Triz Patterns

---
name: triz-patterns
description: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (Altshuller, 1946) — resolve technical contradictions via the 40 inventive principles + contradiction matrix, identify Ideal Final Result, evolve toward Ideality, escape local optima that brainstorming cannot reach. Derived from analysis of 200,000+ patents.
---

# TRIZ Patterns

> Apply the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving — a body of
> patterns derived from analyzing 200,000+ patents — to resolve
> technical contradictions, identify ideal final results, and
> escape the local optima that "brainstorm harder" cannot reach.
>
> **Size budget: 28 KB** — `token-budget.mjs --check`.

## Purpose

TRIZ (Russian acronym: *Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh
Zadach*, "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving") is a structured
methodology for solving inventive problems — those that
contain CONTRADICTIONS that cannot be resolved by compromise.
Developed by Genrich Altshuller starting in 1946 through
analysis of patent literature, TRIZ identifies recurring
patterns of inventive solutions and packages them as tools
that practitioners can apply to new problems.

The defining insight: inventive solutions to apparently unique
problems are not actually unique. Across patents, industries,
and eras, the same ~40 inventive principles recur, the same
~76 standard solutions recur, the same ~39 engineering
parameters get traded against each other, and patterns of
evolution drive technical systems through predictable stages.

This skill provides principal-level literacy in TRIZ: when to
reach for it, how to formulate problems contradiction-by-
contradiction, how to use the contradiction matrix + 40
principles, how to derive ideal final results (IFR), how to
read S-curves of technical evolution, and how to integrate
TRIZ with broader design thinking + Lean Startup workflows.

This skill does NOT replace deep TRIZ training (TRIZ Master
certifications run 200-400 hours) — it provides the working
vocabulary + tool set sufficient to engage TRIZ effectively
when problems are stuck.

## Standards Cited

- **Genrich Altshuller, *Creativity as an Exact Science***
  (1979) — the foundational text.
- **Genrich Altshuller, *And Suddenly the Inventor
  Appeared*** (1984, English 1996) — accessible
  introduction.
- **Genrich Altshuller, *The Innovation Algorithm*** (1973,
  English 1999) — ARIZ (the algorithmic version of TRIZ).
- **Darrell Mann, *Hands-On Systematic Innovation***
  (2002) — modern practitioner's reference.
- **Karen Gadd, *TRIZ for Engineers*** (2011) — Oxford
  Creativity standard text.
- **John Terninko, Alla Zusman, Boris Zlotin, *Systematic
  Innovation: An Introduction to TRIZ*** (1998) —
  pragmatic Western introduction.
- **Yury Salamatov, *TRIZ: The Right Solution at the Right
  Time*** (1999) — Russian-perspective practitioner text.
- **MATRIZ International** — the international TRIZ
  Association governing TRIZ Master certification (Level 1-5).
- **European TRIZ Association (ETRIA)** — annual TRIZ
  Future conference proceedings.
- **The Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies** — US-based
  professional body.
- **Mann's Updated Contradiction Matrix (2003 / 2010)** — a
  re-derivation of the classical matrix using 1985-2003
  patents.

- **ISO 9001:2015 + 2026 revision** — Quality management systems
  (process approach, risk-based thinking, leadership)
- **ISO 9004:2018** — Quality management — quality of an
  organization (sustained success)
- **ISO 31000:2018** — Risk management guidelines
- **ISO 14001:2015** — Environmental management
- **ISO 45001:2018** — Occupational health and safety
- **ASQ Body of Knowledge — Six Sigma Black Belt** — DMAIC, DMADV,
  SIPOC, Cp/Cpk, DOE, control charts
- **APICS CPIM / CSCP Body of Knowledge** — Supply chain operations
  reference, S&OP, demand planning, SCOR model
- **PMBOK Guide 7th Edition + PMI Standard for Project
  Management** — Project + portfolio + program management
- **Lean Enterprise Institute — Toyota Production System** — JIT,
  jidoka, kanban, kaizen, value-stream mapping, takt time
- **Eurocode 0/1/2/3 + AISC 360 + ACI 318** — Structural
  engineering basis (when civil / structural scope)
- **ASHRAE Handbook + ISO 19650 (BIM)** — Building services + MEP
  - digital coordination (when AEC scope)
- **TRIZ — Altshuller's 40 Inventive Principles + Contradiction
  Matrix** — Systematic innovation methodology
- **Stanford d.school + IDEO Field Guide** — Design thinking
  process (Empathise / Define / Ideate / Prototype / Test)
- **The Lean Startup (Ries 2011) + Customer Development (Blank)** —
  Build-measure-learn loop, MVP taxonomy, pivot types
- **Team Topologies (Skelton + Pais 2019)** — Stream-aligned /
  platform / enabling / complicated-subsystem teams + interaction
  modes
- **OKRs — Measure What Matters (Doerr 2018)** + **Andy Grove's
  HPM** — Objectives + Key Results, CFR, stretch goals
- **The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (Lencioni)** + **High Output
  Management (Grove)** — People + culture frameworks
- **Getting to Yes (Fisher + Ury) + Never Split the Difference
  (Voss)** — Negotiation: BATNA / ZOPA / tactical empathy

