SerialReads

TRIZ: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving – A Comprehensive Practitioner’s Guide

May 11, 2025

Great. I’ll conduct a comprehensive analysis of TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving), covering its foundational theories, methodologies, and practical applications, particularly in engineering and technology. This will include its historical development, cognitive underpinnings, integration with modern innovation frameworks, and advanced use cases across domains such as software, manufacturing, sustainability, and healthcare.

I’ll return with a detailed, structured report designed for intermediate to advanced practitioners. It will include diagrams, practical examples, and a balanced mix of academic and practitioner-focused references.

TRIZ: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving – A Comprehensive Practitioner’s Guide

Figure: The TRIZ approach to problem-solving. Rather than jump straight from a specific problem to a specific solution (often hitting a conceptual “wall”), TRIZ advocates abstraction of the problem to a generic level (world’s conceptual problems) and finding generic solution patterns (world’s conceptual solutions) that can then be transposed to the original problem. Key TRIZ assets – like the 40 Inventive Principles, trends of evolution, effects database, and standard solutions – facilitate this bridge from abstract problem to concrete solution.

Introduction to TRIZ

TRIZ (pronounced “treez”) is the Russian acronym for “Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch,” meaning “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving.” It is a systematic methodology for innovation developed by Soviet engineer Genrich Altshuller and colleagues starting in 1946. Altshuller, working in a Soviet Navy patent office, reviewed hundreds of thousands of patents and discovered repeatable patterns in how inventive solutions were achieved. From this research, he distilled common principles and strategies that could be applied to solve problems across different industries. TRIZ was initially formulated in the USSR (it remained relatively unknown outside the Eastern Bloc until the 1990s), but today it’s a well-established framework for creative engineering and design worldwide.

Purpose: At its core, TRIZ aims to make creativity a predictable and structured process rather than a hit-or-miss endeavor. It provides tools to overcome trade-offs and contradictions in technical systems, enabling engineers and innovators to find breakthrough solutions without relying purely on brainstorming or trial-and-error. The philosophy is that someone, somewhere, has already solved a problem similar to yours – so by abstracting your problem and tapping into a global repertoire of inventive principles, you can systematically arrive at effective solutions. In essence, TRIZ offers a universal toolkit for innovation that strips away industry-specific biases and encourages cross-disciplinary idea transfer.

Historical Development: Altshuller’s work led to several key TRIZ components (like the 40 Inventive Principles and contradiction matrix) by the 1960s-70s, and he continued to evolve the methodology over 50 years. Early TRIZ development was not without challenges – Altshuller was even imprisoned (1950–1954) during Stalin’s regime, delaying progress. However, he published foundational papers (e.g. “On the Psychology of Inventive Creation” in 1956) and later books (such as “Algorithm of Invention”). After the Cold War, TRIZ spread internationally through emigrants and dedicated institutes. Organizations like the Altshuller Institute and the European TRIZ Association (ETRIA) formed to promote TRIZ globally.

Relevance in Modern Innovation: In today’s fast-paced engineering and technology environment, TRIZ is highly relevant as a way to drive systematic innovation. Companies across various sectors have adopted TRIZ to solve complex technical problems and enhance R&D outputs. For example, Samsung has embedded TRIZ company-wide and credits it with significant patent generation and cost savings (in 2003 TRIZ contributed to 50 new patents, and a single TRIZ project saved over $100 million). Other industry leaders like GE, Intel, Ford, Boeing, Xerox, LG, and Procter & Gamble have used TRIZ methods in projects. TRIZ’s continued use in product development, manufacturing process improvement, and inventive problem solving underscores its value. It complements Western innovation approaches (like Design Thinking and Six Sigma) by adding a rigorous, solution-focused dimension to creativity. In summary, TRIZ has evolved from Altshuller’s patent study in the 1940s to a comprehensive methodology for modern engineering innovation, widely applied to break through challenging problems in a structured way.

Theoretical Foundations

Contradiction Theory in TRIZ

A fundamental concept in TRIZ is that at the heart of every inventive problem is a contradiction. A technical contradiction arises when improving one attribute of a system causes another attribute to deteriorate. In traditional engineering, these trade-offs lead to compromises (for example, making a product stronger usually makes it heavier, which might be undesirable). TRIZ, however, teaches that we should not accept compromises – instead, we should find ways to resolve the contradiction so that both attributes can be improved. In our example, the ideal is to have a material that is both very strong and very lightweight. TRIZ provides tools to achieve such seemingly conflicting goals.

TRIZ further distinguishes physical contradictions, which occur when the same element of a system needs to exhibit opposing properties. For instance, a lens might need to be both large (for image brightness) and small (for compactness), or a surface needs to be both hot and cold. In classical problem-solving, you can’t have A and not-A at the same time in the same object – but TRIZ introduces the idea of separation principles to overcome this. You might separate the conflicting requirements in time, in space, by context, or by different subsystem – allowing each extreme when and where needed (e.g., a surface that’s hot at one time and cold at another, or a structure that’s rigid in one place and flexible in another). We will delve into these separation principles later under core TRIZ techniques.

The key point is that TRIZ identifies contradictions (both technical and physical) as the leverage points for innovation. In Altshuller’s words, “an invention is the removal of a technical contradiction without compromise.” Instead of iterating within the bounds of a trade-off, TRIZ directs us to eliminate the trade-off entirely. This focus on contradictions differentiates TRIZ from many other methods – it systematically analyzes what exactly is conflicting in a system and then uses targeted strategies to resolve that conflict.

Systems Theory and Laws of Technical Evolution

Another theoretical pillar of TRIZ is the idea that technical systems evolve according to certain laws or patterns. Altshuller’s research suggested that the progression of inventions is not random but follows trends that can be anticipated. He formulated several Laws of Technical System Evolution, of which a practitioner should be aware. These “laws” (sometimes called trends or patterns of evolution) include:

There are other patterns documented (such as harmonization of rhythms – system components working in coordinated frequency, or increasing involvement of fields – replacing mechanical means with fields like electromagnetism), but the ones above are among the most commonly observed. For a practitioner, these trends serve two purposes: (1) They provide insight into the current state of a system and its potential evolutionary next steps, which is useful for technical forecasting and ensuring your innovation isn’t a dead-end. (2) They serve as inventive guidelines – if you’re stuck, try applying a trend (e.g., make the system more dynamic, or move to a smaller scale, or combine into a higher system) to see if it resolves your problem.

Abstract Thinking and Creativity in TRIZ

TRIZ is often called a form of “structured creativity” or “algorithmic innovation.” This might sound like an oxymoron – how can something as free-form as creativity be structured or algorithmic? The answer lies in TRIZ’s use of abstraction to overcome psychological barriers. Altshuller observed that inventors often suffer from psychological inertia – a tendency to stick within familiar solutions or within the paradigm of their specific field. TRIZ combats this by forcing problem solvers to step back from the immediate problem and represent it in abstract terms, where prior experience and “the way we’ve always done it” have less hold.

For example, instead of thinking “I need to design a quieter keyboard,” TRIZ might have you frame the core issue abstractly as “there is a contradiction between tactile feedback and noise in a mechanism.” Once abstracted, you’re more open to solutions outside the domain of keyboards – perhaps from studying how other industries damp vibrations or use alternative feedback methods. This approach reflects Altshuller’s big revelation: innovative solutions often come from outside the original problem domain. Indeed, analysis showed that the same problems and solutions recur across industries, but people tend to reinvent the wheel rather than transfer knowledge. TRIZ provides a framework to bridge that gap, effectively building a map of generalized problems to generalized solutions that can be applied anywhere.

By using tools like the contradiction matrix or Su-Field models (which are inherently abstract representations), TRIZ forces a mental shift to a higher level of thinking. This makes it easier to sidestep common cognitive biases such as functional fixedness (being stuck on an object’s traditional use) or confirmation bias (favoring solutions you’re already familiar with). In TRIZ workshops, it’s common to see how initially “stuck” teams become prolific in ideas once they reformulate their problem in TRIZ terms. The act of stating the Ideal Final Result (a vision of the perfect solution with no constraints) is another way TRIZ breaks psychological inertia – it encourages “dreaming” in a structured way, which can reveal paths that weren’t obvious under normal thinking.

Altshuller also introduced inventive thinking exercises as part of TRIZ’s later development (for example, the “Smart Little People” method, where you imagine tiny people inside the system solving the problem in creative ways). These were aimed at developing a creative mindset. In modern TRIZ practice, this aspect is sometimes under-emphasized compared to the technical tools, but it remains important: TRIZ is not just a toolbox, it’s also a way of thinking. It instills the mindset that every problem is solvable and there are no contradictions that cannot be resolved. This optimistic, expansive outlook, backed by concrete strategies, often leads practitioners to breakthrough ideas. In short, TRIZ leverages abstract, analogical thinking to expand the solution space and systematically enhance creativity while reducing the random trial-and-error aspect of invention.

Core Principles and Components of TRIZ

TRIZ comes with a rich set of principles, tools, and models. As a practitioner’s guide, this section highlights the core components you will use frequently, along with practical examples for each:

40 Inventive Principles (with Examples)

One of Altshuller’s most famous contributions is the list of 40 Inventive Principles – generic strategies that inventive solutions often employ. These principles emerged from studying patterns in how patentable problems were solved. They are meant to be applicable to any field once you interpret them in context. The idea is: when faced with a contradiction or problem, see if any of these principle patterns can be applied to generate a solution concept.

