Recently I’ve been cleaning out my file drawers and closets, going though a lot of old material I haven’t seen or thought about in some time. Some work I had collected on TRIZ (a Russian innovation methodology) struck me with its connection to my “Remote Associations” post back in early February. Just as a refresher, here’s the diagram central to that post, and then here’s a diagram of the TRIZ method.
This isn’t a perfect mapping of quadrants; since these quadrants are measuring very different things (the first measures two continua, while with the second organized four discrete items into sequential flow). That said there are some pretty strong connections between what each of these diagrams says.
Moving from specific problem to generalized problem is abstraction; it is to see the metaphorical behind the actual. It is in a sense inductive. In terms of the first diagram, it is the ability to see similarities between things that seem different.
Moving from generalized solution to specific solution is concretization; it is to designate an actual from the metaphorical. It is in a sense deductive. In terms of the first diagram, it is the ability to see differences between things that seem similar.
Recognizing the similarities between apparent differences, moving from the actual to the metaphorical, is like bridging to other places. It is in a way like the archetypal hero’s journey Joseph Campbell (expert in comparative mythologies) describes.
The hero’s journey begins with a sickness in the village, a sickness the normal medicine cannot cure. This is the actual problem. Fortunately there is a magic elixir that can cure the village, but it is far far away. So a hero must be chosen to journey beyond the village and beyond everything that is known. This is the journey from actual to metaphorical. Along the way the hero gains many magic items and companions. These are the generalized solutions. And finally the hero must secure the elixir, and return to the village with it. This is the journey back from the metaphorical to the actual with the specific solution–the solution no one else could come up with.
Now here is the problem: according to my scheme here, TRIZ puts design (seeing the similarity between different things) *after* research (seeing the differences between similar things) the in the sequence of innovation. Clear this doesn’t make sense, so clearly I’ve made a mistake somewhere–but where?
So, what’s my point? Well, I’m not sure I have one really, certainly not beyond just pointing out an interesting connection between Campbell, TRIZ and an earlier posting of mine. But this connection does seem to suggest that there is a point buried in here somewhere—a point worth trying to figure out.
Thanks for the interesting analysis and juxtaposition, niblettes! Anytime a blog post includes a crash course on Joseph Campbell as part of the process, it has to be good. 🙂
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!
Wow, nice comparison to the hero’s journey. I’ve yet to read that all the way through.
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.
There are a small group of writers/thinker that i find i keep returning to over and over again, often from different paths. Campbell is one of them.
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.
Dirk,
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.