### Cross-cutting engineering standards

- **ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017** — Software life cycle processes
  (process-engineering applies to software-delivery workflows)
- **ISO/IEC 25010:2011 §6** — Quality model (process maturity
  feeds product quality characteristics)
- **ISO/IEC 33001:2015** — Process assessment concepts +
  vocabulary (foundation for SPICE / Automotive SPICE)
- **ISO/IEC 33020:2019** — Process measurement framework for
  process capability assessment
- **NIST SP 800-160 Vol 1 Rev 1 + Vol 2 Rev 1** — Engineering
  trustworthy secure systems + cyber resiliency
- **NIST SP 800-218 SSDF §PO** — Prepare the organization
  (process governance + role definitions)
- **NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 §PM** — Program management controls
  (apply to any organisational process)
- **OWASP SAMM v2** — Software Assurance Maturity Model
  (process-maturity assessment framework)
- **CWE-1059** — Insufficient technical documentation (process
  workflows MUST be documented)

## When to Fire

This skill engages when work involves:

- A problem stated as a trade-off where compromise is
  unsatisfying ("we need both X AND not-X")
- Stuck design problems where conventional ideation has
  exhausted obvious options
- Patent landscaping + invention-around work
- Predicting the next generation of a technical system
- Identifying ideal final result (IFR) before solving
- Resource analysis — finding hidden assets in the system
- Function modelling — mapping useful + harmful + insufficient
  - excessive functions
- Failure prediction (anticipatory failure determination, AFD)
- Engineering optimization problems with parameter conflicts
- New product development at the early concept stage
- Patent strategy work — both filing + freedom-to-operate
- Integration with design thinking — TRIZ contributes
  structured ideation tools
- Manufacturing process improvement when Six Sigma /
  lean optimization has hit limits
- Cross-industry technology scouting — finding analogues
  in distant industries

It does NOT engage:

- For problems where the answer is well-known and standard
- For pure UX / desirability problems (use design thinking)
- For business-model innovation alone (use Lean Startup /
  Business Model Canvas)
- For problems where the contradiction is political or
  emotional rather than technical

TRIZ is most powerful for technical contradictions; business
TRIZ (Mann's extension) handles management contradictions
but with less proven matrices.

## Core Patterns

### The TRIZ worldview

Three foundational concepts:

1. **Ideality** — the trajectory of any technical system is
   toward higher ideality. Ideality = (useful functions) /
   (harmful + costly + complex functions). The ideal final
   result is when the function happens by itself, without
   the system — i.e., when ideality is infinite.

2. **Contradictions** — inventive problems contain
   contradictions:
   - **Technical contradiction** — improving parameter X
     degrades parameter Y (the "trade-off")
   - **Physical contradiction** — the same parameter needs
     to have opposite values (the "paradox": the element
     must be cold AND hot)

3. **Resources** — solutions exist within the system + its
   environment. Pre-existing substances, fields, time
   windows, voids, and information are free resources that
   inventive solutions exploit.

