Key principles and the toolset discussed in the introduction to TRIZ find their structural expression in ARIZ. ARIZ is a 9-step process, which is based on the laws of technical system evolution. The abbreviated name, ARIZ, comes from a transliteration of the name in Russian, Algoritm Resheniya Izobretatel’skikh Zadach. Unlike conventional problem-solving methods, ARIZ targets inventive solutions that break through typical constraints, leading to solutions that may not be obvious through traditional trial-and-error approaches. Its purpose is analysis and resolution of inventive challenges. It is the core tool of the TRIZ, and provides a structured and systematic approach to innovation in the field of mechanical engineering. The first mentioning of ARIZ dates back to the first edition of the book “Invention algorithm” by G. Altshuller published in 1969 by the “Moscow worker” although the first version dates back to 1956 (Bukhman, 2021, p. 385). After that the further iterations of ARIZ were indexed by the year of publication, e.g. ARIZ-68, ARIZ-71, ARIZ-82 (Altshuller, 2011, pp. 158, 221). The latest iteration of the algorithm is ARIZ-85C, which adds to the year index and the iteration version (Altshuller, 2011, pp. 237–274).
The ARIZ-85C algorithm consists of nine detailed steps, each building upon the previous one to move from problem definition to solution synthesis (Altshuller, 2011, p. 165). In addition to the conventional steps, we add the Step 0 as the part of the ARIZ-85AS iteration (Savransky, 2000, p. 315). These 0-9 steps are fragmented in smaller steps to add clarity and structure to the workflow. They are namely (Savransky, 2000, p. 315; Altshuller et al., 1989, p. 105):
- Step 0. Collection of information
- Step 1. Analysis of the task – initial situation;
- Step 2. Analysis of the model of the task – existing resources;
- Step 3. Identification of the Ideal Final Result and physical contradictions;
- Step 4. Utilization and application of the S-Field analysis/resources;
- Step 5. Application of the informational fund;
- Step 6. Change and/or replacement of the task;
- Step 7. Analysis of the ways to eliminate the physical contradictions;
- Step 8. Application of the generated answer;
- Step 9. Analysis of the solution flow.
Over the years, the algorithm has developed from a set of 4 steps in its early version into a complete algorithm of 9-steps which are split into 40 sub-steps and 3 phases (Acker, Braesch, Dumangin, Lauth, Essaid, & Cavallucci, 2020, p. 145). Schematically, the basic workflow using all TRIZ elements is presented on the image below. If you find it complex and overwhelming, it is. If you find it hectic, watch your team trying to innovate without any “hectic” structure. So, the first step is collection of the required information and definition of the initial situation, creation of the mini-problem. The workflow can be both linear sequentially following the procedure from step 1 to 9 or, once the problem is defined, take any other pattern as long as it leads to a solution.
In 1996, there was proposed another iteration of ARIZ called ARIZ-96SS but because of its complexity was reduced to ARIZ-85AS (Savransky, 2000, p. 314). The main difference of the approach is that it is based on the classic ARIZ-85C with Stages 1-9 and Stage 0 is added. This additional stage takes place before starting the problem-solving procedures (Savransky, 2000, p. 314) and addresses the feasibility problem.
Even though ARIZ is central to the TRIZ, it is quite often not attracting appropriate attention and even is ignored. Paradoxically, that same tool which is designed to help with systematic idea generation is also overlooked for various reasons. In 2016 review of TRIZ in Science, Chechurin has noticed that “the classic roadmap for TRIZ tools application ARIZ is almost neglected”. Typically, the selected parts of the TRIZ toolbox are adjusted to other methods or are used independently (Chechurin, 2016). The elements of TRIZ are easy to understand and use. The results are evident even at the initial stages of problem-solving, which discourages the use of in-depth approach to solving problems of the ARIZ. In fact, 85% of inventive challenges can be solved with general application of independent tools, for more challenging tasks there is a need in ARIZ (Ilevbare, Probert, & Phaal, 2013, p. 34). The complex nature of the algorithm has motivated the appearance of numerous attempts to simplify the algorithm, which only adds to the confusion (Souchkov, 2016, p. 18).
