TRIZ
Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadach (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving)
What is TRIZ?
- 40 principles of invention extracted from patents
- Finds solutions that eliminate the contradiction itself instead of compromising
- Define the contradiction → State the ideal result → Apply the principles
In an organization that adopts TRIZ properly, the first thing to change is the opening sentence of the meeting. A session that used to start with "Does anyone have a good idea?" now starts with "What is colliding with what right now?" Moving the problem from a question of individual creativity to a question of structure is the practical effect of this methodology. Instead of increasing the number of ideas, it instills a discipline of not putting forward solutions until the contradiction to be solved has been narrowed to a single sentence.
Contradictions come in two types. A technical contradiction is a conflict between two different variables, where improving A worsens B. A physical contradiction arises when a single object is required to be in opposite states, such as “hot and cold at the same time.” The former is approached with the 39×39 contradiction matrix and the 40 principles, the latter with separation principles based on time, space, or condition. The boundary with Six Sigma is also clear. DMAIC, which narrows down causes with data, is for when you don’t know the cause; TRIZ is for when you already know the cause but fixing it breaks something else. Deeper tools such as the 76 Standard Solutions and ARIZ sit above the 40 principles, but the realistic reach of a 2–3 day practical workshop is defining the contradiction and applying the principles.
Defining the contradiction is where it most often breaks down in practice. “We want to reduce defects” is a wish, not a contradiction, and if you start there, no amount of browsing the 40 principles will produce anything beyond what brainstorming would. It is also common to settle on an answer first and then work backward to force-fit a principle to it. The report says “TRIZ applied,” but the design is unchanged, and after two or three such workshops, all the organization is left with is “we tried TRIZ and it didn’t work.” One more thing: TRIZ was built for technical and physical systems. Forced onto HR policy or interdepartmental conflict, it tends to end in a plausible metaphor but no actionable plan.
John KimInstructor John Kim, author of "B2B Marketing Design" and CEO of Nanum Consulting
Sungmin JooExpert in assessment-based coaching leadership, entrepreneurship education, and design thinkingGenrich Altshuller, a patent examiner in the Soviet Navy, began analyzing tens of thousands of patents in 1946, discovered that inventions share common patterns, and systematized them. He is said to have continued his research even in the labor camp where he was imprisoned under Stalin. After the Soviet collapse, TRIZ spread to Western, Korean, and Japanese companies.
Consider a hypothetical case: Company A, a tier-2 automotive supplier (420 employees, KRW 120 billion (≈ US$89,780,000) in annual revenue) that makes housings for EV battery modules. Nine months before mass production of the next model, its automaker client demanded a 15% weight reduction in the housing. But every time the wall was made thinner, the part failed the vibration durability test, and this had gone on for six months.
- The design team lead submitted a prototype with the wall thinned by 1.2mm, but the weld cracked after just 8 hours of vibration durability testing. The R&D meeting sent it back a third time with a compromise: “Then let’s try cutting just 1.0mm.”
- On the first day of a workshop with an outside facilitator, the team set aside the thickness debate ("Let’s park the thickness discussion for now"), picked 'weight of a moving object' as the improving parameter and 'strength' as the worsening one, and pinned down a single contradiction pair on the whiteboard.
- After the head of R&D declared the ideal final result as "the housing withstands vibration on its own without adding weight," the question in the meeting shifted from 'how many mm can we cut?' to 'where is the load actually being carried?'
- Applying the principles the contradiction matrix pointed to — #1 Segmentation, #40 Composite Materials, and #17 Another Dimension — the team came up with a variable-thickness design that adds ribs only in the 4 load-bearing zones and keeps the remaining surfaces thin in just 3 weeks.
- The production engineering team lead reran the vibration test on 6 prototypes and confirmed 120 hours without cracking. Weight dropped 17.4%, beating the client’s requirement. The KRW 80 million (≈ US$59,900) mold modification cost was recovered through first-year material savings.