### The 40 Inventive Principles

Altshuller analyzed patents to extract 40 recurring principles.
A subset (the canonical examples):

| # | Principle | Brief description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Segmentation | Divide an object into independent parts |
| 2 | Taking out (extraction) | Separate out the useful part |
| 3 | Local quality | Different parts have different functions |
| 4 | Asymmetry | Replace symmetric with asymmetric |
| 5 | Merging (consolidation) | Bring like operations together |
| 6 | Universality | Multifunctional object |
| 7 | Nested doll (matryoshka) | Place one inside another |
| 8 | Anti-weight | Counter mass with lift |
| 9 | Preliminary anti-action | Pre-stress / pre-counter |
| 10 | Preliminary action | Pre-arrange in advance |
| 11 | Beforehand cushioning | Prepare reliability backup |
| 12 | Equipotentiality | Eliminate need to raise/lower |
| 13 | The other way round | Inversion |
| 14 | Spheroidality (curvature) | Curve instead of straight |
| 15 | Dynamics | Make object adaptive / changeable |
| 16 | Partial or excessive actions | A bit less or a bit more |
| 17 | Another dimension | Move to higher dimension |
| 18 | Mechanical vibration | Use oscillation |
| 19 | Periodic action | Pulsing |
| 20 | Continuity of useful action | Eliminate idle time |
| 21 | Skipping (rushing through) | Conduct quickly |
| 22 | Blessing in disguise | Turn harm into benefit |
| 23 | Feedback | Use control loops |
| 24 | Intermediary | Use an intermediate carrier |
| 25 | Self-service | Object services itself |
| 26 | Copying | Use simple cheap copy |
| 27 | Cheap short-living objects | Replace expensive durable with cheap disposable |
| 28 | Mechanics substitution | Replace mechanical with field |
| 29 | Pneumatics / hydraulics | Use gas or liquid in place of solid |
| 30 | Flexible shells / thin films | Use flexible structures |
| 31 | Porous materials | Use porous structures |
| 32 | Color changes | Change optical properties |
| 33 | Homogeneity | Same material throughout |
| 34 | Discarding + recovering | Use disposable elements |
| 35 | Parameter changes | Change state of matter / density / temperature |
| 36 | Phase transitions | Use phase change |
| 37 | Thermal expansion | Use thermal expansion |
| 38 | Strong oxidants | Use enriched / pure oxygen |
| 39 | Inert atmosphere | Replace normal atmosphere |
| 40 | Composite materials | Composites |

Each principle has dozens of sub-patterns + thousands of
exemplar patents. Practitioners learn the principles deeply
through case studies.

### The contradiction matrix

The classical matrix (1971) is a 39×39 grid where rows
represent the parameter you want to IMPROVE and columns
represent the parameter that gets DEGRADED. Each cell
contains the 3-5 inventive principles most likely to resolve
that contradiction, ranked by historical frequency.

The 39 engineering parameters include weight, length, area,
volume, speed, force, stress, temperature, brightness,
energy, time, accuracy, reliability, adaptability, complexity,
manufacturability, productivity, etc.

Workflow:

1. Phrase the contradiction: "I want to improve X but Y
   gets worse"
2. Translate X + Y to the closest of the 39 standard
   parameters
3. Look up the cell — find 3-5 inventive principles
4. Apply each principle to your specific problem, generate
   concept solutions
5. Iterate

Example: "I want to increase strength (parameter 14) but
weight (parameter 1) goes up." Matrix cell (14, 1) suggests
Principles 28 (mechanics substitution), 27 (cheap short-
living), 40 (composite materials), 35 (parameter changes).
Composite materials → carbon fiber, aluminium honeycomb,
sandwich panels.

### The 76 Standard Solutions

For problems involving substance-field models (Su-Field
modelling — Vepol analysis), Altshuller developed 76
"standard solutions" organized in 5 classes. They cover
patterns like: complete an incomplete Su-Field, change a
harmful Su-Field into useful, add a second field, segment
into smaller Su-Fields. Standard solutions complement the 40
principles for problems where the field interactions are the
contradiction.

### Physical contradictions + separation principles

When the same parameter needs opposite values
simultaneously, four separation strategies:

1. **Separation in space** — value A in one location, value
   B in another
2. **Separation in time** — value A now, value B later
3. **Separation upon condition** — value A under one
   condition, value B under another
4. **Separation between parts and whole** — system has one
   value, components have another

Example: a bicycle chain needs to be RIGID (when transmitting
torque) AND FLEXIBLE (to follow sprockets). Resolution:
separation between parts (each link is rigid) and whole
(chain is flexible).

### Ideal Final Result (IFR)

Before solving, articulate the IFR — the imagined ideal
state where the function happens "by itself":

- The required action is performed
- Without complications
- Without harm
- Using only resources already present

Working backward from IFR exposes assumptions + suggests
where to look for resources. The IFR is often
unachievable — but the gap between current state and IFR
points to the best leverage.