In a major attempt to simplify and make ARIZ more user-friendly and commercially acceptable, there appeared cut and expanded versions of ARIZ as well as their digital implementations. Besides the traditional ARIZ (Bukhman, 2021; Altshuller, 2011; Savransky, 2000; Altshuller et al., 1989), there are 4-steps (Orloff, 2017, pp. 38–39, 2020, pp. 24–25, 28–29; Fey & Rivin, 2005, pp. 83–87), 5-steps (Petrov, 2016, pp. 129–130), 3-phases (Cameron, 2015) versions. The most recent efforts to modernize ARIZ were attempted among others by Orloff (2020) with MTRIZ/MAI-TRIZ95, Soderlin (2003) in ARIZ-2000, and Rubin (2016) in ARIZ-U-2014. Orloff’s MTRIZ makes a significant effort to structure and clarify the original TRIZ and ARIZ. ARIZ-2000 attempts to simplify and streamline ARIZ of “unnecessary” complexity. ARIZ-U-2014 attempts to expand the application of ARIZ beyond mere technical application to non-engineering and even to non-material systems. A lack of a standardized and commonly accepted version depreciates the value of the tool although there were made attempts to standardize the trainings and certification with establishment of the International TRIZ Official Association (MATRIZ Official). Another attempt to spread ARIZ happens through digitalization of the algorithm. Among the numerous software solutions, the most notable are TechOptimizer, Goldfire Innovator and CoBrain by Invention Machine, I-TRIZ by Ideation International, COMPINO-TRIZ with ARIZ-U-2014 implementation, TRISolver, TOP-TRIZ, Ideation Work Bench, CreaTRIZ .
The algorithm is as topical as ever. The presented above overview shows that ARIZ remains an actual tool. The number of attempts to improve and develop the tool show the present didactic limitation which eventually will be surmount. The structure and the number of steps one intends to implement in his search of a solution is a matter of taste and commitment, which in no way deems the tool ineffective. The wide variety of TRIZ/ARIZ iterations creates the initially steep learning curve, which, when conquered, delivers on the promise of speeding up the search for novice solutions (Altshuller, 2011, p. 208).
Steps of the Algorithm for Inventive Problem-Solving
Next, we present version of ARIZ with the steps, which we intend to use for the solution search. These steps are based primarily on the ARIZ-85C (Altshuller, 2011, pp. 237–274) and the Step 0 from ARIZ-85AS (Savransky, 2000, p. 315). The steps of ARIZ are translated from Russian source (Altshuller, 2011, pp. 237–274) with the help of a multilingual machine translation service provided by Google, the Google Translate (Google, 2024), and are provided below with minor corrections for reference purpose.
Step 0. Collection of information (part of ARIZ-85AS in Savransky, 2000, p. 315):
Step 0.1 Gather, classify, and organize details about the technique you aim to create/enhance/develop and its environment, and the initial problem situation.
Step 0.2 Identify the range of permissible changes and any constraints, along with the anticipated technical and economic parameters and characteristics in the new technique. This is addressed by determining ranking the minimal changes and accepted solutions. The minimal changes ranking the least technical and economic objectives for solving the problem. The accepted solution ranking defines the characteristics/parameters that must deliberately not be changed and approximate the acceptable costs?
Step 1. Analysis of the task – initial situation (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 238–243):
The main goal of this part of ARIZ is to transit from the blurry inventive situation about the problem to a clearly structured and utmost defined scheme/model of the task. This is achieved in seven sub-steps.
Step 1.1 Writing the conditions of the mini-task (without any specialized terms) following the structure: a) Technical system: for (mention the purpose) consists of (mention the main parts of a system), b) Technical contradiction 1 (TC-1): (mention), c) Technical contradiction 2 (TC-2): (mention), d) It is required under minimal changes to the system (mention the result which aimed for).
Step 1.2 Define the conflicting pair of elements: product and instrument. The product is element, which under the conditions of the task has to be handled/processed (make, move, change, improve, protect from harmful actions, discover, measure, etc.). The tool/instrument is a part that interacts with the product (e.g. drill bit, not the drill; fire flame, not the burner). If an instrument has two states, mention both states. If the task involves pairs of homogeneous interacting elements, it is enough to mention one pair.
Step 1.3 Compile graphic schemes of TC-1 and TC-2. As the steps 1.2 and 1.3 refine the general formulation of the task, it is important to return to the step 1.1 and verify that there are no inconsistencies. If there are any inconsistencies, eliminate them and rectify the solution line.
Steps 1.4 Select between two conflicting schemes (TC-1 and TC-2) that, which ensures the best application of the main production process. Mention the process.
Step 1.5 Amplify the conflict by defining the limit state or action of the elements.
Step 1.6 Formulate the model of the task, indicating a) the conflicting pair, b) enhanced wording of the conflict, c) what should the introduced X-element do to solve the problem (what to preserve and what to eliminate, improve, provide, etc.).
