Career Catalyst
Solve
Problems
Inventively
Jack Hipple The TRIZ methodology encourages you to
Innovation-TRIZ
approach problems from a different angle.
Here’s a primer on the basics of the technique
and the tools available to implement it.
E
NGINEERS DESIGN THINGS AND SOLVE
problems of varying degrees of difficulty (Table 1).
Sometimes these functions are done easily using
tables, equations, nomographs and correlations, frequently
embedded in software.
The simplest problems can be referred to as Level 1
problems, which require no special expertise or problem-
solving capability other than the engineer’s typical aca-
demic training and some common reference materials. An
example of such a task is calculating the pressure drop
across a given length of pipe knowing the fluid flowrate,
fluid properties, length of pipe and the number and types
of restrictions (valves, elbows, etc.).
Some problems are a little harder, and the engineer must
resolve a simple contradiction to achieve a workable design.
For example, a utility resource is needed to heat or cool a
reactor and it is not available at the right temperature or pres-
sure. This is a Level 2 problem requiring the solution to a
simple contradiction: the heating medium is not as hot as it
needs to be, or the cooling fluid is not cold enough.
The solution to Level 2 problems is usually relatively
easy through the addition of another process step, using an
existing resource and spending capital. In this particular
case, the fluid can be heated with steam or oil or the pres-
sure changed through a valve or compression. Both
This article is the first of a three-part series on the innovative problem-
solving method known as TRIZ. Part 2 (May) discusses how to use the
technique in reverse to predict and prevent failures. Part 3 (June) covers
using it to plan, forecast and think strategically.
44 www.cepmagazine.org April 2005 CEP
approaches add to the cost and complexity, but solve the
problem rather easily. The engineer’s natural tendency is
to “add something” for such simple contradictions.
Level 3 problems are even more complicated, the contra-
diction is more difficult, and the resolution is not obvious.
Adding enough new equipment and complexity can make
the system work, but with cost and control headaches.
Solving these types of problems without adding signifi-
cant complexity is a challenge. For instance, balancing the
linear nature of heat transfer with the exponential nature of
exothermic chemical reaction kinetics can lead engineers to
design very complicated systems to avoid runaway reactions.
Another approach to these kinds of problems is brute
force — build the reactor strong enough to handle all the
potential runaways or loss of control cases imaginable.
One could also design a very sophisticated control system
to measure and anticipate these problems and deal with
them in a preventive way.
Level 4 problems are the “really hard stuff.” These are
problems that no one wants to deal with — usually tempo-
rary patches are used and the problem is passed on to
future generations (in the hope that the original problem-
solver has moved on to a new position or has left the
organization when the problem resurfaces).
For example, consider the challenges involved in han-
dling and distilling a reactive monomer. Numerous contra-
dictions exist involving heat history, processing time and
mechanical design of the separation column. Many thou-
sands of engineering man-hours are spent on these types
of problems before a solution is found, or non-optimum
changes are implemented until their complexity exceeds
that of the original problem.
Level 5 problems usually involve totally new science,
i.e., the unraveling of DNA or the discovery of new ele-
ments. Occasionally they involve combining new chem-
istry with long-standing engineering problems.
TRIZ: a new way to
formulate and solve problems
In the early 1950s, Genrich Altshuller, a patent examiner
for the Russian naval patent office, began to wonder
whether creativity and innovation could be scientifically
based processes rather than based on psychology. Why
should it be necessary to wait for a spark of genius or con-
templative time (such as in the shower) to invent some-
thing? Why should creativity and innovation be different
from other sciences that can be taught and learned? Why
was invention considered a psychologically driven activity?
His approach was to look at the recorded history of
invention by examining tens of thousands of patents in
greater detail, looking for potential commonality among
breakthrough inventions. His classification of inventions
was similar to the previously described problem levels.
He looked at the top few percent of patents that were
truly breakthrough and resolved a Level 3 or 4 problem or
contradiction. He came to a startling (and in hindsight
simplistic) conclusion — that a limited number of inven-
tive principles were used across many areas of industrial
science and technology.
Altshuller then set about to collect and categorize these
principles in a way that would be useful to future inven-
tors. In effect, he set about to accelerate the pace of inven-
tion by eliminating re-invention of the wheel.
He also recognized repeated patterns of standard prob-