### S-Curve evolution

Technical systems evolve through predictable stages:

```text
Performance
   |                      _____  (Maturity)
   |                  ___/
   |              ___/
   |          ___/ (Growth)
   |       __/
   |    __/
   | __/ (Birth — slow start)
   |/___________________________
                              Time
```

Stages: Birth → Growth → Maturity → Decline (replaced by
next-generation S-curve).

TRIZ literature documents ~8 "lines of evolution" predicting
how systems mature: increasing dynamism, increasing
complexity then simplification, transition from macro to
micro level, increasing field substitution (mechanical →
hydraulic → electric → magnetic → electromagnetic →
thermal). Used for technology forecasting + invention-around
work.

### Function analysis

Decompose the system into functions:

- **Useful function** — what we want
- **Harmful function** — what we don't want
- **Insufficient function** — useful but not enough
- **Excessive function** — useful but too much
- **Missing function** — would be useful, doesn't exist
- **Auxiliary function** — supports the main function

The map identifies the "value engineering" opportunities:
eliminate harmful, augment insufficient, reduce excessive,
add missing.

### Resource analysis

Inventive solutions exploit pre-existing resources:

- **Substance resources** — materials already in the system
  or environment, including waste streams
- **Field resources** — mechanical, thermal, electrical,
  chemical, biological energies + fields
- **Space resources** — voids, gaps, hidden surfaces
- **Time resources** — idle periods, preliminary moments
- **Information resources** — measurements + data already
  available

Free resources are the elegant designer's leverage. A
contradiction is often resolved by exploiting a resource that
was already in the system but unrecognized.

### Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD)

Reverse approach: instead of asking "how do I prevent this
failure?", ask "if I wanted to CAUSE this failure, how would
I do it?" Then check whether those causation paths are open
in the current design. Often reveals failure modes that
straightforward FMEA missed.

### ARIZ — the algorithm

The Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving (ARIZ) is the
master procedure, with 9 main steps + many sub-steps. It
guides the practitioner from initial fuzzy problem through
problem formulation, resource analysis, contradiction
identification, idealization, principle application, and
solution selection. Versions: ARIZ-85B, ARIZ-85C, ARIZ-2010,
each refining the procedure. Practitioners use full ARIZ for
hard problems; simplified subsets for routine work.

### Modern TRIZ extensions

- **Business TRIZ** (Mann + collaborators) — extending TRIZ
  principles + contradiction matrix to management +
  organizational problems
- **Software TRIZ** — applying TRIZ to software design;
  challenging because software has different constraints
- **Service TRIZ** — for service-system design
- **TRIZ + Six Sigma fusion** — Six Sigma identifies the
  parameter conflict; TRIZ resolves it
- **TRIZ + Lean** — TRIZ generates the breakthrough; Lean
  optimizes the resulting flow

## Anti-Patterns

### TRIZ as cookbook

"Look up your problem in the matrix, apply the principle,
ship the answer." TRIZ requires translation: from real
problem to standard parameter to inventive principle to
specific concept. The translation is creative work; the
matrix is a structured hint, not a vending machine.

### Skipping problem formulation

Practitioners eager to apply principles skip the
contradiction-identification + IFR work. Result: principles
applied to wrong problem. The discipline: formulate
carefully before deploying tools.

### Using only the 40 principles

The principles are the most popular tool but represent only
part of TRIZ. The 76 standard solutions, function analysis,
ARIZ, resource analysis, and evolution lines all serve
different problem classes. A practitioner who knows only
the principles handles ~40% of problems.

### TRIZ in isolation

TRIZ generates concepts; concepts need to be developed +
tested. TRIZ paired with poor execution produces no
product. Pair with design thinking (for desirability), Lean
Startup (for business model), engineering (for feasibility).

### Ignoring resource analysis

The contradiction matrix gives principles; resource analysis
gives the SUBSTANCES + FIELDS to apply them through. Without
resource analysis, principle application is unanchored.

### Applying TRIZ to non-technical contradictions without

adaptation

Classical TRIZ was developed for engineering. Applying the
engineering parameter matrix to political contradictions
produces nonsense. Business TRIZ + adapted matrices exist;
use the right tool for the contradiction class.

### TRIZ as IP shield only

Companies adopt TRIZ to invent-around competitors' patents
without committing to TRIZ-based original invention. Misses
80% of the value.

