On the surface, the bulk of the TRIZ-journal articles are sheer nonsense. Surprisingly enough, they can be made meanigful by applying a very ingenious method of reading. Here it is: doubt everything !
For example, consider the article "Transformation of structurally similar elements of technical systems" by Elena Novitskaya. Under the normal reading, it is a nonsense in its purest form. However, should one apply the above method of reading, interesting things may result. So, let us do it sentence by sentence.
The first sentence: "One of the fundamental ideas of TRIZ is that all technical systems evolve in accordance with objective cognizable laws."
As it stands, the claim is very doubtful per se. However, should one read it as follows: "One (?) of the fundamental (?) ideas (?) of TRIZ (?) is that all (?) technical (?) systems (?) evolve (?) in accordance (?) with objective (?) cognizable (?) laws (?)", as the sentence becomes very thought provoking !
The second sentence: "These laws inderlie all the principle solving TRIZ tools, first of all, Principles of Technical Contradictions Solving, Standards for Solving Inventive Problems, and, certainly, ARIZ."
Again, a pure nonsense aggravated by poor English. However, should one take a look at it through
the magic glasses of doubt, as it begins to shine with novelty and the depth of thought:
"These (?) laws (?) underlie (?) all (?) the principle (?) solving TRIZ (?) tools, first of all (?), Principles of Technical Contradictions Solving (?), Standards for Solving Inventive Problems (?), and, certainly (?), ARIZ (?)."
Indeed, what laws of evolution "underlie" the 40 "Principles of Technical Contradictions Solving" ? I do not know one ! What laws of evolution are behind "Standards for Solving Inventive Problems" ? I do not know one ! Oh, sorry, I do know one: transition from macro- to micro-level, which is behind just one Standard. What laws of evolution "underlie" many steps of ARIZ, for example, modelling with "smart little people", or operator SDC (size, duration, cost) ? None.
The third sentence: "The high efficiency of TRIZ tools is due to the high degree of generalization and universality."
Again, a very doubtful claim. But should one read it as follows: "The high (?) efficiency (?) of TRIZ tools (?) is due (?) to the high (?) degree of generalization (?) and universality (?)", as it becomes meaningful.
The readers are invited to continue the exercise to the end. Their time will not be lost in vain.