To illustrate, here are a few of the 40 principles with definitions and examples:

These are just a handful – the full list of 40 covers a wide range of strategies (from “Taking Out” an interfering part, to “Prior Action” performing an action in advance, to “Cheap Short-living Objects” using disposable or sacrificial elements, and so on). The principles might sound a bit abstract, but each comes with many examples in TRIZ literature. In fact, practitioners have compiled domain-specific examples of the 40 principles in areas like software, business, and chemical engineering to show how broadly they apply.

When solving a problem with TRIZ, you typically identify a principle (or a few) that could resolve your contradiction and then brainstorm concrete ways to implement that principle in your situation. It’s worth noting that Altshuller initially found 35 principles (circa 1968), later expanding it to 40 by 1973 as TRIZ matured. Impressively, no new fundamental principles have been deemed necessary beyond these 40 – they’ve proven robust enough that even very modern problems can be mapped to one or more of them (though sometimes the interpretation is metaphorical). As a practitioner, becoming familiar with all 40 principles and their typical examples is extremely useful – it trains your mind to recognize potential patterns in any problem and is a major boost to inventive thinking.

The TRIZ Contradiction Matrix: A Map to Principles

While the 40 principles are powerful, a new user might wonder “Which principle should I use for my specific problem?” This is where the Contradiction Matrix comes in. Originally developed by Altshuller, the contradiction matrix is a 39×39 table that acts as a lookup guide: it helps you find which inventive principles have historically been most useful for solving a given pair of contradictory technical parameters.

How it works: Altshuller defined 39 standard engineering parameters (things like weight, length, speed, force, energy consumption, temperature, etc.). To use the matrix, you formulate your technical contradiction in terms of these parameters – identify what you want to improve that is causing what to worsen. For example, “we want to increase the speed of a moving part, but that makes its volume (size) go up, which is bad” (perhaps due to aerodynamic drag or spatial constraints). In the matrix, you would find the row for “Speed” (improving parameter) and the column for “Volume” (worsening parameter). At their intersection, the matrix lists one or more principle numbers that were most frequently successful in resolving that type of conflict in past inventions.

In our example of speed vs. volume, the classic matrix might show, say, principles 29, 4, 38, and 34 as recommendations. (Hypothetically: #29 “Pneumatics/Hydraulics,” #4 “Asymmetry,” #38 “Enriched Atmosphere/Oxidation,” #34 “Discarding and Recovering”.) The presence of principle 29 might suggest using a fluid or gas to achieve motion instead of a solid mechanism (perhaps converting a solid moving part into a stream of air – reducing physical volume). Principle 4 might hint at making the shape asymmetric – maybe a slimmer profile in one direction so it doesn’t increase volume in the critical dimension. The idea is that each suggested principle gives a direction to think in.

The contradiction matrix thus streamlines the process of principle selection. Instead of combing through all 40 principles for every problem, you get a shortlist to consider for the specific contradiction you’re addressing. It’s important to note, as TRIZ experts do, that the matrix is a guide, not an absolute rule: if a cell is empty (no recommended principle), it doesn’t mean no solution exists – it just means no one principle dominated in the patent sample for that scenario, so any of the 40 might apply. And if the suggested principles don’t yield a good idea, you can always look beyond them. The matrix is asymmetric – improving A while B worsens is different from improving B while A worsens, which makes sense contextually.

For practitioners today, interactive contradiction matrix tools are available (in books or software) to simplify use. Also, updated versions of the matrix (beyond Altshuller’s original data, which was mid-20th-century patents) have been developed by later TRIZ researchers to reflect newer technologies. For example, a “Matrix 2003” was published by Darrell Mann with a larger patent sample from more industries, leading to some differences in principle recommendations. Whether you use the classical or updated matrix, the concept is the same – it’s a bridge between your specific problem formulation and the generic principle arsenal of TRIZ. Many practitioners find the matrix to be an intuitive starting point once a contradiction is identified: “Let’s see what TRIZ suggests,” then take those suggestions as inspiration for brainstorming solution ideas.

Ideal Final Result (IFR) and Ideality

A distinctive concept in TRIZ is the pursuit of the Ideal Final Result (IFR). The IFR is essentially the vision of the perfect solution: the problem is solved completely, all benefits are achieved, and there are no costs or harmful effects. In Altshuller’s terms, “the ideal machine is one that does not exist, yet its function is performed.” This means the function is delivered “by itself.” For example, the ideal anti-lock braking system would never actually need physical brakes – perhaps the car just never skids regardless of conditions, or the road surface itself could adapt to prevent skidding. It sounds nearly magic, and indeed IFR is often an imaginary benchmark rather than an immediately attainable state.

Why think about such an “unrealistic” scenario? TRIZ found that considering the IFR has a powerful effect on creativity. It frees you from constraints and prompts you to ask, “What would it take to achieve this fantasy solution?” In doing so, you often uncover new approaches. IFR serves as a guiding star – even if you don’t reach it, moving in its direction yields significant innovation. Practically, formulating an IFR means explicitly stating the goal without regard to the currently limiting conditions: e.g., “Ideally, this process generates zero waste and requires no energy input” or “Ideally, the product assembles itself automatically.” Those statements then challenge the team to remove one constraint at a time.

Ideality is quantified in TRIZ as the ratio of a system’s useful effects to its harmful effects (including cost). As systems evolve, ideality should increase – more benefits, fewer drawbacks. We often see this in technology: early versions of a product have many shortcomings, later versions strive to be more efficient, user-friendly, and less problematic. TRIZ encourages you to explicitly consider how your solution can maximize ideality. Sometimes this means eliminating components or aspects of a system (less to go wrong, less cost) by finding ways for other parts or ambient resources to take over their function – essentially “getting something for nothing” by using existing resources (we’ll revisit this in the resources section).

When solving a problem, asking “What is the Ideal Final Result?” and “How would the system work if it were ideal?” can generate new insights. It might highlight contradictions to resolve or suggest using resources that were previously overlooked. For instance, if the ideal refrigerator consumes no electricity, one might start exploring passive cooling techniques, super insulation, or leveraging outdoor temperature when possible – ideas you might not consider if you hadn’t targeted the theoretical ideal of no power usage.

Altshuller famously said, “The art of inventing is the ability to remove barriers to ideality.” This captures the philosophy that any gap between the current system and the ideal points to specific challenges to overcome (those challenges often being contradictions or insufficient use of resources). By systematically removing each “barrier” – e.g., “we need this part because…” – you push the design toward ideality.

In practice, IFR is used during problem formulation. A team might state the IFR, then work backwards to see what’s preventing that IFR from being reality. Those preventing factors guide the use of TRIZ tools. IFR thinking complements contradiction solving: contradictions are barriers to ideality; solve them, and you get closer to the ideal. Even if the IFR itself isn’t reached, the solutions obtained are usually highly elegant and efficient. As a simple example, consider a self-cleaning glass window. The IFR for a clean window might be “the window is always clean by itself, without needing cleaning.” This led researchers to develop glass coatings that cause rainwater to wash away dirt automatically (using sunlight-activated photocatalytic effects) – approaching the ideal of a window that never needs manual washing. Thus, IFR spurred a solution that dramatically improved ideality (much less human effort, no cleaning supplies, etc.).

In summary, the IFR is a conceptual tool to ensure we think big and not overlook breakthrough options. It keeps us oriented toward maximum benefits and guides the use of other TRIZ tools to systematically remove the obstacles between us and the “free lunch” solution where the problem solves itself.

Substance-Field (Su-Field) Analysis with Examples

While contradictions and principles are great for higher-level problem framing, TRIZ also offers a modeling technique for analyzing and solving more specific problems: Substance-Field Analysis (Su-Field). Su-field models help represent a problem in terms of components (substances) and their interactions (fields), and come with a set of 76 Standard Solutions to resolve common issues. This is particularly useful for engineering problems where you have a known system that’s not working optimally (rather than a broad conceptual problem).

Basic Idea: Any workable technical system can be modeled as at least two substances interacting through a field. Here “substance” just means a material object or component, and “field” means any kind of energy or force (mechanical force, light, electrical, magnetic field, thermal energy, etc.) that one substance uses to act on the other. For example, if you have a person hammering a nail into wood: substance S1 = the nail/wood (being acted on), substance S2 = the hammer (acting tool), and field F = mechanical impact force delivered by the hammer swing. This triplet (hammer – force – nail) forms a complete Su-field system performing the function “join nail into wood.”

Su-field analysis provides a language to describe problems such that you can apply standard inventive solutions to them. A classic use is identifying if your model is incomplete or inefficient or causing a harmful effect, and then using a standard remedy that TRIZ suggests. Some typical standard solutions include: adding a missing element (if your system has only one substance or no field, it won’t work – e.g., you need to introduce a field like heat or a catalyst to make a chemical reaction go), changing the field (e.g., replace a mechanical interaction with a magnetic field to avoid friction), introducing an intermediary substance (to improve coupling between two elements), or eliminating a harmful interaction (by adding a protective substance or neutralizing field).

Example – eliminating a harmful effect: Revisit the hammer and nail scenario. Suppose the problem is that hammering causes flying chips of rock (if you were breaking rock) or sparks that are dangerous – a harmful effect. In Su-field terms, we have a harmful interaction between S2 (hammer) and S1 (rock): flying debris. A standard solution in TRIZ for a harmful interaction is to introduce a new substance (S3) to eliminate the harm. In this case, one could add a mesh screen or cap over the rock (S3) to catch the flying pieces. The screen doesn’t participate in the primary function (breaking the rock) but it prevents the harm. This is an example of Standard Solution 1.2.2: introduce a substance to absorb a harmful effect. The TRIZ analysis guided us to that idea systematically.

