Inventive Principles – Part 1
Inventive Principles are a key concept within TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving), a systematic problem-solving methodology developed by Russian inventor and scientist Genrich Altshuller. Altshuller, along with his colleagues, analyzed a vast number of patents to identify patterns and commonalities in the inventive solutions. From this analysis, they derived a set of Inventive Principles that could be applied to solve problems and generate creative solutions. TRIZ is based on the idea that there are universal principles and patterns that underlie inventive solutions across different domains and industries. By understanding and applying these principles, innovators can overcome challenges and create more efficient, effective, and elegant solutions to problems. The Inventive Principles serve as a set of guidelines or heuristics that help individuals think systematically about how to approach and solve problems. Genrich Altshuller initially identified 40 Inventive Principles in TRIZ. These principles provided a set of guidelines or heuristics for approaching and solving problems. Over time, as TRIZ evolved and more insights were gained from the analysis of inventive solutions, the list of Inventive Principles expanded. The additional principles were meant to offer a more comprehensive set of strategies for addressing a wider range of problems. The total number of principles in later different versions of TRIZ, as being practiced by its practitioners, is assumed to have increased to 76 or even more. To a great extent, these are either extensions of original principles or off-shoots (like sub-principles or defined as 76 inventive standards) or varied interpretation and granular categorization (context sensitive). However, each principle or inventive standard represents a general solution approach that has proven effective in various inventive situations. The goal of TRIZ and its Inventive Principles is to accelerate the problem-solving process by leveraging the collective knowledge embedded in patents and inventive solutions. It encourages users to look beyond traditional problem-solving methods and consider innovative, often counterintuitive approaches. Some of the key aspects of Inventive Principles in TRIZ include: Contradictions: TRIZ emphasizes resolving inherent contradictions within a system to achieve improvements. These contradictions often involve conflicting requirements or characteristics that must be addressed simultaneously. Ideality: Striving for an ideal solution, where all desirable functions are present without any drawbacks, is a central concept. Inventors are encouraged to move toward an ideal state. Patterns of Evolution: TRIZ identifies common patterns of technological evolution and innovation. Understanding these patterns can guide inventors in predicting future developments. 40 Principles: The original 40 Inventive Principles provide specific guidance on how to overcome contradictions and improve systems. Each principle is associated with a general approach or technique. Su-Field Analysis: TRIZ employs Su-Field Analysis, a method for analyzing the relationships between a system (Su), the object being acted upon (Field), and the action or force applied. Overall, the Inventive Principles in TRIZ provide a structured framework for problem-solving, fostering creativity and innovation by drawing on the accumulated knowledge of inventive solutions from diverse fields. TRIZ research originally uncovered 40 inventive strategies or principles capable of challenging and eliminating contradictions and conflicts. These principles are most effectively used as brainstorm focus devices – with users trying to make connections between their situation and the recommended directions suggested by the principles. The 40 principles are described below but before that there are certain axioms related to them as follows: (1) Single principle may be valid for eliminating more than one contradiction (2) A contradiction may be resolved using more than one principle (3) There is no direct link between an invention and the principles (4) An invention has an application context (which determines the primary and secondary functions), state of evolution, set of ideality values (for each primary function at each state of evolution) and the underlying construction (i.e., resources) to deliver the primary function (5) Each invention evolves over a period denoted by its state of evolution (based on the change in the ideality value for a primary function (not just mere modification or reconstruction of the invention) (6) An invention has primary and secondary functional objectives in each application context, and it is the application context that decides which functions (out of many being delivered) constitutes the primary functional objective for the invention (7) An invention may have one or more contradictions dictated by its construction (which are application context sensitive) (8) An invention may use one or more principles to resolve the same contradiction (9) It is highly probable that a contradiction elimination thinking process using more than one valid principle may dictate (or leads to or satisfies) the same construction for the invention (10) Mostly the application context dictates the primary function, and it is pre-determined or known to the inventor prior to the construction of the invention (introduction of universality is usually an after thought to improve the ideality laterally) (11) What contradictions may emerge from the construction of invention strongly depend upon the application context and the changing conditions around it (12) What states of evolution may emerge or become feasible strongly depend upon the changes in the network of value dictated or determined by the system (or construction of invention) hierarchy? (13) It is the application context and/or the state of evolution that determine the potential principles to serve as trigger to solve problems or evolve the invention by reconstruction (14) A minimal construction or reconstruction is the underlying ideality objective for any invention (15) Solving a contradiction may yield a solution or invention inherent or introduced with other set of contradictions (contradiction shift/network) (16) Improving system for one parameter, might be set against trade-off with more then one worsening paratmeters. For example one might need to improve the convenience of use parameter without compromising the manufacturing complexity, mass and energy consumption set against it as worsening parameter. Hence invention could solve convenience of use against manufacturing complexity but might not be able to solve for mass or energy consumption. In short, solving all the contradictions set against a single parameter for improvement, might not be feasible. The “Random Stimulation Method” is a creative thinking technique that involves introducing a completely random element to stimulate new ideas and connections in problem-solving. This method is a form of lateral thinking, emphasizing


