What needs to be finished first
The problem can be formulated as a conflict between two mutually blocking requirements (technical or physical contradiction).
What needs to be ready before start
TRIZ contradiction matrix (39x39); list of the 40 inventive principles with examples; whiteboard or Miro board with three areas (contradiction, principles, solution ideas); pens; timer.
One facilitator with TRIZ experience who formulates the contradiction cleanly and interprets principles; two to eight participants from domain and technology; one scribe for solution concepts.
Problem statement as one sentence; known previous solution attempts and why they hit a tradeoff; constraints; availability of contradiction matrix as table or online tool.
1-4 h
Mark three areas on the board. Provide contradiction matrix. Rule: first clean contradiction, then principles, then concepts. Keep examples for principles visible.
The one question this method answers
Which inventive principles resolve the identified contradiction, and which concrete concepts emerge when these principles are applied to the problem?
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Phase 1: Formulate problem and contradiction | 20-30 min | Fix problem in one sentence. Name improving and worsening parameters (for example "If we improve response time, accuracy worsens"). Map both parameters clearly to the 39 standard parameters. | If no worsening parameter is found, it is not a contradiction but pure optimization. TRIZ is unsuitable; choose another method. |
2Phase 2: Derive principles from matrix | 15-20 min | Look up the intersection of the two parameters in the contradiction matrix. Note recommended principles (typically 3-4). Read definition and generic example per principle. | The matrix provides a trigger, not the answer. If recommended principles sound foreign, translate them into your domain knowledge before rejecting them. |
3Phase 3: Develop solution ideas | 30-60 min | Per principle, solo sketching for 5 min: ideas for applying the principle to the concrete problem. Then gallery, short presentation, cluster parallel ideas. | Principles such as "segmentation" or "prior action" sound abstract. An analogous example from another industry helps create the aha moment. |
4Phase 4: Feasibility and selection | 20-30 min | Evaluate top-3 concepts with three criteria: technical feasibility, cost, impact. Decider selects one direction with rationale. Note open assumptions as spikes. | Concepts that feel "too wild" in this phase are often real innovations. Before discarding, evaluate again with a longer horizon. |
What comes out at the end
Markdown document with contradiction sentence, identified standard parameters, recommended principles from matrix, developed solution concepts per principle, evaluation, and chosen direction with rationale and owner.
Own entry per problem field with date and decider. For later TRIZ sessions on the same problem, create v2 and explicitly reference previous principles.
Compact working template for TRIZ with contradictions, inventive principles, and solution concepts.
Use contradiction-driven thinking to generate solution concepts for complex problems.
What problem or trade-off should the group analyze?
Owner, date, and success signal.
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Contradiction: If we increase account security (more factors, captchas), login conversion worsens.
Standard parameters: Improving 35 "adaptability", worsening 33 "ease of operation".
Recommended principles (from matrix): 15 dynamization, 16 partial or excessive action, 35 parameter change, 30 flexible shells.
Concepts:
Selection: Risk-based MFA (concept 1) plus step-up for sensitive actions (concept 2). Decider: @lisa. Spike for risk-score data model by 2026-05-30, owner: @ben.
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Problem is pure optimization, no tradeoff, or worsening parameter is missing.
Pause method. If no contradiction exists, TRIZ is unsuitable. Choose an alternative such as Morphological Analysis or SCAMPER.
Assigned standard parameters do not fit the actual conflict; recommended principles seem absurd.
Before phase 2, check two parameter assignments against definitions of the 39 parameters. If unsure, run both possible pairs and compare principles.
Group tries to implement principle "segmentation" literally instead of using it as thought trigger.
Put one example from a different industry on the wall per principle. Principles are analogical inspiration, not solution templates.
Concept selected, but nobody checks whether it is implementable in current context.
Enforce phase 4 with three criteria (feasibility, cost, impact). Concepts with a very low criterion score become spikes, not plans.
Facilitator looks up matrix for the first time, principles are discarded because they are unfamiliar.
Bring a TRIZ coach or at least someone with practice. Alternatively use method after a demo session with a simpler problem.
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.