Step 1.7 Assess the suitability of applying the system of standards to the solution of the task model. If the task is solved, go to the seventh step of ARIZ. If not solved, proceed to the next step of ARIZ.
Step 2. Analysis of the model of the task – existing resources (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 244–246):
The aim of this step is to account for the available resources at hand for solving the problem: space, time, substance and field.
Step 2.1 Define the operational zone by recognizing the space within which the specified conflict occurs.
Step 2.2 Define the operational time by recognizing the time within which the conflict occurs as T1 and the time before the conflict as T2.
Step 2.3 Define the related S-Field resources, the external environment and the product(s). Make a list of S-Fields. S-Fields are the combination of substances and fields that are already available or can be easily obtained within the conditions of the problem. S-Fields are of three types: 1) intrasystem (either the product of the instrument), 2) external (S-Field environmental mediums specific to the task), 3) supersystems (external system wastes, negligibly cheap external elements). Product usually is an invariable element which is recommended to not to be changed. Sometimes, a product can change itself, be partly spent, be transitioned to a supersystem, can use micro-level structures, can mate with “nothing” or change over time. Therefore, a product becomes a part of the S-Fields resources in those occasions when it can be easily changed without changing. Thus, S-Fields are available resources and are preferred as primary resources for a solution. If these happen to be insufficient, other S-Fields can be involved.
Step 3. Identification of the Ideal Final Result and physical contradictions (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 246–250):
As a result of the third step of ARIZ, the IFR and physical contradictions are defined. IFR is not always possible to achieve, but it points in the direction of the strongest solution.
Step 3.1. Formulating the IFR-1. Write down the statement following IFR-1 wording: “the X-element, without complicating the system and without causing harmful phenomena, eliminates (indicate the harmful action) during the operational time within the operational zone, while maintaining the ability of the instrument to perform (indicate the beneficial action)” (Altshuller, 2011, p. 247).
Step 3.2. Strengthening the wording of IFR-1. This is achieved by adding a supplementary requirement: “no new substances and fields can be introduced into the system; it is necessary to use the available S-Fields”.
Step 3.3. Formulation of a physical contradiction at the macrolevel. Physical contradictions represent the conflicting requirements for a physical state of the operational zone. It can be expressed following this statement template: “an operational zone during operational time must (indicate a physical macrostate, such as “be hot”) to perform (indicate one of the conflicting actions), and must not (indicate the opposite physical macrostate, such as “be cold”) in order to perform (indicate another conflicting action or requirement)”. If the full statement is difficult to express, the following shorter statement can be used: “the element (or part of the element in the operational zone) must be in order to (indicate), and should not be in order to (indicate)”.
Step 3.4. Formulation of a physical contradiction at the microlevel. The statement of the physical contradiction at the microlevel should be: “in the operational zone there must be particles of matter (indicate their physical state or action) in order to provide (indicate the macrostate required by 3.3), and there must not be such particles (or there must be particles (specify) with the opposite state or action) to provide (specify another macrostate required by 3.3)”.
Step 3.5. Formulating the IFR-2. Write down the IFR-2: “the operational zone (specify) during the operational time (specify) must itself provide (specify opposite physical macro-or microstates)”.
Step 3.6. Application of standards STEP 3.6. Assess the feasibility of using the system of standards to the solution of a physical problem formulated as IFR-2. If the problem remains unresolved, proceed to the fourth part of ARIZ.
Step 4. Utilization and application of the S-Field analysis/resources (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 251–257):
Since the available S-Field resources were defined at the step 2.3, this part of ARIZ systematic operations to increase resources: considered the derivatives of the S-Field resources, obtained almost freely by minimal changes in the existing S-Fields. If the 3.3-3.5 starts the transition from the problem to the answer based on the use of physics, the fourth part of ARIZ continues this line.
Step 4.1. The “little men” method. The approach consists of three stages: a) building a conflict diagram using the little men method (modeling by “little men”); b) changing scheme A in a way that the “little men” engage without causing conflict; c) going to the technical scheme. Little men method takes conflicting requirements and presents that schematically as a drawing(s) where the smallest elements act. Only the changeable particles of the tool or the X-element as the part of the task model should be considered as “little men”. This step is an intermediate increment helping to understand how the S-Field resources act in the operational zone and around it.
Step 4.2. “Step-back from IFR”. In this step, the finished system in its ideal state is depicted first. Next, a minimal dismantling change is made to the drawing (for instance, the dismantling of the components or the functions). Therefore, appears a new micro-task within the existing solution search: “how to eliminate the new defect.” Solving this micro-task often hints towards the solution of the entire task.
