From: Rene Steiner (rene.steiner@st-elektronik.de)
Date: 2006/09/17 Sun AM 05:58:10 EST
To: karasik@sympatico.ca
Subject: "Anti-" Triz and your tutorial

Dear Mr. Karasik,

thank you for your interesting but controversial homepage. With interest I read some parts on "Anti-"TRIZ and the statements about software development. I'm really looking forward to receiving your short answer to my question. Thanks in advance.

You said that TRIZ is not applicable for software development.... My question is still WHY. (even after reading your stuff)

I know you made really obvious examples on your pages - and of course they are true. On the other hand - when I found the 40 principles on the internet and regard them as "thinking patterns" they really help to structure the thinking process... and I was surprised to see that someone took the time to structure invetions. On the other hand I was not surprised to see that clear structure coming from Russia...

Do you know Design Patterns in Software Development? Arn't they examples of such TRIZ principles?

Or something other: e.g. Segmentation and Sorting algorithms. - isn't that a good example of segmentations in the TRIZ sense. Or do you regard the discussion TRIZ vs. Anti-TRIZ as an academic dispute? I know - lot's of people try to commercialize this "thinking" and hopefully they give up. Thinking should be free - and that's why I love to see TRIZ on the net... (even if I don't understand it right now)

Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards from Germany.

Rene Steiner

PS: you mentioned a tutorial - would this be available to me. Thank you. (your explanations helped me already to make it better understandable.


From Yevgeny Karasik
Date: 2006/09/17 Sun AM 12:10:00 EST
To: Rene Steiner (rene.steiner@st-elektronik.de)
Subject: Re: "Anti-" Triz and your tutorial

Dear Mr. Steiner:

thank you for your letter and for your interest in Anti TRIZ-journal.

I regularly receive letters with the same question as you asked: why do I claim that 40 Principles are not applicable to software engineering ? It is because I know how they were discovered. Altshuller analyzed many inventions in the areas of engineering that he understood. These were mechanical, civil, and chemical engineering. He tried to identify tricks behind interesting (from his point of view) inventions. At his lectures students frequently asked the same question as you asked. And Altshuller's answer was always like this: if one wants to identify inventive tricks in other areas of engineering (say, electrical engineering), he has to start from scratch and do the same work:
1) collect a big and representative set of interesting inventions in this area;
2) try understand the tricks behind them.

Chances are that SOME tricks will be the same as Altshuller identified. But COMMON SENSE is that there will be no complete overlaping.

You are right that fragmentation, aggregation, taking out are also applicable to software engineering. But are they behind INTERESTING inventions/tricks in software engineering ? My practice and practice of other TRIZniks that work as programmers show that NO. Non-trivial inventions in algorithms design (and programming) are based on other tricks which are not amongst 40 principles.

30 years ago I started collecting such algorithmic/programmer's tricks but then lost interest in this work.

Besides, 40 Principles contain such purely mechanical tricks as anti-weight, use of flexible membranes, use of pneumatic, etc. Please let me know if I have not convinced you. I will try to elaborate further.

Regarding tutorial, I do not give one at the moment because I am busy with other projects. But please feel free to ask any question.

Best regards,

Yevgeny Karasik


From: Rene Steiner
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:43:45 +0200
To: karasik@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: "Anti-" Triz and your tutorial

Dear Mr. Karasik,

thank you for your fast answer and efforts to explain this topic. I think you are right in certain ways and you are certainly right in specific fields of the 40 principles. The differences between my opinion and yours is certainly the depth of (creative) thinking we talk about. I'm nomally involved in "shallow" thinking - e.g. thinking how to market something, how to explain specific topics to others etc. and I'm normally not involved in deep thoughts like complex algorithm development and that might explain the difference. For normal office thinking the 40 principles give a first starting point to solve problems that are typically not complex or world changing ;-) and I'm sure that's where the difference between your expectations and mine are. I think this starting point is better than nothing for most of the people that are not trained to think directed, and you think it's not specific enough. Both are separate sides of the same coin... the difference is the expected end-result...

In any way I thank you for your help (I'll remember your words - when I read other books/pages). And I will check from time to time on your pages looking for new articles and the tutorial. I'm still intested in TRIZ and hope to get better with it. Thank you for your time. Good luck and take care.

Best regards,

René Steiner


From: Yevgeny Karasik
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:15:01
To: Rene Steiner
Subject: Re: "Anti-" Triz and your tutorial

Dear Mr. Steiner,

Yes, I was talking about non-trivial inventions. Does "shallow" creativity need 40 Principles ? Are not "shallow" solutions obvious ?

What problem you were unable to solve without 40 Principles ? Can you, please, give an example ?

Best regards,

Yevgeny Karasik