Another scenario: say we have two substances that need to interact (e.g., a cleaning solvent and dirt) but the interaction is insufficient – the dirt isn’t coming off. Su-field analysis might classify this as an ineffective interaction problem (the field is too weak or not the right type). A standard solution could be to add or change the field: maybe introduce an ultrasonic vibration (a mechanical field) to agitate the solvent, thereby improving cleaning. If scrubbing (mechanical field) isn’t working, perhaps add a chemical field (a reactant) to break down the dirt. TRIZ’s standard solutions list many such transformations: e.g., convert a mechanical interaction into an electromagnetic one if you want action at a distance, etc., or use a combination of fields.

Su-field modeling is especially handy when you have a specific failure or inefficiency. For instance, if you map out a circuit as substances and fields, and you see an unwanted heat field causing damage (a harmful Su-field), a standard solution might be to introduce a cooling substance or convert the heat into another field (perhaps thermoelectric cooling which turns heat into electricity – thus eliminating the heat and gaining a benefit). In TRIZ literature, you will find the 76 Standard Solutions grouped by categories (such as solutions for incomplete systems, for improving interactions, for eliminating harmful interactions, etc.). Many of these correlate with the 40 Principles but are more prescriptive in a step-by-step way for a given Su-field pattern.

For a practitioner, the workflow is: model the problem as a Su-field diagram (boxes for substances, connecting line for field). Check if it’s a complete useful system (needs at least S1, S2, and F). Identify if the problem is one of absence (something missing), insufficiency (not strong enough effect), or harmful effect. Then consult the relevant subset of standard solutions for that scenario. The standard solutions will suggest adding or modifying substances/fields in specific ways. You then translate that back into a real-world idea.

It requires some technical intuition to apply (knowing what kind of fields could be relevant, etc.), but it’s very powerful for troubleshooting and inventive improvement of existing designs. For example, many patents in chemical engineering follow Su-field logic: “we had substance A reacting slowly with B (ineffective field), so we introduced ultrasound (new field) to accelerate it – solved.” Or in electronics: “we had electrical arcing (harmful field) between two components (substances), so we introduced an insulating layer (substance 3) to prevent that.” These are straightforward once seen through the Su-field lens.

In summary, Substance-Field Analysis provides a formalism to apply TRIZ at a more micro level than the broad contradiction approach. It’s a way to structure your understanding of a problem system and then apply standard inventive tweaks that TRIZ research indicates are effective. With practice, many engineers begin to do this mentally: “Is something missing here? Should I introduce a new interaction? Can I add a field (like heat, light, magnetism) to solve this problem?” – those are Su-field inspired questions. This technique complements the 40 Principles and contradiction matrix; often you might use the matrix to get a principle idea and then use a Su-field model to refine how exactly to implement it with substances and fields.

Patterns of Evolution and Case Examples

Building on the laws of evolution discussed in the theoretical section, TRIZ practitioners also use patterns of evolution as a toolkit. These patterns (or “trends”) can both analyze where a system is and suggest ideas for improvement by following the trend further. Let’s highlight a couple with case-based examples to see how they come into play:

These patterns of evolution are numerous, and TRIZ textbooks list around 8–11 major ones with sub-patterns. For a practitioner, the value is twofold: analysis (you can analyze a product to see where it is on various trend curves and spot opportunities) and synthesis (you can proactively apply a trend to spark an idea). Often, TRIZ software or reference guides will pose questions like “Has your system reached a limit with a rigid part? Consider making it adjustable or dynamic (Trend: Dynamization)” or “Are you using physical movement to achieve an effect? Consider using fields (Trend: Increasing Field Involvement) such as replacing mechanical movement with electromagnetic action.” These prompts come directly from the evolution patterns observed in successful innovations.

In problem-solving sessions, once a team has a handle on the problem, it’s useful to run through a checklist of such patterns to see if any can be applied. Did we consider doing it virtually (rather than physically)? Did we consider splitting or merging components? What if our product evolved like other products have – what’s the next gen look like? This ensures no obvious evolutionary opportunity is missed. Furthermore, when combined with contradiction analysis, sometimes the resolution of a contradiction naturally aligns with a known pattern (like our crumple zone example aligning with “dynamization” and “uneven development” – the rigid passenger cell vs. flexible front).

In conclusion, the patterns of technical evolution in TRIZ provide a strategic, big-picture supplement to the tactical tools like the 40 principles. They remind us that inventions don’t occur in isolation – they are part of a continuum. By leveraging these patterns, practitioners can not only solve the problem at hand but do so in a way that is future-aligned (meaning the solution will likely be sustainable in the next generation or two of evolution). This is a powerful aspect of TRIZ in innovation strategy: it’s not just solving today’s problem but also guiding you toward solutions that fit the long-term evolutionary trajectory of your system or industry.

Methodological Application of TRIZ

Having covered the what (principles, tools) and why (theory), we turn to how to apply TRIZ in practice. TRIZ can be used informally (just picking a principle or two for ideas) or formally (following a structured step-by-step algorithm). Here we outline a structured approach that a practitioner might use when tackling an inventive problem, along with examples of each step. Think of this as the TRIZ problem-solving process:

  1. Problem Formulation (Analysis of the Situation): Start by clearly defining the problem you need to solve and the objectives (what constitutes “solved”). This involves gathering information on the system, requirements, and constraints. A useful TRIZ exercise at this stage is to articulate the Ideal Final Result – describe the perfect solution outcome with no limitations. Also, identify what is preventing that ideal now. Often you’ll find contradictions or trade-offs here. For example, “We want a battery that lasts longer (improve energy capacity) but that makes it heavier (worsening weight).” Write that down as a starting contradiction. TRIZ provides tools like the Innovative Situation Questionnaire (ISQ) or functional analysis diagrams to systematically analyze the problem context. The key is to move from a vague problem (“improve battery”) to a precise formulation (“improve X without sacrificing Y” or “eliminate drawback Z while achieving requirement Y”). In one practical case, a manufacturing team might phrase their problem as: “Increase production speed of line X without increasing defect rate.” Clarity here guides everything that follows.

  2. Identify the Essential Contradiction(s): Using the information from step 1, pinpoint the core contradictions – both technical and physical, if present. Ask: What feature am I trying to improve? What seems to inherently get worse as I do that? That’s a technical contradiction. Also, check for physical contradictions: Does any part of the system need mutually exclusive properties? For instance, “this surface needs to be soft (to not damage product) yet hard (to be durable).” In our production example, the contradiction is between speed vs. quality. Write these in TRIZ-friendly terms (using the 39 parameters if you plan to use the matrix). For the battery: parameter “energy capacity” vs. “weight.” For a surface: “flexibility” vs “hardness.” If you have a complex problem, you might have several contradictions – list them out. Altshuller’s approach was “the better and more sharply you formulate the contradiction, the closer you are to a breakthrough.” This step is crucial: a well-defined contradiction is like a tightly framed question ready to be answered by TRIZ’s knowledge base.

  3. Apply TRIZ Tools to Solve the Contradiction: Now the creative part: deploy the TRIZ arsenal to generate solution ideas for each contradiction. If it’s a technical contradiction, use the Contradiction Matrix to find relevant inventive principles. For example, our speed vs. quality might map to something like “Principle 9: Preliminary Anti-Action” (do something beforehand to prevent defects at high speed) or “Principle 10: Preliminary Action” (do part of the process earlier at a slower pace). If it’s a physical contradiction, apply the Separation Principles (in time, space, upon condition, or by parts and whole) to find ways the system could have both properties. For example, soft vs. hard surface: maybe it can be hard during use but softened when interacting with the delicate product – that hints at a time separation (e.g., a surface that becomes soft when heated, and you only heat it when needed). Or use a coating that is soft on the outside, hard on the inside (space separation). In parallel, consider if Su-Field Analysis is suitable – model the problematic interaction and see if a standard solution (introduce substance, change field, etc.) can resolve it. Sometimes you’ll use multiple TRIZ tools: e.g., the matrix suggests a principle, and you then refine it with a Su-field model. It’s also recommended to revisit the Ideality concept here: ask “How does this suggestion move us toward the ideal?” and “Are there resources in or around the system we can use?” (TRIZ always encourages using available resources – like using existing heat, vibrations, materials on hand – to minimize complexity). Generate a range of ideas in this step, not just one. TRIZ’s principles are meant to spur ideation, so do a mini brainstorming for each promising principle or standard solution. Write down all concept ideas, even seemingly wild ones.

  4. Idea Generation and Brainstorming (Synthesis): Expand on the ideas obtained. This is where traditional creativity techniques meet TRIZ. Each inventive principle you chose is like a prompt – now run with it. For instance, if “Principle 28: Mechanics substitution” (replace mechanical means with sensory or electromagnetic means) came up for your problem, brainstorm how you might do that. Could a sensor and software replace a mechanical governor? Could an optical method replace a physical measurement? At this stage, bring in any needed scientific or domain knowledge – TRIZ often suggests using “effect databases” to find applicable scientific effects. If your principle idea is to use vibration, an effects database might remind you of ultrasonic cleaning or resonance phenomena that could apply. This stage is creative but directed – you are not just ideating randomly; you’re exploring the solution space around specific TRIZ directions which have proven fruitful historically. It’s also useful to combine ideas: maybe two principles together yield a stronger concept (this is common; e.g., use Principle 3 “Local Quality” – make one part different – together with Principle 24 “Intermediary” – add a third element – to come up with a very tailored solution). By the end of this step, you might have a handful of viable solution concepts outlined. For example: “Idea A: pre-treat the material so it can handle high speed (Principle 10)”, “Idea B: divide the process into parallel streams to reduce effective speed (Principle 1 Segmentation)”, “Idea C: introduce a new sensor to automatically correct defects on the fly (Principle 26 Copying & feedback)”, etc.

