A Universal Scientific Method of Resolution of Any Technical Contradiction

Y. B. Karasik,
Thoughts Guiding Systems Corp.,
Ottawa, Canada.
e-mail:karasik@sympatico.ca

There are analytic and synthetic approaches to everything in the world. When creating TRIZ apparatus of resolving technical contradictions Altshuller employed the synthetic approach. He did not conduct scientific analysis of how technical contradictions could in general be resolved. Instead, he synthesized the means of their resolution by artificially combining the already existing pieces. These were 40 principles of invention and the theory that inventions of the 3rd level and up are the result of resolution of technical contradictions. From here it followed that 40 principles were also the means of resolving of technical contradictions, which paved the way to creating contradiction matrix.

40 principles never originated as principles of resolving technical contradictions. They originated as principles of invention. Alshuller believed that most inventions repeat some of the already known tricks: fragmentation, inversion, aggregation, etc. It is very rarely that an invention is based on a new trick. That is why the good inventors differ from the poor inventors in that they know many stereotype tricks whereas the latter know just a few. And Altshuller decided to identify and reveal all of them to make everybody a good inventor.

While doing this job, he came to a conclusion that strong inventions resolve technical contradictions. Naturally, principles of invention became principles of resolving technical contradictions.

But such a synthetic approach is not the only valid. It is also possible to employ analytical approach to figure out the ways of resolving technical contradictions. It has to be based on analysis of behaviour of contradictory parameters. Such an analysis was initiated in the last month's editorial.

It has been shown that contradictory parameters are not always contradictory in the entire domains of their variation. In some portions of the domains they are contradictory and their correlation takes one of the following forms:
Possible types of contradictory correlations between parameters

In other portions of the domains of their variation the parameters are not contradictory and the graph of their correlation may look as one of the following:
Possible types of non-contradictory correlations between parameters

Thus, the universal scientific method of resolving any technical contradiction is as follows:

  1. Investigate and plot the correlation between parameters in the entire domain of their variation;
  2. Identify areas where parameters are indeed contradictory and where they are not.
  3. Increase or decrease one of the parameters to such a degree that it would hit the area where there is no contradiction between the parameters.
  4. If the parameter cannot be increased/decreased to such a degree for whatever reason, investigate if the correlation between them is contingent upon a third parameter.
  5. Plot 3-dimensional correlation between the three parameters.
  6. Identify the values of the third parameter under which the first two parameters have permissible values and are not contradictory at the same time.
  7. If this does not help, investigate if there are fourth, fifth, and so on parameter upon which correlation between the first two is contingent, and similarly play with them.

I bet that this approach is better than any employed in TRIZ.