Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:01:16 +1000
Subject: TRIZ-Research Journal

Dear Dr. Yevgeny Karasik,

I congratulate you on the renaming of your journal from "Anti TRIZ-journal" to "TRIZ-Research journal". This certainly conveys the main aim and focus of your work and the many contributions over many years from yourself and others towards a better understanding of TRIZ.

In the Western world, we are encouraged to look at things in a argumentative, almost combative style, where one point of view is deemed correct and others are necessarily weak if not altogether false. This same perception holds in the case of journals in the field of TRIZ and innovation. Till recently, we were fortunate to have 3 monthly resources in TRIZ, namely the TRIZ-Journal, your Anti TRIZ-Journal, and Professor Toru Nakagawa's TRIZ Homepage in Japan. Each has performed valuable service to TRIZ in a slightly unique way. We, the readers, tend to benefit from the channelling of a plurality of viewpoints.

The strong point of the TRIZ-Research journal has been your own special insights into TRIZ, which you gained by working alongside G. S. Altshuller for several years. It is this extraordinary experience and insight that enables you to question some of the very essential precepts of TRIZ, which none of the other TRIZ experts or researchers would. Like all pioneers in their field, Altshuller may have felt that work in a certain direction had reached an impasse, and that it was necessary to back-track and resume work along a somewhat different direction. The Anti TRIZ-journal was the only periodical that conveyed this sentiment, and I hope with the name change, it will continue with this important function as well.

Most of the TRIZ promoters claim it to be a perfect system, capable of generating innovations almost on demand. The actual track record is quite different. By accepting that like everything else, TRIZ is not perfect, opens the way towards its further development and in the creation of new operational tools to assist in its application.

Your comments on the IFR ( August TRJ ) are an example of this. By describing the IFR as an example of top-to-down design, you provide clarity to the use of this simple heuristic. Some experts attribute great power to the IFR, which is open to question. Often, the difficulty arises at the detail level ( the down part ) due to technological constraints, as you have stated. The IFR itself does not provide us with clear sailing to a workable solution, unless the technological advances have removed the impediments first.

To its credit, the IFR may provide a different perception to the user, and this in turn may lead to a useful outcome.

Multiple IFRs can also be used to assist in the ideation process. It may help to adopt less than ideal ( more pragmatic IFRs goals ) in this case.

Your last comment : "Knowledge of TRIZ does not accelerate innovation and does not advance it at all. Moreover, it may stifle it." is something which I have also considered with active interest. The strict dogmatic and unthinking application of TRIZ tools can often be counter-productive. One must also engage openness of mind, flexibility of reasoning, and the tendency to question long held assumptions. Would you like to elaborate further at some time on your above sentence?

Best Regards,


S. Saleem Arshad
Sydney, Australia