  5. Evaluation and Selection of Solutions: Next, evaluate the generated ideas against practical criteria. TRIZ helps ensure you have inventive ideas, but you must still apply engineering judgment: Is this feasible with our technology and budget? Does it introduce new problems? Does it truly resolve the original contradiction without significant downsides? Often, TRIZ solutions eliminate one contradiction but if poorly executed might create another – check for that. Use techniques like a Pugh matrix or just team discussion to rank the ideas. For each concept, consider factors like cost, complexity, reliability, time to implement, etc.. It’s also wise to revisit the original problem statement: does this idea actually fulfill the requirements or just sound cool? In many cases, TRIZ might produce a very novel concept that requires a change in how the system is viewed – ensure stakeholders are on board with potential paradigm shifts if that’s the case. Sometimes, the best solution is a combination of ideas generated (TRIZ encourages looking for win-win combinations). For instance, you might combine Idea A and B from above: pre-treat material and split the process – if they’re compatible, you get even higher performance. If none of the ideas seem both novel and practical, you may need to iterate – perhaps re-formulate the contradiction or dig deeper into TRIZ tools you haven’t used yet. But usually, a TRIZ-guided session yields at least one promising direction that was previously overlooked.

  6. Solution Refinement and Implementation: After selecting a concept, refine it into a complete solution. This may involve detailed design and engineering outside of TRIZ per se, but TRIZ can still assist. During refinement, new smaller problems may arise – treat them as sub-problems and apply TRIZ again at that level if needed. This is akin to ARIZ (Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving), which essentially keeps iterating and refining systematically. Ensure that the final design approaches the ideality we discussed – have you maximized benefits and minimized harms? Perhaps run a quick FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) on your new concept; if it exposes issues, use TRIZ to solve those proactively. For example, say the chosen solution for our production line was to add an automated inspection (to maintain quality at high speed). If FMEA says “what if the inspector fails to remove a defective item?”, that’s a new problem – one could use TRIZ Principle 11 “Cushion in Advance” (add a safety net, e.g., a second check or a fail-safe mechanism). In this way, TRIZ thinking propagates through development. Finally, test or prototype the solution. Many TRIZ solutions might be conceptually sound but need iteration to optimize. Keep the 40 principles in mind even during testing – sometimes a small tweak guided by a principle can dramatically improve the outcome (e.g., during prototype you find a part overheating, and you recall Principle 13 “Do it in reverse” – maybe reverse the material layering to solve that).

Throughout this process, documentation is helpful. TRIZ problems often benefit from sketches of contradiction graphs, Su-field diagrams, tables of considered principles, etc., which you can refer back to if needed. This also helps build your team’s internal TRIZ knowledge base.

It’s worth noting that experienced TRIZ practitioners might not follow these steps linearly. Real-world problem solving is iterative: you might jump back to re-formulate the contradiction after some ideation, or discover a new contradiction while evaluating solutions. That’s fine – TRIZ is flexible. However, having a structured approach ensures you don’t skip key steps (like properly formulating the problem or thoroughly exploring principles) which are the common pitfalls for beginners.

Practical Example Walk-through (Mini Case Study): To cement this, consider a simple case – designing a coffee cup that keeps coffee hot but is cool to the touch.

For more complex real-world cases, the process is similar, just with more iterations. TRIZ has been used in cases like designing an aircraft landing gear door that doesn’t add drag (contradiction between door presence and aerodynamics – solved by Principle 30 “Flexible shells”: a door that morphs into wing shape), or developing a new chocolate packaging at Mars Company where melting vs. opening-ease was an issue (they solved a contradiction to get a patent). Each of those can be broken down into the steps above.

In practice, some organizations follow a formal TRIZ algorithm (ARIZ) which can involve about 9 steps with sub-steps, systematically transforming the problem, utilizing databases, and evaluating. ARIZ is powerful but requires significant TRIZ expertise. The outline we’ve given is a simplified process aligning with general TRIZ usage and is easier to integrate with typical engineering workflows.

Finally, it’s worth integrating TRIZ with project management: define problem (often done in Define phase if using DMAIC from Six Sigma), analyze contradictions (Analyze phase), generate solutions (Improve/Design phase), etc. This way, TRIZ doesn’t stand alone; it enhances existing processes.

In summary, the methodological application of TRIZ involves careful problem analysis (especially contradiction identification), systematic exploration of solution principles, and iterative refinement. The result is a solution that is innovative (because it breaks contradictions) and practical (because you’ve evaluated and iterated it). The next sections will look at how TRIZ interacts with other frameworks and some advanced application domains, which often influence how the above process is carried out (for example, in software or service problems, steps might need slight adaptation).

Integration with Modern Innovation Frameworks

TRIZ is a powerful methodology on its own, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In modern organizations, there are established frameworks like Design Thinking, Lean Startup/Manufacturing, Agile development, and quality improvement methods like Six Sigma or FMEA. A frequent question is how TRIZ complements or compares to these. Let’s explore these integrations and synergies:

TRIZ vs. Design Thinking, Lean, and Agile – Complementary Roles

Design Thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation focusing on understanding user needs (empathy), ideating with a broad creative mindset, prototyping, and testing iteratively. Lean (whether Lean Startup or Lean manufacturing) emphasizes creating maximum value with minimum waste, using rapid experimentation and learning. Agile (in software/project management) stresses iterative development, flexibility, and customer feedback.

TRIZ approaches innovation from a different angle – it is system-centric and problem-centric rather than user-centric. TRIZ assumes you have a technical problem defined and provides a way to solve it creatively. On the other hand, Design Thinking helps ensure you are solving the right problem (by deeply understanding the customer’s problem first). These approaches can be woven together: for instance, you might use Design Thinking to identify and frame a challenge (find out what users really need, what their pain points are), then use TRIZ to generate a novel solution to meet that need. TRIZ might produce concepts that are far beyond what users could have imagined (since users typically propose incremental improvements), which is a value-add to Design Thinking. Conversely, Design Thinking can feed TRIZ the crucial insights about what “ideal” means from a user perspective. One author put it as: TRIZ enhances Design Thinking by providing a structured way to resolve contradictions and generate ideas that satisfy user needs identified through empathy.

Concretely, imagine a team designing a new medical device. A Design Thinking session with doctors and nurses might reveal that the biggest issue is the device is too cumbersome to set up, causing delays. They frame the problem as “reduce setup time dramatically without sacrificing accuracy.” That is a perfect setup for TRIZ: a contradiction between ease-of-setup and accuracy could be tackled. TRIZ might yield an idea for a self-calibrating mechanism (Principle 23 “Feedback” or 25 “Self-service”) which none of the users suggested explicitly. The team prototypes it (Agile style), tests with users, gets feedback, etc.

Lean and Agile emphasize iterative cycles and avoiding waste. TRIZ can plug in by reducing ideation waste: instead of randomly brainstorming 100 ideas (of which 95 might be obvious or not feasible), TRIZ guides the team to potentially high-value ideas more directly, speeding up the innovation cycle. In an Agile software team, for example, during a sprint dedicated to solving a performance issue, TRIZ could be used to systematically identify and eliminate a core contradiction in the architecture (like memory use vs. speed). Agile doesn’t tell you how to come up with the fix; TRIZ does. In turn, Agile provides the structure to quickly prototype and test the TRIZ-inspired solution.

In practice, some companies report that TRIZ accelerates Design Thinking and Agile. It doesn’t replace them – you still do need understanding of the user (Design Thinking) and you still iterate and test (Agile) – but when it comes to generating the solution concepts, TRIZ gives a massive jumpstart. It’s like having a database of wisdom to inject into your creative process. As James Roolvink (an innovation coach) noted, TRIZ doesn’t make design thinking or agile useless, “on the contrary TRIZ accelerates the innovations made by agile working and design thinking.”. This is because TRIZ can provide breakthrough technical solutions that the team can then build into prototypes quickly, rather than spending many iterations on incremental tweaks.

Lean: TRIZ and Lean manufacturing share some philosophical overlap in eliminating “waste.” TRIZ’s concept of ideality (maximizing useful function, minimizing harm/cost) is akin to Lean’s elimination of non-value-added elements. However, Lean typically achieves this through incremental continuous improvement and known best practices. TRIZ can contribute by suggesting more radical changes that remove waste in one leap. For example, a Lean team might kaizen (incrementally improve) a process and reduce waste by 20%, but a TRIZ approach might completely redesign the process principle (say, use a different physical effect) to eliminate 80% of waste in one go – something Lean alone might not conceive if it’s outside current experience. An integrated approach could be: use Lean to identify where the biggest inefficiencies or bottlenecks are, then apply TRIZ to conceive a novel way to eliminate those inefficiencies beyond the obvious solutions.