lems that had standard solutions, and the existence of
Table 1. Engineers solve problems of different degrees of difficulty.
Degree of % of Patents
Difficulty and Problems Type of Problem
1 40–50% Calculations and minor modifications to existing
processes or methods
2 20–30% Resolution of a minor contradiction
3 10–20% Resolution of a significant contradiction
4 5–10% Resolution of a long-standing contradiction in
a product or process
5 ~1% Invention or discovery of a new principle,
chemical element, breakthrough process, etc.
overriding patterns and trends of technological evolution
that cut across all areas of science and technology. He cap-
tured these in a retrievable way for use by other inventors
and engineers. Continued studies of the patent literature
produced more examples of the use of these principles, but
not new principles.
This technology became known as TRIZ (pronounced
like “trees), a Russian acronym for “Theory of Solving
Inventive Problems.” It is also referred to by the English
acronym TIPS (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving). An
overriding algorithm known as ARIZ (Algorithm for
Solving Inventive Problems) was developed and continues
to evolve and be improved. ARIZ, along with a series of
standard solutions, are the basis for much of the commer-
cially available TRIZ software and of formal group prob-
lem-solving sessions.
ARIZ, in its simplest form, can be summarized as:
1. State the ideal result required from the system, prod-
uct or service, including challenging the need for all parts
and components of a system.
2. Evaluate resources that can be used within the exist-
ing system to achieve this end state. Ask how a particular
element could be eliminated and its function performed by
another unit.
3. Analyze contradictions that prevent this ideal state
from being achieved.
4. Resolve these contradictions through the use of the
40 principles, the TRIZ separation principles and the TRIZ
standard solutions.
5. Recycle and refocus the contradiction analysis until
all contradictions within the system have been resolved.
6. Evaluate the use of ARIZ in the sub- and super-sys-
tems in which the primary system is embedded.
This algorithm can be greatly expanded for very diffi-
cult problems and is outlined in many publications (1–4).
In addition to this general algorithm, standard solutions,
ChE Example
Pressure drop calculation; heat exchanger design
for varying fluid properties
Sequencing of continuous and batch reactions
Reactor design to deal with varying reaction
rates and equilibrium
Optimization of a simultaneous separation and
reaction system; design of a solids-handling
process to deal with changes in properties with time
Invention of the laser; economical production
and use of hydrogen
CEP April 2005 www.cepmagazine.org 45
Career Catalyst
Su-Field Modeling: A Simple Example
Consider two substances, a liquid and an additive. If
only these two substances (S1 and S2) are present,
nothing happens. When a field (F) — mechanical, ther-
mal, chemical, electrical or electromagnetic — is
applied between the two substances, an interaction
occurs:
S1 S2
F(Me, Th, Ch, E, EM)
TRIZ analysis considers the application of each of
the fields, in turn, to the two substances. Each will sug-
gest a different approach to solving the problem.
developed from general problem models sometimes
referred to as “substance-field” or “Su-Field” models
(sidebar), were developed to assist in generalizing a princi-
ple. Su-Field modeling is rather complex; more detailed
information about the topic can be found in almost all of
the TRIZ resources listed at the end of this article.
General TRIZ principles
After he recognized that the general nature of invention
was a reproducible science and not psychology, Altshuller
continued to review the patterns of invention, making sev-
eral other important observations.
One key principle is that over time, all systems evolve,
irreversibly, toward a more ideal state. In mathematical
terms, the ratio of the good or positive effects of a product,
service or process to the negative byproducts of the same
system approaches infinity.
At its extreme, this principle can be stated as “a system
performs its function without existing.” Before dismissing
this idea, consider the following recent examples of sys-
tems that have approached this state: a process that con-
trols itself and shuts down upon a hazardous situation; a
mixing system whose parameters are automatically adjust-
ed based on its sensing of the components; automatic
unattended grocery checkout with an instant checking
account deduction; automated self-collecting toll booths;
medical products that dissolve based on the desired bio-
logical conditions; and automatic refilling of inventory via
satellite communication to transport trucks. Though some
systems or processes may never achieve this state, the con-
cept is extremely valuable in TRIZ problem-solving, as it
forces the elucidation of the problems and contradictions
that prevent achievement of the ideal state.
Another general principle is that systems evolve toward
this ideal state through two mechanisms. The first is the
46 www.cepmagazine.org April 2005 CEP
The Case of the Missing Soap
A cosmetics company that produced premium, high-
priced packaged soap received a complaint from a con-
