Method guideInnovation

Contradiction Analysis

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time60-120 min

Participants2-8

FormatWorkshop

MaturityEstablished

Plan Contradiction Analysis

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstClear boundary

Describe system, main function, operating zone, and observed useful and harmful effects with evidence.

Without a boundary, cases, periods, or variables become mixed.

Complete firstEvidence access

System function and boundary, useful/harmful effects, technical parameters, resource map, TRIZ principles, and experiment log

Missing sources remain visible as uncertainty.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

System function and boundary, useful/harmful effects, technical parameters, resource map, TRIZ principles, and experiment log

People / roles

Problem owner · system/domain experts · TRIZ facilitator · experiment owner

Pre-read

Describe system, main function, operating zone, and observed useful and harmful effects with evidence.

Time needed

90–180 minutes per clear contradiction; concept experiments extra.

Setup

Prepare a workspace with Function · Conflict · Opposites · Separate · Test; separate example from live data.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which parameter should improve, which one worsens as a result, and how can the underlying physical demand be separated without compromise?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

Contradiction analysis moves from an observed conflict to structural patterns and principles that can decouple both sides. It opens solution paths beyond immediate compromise.

Contradiction Analysis · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values show the actual method fields.

Contradiction Analysis · working structure
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

1. Statement
Technical conflict
More buffer improves emergency access but reduces regular utilisation; less reverses both.
Physical conflict
Capacity must be reserved during an emergency and available otherwise.
Ideal Final Result
Capacity reserves itself when needed and remains usable otherwise.
Concept
Hold 10% until 60 min before, then release automatically.
2. Evidence/assumption
Technical conflict
Four emergencies/month; 10% buffer often unused
Physical conflict
Same slot capacity, conditional use
Ideal Final Result
Automatic emergency signal is an assumption
Concept
Booking can represent status change
3. Resource
Technical conflict
Release rule and booking system
Physical conflict
Time to slot; emergency signal
Ideal Final Result
Existing slot status
Concept
Scheduler and SMS
4. Resolution logic
Technical conflict
Improving versus worsening parameter
Physical conflict
Separate by condition and time
Ideal Final Result
Function without permanent reserve
Concept
Conditional/time separation
5. Test
Technical conflict
Measure both effects in pilot
Physical conflict
Simulate release 60 min before
Ideal Final Result
Test false alarms and missed emergency
Concept
Four Saturdays; p80 ≤15 min

All values are fictional.

Reference · original teaching example

1
Function
Function model
Goal
Function model: Bound system, main function, operating zone, and concrete useful/harmful effects.
Inputs for this step
- Describe system, main function, operating zone, and observed useful and harmful effects with evidence.
- System function and boundary, useful/harmful effects, technical parameters, resource map, TRIZ principles, and experiment log
Actions
- Bound system, main function, operating zone, and concrete useful/harmful effects.
Output
Function model
Bound system, main function, operating zone, and concrete useful/harmful effects.
Quality check
Are effects observable and assigned to an element or parameter?
Pitfall
The problem remains too little capacity. Specify tool, object, effect, location, and operating state.
Timing: 15–25 minutes
2
Conflict
Technical conflict
Goal
Technical conflict: Phrase the technical contradiction as one parameter improving while another worsens, in both directions.
Inputs for this step
- Function model
Actions
- Phrase the technical contradiction as one parameter improving while another worsens, in both directions.
Output
Technical conflict
Phrase the technical contradiction as one parameter improving while another worsens, in both directions.
Quality check
Are improvement and deterioration measurable and causally coupled?
Pitfall
Two independent wishes are called a contradiction. Demonstrate the shared controlling feature and effect path.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
3
Opposites
Physical conflict
Goal
Physical conflict: Phrase the physical contradiction as opposite requirements on the same characteristic in the same operating zone.
Inputs for this step
- Technical conflict
Actions
- Phrase the physical contradiction as opposite requirements on the same characteristic in the same operating zone.
Output
Physical conflict
Phrase the physical contradiction as opposite requirements on the same characteristic in the same operating zone.
Quality check
Does one characteristic truly require two opposite states?
Pitfall
The conflict is prematurely solved with an average. Specify conditions for both states without choosing a compromise value.
Timing: 15–25 minutes
4
Separate
Solution concepts
Goal
Solution concepts: Use the Ideal Final Result and available resources; separate in time, space, condition, or system level.
Inputs for this step
- Physical conflict
Actions
- Use the Ideal Final Result and available resources; separate in time, space, condition, or system level.
Output
Solution concepts
Use the Ideal Final Result and available resources; separate in time, space, condition, or system level.
Quality check
Does each concept satisfy both requirements under their conditions?
Pitfall
Naming an inventive principle counts as a solution. Explain concept mechanism, resource, and how both demands are met.
Timing: 25–45 minutes
5
Test
Concept finding
Goal
Concept finding: Test the best concept's critical assumption with measure, stop rule, and rollback.
Inputs for this step
- Solution concepts
Actions
- Test the best concept's critical assumption with measure, stop rule, and rollback.
Output
Concept finding
Test the best concept's critical assumption with measure, stop rule, and rollback.
Quality check
Does the experiment measure both sides of the original contradiction?
Pitfall
Only the improved side is measured. Test useful and harmful effects plus side effects together.
Timing: 15–30 minutes

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Contradiction Analysis · TRIZ ContradictionFormulate improvement goal and worsening side effect precisely as a solvable contradiction

Form

TRIZ contradiction model with technical and physical contradiction, Ideal Final Result, resources, separation principle, concepts, and test.