Synergies with Six Sigma, FMEA, and Quality Systems

Many organizations use Six Sigma (DMAIC – Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) for process and quality improvement, and tools like FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and reliability engineering to preemptively address potential failures. TRIZ can significantly enhance the “Improve” phase of Six Sigma by providing inventive fixes to problems identified in analysis. In Six Sigma’s data-driven journey, often the solution space is not rigorously explored – teams might default to known fixes. TRIZ injects scientific and inventive rigor at this stage, ensuring the team considers solutions that eliminate defects or variation rather than just controlling them.

There has been explicit work on integrating TRIZ with Six Sigma and FMEA. For instance, when an FMEA identifies a high-risk failure mode, the traditional approach is to mitigate it by design changes or adding controls. TRIZ gives a systematic way to think of design changes that truly overcome the failure mechanism. Suppose an FMEA on a pump says “seal leakage” is a big risk. Instead of just planning to inspect seals more often (a procedural control), a TRIZ approach might be: eliminate the seal entirely (Principle 2 “Taking Out”) by using a magnetic coupling that doesn’t penetrate the wall – now there’s no seal to leak. This is a real example in engineering – many pumps were improved by magnetic couplings to solve the leak contradiction (don’t want a hole in the casing but need to transmit torque inside). Six Sigma on its own wouldn’t necessarily propose “magnetically coupled pump”, but TRIZ would suggest eliminating the physical connection (a known inventive principle).

In fact, as cited earlier, Mann (a TRIZ expert) noted that TRIZ is being integrated with Six Sigma, FMEA, QFD, DFMA, etc., and applied successfully to diverse problem types. The rationale is clear: Six Sigma tells you what problem to solve (through data: e.g., this dimension causes most defects), and TRIZ tells you how to solve it creatively. QFD (Quality Function Deployment) maps customer needs to engineering characteristics; TRIZ can resolve conflicts between those characteristics. For example, QFD might show customers want high durability and low weight – which conflict – TRIZ then steps in to find a solution to have both (maybe using new materials or structural design, per its principles). DFMA (Design for Manufacture and Assembly) identifies design elements that are hard to manufacture; TRIZ can propose alternative design concepts that are easier to make without sacrificing function (contradiction: manufacturability vs. functionality).

A concrete synergy: Six Sigma DMEDI/DFSS (Design for Six Sigma) often includes a concept generation phase. Some DFSS processes explicitly incorporate TRIZ at that stage to ensure design concepts are innovative and not just based on existing solutions. Companies like Ford and GE have trained Six Sigma Black Belts in TRIZ so that improvement projects yield more inventive outcomes.

Similarly, in reliability engineering, TRIZ can be used to eliminate root causes of failures. If a product has a part that tends to break (say a plastic tab breaks under stress), FMEA flags it, then TRIZ might suggest a principle to redesign it (maybe “Flexible shell” – replace a rigid tab with a flexible strap so it doesn’t break, or “Another dimension” – redesign the joint geometry).

Another synergy is with Lean Startup methodology, which involves pivoting and changing product concepts quickly based on feedback. TRIZ can provide a wealth of alternative product ideas to test when a startup hits a technical roadblock or needs a pivot. Instead of random pivots, TRIZ-guided pivots might be more likely to succeed because they’re based on resolving contradictions in the initial concept that caused it to fail in the market.

Real-world integration case studies: An illustrative case is Samsung – they integrated TRIZ into their Six Sigma program (they called it “SSAT” – Six Sigma and TRIZ combined). Engineers were trained in both. This resulted in many inventive solutions during quality improvement projects, to the point that TRIZ became a required skill for advancement in Samsung R&D. As mentioned, Samsung saw a patent boom from this integration and huge cost savings. Another case: Intel reportedly used TRIZ in their problem-solving processes for manufacturing yield issues, complementing their statistics-based approaches with inventive thinking, leading to novel process improvements. On the FMEA front, a published study (by Altunaş & Yener) used TRIZ to improve healthcare service quality alongside SERVQUAL (a service quality framework) – effectively treating process shortcomings identified by SERVQUAL/FMEA and then eliminating them via TRIZ solutions (like streamlining patient flow by resolving scheduling contradictions). In automotive, Ford had a “TRIZ initiative” to tackle engineering design issues that traditional methods couldn’t crack, integrated with their Design for Six Sigma toolkit.

The bottom line is that TRIZ plays well with others: it’s not in competition with Design Thinking, Lean, Agile, or Six Sigma, but rather fills the solution-generation gap in each. Design Thinking and Lean identify and validate problems and constraints; TRIZ finds ways to meet those constraints in innovative ways; Agile/Six Sigma implement and validate those solutions efficiently. TRIZ provides the inventive spark and systematic creativity where other methods might rely on brainstorming or past experience. By combining them, organizations can achieve both effectiveness (solving the right problem and making sure it works in practice) and innovation (solving it in a breakthrough way).

Advanced Applications and Case Studies

Over the decades, TRIZ has been applied far beyond its origins in mechanical engineering. Here we explore how TRIZ is used in various advanced domains – including software, manufacturing, sustainability, and healthcare – and highlight some documented success stories.

TRIZ in Software Engineering

Applying TRIZ to software might not seem obvious at first – software issues aren’t physical, and terms like “weight” or “temperature” don’t directly apply. However, software and algorithmic problems do have contradictions (e.g., speed vs. memory, security vs. usability, feature richness vs. simplicity) that can be framed in TRIZ terms. Practitioners and researchers have adapted TRIZ’s 40 principles to software by analogy. For example, Segmenting a big monolithic function into independent modules can resolve a contradiction between development speed and maintainability (you can have multiple teams work in parallel, etc.). Dynamicity principle in software might mean making a system adaptable at runtime to resolve contradictory requirements (like sometimes you need high security, other times high performance – so the software shifts modes, akin to separation in time).

There have been efforts to create a TRIZ-driven software development methodology that integrates with Agile and Lean principles. For instance, one could use TRIZ during sprint planning when facing a tough feature implementation: identify the core contradiction (perhaps “need to compress data heavily (to save network costs) but also need low CPU usage on phone”), then use TRIZ principles like “Principle 3: Local Quality” – compress only parts of the data that matter (variable compression), or “Principle 8: Anti-weight” – offload compression to a server (so the phone does less). These are directly analogous to TRIZ ideas (segmenting and leveraging external resource). An integrated framework known as TDR (TRIZ Design for Reliability) has been discussed in academia where TRIZ is used with software requirement engineering to preemptively solve conflicts between requirements.

Case example: A software company needed to improve the response time of their web application (make it faster) without adding servers (cost constraint). This is a contradiction: speed vs. resource cost. Using TRIZ thinking, they applied Principle 10: Prior Action – do work ahead of time. They implemented caching of results before they were needed. Essentially, they resolved the contradiction by using idle time as a resource (if the server isn’t busy, prepare data in advance). This idea is common in software (lazy vs. eager processing trade-offs), but viewing it through TRIZ made it systematic to consider. Another principle, Principle 2: Taking Out, inspired them to move a heavy image processing step out of the web app into the client’s browser (offloading processing to the client side). This was a way to achieve speed without cost – utilize the user's machine (free resource) to do part of the job. The end solution combined caching and client-side processing, achieving the performance target with no new servers. The team might not have come to this dual idea without a structured way to consider the problem from different angles, which TRIZ provided.

In academia, one interesting direction is BioTRIZ, which maps TRIZ principles to biological systems (and by extension to computer science via bio-inspired algorithms). Some research compared TRIZ’s inventive principles to known patterns in biology to stimulate creative software architectures. For instance, the idea of redundancy (Principle 27: Cheap short-living objects or Principle 1: Segmentation) is very common in robust software systems (microservices replicating).

While software doesn’t use TRIZ as widely as hardware does, the ones who do report that it helps especially in the architectural design phase. It forces the team to articulate the contradictions (which sometimes appear as “non-functional requirements” conflicts like performance vs. security) and then systematically address them. TRIZ can also guide debugging tricky problems by treating an undesired effect as something to eliminate via an inventive solution (like eliminating a race condition by introducing a synchronization object – effectively adding a substance/field to stop a harmful interaction).

Manufacturing Process Optimization

Manufacturing is a domain where TRIZ has had significant uptake. Many manufacturing problems involve contradictions like throughput vs. precision, cost vs. quality, automation vs. flexibility, etc. TRIZ has been applied to improve processes such as machining, welding, assembly, and more.

Case study 1: Reducing defects in a production line. An upright piano manufacturing line was experiencing a high defect rate in a particular wooden part (the side board). Traditional analysis (Six Sigma) pointed to a trade-off: if they slow down the cutting machine, accuracy improves (fewer defects) but throughput drops; if they speed it up, throughput is good but defects soar. They defined the problem as “achieve high cutting precision at high speed.” Using TRIZ, they identified a technical contradiction between productivity and precision. The Contradiction Matrix suggested principles like “Preliminary action” and “Vibration”. The team came up with an idea to add a high-frequency vibration to the cutting blade (essentially Principle 18: Mechanical Vibration) so that it could cut smoother at higher speed – akin to how an electric knife cuts meat faster with less force. They also applied “Preliminary action” by pre-scoring the wood (a slight cut made before the main cut, so the blade follows the path easily). These changes, derived from TRIZ principles, allowed them to increase speed without losing accuracy. The result was a dramatic reduction in defects and no throughput loss. This case integrated Six Sigma (to measure improvement) with TRIZ (to generate the solution), validating the synergy approach.