sumer about a box purchased that was empty. The
problem was isolated to the assembly line, where boxes
could make it through the assembly line empty.
Engineers at the company began devising X-ray
machines with high resolution, staffed by additional
operators, to ensure that all boxes contained a soap
bar. This was a very expensive, but effective, solution.
A rank-and-file employee offered a much simpler
suggestion — place a strong industrial fan on the
assembly line, and any empty box would automatically
be blown away.
This example illustrates two very basic TRIZ princi-
ples. First, imagine or define an ideal system — in this
case, the assembly line or soap box controls itself.
Second, use the resources already in place — the
assembly line, the nature of the box, and immediately
available inexpensive resources.
TRIZ forces engineers to ask themselves how they
would solve a problem using the resources already
available, or available at minimal cost or inconvenience.
Forcing this thinking rather than relying on the addition
of expensive engineering systems produces break-
through ideas and systems. In this particular case, and
in many others, TRIZ uses the defect in the system
itself (i.e., the empty box) as a resource to solve the
problem in an elegant way.
Asking how a process or product defect can be used
in a positive, proactive way — i.e., as a resource — is a
key TRIZ problem-solving tool.
recognition and use of resources that are frequently unrec-
ognized or underutilized. The second is the resolution of
contradictions that stand in the way of an ideal final result.
When faced with a problem (i.e., how to make a system
more ideal), engineers have a tendency to add things —
another step, piece of equipment, control system, etc. —
rather than look within the system itself or its immediate
surroundings for resources (sidebar). Frequently, the artifi-
cial challenge of asking how the function of one part of a
process or piece of equipment can be achieved without its
existence — its function is transferred to another part of
the system — produces many breakthrough ideas.
Consider also a simple copper wire carrying current in
the air. What resources are available to solve a problem
that might arise in the wire’s immediate surroundings?
Most people will readily list the obvious, such as the wire
 Table 2. The 39 parameters that engineers
itself, air, voltage, current and a magnetic field. In fact, most commonly try to improve.
there are many more available resources, including the
components of the air (nitrogen, carbon dioxide, argon, 1 Weight of moving object
water vapor), other characteristics of the air (temperature, 2 Weight of non-moving object
pressure, humidity, velocity of the air stream), the proper- 3 Length of moving object
ties of the copper wire (impurities, surface properties, den- 4 Length of non-moving object
sity), and aspects and byproducts of the electrical current 5 Area of moving object
6 Area of non-moving object
(frequency, form of wave, magnetic field, oxidation, resist- 7 Volume of moving object
ance, etc.). And, of course, gravity is a field that is always 8 Volume of non-moving object
available. Furthermore, many of these properties can be 9 Speed
combined to create additional resources and fields. 10 Force
Altshuller encountered resistance from Stalin when he 11 Tension, pressure
12 Shape
suggested that he had discovered a breakthrough innova- 13 Stability of object
tion technique that would benefit his country and inventors 14 Strength
worldwide. There also was, and continues to be, resistance 15 Durability of moving object
in the western world to the concept that there are a limited 16 Durability of non-moving object
number of inventive principles and standards. It is hard for 17 Temperature
18 Brightness
many engineers and researchers to admit (in principle, not 19 Energy spent by moving object
details) that most engineering and technical problems, 20 Energy spent by non-moving object
especially those at Levels 3 and 4, have already been 21 Power
solved in a generic sense. 22 Waste of energy
The first challenge for engineers working at these levels 23 Waste of substance
24 Loss of information
is to generalize the problems sufficiently to use the known 25 Loss of time
solutions. The second challenge, not surprisingly, is the 26 Amount of substance
ego issue of admitting that perhaps the problem actually is 27 Reliability
not unique and may have already been solved in a general 28 Accuracy of measurement
sense. Finally, the time and effort spent in defining and 29 Accuracy of manufacturing
30 Harmful factors acting on object
generalizing a problem area pose a barrier. Many engi- 31 Harmful side effects
neers and organizations typically spend 15 minutes defin- 32 Manufacturability
ing a problem and then they solve it 10 different times 33 Ease of operations
until they get it right. The rigorous nature of the TRIZ 34 Repairability
problem-solving process eliminates this, but many individ- 35 Adaptability
36 Complexity of device
uals and organizations find that this multi-cyclic journey is 37 Complexity of control
more fun and exhilarating than the relaxation and produc- 38 Level of automation
tivity of arriving at the destination early! 39 Productivity

