Sorry your comment didn’t post. I have Akismet spam catcher installed, and for some reason it flagged your post. Probably the ordered list did it. Again, sorry about that.

I see I’ve found another Campbell fan. I think I have another post brewing that again links his ideas to innovation and edge competencies.

I only showed a small portion of TRIZ here, the portion that i agree with. There is another part of the method where (forgive my over simplification) you basically make a giant matrix of all possible solution states. You then eliminate solution states by teasing out contradictions and mutual exclusions. And the end you are (supposedly) left with what are your innovative solutions.

This is essentially a brute force method of mitigating the wickedness of given problems.

Its sort of Sherlock Holmes method–eliminate the impossible and what ever you’re left with, no matter how improbable, is the solution. I’ve never followed TRIZ to this masochistically tedious level. There are simply to many known unknowns as well as unknown unknowns to ever adequately fill out such a matrix.

Regardless it is still an interesting method.

45 degrees? interesting. I really hadn’t thought of theat. So this way the discreet things in the TRIZ diagram become labels for the axes of the first diagram.

Maybe I’ll put them together that was for a follow up post. Thanks for the insight.

To me, it seems like the two diagrams you have would actually map together better if the second were rotated 45 degrees clockwise. Then again, it sort of doesn’t. Food for thought.

We’ve had lengthy discussions in the past about my issues with your “Remote Associations” diagram, so I won’t repeat those here. But I *do* think some of the issues we were talking about in that thread are core to why it doesn’t map here. Also is the fact that the TRIZ diagram is actually just a continuum (linear) that just happens to be able to be communicated by quadrants, whereas your visualization includes implicit hierarchy and non-linear comparison. But TRIZ is not fundamentally something that benefits from being communicated as quadrant, other than to show the high-level categorical relationships.

This is my first exposure to TRIZ, and I have to say I like it. Pretty basic and straightforward but, insodoing, quite elegant. This could easily be mapped to pretty standard “design processes” that roughly go from:

Research -> Planning -> Design

But what I like about TRIZ is that it breaks that rather task-limited model and instead creates contexts of environment. Here’s an attempt to map a broader task-based conception into TRIZ:

1. Issue identification (Actual Problem)
2. Context gathering (General Problem)
3. Pattern identification (General Solution)
4. Creation (Actual Solution)

TRIZ - very cool, thanks for sharing!