Case study 2: Optimizing a welding process. A manufacturer welding thin aluminum found that increasing weld current gave stronger welds but often burned through the material (contradiction: strength vs. damage). TRIZ analysis: it’s a physical contradiction – the material at the weld joint needs to be hot (to fuse) and not hot (to avoid burn-through) at the same time. By separation in time, they devised a pulsed welding current: periods of high current for fusion, interspersed with low current to let the material cool (Principle 19: Periodic Action). This is essentially what modern welders (like TIG welding with pulse settings) do, but TRIZ led them to that concept without them initially knowing about pulsed welding. They implemented it via a simple controller and achieved stronger welds with no burn-through, satisfying both objectives. This improvement is a direct analog to a TRIZ Standard Solution for a harmful effect: “introduce pauses to allow recovery” – a timed separation solution.

Manufacturing equipment design also benefits from TRIZ. For instance, a bottling machine had an issue: the faster it ran, the more bottle caps mis-threaded (speed vs. accuracy). One TRIZ solution was to change the geometry of the capper to guide caps more precisely (Principle 17: Another Dimension – add an angled guide that moves in 3D, not previously present). Another was to sense misalignment and auto-correct (Principle 23: Feedback). Combining both, they got a high-speed capper with an active alignment system. This was patented by the company as a novel mechanism. Many patents in manufacturing machinery explicitly cite using TRIZ during conceptualization.

Manufacturing folks also use TRIZ for maintenance and yield problems. For example, a semiconductor fab noticed particle contamination, which seemed inherent if you have moving parts in a chamber (contradiction: you need movement to transport wafers, but movement generates particles). TRIZ suggested Principle 28: Mechanics substitution – replace mechanical movement with a field. They innovated a wafer transport mechanism that used magnetic levitation (no rails, hence no particle friction) – a big inventive step, but it solved the contradiction. This is an expensive solution, but in high-volume semiconductor fabs, yield is king, so it was worth it. It’s a great example of TRIZ’s ideality concept: the ideal transport has no contact (hence no wear particles) – magnetic levitation achieved a step toward that ideal.

In summary, TRIZ is now commonly taught in industrial engineering and manufacturing courses because of these successes. There are entire conferences (e.g., TRIZ Future) where manufacturing case studies are presented, showing consistent patterns of TRIZ reducing costs, increasing quality, or inventing new process technology.

TRIZ for Sustainability and Eco-Innovation

Sustainability is a domain that naturally resonates with TRIZ principles: you want to maximize useful output (service, product benefit) while minimizing harm (environmental impact, resource use) – essentially maximizing ideality. TRIZ has been applied to generate eco-friendly solutions and even to design new business models for sustainability.

Eco-innovation guidelines via TRIZ: Researchers have created TRIZ-inspired checklists for green design. For instance, one guideline is to use “existing resources” – a TRIZ concept – which in eco terms means use waste energy or materials as inputs to another process (closing loops). Another is “transition to a new field” – e.g., replace a polluting chemical process (substance field) with a cleaner physical field (like using ultrasound or UV instead of a chemical solvent). TRIZ’s Principle 35: Transformation of properties has obvious green applications: e.g., use materials that change state to reduce waste (biodegradable plastics – they physically transform after use, fulfilling the function then disappearing). Indeed, a case study: a packaging company applied TRIZ to develop a compostable packaging that still had the necessary barrier properties. The contradiction was durability vs. biodegradability. TRIZ patterns like “Non-uniform parts” (make part of the package durable and part easily degradable) led to a multi-layer film where only a thin outer layer provided barrier and an inner layer was a starch material that composts, facilitating breakup of the whole. The result balanced cost, performance, and eco-impact, and came directly from TRIZ thinking “how can we make something that remains strong when needed but disappears afterward (ideally)?”.

Another sustainability example: Energy efficiency. A team working on refrigeration wanted to reduce energy consumption. The conflict: lower energy use vs. maintain cooling performance. TRIZ approach: consider using free resources (Principle 25: Self-service / use waste) – they realized at night the outdoor air is cooler, so they could integrate a heat exchanger to pre-cool the refrigerant with cool night air (free cooling) and store that benefit for daytime. This was inspired by the idea of making maximum use of environmental resources. It led to a design where the fridge has a phase-change material that freezes at night (when condenser radiates to cool air) and then during day that “ice” helps with cooling load. Essentially, they found a creative way to cut energy use significantly by leveraging ambient conditions – a very TRIZ-like solution using the environment as a supersystem.

Waste reduction: TRIZ’s Principle 22 “Blessing in Disguise” (turn harm into benefit) is a mantra for circular economy. One case: a company had waste heat from a furnace, which was an environmental issue. Applying TRIZ, they sought to use that waste – they designed a greenhouse to sit on top of the factory, heated by the waste heat (growing plants). This turned a problem (waste heat CO₂ emissions) into a useful output (vegetable production). While not every scenario allows such a direct symbiosis, TRIZ encourages looking for those opportunities systematically.

In product design, TRIZ and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) have been combined. After an LCA pinpoints the biggest environmental impact of a product, TRIZ is used to redesign that aspect. For example, LCA shows a certain coating is toxic – contradiction: need coating function vs. environmental harm. TRIZ might propose fulfilling the function via a different means (Principle 33: Homogeneity – use a base material that inherently has that property instead of adding a toxic coating, or Principle 10: Prior Action – pre-treat the surface in a way that no coating is needed). Many eco-innovations essentially eliminate harmful substances by such inventive reformulations.

A notable trend is TRIZ being used in renewable energy sector design. For instance, wind turbine blade length vs. transportation constraints: solved by segmentation (blades assembled on site) – that’s TRIZ Principle 1 again. Solar panel efficiency vs. cost: TRIZ spurred ideas like combining functions (solar panels that also serve as building façade – Principle 6 Universality, thereby offsetting cost by dual use).

The laws of evolution can also guide sustainable innovation. One TRIZ law is increasing Su-Field involvement (using more fields, moving from mechanical to electromagnetic, etc.). We see this in sustainability: shifting from combustion (chemical field) to electric (electromagnetic field) for vehicles – EVs eliminate many harms of combustion. TRIZ would have predicted that trend of evolution. So TRIZ thinking supports many current sustainable tech shifts (like electrification, dematerialization, design for disassembly, etc.) and provides a framework to generate next-gen ideas, such as “what’s the ideal state of this system environmentally and how might we get closer to it?” – which echoes IFR in a sustainability context (zero waste, zero emissions as the IFR, then innovate backward from that).

TRIZ in Healthcare and Medical Innovation

Healthcare presents both technical and process-related problems that TRIZ can address. In medical device design, you often face contradictions like minimally invasive vs. functionality, safety vs. speed, etc. In healthcare services, you have contradictions like high quality of care vs. high throughput, or patient personalization vs. standardized procedures.

Medical Devices: There are documented cases of TRIZ used to invent medical tools. One earlier example referenced: a company needed a less invasive heart diagnostic catheter. A contradiction: small diameter (for less invasiveness) vs. having multiple sensors (which would normally require a larger catheter). They applied Principle 1: Segmentation – instead of one thick catheter with all sensors, they designed a modular catheter system of several ultra-thin catheters that can be introduced sequentially or combined in situ. Each module handled part of the diagnosis, and together they gave full info with less diameter per entry. Essentially, they broke the problem into parts (segmentation) to resolve the conflict. This got them a product that reduced patient trauma (smaller entry) without losing diagnostic capability.

Another device example: Insulin pumps have a contradiction between dosage precision and patient comfort (a very thin needle gives comfort but might not handle high flow well). TRIZ principle “Nested Doll” was applied – a needle within a needle: a very fine needle for the skin part, backed by a slightly larger tube deeper inside that doesn’t go into skin. This maintained comfort (fine at skin) but allowed higher flow (wider behind) – a clever resolution of a physical contradiction by space separation (different thickness in different sections).

Healthcare processes: Hospitals have used TRIZ to improve operations. One case: reducing emergency room wait times. The contradiction: thorough care vs. fast throughput. Using TRIZ, one solution was Principle 2: Take out – they took some parts of the process out of the ER entirely. For example, certain diagnostic tests that take time were moved to before hospital arrival (paramedics starting tests en route) or to after initial treatment (admit patient, then do less-urgent tests in ward). By separating urgent vs. non-urgent tasks (a kind of separation in time), they resolved the conflict, improving flow without compromising care quality. Another TRIZ idea was Principle 5: Merging – they combined roles (nurse practitioners who can do initial physician-like assessments) to eliminate the handoff delay between nurse triage and doctor exam. This is essentially universality principle applied to process: one person does multiple roles to streamline. A Turkish hospital applied TRIZ with SERVQUAL (service quality method) to such issues and reported improved patient satisfaction and reduced process bottlenecks.

Pharmaceutical research is also seeing TRIZ usage. Drug formulation often has contradictions (e.g., a pill needs to release fast for effect but slow for duration – how to have both? The solution might be a layered pill: fast-release outer layer + slow-release core, which is indeed a known pharma solution aligned with TRIZ separation in space). TRIZ formalizes that thinking, and now with AI, some are using TRIZ to systematically explore formulation design options.

Success story: A small medtech startup used TRIZ to design a new surgical retractor that needed to be very strong when deployed but very small on insertion. They thought of the “inflatable” principle (like Principle 29: Pneumatics/Hydraulics – using air or fluid). They created an inflatable retractor: it’s inserted deflated (small), then inflated inside to become rigid (like a balloon stent idea). This solved small vs. strong. They cited TRIZ for giving the insight to use an alternate state (soft vs. rigid via phase transition – Principle 36 in some lists, or Standard solution about phase transitions). This device got FDA approval and is used in minimally invasive surgery.