Patterns of invention
Altshuller first summarized the most common engineer-
ing parameters encountered within a system, of which
there are 39 (Table 2). Then, after studying the patterns of
invention in the patent literature, he listed the 40 principles
most commonly used to resolve contradictions between
one parameter and another (Table 3).
For instance, consider the contradiction between need-
ing increased area and not being able to increased the
diameter (i.e., simply making a circle bigger). One of the
TRIZ standard solutions to this problem is asymmetry, or
an uneven shape occupying the same area as a circle.
Boeing engineers used this principle to increase the area
of later-model 737 jet engines to allow increased area
without the engine cowling (the metal housing around the
engine) exceeding ground clearance limits.
Altshuller developed a contradiction table (Table 4) that
combines the 39 parameters that engineers most common-
ly try to improve with the 40 inventive principles.
Different practitioners may use slightly different terminol-
ogy, but the concepts behind the parameters and the princi-
ples are always the same and each is always referred to by
the same number.
To use the contradiction table, find the parameter to be
improved in the left-most column and the parameter that
degrades as a result in the top row. The numbers in the
box at the intersection of this row and column refer to the
inventive principles in Table 3. Try to solve the problem
by first applying those principles. A box with no numbers

CEP April 2005 www.cepmagazine.org 47

Career Catalyst

Table 3. Altshuller’s 40 inventive principles, with some examples of those most often applied to chemical engineering problems.

The 40 Inventive Principles

Principle 1. Segmentation Principle 14. Spheroidality (curvature) Principle 27. Cheap short-living objects
Principle 2. Extraction, removal or taking out Principle 15. Dynamicity Principle 28. Mechanics substitution
Principle 3. Local quality Principle 16. Partial or excessive actions Principle 29. Pneumatics and hydraulics
Principle 4. Asymmetry Principle 17. Another dimension Principle 30. Flexible shells and thin films
Principle 5. Merging Principle 18. Mechanical vibration Principle 31. Porous materials
Principle 6. Universality Principle 19. Periodic action Principle 32. Color changes
Principle 7. “Nested doll” Principle 20. Continuity of useful action Principle 33. Homogeneity
Principle 8. Anti-weight Principle 21. Skipping Principle 34. Discarding and recovering
Principle 9. Preliminary anti-action Principle 22. “Blessing in disguise” or Principle 35. Transformation
Principle 10. Prior or preliminary action “turn lemons into lemonade” Principle 36. Phase transitions
Principle 11. Beforehand cushioning Principle 23. Feedback Principle 37. Thermal expansion
Principle 12. Equipotentiality Principle 24. “Intermediary” Principle 38. Strong oxidants
Principle 13. Inversion or “the other way Principle 25. Self-service Principle 39. Inert atmosphere
around” Principle 26. Copying Principle 40. Composite materials

