In 2001 US (and probably the world on the whole) entered a recession. One would imagine that the demand for TRIZ specialists/consultants in a recession should increase. Indeed, "if TRIZ is such a good idea" and increases R&D performance, gives rise to more efficient solutions, etc. etc. (i.e. exactly to what is needed in order to stay afloat in a recession), then TRIZ consultatnts should flourish these days. In fact the opposite happened: they became redundant. The less and less industry clients need their services - a clear indication that they have been luxury (or fun) in the good days rather than really useful.
And the TRIZ-journal started to drum up the alarm: why is TRIZ not getting accepted and how to prove its usefulness to potential clients and entice them into spending on TRIZ these days when they count every penny ?
The May 2002 issue of the journal touts Nikolay Shpakovsky as an answer to the second half of the question. He received an award from Samsung for "contribution to cost reduction and improvement in R&D performance" that reportedly saved Samsung US $91,200,000. The contribution is allegedly attributed to employment of TRIZ.
The editors pompously write: "By publicizing this award they have helped all of us who have to answer the question “Do companies get practical results from TRIZ?”". The statement implies that without Mr. Shpakovsky, there would have been no answer to this question. And this after almost a decade of preaching TRIZ in US by numerous TRIZ consultants and by "90% of all TRIZ scientists" Alla Zlotin + Boris Zusmann ! The mountain has really born a mouse ! Contrary to the beliefs of the editors, one may likely attribute Mr. Shpakovsky's success to his talent rather than to TRIZ, regardless of what he himself publicly attributes it to.