Healthcare is also fertile ground for psychological TRIZ – improving adherence, communication, etc., though those are less documented in literature (TRIZ is mostly technical). However, some have tried using TRIZ for public health strategy (e.g., increasing vaccination rates without infringing choice – a contradiction of freedom vs. coverage; one solution akin to Principle 22 “Blessing in disguise” was to offer beneficial side services when people come for vaccines, turning the action into a broader benefit event, thereby attracting people who wouldn’t otherwise come).

Summary of outcomes: In all these advanced applications, the common theme is TRIZ helps achieve breakthrough outcomes that traditional methods struggled with. The documented success stories – Samsung’s enormous patent output and savings, Mars’s patented packaging, case studies in automotive, aerospace (NASA solving technical challenges with TRIZ), etc. – show tangible results: new patents, reduced costs, performance improvements. TRIZ isn’t magic, but when systematically applied it tends to deliver solutions that surprise those who are used to trade-off thinking. Many innovations that seem obvious in hindsight follow a TRIZ pattern.

One can say that TRIZ “success stories” are all around us, sometimes without the inventors even knowing TRIZ – they intuitively resolved a contradiction. But using TRIZ deliberately increases the frequency and speed of such inventive success. As more engineers and managers become TRIZ-aware, we can expect to see even more advanced applications in fields like computational biology, nanotechnology, policy design, etc., where complex contradictions abound.

Cognitive and Psychological Perspectives on TRIZ

TRIZ isn’t just an engineering toolkit; it also intersects with our understanding of creativity and problem-solving from a cognitive perspective. Let’s discuss how TRIZ leverages cognitive principles, addresses psychological biases, and enhances creative thinking:

Cognitive Basis of TRIZ and Overcoming Biases

Traditional brainstorming and trial-and-error rely heavily on innate creativity and can fall victim to cognitive biases and mental ruts. One of Altshuller’s motivations was to overcome these through a rational method. Psychological inertia is a prime target: it’s our tendency to keep thinking in one plane (usually the plane of our experience or the immediate problem context). TRIZ combats this by forcing a change of context – either by abstracting the problem or by injecting knowledge from unrelated fields (via the principles and analogies). This is closely related to the concept of analogical reasoning in cognitive psychology, known to spur creative breakthroughs.

By using TRIZ, problem solvers effectively tap into a collective experience (the patterns from millions of patents) instead of just their personal experience. This mitigates biases like availability bias (the tendency to recall only solutions we’re familiar with). For example, an engineer might fixate on adding a cooling fan to every overheating problem (because that’s what they know). TRIZ might reveal other solutions – e.g., Principle 31 “Porous materials” – perhaps suggesting designing the structure with cooling channels. This expands the solution space beyond what the engineer might have availably thought of.

Another cognitive benefit: TRIZ’s systematic nature provides a pathway when people feel stuck (overcoming functional fixedness, where one can’t see new uses for an object). By listing the resources in a system (a TRIZ step) and considering them for new purposes, practitioners often have an aha! that, say, the heat being wasted could be turned into an input (maybe a thermoelectric generator to charge a battery – turning waste to useful, classic TRIZ). This reframing breaks fixedness by explicitly asking, “How else can this be used?”. Such prompting is aligned with techniques in creativity research that encourage thinking about opposite or alternative functions to jolt the mind out of routine patterns.

Bias reduction: TRIZ’s focus on contradictions can reduce confirmation bias as well. Instead of someone pushing their pet solution, the TRIZ process refocuses everyone on the underlying contradiction. It almost depersonalizes the idea generation: it’s not “my idea vs. yours” but “let’s see what principles have worked for this type of problem.” Teams have reported that TRIZ workshops are more objective and less dominated by loud voices because the method itself drives the discussion. In a way, TRIZ serves as a mediator that fosters collaboration: it provides a common language (e.g., “our problem is type A vs. B contradiction; principle X might apply”) which is less subjective than personal brainstorming ideas. This can reduce the hippo effect (highest paid person’s opinion) because even a junior engineer can say “the matrix suggests we consider Principle 35, let’s discuss how that might work” and that carries weight as it’s coming from an established framework.

TRIZ also counters the satisficing bias (stopping at a “good enough” solution) by encouraging one to seek the ideal solution. By explicitly asking for the Ideal Final Result, TRIZ kindles a bit of dissatisfaction with merely good-enough solutions, thus pushing the team to go further. It essentially raises the bar, which is cognitively motivating – it transforms the problem into a more challenging but also more engaging puzzle (“how could we possibly achieve this perfect outcome?”) which invites deeper creative engagement.

Enhancing Creative Thinking and Education

From a psychological perspective, TRIZ can be seen as a creativity technique that blends convergent and divergent thinking. It’s convergent in the sense that it channels thinking towards certain principles (reducing randomness), but divergent in that those principles often lead to considering far-out ideas that wouldn’t normally surface. This dual nature is beneficial. Some research has shown that giving engineers a structured method like TRIZ actually leads to more novel ideas than unguided brainstorming. This might seem counterintuitive, but structure can free cognitive load. Instead of trying to think “out of the box” in a void, TRIZ gives specific prompts (the 40 principles, the trends) which are like seeds for ideation. It’s akin to how having creative constraints often boosts creativity rather than stifling it.

Cognitive skill development: Learning TRIZ can enhance an individual’s creative skills over time. It teaches thinking in terms of functions and resources, which is a habit of successful problem solvers. Students trained in TRIZ reportedly approach problems differently – they instinctively look for contradictions and think in abstract terms, which often yields more innovative solutions even if they’re not explicitly using a TRIZ tool at that moment. Essentially, TRIZ can rewire one’s problem-solving heuristics to be more global and less myopic.

Altshuller even developed a version for children (called TRIZ for kids or “Creative Imagination Development”). The idea was to instill these patterns of thinking early on. Anecdotally, children exposed to TRIZ-based puzzles (like little problems where they have to help a fairy-tale character with a dilemma by using a principle) become better at problem-solving in general – they aren’t as stumped by seemingly impossible situations because they’ve been trained to look for unconventional angles. It’s similar to teaching chess or music – patterns and creative moves become second nature.

Addressing emotional factors: One interesting psychological aspect is how TRIZ can reduce the emotional stress of problem-solving. Often, when faced with a tough problem, teams feel frustration or even hopeless (“there’s no way to do both X and Y!”). TRIZ reframes that as “contradiction to be solved” – it normalizes the situation by telling you many inventions have faced similar conflicts and found a way. This positive reframing can reduce the mental block and emotional negativity, which in turn fosters a more creative mindset (people are more creative when not anxious or fixated negatively).

Additionally, TRIZ’s reliance on examples from other domains (via principles or case studies) leverages the cognitive phenomenon of remote association. Many breakthroughs come from analogies (like how Velcro was inspired by burrs sticking to fur – a classic inventive principle of mimicry). TRIZ systematically encourages such remote analogies (e.g., a mechanical engineer might get an idea from how a leaf opens if the principle “curvature” or “another dimension” is suggested). This cross-domain thinking is essentially expanding the search space of the mind, a key to higher creativity.

Potential criticisms – Does TRIZ limit creativity? Some worry that following a matrix or set of principles might make everyone converge on the same ideas (e.g., will using TRIZ make designs too similar or cookie-cutter?). The reality observed is that even with the same principles, implementation can be vastly different, and the human element ensures uniqueness. TRIZ doesn’t give you a finished solution; it nudges your thinking. Two teams solving the same contradiction might both consider, say, Principle 13 (do it in reverse), but one could interpret that as reversing material layers, another as reversing process order – quite different outcomes. So TRIZ guides but doesn’t dictate creativity, leaving plenty of room for individual insight.

In the psychological research community, TRIZ is sometimes cited as an example of a theory-based creative process (as opposed to pure brainstorming which is theory-free). Studies comparing it to other methods like SCAMPER (another structured creativity tool) find TRIZ to be more complex but also more exhaustive. It covers more possible strategies than most brainstorming checklists. For a proficient user, TRIZ can become a mental model: whenever they see a problem, they quickly think, “okay, what’s the trade-off here? Could I separate that in time or space? Is there something I can add or remove to fix this?” – these are cognitive strategies that can greatly speed up finding a solution versus randomly pondering.

TRIZ and Team Creativity Dynamics

On a group level, TRIZ can act as a shared mental model that aligns team members. Often, multidisciplinary teams struggle to communicate – a marketing person, a scientist, and an engineer might talk past each other. TRIZ’s functional language (think in terms of functions: “we need to deliver X function ideally without Y harm”) provides a neutral ground. Everyone can contribute ideas for a given principle once explained, even if they’re not technically deep, because principles are somewhat intuitive (e.g., anyone can brainstorm how to segment something, or how to do the reverse of an action). This inclusive participation can enhance the team’s overall creativity output because it taps diverse perspectives, not just the technical members. In effect, TRIZ can democratize the ideation phase, making it less about domain knowledge and more about general problem-solving, which diverse teams can excel at.

Creativity under constraints: TRIZ also shines in situations with heavy constraints – often people say constraints kill creativity, but TRIZ flips that: given those constraints (often manifesting as contradictions), what if we eliminate the need for the trade-off? It encourages a sort of rebellious thinking: “Don’t accept the constraint as given; challenge it by finding a way around it.” That attitude is very empowering cognitively – it’s the mindset of innovators who don’t take “can’t be done” for an answer. TRIZ essentially teaches that mindset systematically.