The Chemical Engineering Top Ten

When time is limited, consider these principles most often encountered in chemical engineering problems first, in this order.
Principle 35. Transformation
Change an object’s physical or chemical state, its concentration
or consistency, its flexibility, or its temperature (concentrated
materials that the customer dilutes on an as-required basis;
plasticizers added to rigid polymers to improve their flexibility
and cold-temperature performance)
Principle 10. Prior or preliminary action
Change an object, either fully or partially, before the change is
needed (pre-heating or pre-cooling of equipment to shorten
startup time)
Pre-arrange objects such that they can come into action from
the most convenient place and without losing time for their
delivery (just-in-time inventory management)
Principle 1. Segmentation
Divide an object into independent parts, make an object easy to
disassemble, or increase an object’s degree of fragmentation or
segmentation (transport different fluids in a pipeline by segregat-
ing them with inert fluid segments; quick-disconnect joints; baf-
fles in process equipment)
dition. Divide an object into parts capable of movement rela-
tive to each other. If an object or process is rigid or inflexible,
make it movable or adaptive (variable-speed pumps and con-
veyors; process control logic modified to achieve a product
specification)
Principle 19. Periodic action
Instead of continuous action, use periodic or pulsating actions.
If an action is already periodic, change the periodic magnitude
or frequency. Perform a different action during pauses between
impulses (non-continuous pumps; perform preventive mainte-
nance during downtime)
Principle 18. Mechanical vibration
Cause an object to oscillate or vibrate, increase an object’s
frequency of vibration (even up to ultrasonic), use an object’s
resonant frequency, replace mechanical vibration with piezo-
electric vibration, or combine ultrasonic and electromagnetic
field oscillations (microwave moisture removal; ultrasonics for
production of micro-sized drops; mixing alloys in an induc-
tion furnace)

Principle 13. Inversion or “the other way round”
Invert the action(s) used to solve the problem (heating an object
instead of cooling it; reversing the sequence of reactant additions)
Make movable parts or the external environment fixed, and fixed
parts movable (moving sidewalk with standing people)
Principle 2. Extraction, removal or taking out
Remove an interfering part or property, or isolate the only nec-
essary part or property of an object (store reactive chemicals
away from the primary raw material storage area; isolate a par-
ticularly hazardous chemical or reaction step)
Principle 15. Dynamicity
Change the characteristics of an object, external environment
or process to be optimal or to find an optimal operating con-
Principle 32. Color changes
Change the color or transparency of an object or its external
environment (a color change indicates a pH change, which in
turn can be a sign of reaction completion or a sign of prob-
lems within a reaction system; a transparency change due to
phase change as a function of temperature can indicate a
chemical’s purity)
Principle 3. Local quality
Change an object’s structure, an external environment or an
external influence from uniform to non-uniform (use a physical
property gradient instead of constant conditions)
Make each part of an object function at conditions most suitable
for its operation (vary the internal design of a distillation column
to reflect varying flows and fluid characteristics)

48 www.cepmagazine.org April 2005 CEP

 Table 4. The contradiction table identifies the inventive principles most likely to resolve a contradiction between two parameters.

The complete 39 by 39 table is constructed using the engineering parameters in Table 2 and the inventive principles in Table 3. Due
to space limitations, it cannot be reproduced here, but it is available as an Excel file (compiled by Ellen Domb and Karen Tate) at
www.triz-journal.com/archives/1997/07/index.htm (Item 4, Contradiction Matrix). The rows and columns included here for illustration
purposes represent the features of most concern from a chemical engineering standpoint. The parameters in the left-most column are
the most common targets for improvement, while the parameters across the top most often deteriorate as the others are improved.

7 11 13 19 20 23 25 26 27 31 33 34

non-moving object
Undesired Result
Volume of moving

Ease of operation
Tension, pressure

Stability of object

Energy spent by

Energy spent by
(Conflict)