Step 4.3. Determine if the use of a mixture of resource substances lead to a solution. Usually, this requires introduction of a new substance, which leads to the complexification of a system with related undesirable effects. This step consists of passing from two monosubstances to an inhomogeneous bi-substance. The aim is to unify the substances maintaining the bounds (including the emptiness/void).
Step 4.4. Replacement of existing resource substances. Check whether the problem is resolved by replacing the existing resource substances with emptiness/void or a mixture of resource substances with emptiness/void.
Step 4.5. The use of substances derived from resource. Assess whether the solution is achievable by deriving a substance from the existing resource substances. Alternatively, a solution can come as a mixture of the derived substances with emptiness/voids obtained by changing the state of aggregation of existing resource substances.
Step 4.6. Introduction of an electric field. Determine whether the problem is resolved with an introduction of an electric field instead of a substance or through the interaction between two electric fields.
Step 4.7. Introduction of the pair “field – substance that responds to the field”. Assess whether the solution is achieved by using the pair “field – substance that responds to the field”.
Step 5. Application of the informational fund (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 258–259):
The aim of the fifth step is to take advantage of the experience condensed in the TRIZ information fund. Often the fourth part of ARIZ leads to a solution. In such cases, one can go to the 7th step. If the answer is not found after the step 4.7, the search for a solution continues with the information search from previous solutions.
Step 5.1. Application of standards. Consider the possibility of solving the problem defined in the IFR-2 with available S-Field resources by using the solution standards.
Step 5.2. Application of analogue tasks. Consider the possibility of solving the problem defined in the IFR-2 with available S-Field resources using analogy with the tasks previously solved using ARIZ, which are not yet accepted as standard solutions.
Step 5.3. Techniques for resolving physical contradictions. Eliminate if possible a physical contradiction using typical transformations (see the Table 7 “Resolution of physical contradictions” for examples (Altshuller, 2011, pp. 267–268)).
Step 5.4. The use of the “index of physical effects”. Consider the possibility of eliminating the physical contradiction with the help of the “Index of the application of physical effects and phenomena” (Altshuller et al., 1989, pp. 342–350; Altshuller, 1987, pp. 95–172).
Step 6. Change and/or replacement of the task (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 260–261):
According to the author, the inventive tasks cannot be set exactly right away – the process of solving is a process of correction of the task. Simple tasks are solved by literally overcoming the physical contradictions. The complex problems usually require a change in a meaning of the problem. This change requires a removal of initial restrictions because of psychological inertia (expressed in stereotypes about an object or effect) and the step-over solutions that are seemingly self-evident.
Step 6.1. Moving from a physical solution to a technical one. If the problem is resolved, proceed by defining the method and providing a schematic diagram/drawing of a device that implements this method.
Step 6.2. Checking the task statement for a combination of several tasks. If there is no answer, check whether the formulation 1.1 is a combination of several different tasks. In this case, the 1.1 should change highlighting separate tasks for sequential solution.
Step 6.3. Changing the task. Proceed by choosing another TC in step 1.4.
Step 6.4. Reformulation of the mini-task. If no solution is found, reformulate the mini-task (step 1.1), expand its context to the supersystem. Repeat the process as needed, stepping up to higher level systems, e.g. to super-supersystem, until a solution emerges.
Step 7. Analysis of the ways to eliminate the physical contradictions (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 262–263):
The aim of the seventh step of ARIZ is to verify the quality of the received answer. An ideal solution eliminates the physical contradictions almost perfectly, “without anything”.
Step 7.1. Response control. Consider the introduced substances and fields. Is it possible to avoid an introduction of new substances and fields, using already available and derived S-Fields? Can a self-regulated substance (substances that change its physical properties under the change of external environment (heat, cold, etc.)) be used? Make necessary adjustments to the technical solution.
Step 7.2. Preliminary evaluation of the obtained solution. Assess the solution following the control questions: 1) Does the solution fulfill the main requirement of the IFR-1? 2) What physical contradiction has been resolved? 3) Is there at least one well-controlled element in the resulting system? Which one? How it is controlled? d) Is the solution found for the “one-cycle” model task suitable for the many cycles replicability in real conditions? If the resulting solution fails to meet any of these control questions, start over with the step 1.1.
Step 7.3. Formal novelty check. Using the patent database, check the formal novelty of the solution.
Step 7.4. Evaluation of subtasks arising from the implementation of the idea. Identify and list potential subtasks that may emerge during the technical development process, including inventive, design, calculation, organizational subtasks.