In conclusion, from a cognitive perspective, TRIZ can be seen as a toolkit that augments human creativity with structured knowledge. It reduces common mental blocks by providing abstraction, patterns, and analogical prompts. It addresses biases by making you systematically consider things you normally wouldn’t (every principle is like a nudge away from a bias). It can speed up the creative process and lead to more breakthrough ideas by expanding the solution search space in a directed way. TRIZ isn’t a replacement for raw creativity – human imagination is still required to implement principles in novel ways – but it’s a powerful catalyst for it, often leading individuals and teams to creative heights they might not have reached on their own.

Challenges and Critiques of TRIZ

No methodology is without its challenges, and despite TRIZ’s strengths, practitioners and organizations have encountered certain limitations and hurdles when trying to use it. It’s important to understand these and see how they can be mitigated:

Common Limitations and Practical Hurdles

Mitigation Strategies

Fortunately, many of these challenges can be mitigated:

In essence, the mitigation of TRIZ’s challenges boils down to education, adaptation, and integration. Educate users in a digestible way, adapt the method to fit the organization’s culture and the problem domain (even rebranding if needed, like calling a contradiction a “dilemma” if that’s friendlier), and integrate it into existing workflows so it’s naturally used. When done, the initial hurdles diminish significantly. Many organizations that persisted through early challenges have found that after a couple of years, TRIZ becomes second nature and the early complexity is hardly remembered – much like how Six Sigma or Agile seemed complex at first but then became standard procedure.

Future Directions of TRIZ

As of 2025 and beyond, TRIZ continues to evolve and intersect with emerging trends in technology and innovation practice. Several exciting directions are shaping the future of TRIZ:

Integration with AI and Machine Learning (Computational TRIZ)

Perhaps the most buzzworthy development is combining TRIZ with artificial intelligence. The idea is to let computers do some of the heavy lifting in the inventive process. For instance, researchers are developing systems where a large language model (LLM) (like GPT-based systems) is used to interpret a problem description, identify contradictions, and even suggest inventive principles or solution concepts. One such prototype is AutoTRIZ – an AI-driven tool that aims to automate TRIZ reasoning. Given a problem scenario, AutoTRIZ uses an LLM to generate potential contradiction formulations and then queries its knowledge (drawn from TRIZ databases and technical literature) to propose solution ideas, effectively mimicking a human TRIZ expert’s process. Early evaluations show it can produce ideas comparable to a human practitioner in some cases.

What does this mean for the future? If successful, AI integration could make TRIZ far more accessible. Imagine an engineer could just explain their problem to a smart assistant and instantly get “It sounds like you’re facing a trade-off between X and Y. Have you considered separating in time? For example….” The assistant might provide a few analogies from patents or nature. This could dramatically reduce the learning curve issue – one might not need to memorize principles; the AI can recall and present them as needed. It also could increase speed: exploring dozens of principles or thousands of past solutions can be done in seconds by a machine, ensuring no stone is unturned. In effect, AI can serve as a catalyst, making the TRIZ process faster and more exhaustive.

There are also projects focusing on patent mining with AI to update TRIZ knowledge. For example, using NLP to read recent patents and detect new inventive patterns or update the statistics for the contradiction matrix. One framework, PaTRIZ (Patent TRIZ), tries to automatically extract contradictions and solutions from patent text. As this matures, TRIZ could become more data-driven, constantly learning from new innovations and adjusting its advice. This keeps TRIZ relevant in rapidly changing fields.

Another synergy is AI-driven analogous search. Suppose you have a unique problem – AI could search vast databases (technical articles, bio databases, etc.) to find analogous problems or principles that were used elsewhere, which a human might never be aware of. This extends the reach of TRIZ beyond the curated principles to the entire world of knowledge, essentially fulfilling the TRIZ ethos that somewhere a solution exists.

One must note, AI won’t replace human creativity, but it can augment it. The future likely holds a collaboration where AI provides suggestions and humans evaluate and adapt them to context (since AI might not fully grasp all practical constraints or the nuances of a problem). The early results are promising enough that by the late 2020s we might see AI-TRIZ assistants as a standard tool in R&D departments. This also democratizes TRIZ – even those unfamiliar with it can benefit via AI guidance, spreading inventive thinking more widely.

TRIZ in an Era of Complex Systems and Emerging Tech

The kinds of problems we face are evolving – think of designing systems of systems (smart cities, IoT networks, autonomous vehicle ecosystems) or tackling global challenges (climate change mitigation technologies). TRIZ’s principles still apply, but future TRIZ practice will likely extend to higher abstraction levels. Work is being done to blend TRIZ with systems thinking and complexity theory so that it can handle multi-stakeholder, socio-technical problems. For instance, contradictions in a complex system might be between different stakeholders’ goals rather than purely technical parameters. Some researchers are mapping TRIZ into the space of organizational innovation and policy design, essentially trying to resolve contradictions in business models or regulations.

One example: the contradiction between economic growth and carbon emissions (a huge societal contradiction). TRIZ thinking has led to concepts of circular economy and renewable energy breakthroughs – essentially trying to decouple growth from emissions by inventive means (like shifting to solar, which provides energy with negligible emissions – solving the contradiction by a technical substitution). As future policy and strategy use such inventive resolution thinking, TRIZ could become part of the toolkit for innovators in government and NGOs as well.

We also anticipate TRIZ being used in designing AI systems themselves – e.g., resolving contradictions between AI model accuracy and explainability, or data privacy vs. personalization. TRIZ might not have direct principles for “explainability,” but its general approach of formulating the conflict and looking for separation or transformation solutions still applies. For instance, a separation principle might lead to modes in AI – one mode for high accuracy, one for high explainability, used as needed (time separation). The future might see specialized TRIZ-like principles emerging for information systems.

Broadening Industry Adoption and Education

The future of TRIZ also depends on how broadly it gets taught and adopted. There is a push to include TRIZ (or its concepts) in standard engineering and design curricula at universities. As more young engineers enter the workforce already knowing TRIZ basics, adoption will naturally increase. We may soon find TRIZ modules in courses on design thinking, or innovation strategy MBAs might include a segment on TRIZ alongside other methods.

Moreover, Fortune 500 usage of TRIZ is climbing. A statistic suggested over 50% of Fortune 500 companies use TRIZ in some capacity (perhaps via trained individuals or consultants, even if not enterprise-wide). In the future, this could be 100%, as competitive pressure may compel companies to leverage every innovation tool available. Those who systematically use TRIZ may out-innovate those who rely purely on traditional brainstorming, especially in patent-heavy industries. As success stories from giants (Samsung, Intel, P&G, etc.) propagate, others follow suit – a diffusion of innovation of the innovation method itself.

TRIZ and the Future Innovator’s Mindset

Finally, the future of TRIZ is not just in tools but in mindset. The ultimate vision is a culture of inventive problem-solving widespread in organizations. TRIZ contributes to this by providing common principles and language. In the future, we might see a shift where employees at all levels, not just R&D, think in TRIZ terms (“How can we turn this problem into an advantage?” – a very TRIZ-style question). TRIZ might evolve to incorporate aspects of psychology and team dynamics more formally, recognizing that innovation is as much a people process as a technical one. Already, we see cross-pollination: e.g., combining TRIZ with design thinking empathy or using gamification to teach TRIZ.

One interesting development could be TRIZ for personal use – some have written about using TRIZ principles for personal life problem-solving or career development (e.g., how to resolve a conflict between work and family obligations creatively). While that’s a soft application, it shows TRIZ’s way of thinking could permeate more of human problem-solving in general.

In summary, the future directions of TRIZ are geared towards making it more powerful, more accessible, and more integrated. With AI, it becomes a high-speed, knowledge-rich assistant. With adaptation, it tackles emerging complex problems. With education and culture change, it could become a default way of approaching challenges. Far from being static, TRIZ is itself evolving – a meta example of one of its own laws (the Law of Increasing Ideality): becoming more useful (solving more types of problems) with less effort (through AI and integration). If the current trajectory continues, TRIZ or its descendants will likely remain a cornerstone methodology for innovation, just augmented and scaled for the needs and tools of the 21st century and beyond.

Practical Tools and Frameworks for Implementing TRIZ

For organizations and practitioners ready to leverage TRIZ, having concrete tools, frameworks, and guidelines is essential to move from theory to action. This section provides actionable recommendations and resources to implement TRIZ effectively:

Guidelines for Organizations Adopting TRIZ

Personal and Team TRIZ Toolkit

In summary, equipping an organization with a practical TRIZ toolkit involves providing training, embedding steps into process, giving teams physical and digital aids (posters, templates, software), and creating an environment where applying TRIZ is second nature. With these supports, even those who are not experts can start to use TRIZ methods effectively, and over time the collective practice leads to stronger innovation outcomes.

By taking these tangible steps, an organization moves TRIZ from a theoretical possibility to a daily reality – enabling systematic, predictable inventive problem-solving as part of its innovation DNA.

Sources: The content in this guide is drawn from a combination of classic TRIZ literature and contemporary analyses. Genrich Altshuller’s foundational work and later interpretations provide the theoretical backbone of TRIZ. Industry case studies and research (such as those by Samsung, Mars, and various TRIZ researchers) illustrate practical applications and results. The integration with modern frameworks and future directions leverages insights from recent publications on systematic innovation and AI’s role in TRIZ. Overall, the synthesis here reflects the state-of-the-art understanding of TRIZ as of 2025, bridging historical principles with modern practice and emerging trends.

problem-solving