moving object

Waste of time

Harmful side

Repairability
Amount of
substance

substance

Reliability
Waste of

effects
object

Feature to Improve
11 Tension, pressure 6, 35, 35, 33, 14, 24, 10, 35, 37, 36, 10, 14, 10, 13, 2, 33, 11 2
10 2, 40 10, 37 3, 37 4 36 19, 35 27, 18
17 Temperature 34, 39, 35, 39, 1, 35, 19, 15, 21, 36, 35, 28, 3, 17, 19, 35, 22, 35, 26, 27 4, 10,
40, 18 19, 2 32 3, 17 29, 31 21, 18 30, 39 3, 10 2, 24 16
19 Energy spent by 35, 13, 23, 14, 19, 13, 35, 24, 35, 38, 34, 23, 19, 21, 2, 35, 6 19, 35 1, 15,
moving object 18 25 17, 24 18, 5 19, 18 16, 18 11, 27 17, 28
22 Waste of energy 7, 18, 14, 2, 35, 27, 10, 18, 7, 18, 11, 10, 21, 35, 35, 32, 2, 19
23 39, 6 2, 37 32, 7 25 35 2, 22 1
23 Waste of substance 1, 29, 3, 35, 2, 14, 35, 18, 28, 27, 15, 18, 6, 3, 10, 29, 10, 1, 32, 28, 2, 35,
30, 36 37, 10 30, 40 24, 5 12, 31 35, 10 10, 24 39, 35 34, 29 2, 24 34, 27
25 Waste of time 2, 5, 37, 35, 3, 35, 38, 1 35, 18, 35, 38, 10, 30, 35, 22, 4, 28, 32, 1,
34, 10 36,4 22, 5 19, 18 10, 39 18, 16 4 18, 39 10, 34 10
27 Reliability 3, 10, 10, 24, 21, 11, 36, 23 10, 35, 10, 30, 21, 28, 35, 2, 27, 17, 1, 11
14, 24 35, 19 27, 19 29, 39 4 40, 3 40, 26 40
28 Accuracy of 32, 13, 6, 28, 32, 35, 3, 6, 32 10, 16, 24, 34, 2, 6, 32 5, 11, 3, 33, 1, 13, 1, 32,
measurement 6 32 13 31, 28 28, 32 1, 23 39, 10 17, 34 13, 11
31 Harmful side effects 17, 2, 2, 33, 35, 40, 2, 35, 6 19, 22, 10, 1, 1, 22 3, 24, 24, 2,
40 27, 18 27, 39 18 34 39, 1 40, 39
33 Ease of operation 1, 16, 2, 32, 32, 35, 1, 13, 28, 32, 4, 28, 12, 35 17, 27, 12, 26,
35, 15 12 30 24 2, 24 10, 34 8, 40 1, 32
35 Adaptability 15, 35, 35, 16 35, 30, 19, 35, 15, 10, 35, 28 3, 35, 35, 13, 15, 34, 1, 16,
29 14 29, 13 2, 13 15 8, 24 1, 16 7, 4
37 Complexity of control 29, 1, 35, 36, 11, 22, 35, 38 19, 35, 1, 18, 18, 28, 3, 27, 27, 40, 2, 21 2, 5 12, 26
4, 16 37, 32 39, 30 16 10, 24 32, 9 29, 18 28, 8

implies that many principles may apply, so the entire list provide answers to real-life problems faced by engineers
should be reviewed. Newer versions of the table (5) have today. The more important point about this way of looking
been generated with principles in all the boxes and with at problems is the fact that breakthrough solutions come
48 parameters, but scientific validation of these choices is from the resolution of contradictions. An engineer’s ten-
not complete. dency is to compromise when facing a contradiction,
Due to space limitations, the complete 39 by 39 contra- which often results in adding unit operations or complexi-
diction table cannot be reproduced here. It is available as ty. If several conditions are needed for a reaction, control
an Excel file (compiled by Ellen Domb and Karen Tate) at system or heat transfer operation, engineers typically try to
www.triz-journal.com/archives/1997/07/index.htm (Item 4, compromise around all the different conditions. TRIZ
Contradiction Matrix). problem-solving tackles the contradiction head-on, requir-
Though the list of 40 inventive principles and the con- ing a different psychological approach. It also attempts to
tradiction table are quite old and the TRIZ methodology eliminate elements by transferring their function to other
has advanced over the years, these two simple tools still elements in the system.

