Contradiction in Non Technical System
Editor | On 01, Jan 2010Message: 1627
Posted by: reza
Posted on: Monday, 11th May 2009
this is my first message to the froum and would like to say hello every body. And this is my question, how contradiction matrix would be used for a non technical system e.g. a management system.best reza jafarabady
Posted by: prakash
Posted on: Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Reza,There are flavors of classical contradiction matrix developed for non technical system. Check out the “Systematic Innovation for Business & Management” by Darrell Mann for applying contradiction matrix for business and management problems.Apparently, you can also find articles from TRIZ Journal. ~/Prakash
Posted by: UNI
Posted on: Tuesday, 19th May 2009
I cannot find this article on triz jounal. would you please tell me at
which month ? which year ? on triz jounal. thank you!!
Posted by: Kelly
Posted on: Tuesday, 26th May 2009
Try here – it's a list of a whole lot of variations on the basic 40 inventive principles. Maybe it will help you.
Posted by: UNI
Posted on: Friday, 12th June 2009
Thank you for your kindly help last time. Today when I try to reach the link again. It does not work. Would you please give me the link again. Thank so much !!
Posted by: Pravin
Posted on: Tuesday, 1st September 2009
There are many example articles published in TRIZ-Journal itself.Personally I have used TRIZ in non technical systems too.Regards,Pravin
Posted by: Uni Fung
Posted on: Wednesday, 2nd September 2009
Hello, thank you very much!! have you post any article on this Web? and would you please tell me which year and month? thanks
Posted by: Shree Phadnis
Posted on: Wednesday, 9th September 2009
Here is a link of an article of mine, notice no Contradiction Matrix, 40 principles yet solution from TRIZ by child for a social problem
Posted by: Michael Lyubomirskiy
Posted on: Friday, 18th September 2009
don't even bother. The matrix is just one of the many TRIZ tools – and it is completely unapplicable to non-technical systems. It's often not very applicable even to technical systems, but unfortunately it happens to be the single best-known TRIZ tool amongst the lower end trainers. So if all they know is the “matrix” then everything looks like a nail 🙂There is more to TRIZ than the matrix. You need to learn where to use which tool to get things done.
Posted by: Ellen Domb
Posted on: Wednesday, 23rd September 2009
I agree completely–for many business situations, the foundation tools of Ideal Final Result, use of Resources, and resolution of physical contradictions will get you to a solution. Other tools for improving the understanding of the problem that are frequently useful are the 9 Windows (system operator) and the DTC Operator (Dimension-Time-Cost questions.) Yes, the 40 principles can be re-interpreted for business situations, but it isn't necessary if you use tools that don't need reinterpretation.
How can you persuade your colleagues to try TRIZ? Find a problem that they care about (not one from a textbook!) and show them how TRIZ will help them change their thinking about the problem first, and their new understanding of the problem will help them develop creative solutions. Most of the time it is NOT best to do the solution in advance–they will just think of reasons to reject it. You need to be personally good at applying TRIZ, so you can do it “live” with your audience. If they develop the ideas themselves, with some guidance from you, they will be much more willing to accept both the ideas and the method.
of course there are other TRIZ tools, but because non-technical contradictions appear so frequently, we built a special Matrix for such problems. It has a completely different set of improving and worsening parameters than the Classical TRIZ Matrix from 1971, and now has around 25,000 case study data-points in it.
To stay with the hammer/nail analogy, trying to use the 1971 Classical Matrix on a business problem (or even a 21st Century technical problem) is like hitting the nail with the handle of the hammer. At least the new Matrices allow you to hit the nail with the working part of the tool.
Posted by: Gregory Frenklach
Posted on: Saturday, 10th October 2009
As far as I know Altshuller himself had come to conclusion that the idea itself the contradiction matrix is based on is obsolete (brilliant, but obsolete). In my opinion usage of the contradiction matrix is useful because trying to match between general and specific parameters enable us to understand a problem better. Thus the worst match will give the best results 🙂 One can think that maybe it is obsolete for for technology, but for other field of human life it is modern yet. In my opinion building of such a matrix is waste of time. The result does not match demanded efforts. I mean “tool” (matrix) itself. But building of such a matrix increasing drastically problem solving abilities of the matrix builder 🙂 , because it demands to collect a lot of strong solutions, to classify them, to define principles, to determine general parameters and to match between them in order to fill in the matrix. One makes an excellent expert after such a work. The problem is that the matrix itself contains only small part of this expertise 🙁
Posted by: Jack Hipple
Posted on: Thursday, 15th October 2009
SInce we so often agree, I just need to post a slight disagreement, Darrell. The “new” contradiction table you are referring to has some limitations as I have discovered. The “language” used in the parameters is somewhat unique and not universally used or understood. Seems to have come from one particular graduate school.Second, I have found that in most business/soft cases, the simple TRIZ separation principles are most useful and productive.
Posted by: Nikolai Khomenko
Posted on: Saturday, 9th January 2010
Any Matrix is several steps backward form What was done in Classical TRIZ. It is out of the Classical TRIZ philosophy. Matrix appear before TRIZ was formed as a Theory on creating tools for solving non typical problems. since then set of tools were created but matrix were put out form general line of TRIZ evolution.
Ellen are absolutely right. we should not invent new matrix if existing tools can manage the problem without matrix. Existing tools that Ellen mentioned are much powerful and universal. above all combination of them allowed to select right problem. This feature are absent in Matrix.
The best way organize tools that were mentioned by Ellen is Classical ARIZ. It was written by the blood and life of inventors same as save instructions for pilots. ARIZ concentrate all of that experience and it is worth to study it carefully. As soon as one became fluent with ARIZ-85-C the one can use it for wide range of problems. Because of it appear as a domain free tool. By the way this fact forced Altshuller in the middle of 1970-s start to thing about something more general than Classical TRIZ. He named it firstly as TSM and later as OTSM which is general theory of powerful thinking. General line of TRIZ evolution was following Occam's Razor principle – we can paraphrase it like: do not create new tools if existing can be used or modified in order to solve wider range of problems from various domain.
That is why Altshuller remove matrix out of TRIZ based tool box in 1986 and was telling that it was the biggest mistake and dead end in TRIZ evolution.
Conclusion: it is worth to study TRIZ not only as a toolbox of usefull instruments but study TRIZ as a Theory on creating and improving instruments for solving non typical problems or just seems as a non typical.
Posted by: Nikolai Khomenko
Posted on: Saturday, 9th January 2010
Jack, absolutely agree with you about your Second.
Even more, in mi opinion Separation-Integration is the most general way to solve many, may be even all, problems in many domains. The point is to discover details and make this general direction able to give particular solution for particular problem. It means to discover what and how should be segmented and then integrated. That is why ARIZ appear…. and replace matrix.
Not only for this reason but for this reason as well.