This reminds me a lot of the idea of “Contradictions” in TRIZ.
TRIZ is a systematized innovation framework, specifically for engineering.
One of the central ideas in TRIZ is that innovation happens by breaking through contradictions. There are two types of contradictions:
1. Physical Contradictions. E.g. We want to make this object both larger and faster, and we can’t figure out how to do that.
2. Logical contradictions. E.g. We want to make this object both larger and smaller, and we can’t figure out how to do that.
One of the central ideas of TRIZ is that there a common framings that can help you overcome contradictions—and that innovation is usually a result of breaking through those contradictions. By finding a way to create both desired properties, you create a more ideal system.
Note: All the below stuff is about how contradictions are solved in TRIZ, and my not be as relevant to this post.
For physical contradictions, there’s the Contradictions Matrix, which is the result of a statistical analysis about what types of solutions are used to solve what types of physical contradictions. For instance, if I want to improve reliability without compromising speed, the solutions I use will typically involve Skipping, Parameter Changes, Beforehand Cushioning, or Mechanics Substitution.
For logical contradictions (which is usually just another way of framing physical contradictions) there’s the separation principles. The separation principles says that for instance if you want an object to be both Large and small, you can separate by:
1. Time (Small when carrying, big when moving like an umbrella)
2. Space (Small at the top, big at the bottom like a christmas tree)
3. Condition (Small when dry, big when wet like those water toys)
4. Parts and Whole (Small handle, large object like a door)
Interesting. I like the idea here of having reusable patterns of problem-solving across diverse engineered physical systems. It reminds of the idea of software patterns. I’m actually kind of disappointed that this was never taught in any of my engineering classes, especially given Wikipedia’s big list of organizations that use it (including Samsung, GE, Boeing, NASA, HP, Intel, and a bunch of others). Now I’m excited to read about some case studies!
If you have any examples of how you’ve used it, I’d love to hear about those too.
Great post!
This reminds me a lot of the idea of “Contradictions” in TRIZ.
TRIZ is a systematized innovation framework, specifically for engineering.
One of the central ideas in TRIZ is that innovation happens by breaking through contradictions. There are two types of contradictions:
1. Physical Contradictions. E.g. We want to make this object both larger and faster, and we can’t figure out how to do that.
2. Logical contradictions. E.g. We want to make this object both larger and smaller, and we can’t figure out how to do that.
One of the central ideas of TRIZ is that there a common framings that can help you overcome contradictions—and that innovation is usually a result of breaking through those contradictions. By finding a way to create both desired properties, you create a more ideal system.
Note: All the below stuff is about how contradictions are solved in TRIZ, and my not be as relevant to this post.
For physical contradictions, there’s the Contradictions Matrix, which is the result of a statistical analysis about what types of solutions are used to solve what types of physical contradictions. For instance, if I want to improve reliability without compromising speed, the solutions I use will typically involve Skipping, Parameter Changes, Beforehand Cushioning, or Mechanics Substitution.
For logical contradictions (which is usually just another way of framing physical contradictions) there’s the separation principles. The separation principles says that for instance if you want an object to be both Large and small, you can separate by:
1. Time (Small when carrying, big when moving like an umbrella)
2. Space (Small at the top, big at the bottom like a christmas tree)
3. Condition (Small when dry, big when wet like those water toys)
4. Parts and Whole (Small handle, large object like a door)
Interesting. I like the idea here of having reusable patterns of problem-solving across diverse engineered physical systems. It reminds of the idea of software patterns. I’m actually kind of disappointed that this was never taught in any of my engineering classes, especially given Wikipedia’s big list of organizations that use it (including Samsung, GE, Boeing, NASA, HP, Intel, and a bunch of others). Now I’m excited to read about some case studies!
If you have any examples of how you’ve used it, I’d love to hear about those too.
This was really helpful, thanks!