CEP April 2005 www.cepmagazine.org 49

Career Catalyst

Table 5. TRIZ separation principles can be applied to physical

contradictions within the same physical section or entity.
perature for another reason (equilibrium).
This is typically dealt with in various ways.
For instance, the reaction may run at a high
Separate the Functionality in Time temperature for a given amount of time and
Does the parameter or functionality need to be the same at all times? then at a lower temperature for a longer peri-
Could the parameter or functionality benefit from a separation in time?
How can this functionality be controlled to make a system more ideal?
od of time to resolve the contradiction of
Examples: controlled-release drugs; addition of monomers at different stages of a temperature’s effect on both reaction rate and
polymerization to control molecular weight or co-monomer composition; batch equilibrium. Batch distillations may be run
distillation differently in time as composition changes.
Flows, temperatures and pressures of semi-
Separate the Functionality in Space
Does the parameter or functionality need to be the same everywhere?
continuous reactors may be changed. These
Would the system or functionality benefit from a separation in space? examples illustrate the principle of separa-
Examples: catalyst composition vs. geometry of catalyst particle; varying mixing tion in time.
parameters or baffling within a tank; separated project teams away from normal Table 5 summarizes the four TRIZ physi-
business operations cal separation principles.
Separate the Functionality Between the System’s Parts and Whole
Another separation principle is separation
Does the parameter or functionality need to be the same at the micro and macro in space. This principle is used extensively in
levels of the system? catalyst design, placing active sites only in
What benefits might accrue from deliberate separation? certain locations so as to minimize the cost
Examples: lot segregation for quality or inspection purposes; localized turbulence associated with achieving uniformity.
in an overall laminar system; localized control of reaction kinetics
The third principle is separation between
Separate the Functionality Based Upon Condition parts and the whole. Processes and equip-
Can the parameter or functionality be made to respond to a particular condition? ment are often designed uniformly because it
Can an improved product or process result from this separation? is easier conceptually to do so. But what
Examples: a relief valve or alarm responds to a process condition; use of different would happen if the agitation in a reactor
control strategies based upon process conditions; varying product quality as a
function of environmental or business conditions
were different at the top and the bottom? If
the concentration of a reactant were different
at different places in a batch reactor?
Separation principles Finally, separation based upon condition is the fourth
Contradictions are sometimes within a property or separation principle. Although examples of this principle
condition itself rather than a conflict between two differ- are usually covered by one of the other three, this is some-
ent parameters. times an easier way to visualize a contradiction. A relief
For example, a reactor may need to be at a high tem- valve changing position as a result of a safety condition, a
perature for one reason (kinetic rate) and at a lower tem- temporary management team brought in for a special per-
sonnel or startup situation, and reflux ratios in a distilla-
tion column changing with feed conditions are examples
Bad of this separation principle.
Normal Design Tradeoff or Current
Performance Barrier Curve
Visualizing contradictions proactively
TRIZ Moves Performance
Barrier Curve Toward the Though the concepts of ideality, resources, 40 inventive
Origin principles, contradiction table, and separation principles are
Parameter A

excellent problem-solving tools, the most important point is

to think about contradictions in a proactive way. The figure
illustrates a simple way of visualizing contradictions and the
TRIZ approach compared with the normal approach.
Designers and engineers often wander back and forth
along the bad vs. good, parameter A vs. parameter B line,
and in attempting to deal with contradictions make systems
Good
Good Bad more complicated. The tools of TRIZ and the mental process
Parameter B
involved have the effect of moving the curve toward the ori-
gin, making the system or product more ideal.
■ Figure. TRIZ helps the engineer visualize contradictions in a different way.

