• In time: conflicting properties at different moments
• In space: conflicting properties in different zones
• By condition: conflicting properties under different conditions
• By system level: one property at micro-level, opposite at macro-level

Gate 2: Write the PC now in this exact form: "[element] must be [property A] to [achieve goal A] AND [opposite of A] to [achieve goal B] simultaneously." If you cannot produce it in this form, the contradiction is not yet deep enough — do not proceed to Step 3.

Gate 2 Recovery: If the PC cannot be written in the required form — return to Step 2 and deepen the TC. Ask: "What physical property must the [element] simultaneously have?" Iterate until the PC names two opposing physical states of a single element.

Step 3 — Vepol Model

Model the system as: S1 — Field — S2

• S1 = tool/acting element, S2 = object being acted on, Field = type of action (mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical, magnetic, etc.) — Note: standards.md uses the opposite labeling (S2 = tool, S1 = object) following Savransky/Terninko convention. See standards.md header for the reconciliation note.
• Model at the conflict zone only. S1 = element performing the action at the conflict. S2 = element being acted upon. Field = dominant interaction at that zone. Use this rule consistently within a session.
• Identify: incomplete vepol (missing element), harmful vepol (field harms S2), insufficient vepol (effect too weak)

Verification: S1, Field, and S2 must all be named in the IS/IT statement. Do not introduce system elements absent from the problem description.

• Apply the relevant class of 76 Standards to complete, fix, or evolve the model

Step 4 — Ideal Final Result (IFR)

State IFR-1: "[Element already in the system] performs [required function] by itself, without cost, harm, or added complexity."

State IFR-2 (physical) using this template:

"The [element] at [conflict zone] must be [property A] to [achieve goal A], and [opposite of A] to [achieve goal B] simultaneously."

Example: "The blade at the cutting surface must be hard (to cut fast) and cool (to not crack the ceramic) simultaneously."

IFR-1 vs IFR-2: IFR-1 describes function (what should happen and who does it). IFR-2 describes the physical contradiction (what the element must simultaneously be). Both must be stated — IFR-2 is the direct input to separation strategies.

The IFR is a north star — solutions that approach IFR are better than those that don't.

Gate 4: Verify IFR-1 names a specific element already in the system (not a new component to be added). Verify IFR-2 describes opposing physical states at the conflict zone — not a restatement of the goal. If either fails, rewrite before proceeding to Step 5.

Gate 4 Recovery: If IFR-1 names a new component — return to Step 4 and identify which existing element can perform the function. If IFR-2 restates the goal rather than opposing physical states — return to Step 2 and deepen the PC further.

Step 5 — Resource Inventory (VPR)

List all available resources already in the system (zero-cost-first priority):

Work through each category in turn before moving to the next:

1. Substances — what materials, parts, byproducts, waste, or voids exist but are underused?
2. Fields — what forces, heat, EM, gravity, or pressure already act in the system?
3. Space — what zones, surfaces, or cavities are idle or only partially used?
4. Time — what intervals, pauses, or phase transitions occur without useful work?
5. Functional — what capabilities of existing components are not yet exploited?

Aim for at least 5 resources total. The IFR solution almost always draws from this list.

Verification: Each listed resource must appear in the IS/IT or be physically present in the described system. Resources invented from general engineering knowledge (not present in the stated system) do not qualify.

Step 6 — Resolve the Contradiction

Choose resolution path based on problem complexity:

Path	When to Use	Tools
Quick	TC is clear; one contradiction pair; problem is well-bounded; initial solution scan needed	40 Principles + Contradiction Matrix
Systematic	Vepol shows harmful/insufficient interaction; multiple contradictions; Quick path gave no satisfying fit; problem involves a known vepol pattern	76 Standards + Vepol
Deep	PC is non-obvious; previous TRIZ attempts (Quick + Systematic) failed; explicitly targeting Level 4–5; cross-system or physical-effect breakthroughs required	ARIZ-85V

Default when uncertain: Start with Quick. If the recommended principles feel like compromises rather than resolutions, escalate to Systematic. If Systematic also produces only Level 2–3 solutions, escalate to Deep.

Contradiction Matrix: Map (parameter to improve) × (parameter that worsens) → 1–4 recommended principles. Look up the cell in matrix.md (full 39×39 table). See principles.md for principle descriptions. For deeper context on any parameter — definition, worked examples, all contradictions in both directions — load the matching file from parameters/ (e.g., parameters/p09-speed.md). For deeper context on any principle — when to apply, examples, common pairings — load the matching file from principles/ (e.g., principles/p35-parameter-changes.md).

76 Standards (Systematic path): After building the vepol model, apply the matching standard from standards.md. Identify: incomplete / harmful / insufficient vepol → select class → apply standard rule.

ARIZ-85V (Deep path): Full 9-part procedure in ariz.md. Use when 40 Principles and 76 Standards have not produced a breakthrough.

Gate 6: Verify by path taken: Quick — did you look up the exact matrix cell in matrix.md (not recall principles from memory)? Systematic — did you load standards.md and apply a specific Standard number (e.g., Standard 1.2.3), not just "Class 1"? Deep — did you load ariz.md and identify which ARIZ part applies to this problem? If the recommended principles or standards feel like compromises rather than resolutions, escalate the path before proceeding to Step 7.

Gate 6 Recovery: If on the Quick path and principles feel like compromises — escalate to Systematic. If on Systematic and standards produce only local fixes — escalate to Deep (ARIZ). If already on Deep and stuck — return to Step 2 and verify the PC is correctly formulated at the micro-physical level.

Step 7 — Generate Concepts

Produce 3–5 conceptual solutions. For each:

• State which principle/standard/separation rule was applied
• Reference which resources from VPR are used
• Describe mechanism at the physical level
• Assess proximity to IFR

Step 8 — Evaluate

Rate each solution:

• Ideality ratio: useful functions / (cost + harms)
• Altshuller level: 1 (routine) → 5 (discovery). TRIZ reliably lifts solutions 1–2 levels (practitioner evidence from Altshuller 1985 and Terninko et al. 1998; controlled experimental data remains limited).
• Feasibility: near-term vs. requires new physics

Stopping criterion: If at least one concept scores Altshuller Level ≥ 3 AND resolves the stated PC without adding new external components, the workflow is complete. Present that concept as the primary recommendation. Do not escalate to a higher resolution path.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Correct Approach
Jumping to solutions without PC formulation	Always deepen AC → TC → PC first
Skipping vepol model	Build S1–Field–S2 before choosing tools
Skipping IFR	State it explicitly — solutions that ignore IFR drift toward compromise
Skipping VPR	Zero-cost resources first — mobilize what's already there
Stopping at TC	PC unlocks stronger solutions — don't stop at TC
Optimizing the contradiction	Dissolve it, don't split the difference

Reference Files

• principles.md — 40 Inventive Principles (one-liner table), 76 Standards class guide, 39 parameter list
• matrix.md — Full 39×39 Contradiction Matrix (fastest lookup)
• parameters/ — Per-parameter deep reference: definitions, worked examples (physical + software), contradiction tables in both directions
• principles/ — Per-principle deep reference: when to apply, examples (physical + software), common pairings, matrix statistics
• standards.md — Full 76 Inventive Standards for the Systematic path (vepol-based)
• ariz.md — Complete ARIZ-85V procedure for the Deep path (Level 4–5 solutions)
• evolution.md — 8 Laws of Technical System Evolution for forecasting and proactive design