Versioning / ownership

Record date, owner, source state, and review date; preserve prior versions.

Tool alternatives

Contradiction model
Resource and IFR canvas
TRIZ inventive/separation principles
Concept test log

contradiction-analysis-working-template.md

Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.

Contradiction Analysis: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

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.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: System function and boundary, useful/harmful effects, technical parameters, resource map, TRIZ principles, and experiment log
Roles: Problem owner · system/domain experts · TRIZ facilitator · experiment owner
Advance information: Describe system, main function, operating zone, and observed useful and harmful effects with evidence.
Overall time needed: 90–180 minutes per clear contradiction; concept experiments extra.
Setup: Prepare a workspace with Function · Conflict · Opposites · Separate · Test; separate example from live data.

Prepare for the work steps

Function: Function model

Describe system, main function, operating zone, and observed useful and harmful effects with evidence.
System function and boundary, useful/harmful effects, technical parameters, resource map, TRIZ principles, and experiment log

Conflict: Technical conflict

Function model

Opposites: Physical conflict

Technical conflict

Separate: Solution concepts

Physical conflict

Test: Concept finding

Solution concepts

Contradiction Analysis · working structure

Model part	Statement	Evidence/assumption	Resource	Resolution logic	Test
Technical conflict
Physical conflict
Ideal Final Result
Concept

Technical conflict: Add evidence and rationale.
Physical conflict: Add evidence and rationale.
Ideal Final Result: Add evidence and rationale.
Concept: Add evidence and rationale.

The blank worksheet contains prompts only.

Reference · original teaching example

Function: Function model

Expected artifact: Function model

Bound system, main function, operating zone, and concrete useful/harmful effects.

Entry:

...

Are effects observable and assigned to an element or parameter?

Conflict: Technical conflict

Expected artifact: Technical conflict

Phrase the technical contradiction as one parameter improving while another worsens, in both directions.

Entry:

...

Are improvement and deterioration measurable and causally coupled?

Opposites: Physical conflict

Expected artifact: Physical conflict

Phrase the physical contradiction as opposite requirements on the same characteristic in the same operating zone.

Entry:

...

Does one characteristic truly require two opposite states?

Separate: Solution concepts

Expected artifact: Solution concepts

Use the Ideal Final Result and available resources; separate in time, space, condition, or system level.

Entry:

...

Does each concept satisfy both requirements under their conditions?

Test: Concept finding

Expected artifact: Concept finding

Test the best concept's critical assumption with measure, stop rule, and rollback.

Entry:

...

Does the experiment measure both sides of the original contradiction?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/contradiction-analysis/run-sheet

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

contradiction-analysis-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: Contradiction Analysis · working structure

Model part	Statement	Evidence/assumption	Resource	Resolution logic	Test
Technical conflict	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 conflict	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 Result	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
Concept	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

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

Function modelThe problem remains too little capacity.View in phase
Technical conflictTwo independent wishes are called a contradiction.View in phase
Physical conflictThe conflict is prematurely solved with an average.View in phase
Solution conceptsNaming an inventive principle counts as a solution.View in phase
Concept findingOnly the improved side is measured.View in phase

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Stop Function: Are effects observable and assigned to an element or parameter?

Stop Conflict: Are improvement and deterioration measurable and causally coupled?

Stop Opposites: Does one characteristic truly require two opposite states?

Stop Separate: Does each concept satisfy both requirements under their conditions?

Stop Test: Does the experiment measure both sides of the original contradiction?

Where to go next?

Innovation

Morphological Analysis

Combines the found solution principles with further dimensions into new concepts.

Decision Making

Trade-off Analysis

Weighs the best concept against criteria before committing investment.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods

Contradiction Analysis · working structure

1. Statement

2. Evidence/assumption

3. Resource

4. Resolution logic

5. Test

Function model

Technical conflict

Physical conflict

Solution concepts

Concept finding

contradiction-analysis-working-template.md

Contradiction Analysis: Worksheet

Question

Desired outcome

Scope

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Prepare for the work steps

Function: Function model

Conflict: Technical conflict

Opposites: Physical conflict

Separate: Solution concepts

Test: Concept finding

Contradiction Analysis · working structure

Function: Function model

Conflict: Technical conflict

Opposites: Physical conflict

Separate: Solution concepts

Test: Concept finding

Open questions and next steps

contradiction-analysis-beispiel.md

Fictional teaching example: Contradiction Analysis · working structure

Function model

Technical conflict

Physical conflict

Solution concepts

Concept finding

Where to go next?

Finished the method guide?