50 www.cepmagazine.org April 2005 CEP

 The point is to move a system toward the contradic-
tions — don’t compromise, but rather resolve them. That’s
what makes great inventions, what allows superior engi-
neering problem-solving, and what makes a system, prod-
uct, service or organization more ideal.
Next month’s article will cover the use of TRIZ “in
reverse” to analyze and predict process and product fail-
ures. Part 3 will review the TRIZ patterns and lines of
evolution useful in forecasting, planning and new prod-
uct development. CEP
Interested in using TRIZ?
Jack Hipple teaches a special workshop and problem-solv-
ing course on this unique problem solving process. Using
real-world industrial problems, you’ll learn how to resolve
design contradictions and analyze potential failure routes.
Scheduled for May in Chicago and November in Orlando.
For more information visit www.asme.org/education.
AIChE Members qualify for member rates.
Literature Cited
1. Altshuller, G., “And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared,”
Altshuller Institute, www.atriz.org, pp. 110–126 (1996).
2. Mann, D., “Hands-On Systematic Innovation,” Creax Press,
Leper, Belgium, www.creax.com, pp. 357–368 (2002).
3. Salamatov, Y., “TRIZ: The Right Solution at the Right
Time,” Insytec, Hattem, The Netherlands, www.insytec.com,
pp. 99–109, 168–175 (2002).
4. Savransky, S., “Engineering of Creativity,” CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, www.crcpress.com, pp. 309–341 (2000).
5. Dewulf, S., et al., “Matrix 2003,” Creax Press, Leper,
Belgium, www.creax.com (2003).
JACK HIPPLE is principal in the firm Innovation-TRIZ (18222 Collridge Dr.,
Tampa, FL 33647; Phone: (813) 994-9999; Fax: (813) 907-8868;
E-mail: jwhinnovator@earthlink.net; Website: www.innovation-triz.com),
which specializes in organizational problem-solving using the TRIZ
problem-solving methodology, as well as assessment tools such as
MBTI, 16 Types, KAI and FourSights. In his 35 years of experience in the
chemical and materials industries, he served as discovery research
director and manager of global chemical engineering R&D at Dow
Chemical, project manager for the National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences, and program manager for Ansell Edmont and Cabot Corp. He
teaches TRIZ classes for AIChE, ASME, the Innovation Network, the
American Creativity Association, and the Altshuller Institute. He has
written articles and presented workshops on innovation and problem-
solving for the Institute for International Research – USA (IIR), the
International Research Institute (IRI), the Innovation Network, the World
Future Society, the American Creativity Association, Chemical
Technology, Leaders in Action, The TRIZ Journal, and Research-
Technology Management. He received his BS in chemical engineering
from Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Acknowledgement
Input for this article from Hank Kohlbrand, Dow Chemical, is gratefully
acknowledged.
TRIZ Resources
Books
Altshuller, G., “Creativity as an Exact Science,” Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers, Taylor & Francis Group, London
(1988).
Altshuller, G., and L. Shulyak, “40 Principles: TRIZ Keys of
Technical Innovation,” Technical Innovation Center,
Worcester, MA, www.triz.org/tic.htm (1997).
Domb, E., and A. Ratanen, “Simplified TRIZ,” CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, www.crcpress.com (2002).
Fey, V., and E. Rivin, “The Science of Innovation,” The TRIZ
Group, www.trizgroup.com (1997).
Kosse, V., “Solving Problems with TRIZ,” Ideation International,
www.ideationtriz.com (2004).
Timokhov, V. I., “Natural Innovation,” Creax Press, Leper,
Belgium, www.creax.com (2002).
“Tools of Classical TRIZ,” Ideation International, www.ideation-
triz.com (1999).
All of these books can be obtained from the Altshuller Institute at
www.atriz.org.
Websites of Interest
www.triz-journal.com, The TRIZ Journal, an online journal that
is a good source of general information
www.innovation-triz.com, includes monthly e-mail newsletter
from the author
www.aitriz.org, The Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies, spon-
sors an annual TRIZ conference and publishes monthly
newsletters and conference proceedings
www.etria.net, European TRIZ Association
TRIZ Software
Creax Innovation Suite, Creax NV, Leper, Belgium,
www.creax.com (also available from www.systematic-inno-
vation.com)
Goldfire Innovator, Invention Machine, Boston, MA,
www.invention-machine.com
Innovation Workbench, Ideation International, Southfield, MI,
www.ideationtriz.com (also available from Innovation-TRIZ,
www.innovatin-triz.com)
TriSolver4.net, TriSolver GmbH, Hanover, Germany, www.tri-
solver.com
TRIZ Digital Assistant, TRIZ Digital, Dallas, TX,
www.corp.handandgo.com
TRIZ40, www.triz40.com
TRIZ Consulting and Training Providers
(with and without software)
Innovation-TRIZ, Tampa, FL, www.innovation-triz.com
Systematic Innovation, Clevedon, U.K., www.systematic-inno-
vation.com
Gen3 Partners, Boston, MA, www.gen3partners.com
The TRIZ Group, Detroit, MI, www.trizgroup.com
Ideation International, Southfield, MI, www.ideationtriz.com
Inventive Solutions, Minneapolis, MN, www.innovation-triz.com
The PQR Group, Upland, CA, www.triz-journal.com/domb
TRIZ Consulting, Seattle, WA, www.trizconsulting.com
Breakthrough Management Group, Longmont, CO,
www.bmgi.com
TRIZ Experts, Newark, CA, www.trizexperts.net
Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MA, www.triz.org
CEP April 2005 www.cepmagazine.org 51