Step 8. Application of the generated answer (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, pp. 263–264):
Step 8.1. How should the supersystem be changed?
Step 8.2. New application of the system (supersystems). Assess whether the modified system (or super-system) can be applied in a new way.
Step 8.3. Apply the obtained solution to solving other problems. These steps help exploring the broader applicability: 1) formulate the underlying principle of the solution in a generalized form; 2) assess the potential for directly applying of the derived principle to solving other problems; 3) consider the potential for using the principle inverse/opposite to that obtained one; 4) construct a morphological table, for example, of the type “arrangement of parts – aggregate states of the product” or “fields used – aggregate states of the external environment” and consider possible rearrangements of the answer according to the positions of these tables; 5) observe how the principle changes when the system’s size or its main components are scaled to extremes.
Step 9. Analysis of the solution flow (translated and adapted from Altshuller, 2011, p. 265):
Every solved task improves the creativity of an individual, but it comes only after the tedious analysis of the solution pattern, which is the aim of the nineth step of ARIZ.
Step 9.1. Compare the actual steps to solving the problem with the theoretical steps outlined in ARIZ. Identify and document the differences.
Step 9.2. Compare the derived result with the data of the TRIZ information fund (standards, techniques, physical effects). If the solution represents a novel principle, record it in a preliminary storage.
References
Acker, C., Braesch, A., Dumangin, P., Lauth, N., Essaid, A. & Cavallucci, D. (2020). Understanding and Overcoming the Low Utilization Rate of ARIZ in TRIZ Practices, in: Cavallucci, D., Brad, S., and Livotov, P. (Eds.), Systematic Complex Problem Solving in the Age of Digitalization and Open Innovation: 20th International TRIZ Future Conference, TFC 2020 Cluj-Napoca, Romania, October 14–16, 2020 Proceedings, (pp. 145–158). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Springer.
Altshuller, G. (1987). Daring Formulas for Creativity (in Russian) (A. B. Selyutsky, Ed.). Petrozavodsk: Karelia. 269 p.
Altshuller, G. (2011). Finding an Idea: Introduction to TRIZ (in Russian) (N. Velichenko, Ed.). Fourth edition. Moscow, RU: Alpina Publishers. 400 p.
Altshuller, G., Filatov, V. I., Zlobin, B. & Zusman, A. (1989). Searching for New Ideas: From Illumination to Technology (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) (in Russian). Chisinau, MD: Cartea Moldoveneasca. 391 p.
Bukhman, I. (2021). Technology for Innovation. How to Create New Systems, Develop Existing Systems and Solve Related Problems. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 527 p.
Cameron, G. (2015). ARIZ Explored: A Step-by-Step Guide to ARIZ, the Algorithm for Solving Inventive Problems. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 152 p.
Chechurin, L. (2016). TRIZ in Science. Reviewing Indexed Publications. Procedia CIRP, 39, 156–165.
Fey, V. & Rivin, E. (2005). Innovation on Demand. New Product Development Using TRIZ. Illustrated edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 256 p. Retrieved from Cambridge University Press
Google. (2024). Google Translate [Web Document]. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://translate.google.com
Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D. & Phaal, R. (2013). A Review of TRIZ, and Its Benefits and Challenges in Practice. Technovation, 33(2–3), 30–37.
Orloff, M. A. (2017). ABC-TRIZ: Introduction to Creative Design Thinking with Modern TRIZ Modeling. Springer International Publishing. 516 p.
Orloff, M. A. (2020). Modern TRIZ Modeling in Master Programs. Introduction to TRIZ Basics at University and Industry. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 525 p.
Petrov, V. (2016). Five-Step Method for Breakthrough, in: Chechurin, L. (Ed.), Research and Practice on the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ). Linking Creativity, Engineering and Innovation., (pp. 127–147). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. 281 p.
Rubin, M. (2016). On Developing ARIZ-Universal-2014, in: Souchkov, V. and Kässi, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the TRIZfest-2014 International Conference, (pp. 195–205). Prague, CZ: MATRIZ. 321 p.
Savransky, S. D. (2000). Engineering of Creativity. Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. First edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 408 p.
Soderlin, P. (2003). Thoughts on ARIZ Do We Need to Redesign the ARIZ 2000? [Web Document]. The TRIZ Journal. Retrieved October 10, 2023, from https://the-trizjournal.com/thoughts-ariz-need-redesign-ariz-2000/
Souchkov, V. (2016). Triz in the World: History, Current Status, and Issues of Concern. TRIZ: Application Practices and Development Issues, 5(5), 23.