### Expert dependence

A single TRIZ-Master employee carries the methodology;
when they leave, capability disappears. Build organizational
TRIZ literacy at the engineering-team level.

### Confusing creativity training with TRIZ

TRIZ is sometimes packaged as "creativity training." It's
more — a body of patterns + a procedure for applying them.
Generic creativity exercises (brainstorming, mind mapping)
are useful but are not TRIZ.

### Mismatching problem class to method

Pure UX problem? Use design thinking.
Pure variation problem? Use Six Sigma.
Pure flow problem? Use Lean.
Pure technical contradiction? Use TRIZ.
Mixed problem? Use the right method per sub-problem.

Hammering everything with TRIZ wastes the other methods.

## Verification Checklist

For TRIZ application:

- [ ] Problem formulated as a technical or physical
      contradiction (not just "this is hard").
- [ ] Initial situation analysis done — function model,
      resource inventory.
- [ ] Ideal Final Result articulated before solving.
- [ ] Right tool selected per contradiction class
      (principles / standard solutions / separation /
      ARIZ).
- [ ] Translation between problem-language + TRIZ-language
      done with care.
- [ ] Multiple concept solutions generated per principle.
- [ ] Resources analyzed — substance, field, space, time,
      information.
- [ ] Concepts evaluated against feasibility + business
      criteria (not just inventiveness).
- [ ] If patent strategy: novelty + inventive step + freedom
      to operate checked.
- [ ] Integration with design thinking / Lean Startup /
      execution disciplines planned.

## Cross-References

- [[design-thinking]] — design thinking frames human-
  centred problems; TRIZ contributes structured technical
  ideation
- [[lean-startup]] — Lean validates business models; TRIZ
  contributes breakthrough technical concepts to validate
- [[six-sigma]] — Six Sigma exposes parameter conflicts;
  TRIZ resolves them via inventive principles
- [[lean-manufacturing]] — lean optimizes flow; TRIZ
  invents new approaches when optimization hits limits
- [[ml-model-selection]] — model architecture selection
  benefits from analogical thinking that TRIZ formalizes
- [[ux-research]] — UX research feeds desirability +
  problem definition that TRIZ then attacks technically

## Why This Skill Exists

TRIZ remains underused outside Russia + select corporate
adoptions (Samsung, GE, Hyundai, BMW, Siemens) despite its
demonstrated success — patents derived using TRIZ
disproportionately produce commercial outcomes. The
underuse is partly because TRIZ is hard to learn (the
nomenclature is alien; the procedure is non-obvious; the
matrix requires interpretation) and partly because Western
innovation discourse has championed design thinking + Lean
Startup as the "complete" methodologies, when in fact each
solves different problem classes.

For principal-level decisions:

- When a technical contradiction is the constraint,
  brainstorming harder will not solve it; TRIZ will, often
  surprisingly fast
- When patent strategy is at stake, TRIZ-trained engineers
  produce stronger patents + cleaner inventions-around
- When the technology roadmap question is "what's next?",
  S-curve + evolution-line analysis is the right framework
- When failure investigation has hit a wall, AFD reframes
  the problem productively

TRIZ is not a religion; it's a set of patterns derived from
how inventive solutions actually emerge. For problems where
those patterns apply, TRIZ shortens the path from problem
to solution by orders of magnitude. For problems where they
don't, this skill prevents misapplying TRIZ to problems
better served by other methods.

The expectation: when the technical contradiction is the
constraint, you reach for TRIZ; when the constraint is
elsewhere, you reach for the right tool for that
constraint. Principal-level practice is knowing which is
which.

## Learning hooks

Per `~/.claude/rules/common/continuous-learning-mandate.md`:

**Signals to watch**:

- TRIZ applied where the constraint is non-technical (market / regulatory / cultural)
- Contradiction misformulated (two parameters not actually opposed)
- 40 Inventive Principles cited as menu instead of mapped via contradiction matrix
- Ideal Final Result skipped (ideation not anchored)
- Evolution patterns ignored when forecasting technology direction
- TRIZ output never tested / prototyped (theory without validation)

**Refinement candidates**:

- New principle-mapping row when a new tech-domain adoption emerges
- New cross-reference when a sister skill (design-thinking, lean-startup) adds an innovation gate
- Tightening of the contradiction-formulation discipline when misformulations recur
- New IFR template when a recurring problem class emerges