Innovation Analysis method
Contradiction analysis makes goal conflicts explicit, abstracts them into solution principles, and condenses testable concepts.
Contradiction analysis moves from an observed conflict to structural patterns and principles that can decouple both sides. It opens solution paths beyond immediate compromise.
Which parameter should improve, which one worsens as a result, and how can the underlying physical demand be separated without compromise?
The steps form one complete method run.
Function
Bound system, main function, operating zone, and concrete useful/harmful effects.
Conflict
Phrase the technical contradiction as one parameter improving while another worsens, in both directions.
Opposites
Phrase the physical contradiction as opposite requirements on the same characteristic in the same operating zone.
Separate
Use the Ideal Final Result and available resources; separate in time, space, condition, or system level.
Test
Test the best concept's critical assumption with measure, stop rule, and rollback.
Add new evidence at review and version decisions with the prior state.
Wenn ein System besser werden soll und dabei eine andere Kenngröße leidet, macht die Methode den Zielkonflikt präzise formulierbar. Sie trennt die gewünschte Wirkung von ihrer Nebenwirkung. Dadurch werden Lösungen möglich, die den Widerspruch gezielt statt halbherzig behandeln.
TRIZ contradiction model with technical and physical contradiction, Ideal Final Result, resources, separation principle, concepts, and test.
Fictional example
Fictional values show the actual method fields.
| Model part | Statement | Evidence/assumption | Resource | Resolution logic | Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical conflictAdd evidence and rationale. | More buffer improves emergency access but reduces regular utilisation; less reverses both. | Four emergencies/month; 10% buffer often unused | Release rule and booking system | Improving versus worsening parameter | Measure both effects in pilot |
| Physical conflictAdd evidence and rationale. | Capacity must be reserved during an emergency and available otherwise. | Same slot capacity, conditional use | Time to slot; emergency signal | Separate by condition and time | Simulate release 60 min before |
| Ideal Final ResultAdd evidence and rationale. | Capacity reserves itself when needed and remains usable otherwise. | Automatic emergency signal is an assumption | Existing slot status | Function without permanent reserve | Test false alarms and missed emergency |
| ConceptAdd evidence and rationale. | Hold 10% until 60 min before, then release automatically. | Booking can represent status change | Scheduler and SMS | Conditional/time separation | Four Saturdays; p80 ≤15 min |
All values are fictional.
Describe system, main function, operating zone, and observed useful and harmful effects with evidence.
When a system should improve while another measure suffers as a result, the method makes the underlying conflict precisely formulable. It separates the desired effect from its side effect. This makes solutions possible that address the contradiction deliberately instead of half-heartedly.
The analysis zooms from the observed conflict to general structural patterns and then looks for principles that decouple both sides. Instead of building compromises right away, it checks whether the contradiction can be reframed technically, organizationally, or linguistically. That is exactly where the leverage for unusually strong solutions lies.
Contradiction Analysis helps when a problem feels like an unavoidable trade-off: more security but longer onboarding, or more speed but less quality. Instead of choosing a middle ground too early, the method precisely states which property should improve and which one might worsen. That tension is then abstracted and explored with principles, analogies, or TRIZ patterns. The work shifts from simple optimization to new solution directions that take both sides of the conflict seriously.
State the contradiction concretely and check whether both sides are truly necessary. Use examples, analogies, or TRIZ principles as thinking stimuli, not as a mechanical answer machine. Collect several solution ideas before judging feasibility.
The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
To be confirmed
To be confirmed
Complete run Time: 90–180 minutes per clear contradiction; concept experiments extra.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
| Model part | Statement | Evidence/assumption | Resource | Resolution logic | Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical conflict | |||||
| Physical conflict | |||||
| Ideal Final Result | |||||
| Concept |
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
Reference · original teaching example
Expected artifact: Function model
Bound system, main function, operating zone, and concrete useful/harmful effects.
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Technical conflict
Phrase the technical contradiction as one parameter improving while another worsens, in both directions.
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Physical conflict
Phrase the physical contradiction as opposite requirements on the same characteristic in the same operating zone.
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Solution concepts
Use the Ideal Final Result and available resources; separate in time, space, condition, or system level.
Entry:
...
Expected artifact: Concept finding
Test the best concept's critical assumption with measure, stop rule, and rollback.
Entry:
...
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/contradiction-analysis/run-sheet
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.
Instead of Contradiction Analysis, choose SCAMPER when you want to deliberately vary an existing idea using fixed change questions.
Instead of Contradiction Analysis, choose Reverse Brainstorming when you want to deliberately generate opposite or harmful ideas to expose risks.
Clarifies ideas, open questions, and testable next steps by framing the contradiction, identifying improving and worsening factors, and checking feasibility.
Alternating divergent and convergent phases keep problem framing and solution design visibly separated for product work.
Expands a core question into topic fields, filters out patterns, and condenses interesting paths into a shortlist.
Brings problem space, prototype, and test findings together in a few days, enabling a well-founded decision.
