ARIZ Block 1: Restructuring the original problem

Part 1. Analyze the system

In general, part 1 is about the analysis of the key problem. It includes seven steps.

It begins with identifying main function of the system, as wel as components of the system and its supersystem. After that the engineering problem is modelled as two alternative (inverted) engineering contradictions and the mini-problem is formulated.
The next steps help determine the tool(s) and the product(s) in the analyzed conflict. The two states of them are also identified. Next, graphical models of the contradictions are created. Finally, the base contradiction is selected, intensified, and the problem is formulated.

Step 1.1. Formulate the mini-problem

The first step of ARIZ is to define the mini-problem by identifying the system and modeling the problem as engineering contradictions (EC).

In ARIZ, the system may differ from the one analyzed earlier during function analysis. Here, the focus is on the key problem, so the system includes only components directly related to it. However, it is recommended that not only technological components of the system be listed but also the “natural” ones that interact with it. For example, in the problem of protecting a telescope antenna, natural objects like lightning or incoming radio waves (emitted by celestial bodies) should also be considered.

The key disadvantages, identified earlier through CECA, help pinpoint the root causes, which may lie deep within or outside the original system. Eliminating these root causes defines the key problem, and the system in ARIZ refers to the area where this problem occurs.

To define the system, its main function is specified, and essential components of both the system and supersystem are listed. Based on this, two types of engineering contradictions are formulated: EC-1 (direct) and EC-2 (inverted). Together, they form the foundation of the mini-problem.

When formulating contradictions, make sure to include key parameters in the IF, THEN, and BUT lines. It’s also helpful to keep the function format in the THEN and BUT lines, showing how the function carrier affects a specific parameter of the function object. This clarity will support later steps in the process.

Sometimes the problem situation involves only the product – the tool is absent. In such cases, there is no clear technical contradiction, but one can still be formulated by considering two states of the product, even if one of those states seems impossible to achieve.

For example – how can we observe tiny particles suspended in a transparent liquid with the naked eye, if the particles are so small that light flows around them?

TC-1: The liquid remains transparent because the particles are small, but they cannot be seen with the naked eye.

TC-2: Larger particles are easier to observe, but they make the liquid no longer transparent, which is an unacceptable outcome.

Since we cannot change the product, we will proceed only with TC-1, but we also note that TC-2 adds a requirement to the product: The particles must remain small (to keep the liquid transparent) and simultaneously become large (so they can be seen).

Step 1.2. Determine the conflicting pair

Step 1.2 is used to identify the tool(s) and product(s) that form the conflicting pair.

In this step, we also identify the states in which the tool operates. These states refer to the properties, features, or parameters specified in the IF line of the contradictions formulated in step 1.1:

state 1 can be found in the direct contradiction,
state 2 appears in the inverted contradiction.

Step 1.3. Create graphical models of the engineering contradictions

In Step 1.3, the problem is presented in graphic form. Graphs are created for both EC-1 and EC-2.

The graphs are built using symbols familiar from tools such as function analysis and substance-field modeling.

It is important to note that the purpose of the diagrams is not to depict functions, but to illustrate engineering contradictions.

The diagram must clearly show both the useful and the harmful action. In practice, this means there should be two arrows – one “good” and one “bad.” If both arrows represent the same type of effect (e.g. both are useful, or both are harmful/insufficient/excessive), it indicates a mistake that needs to be corrected.

The conflicting pair shown in the illustration typically consists of two components, but in some cases it may involve three – either two products and one tool, or one product and two tools.

Step 1.4. Select a contradiction for further analysis (basic contradiction)

EC-1 and EC-2 model the same situation, but they represent completely different problems.

To achieve the project goal, both problems need to be addressed, but it’s not possible to deal with them simultaneously. At this stage, we must choose which engineering contradiction to focus on – this becomes the basic contradiction.

Altshuller recommended selecting the contradiction in which the system’s main function is performed. This approach is quite natural, as the goal is to solve the problem with minimal changes to the system. However, experience shows that there are cases where engineers are open to more significant modifications. In such situations, choosing the inverted contradiction may be the better option.

Importantly, selecting one contradiction at this point does not mean discarding the other one. If the solutions developed in the next steps are not satisfactory, the algorithm itself will prompt a return to this step and suggest reconsidering the second contradiction.

Step 1.5. Intensify the conflict

This step has been introduced to help overcome psychological inertia, including the natural tendency of engineers to focus on optimization. While optimization isn’t inherently bad, it is not desirable during the conceptual phase of TRIZ-based projects.

To intensify the contradiction, the parameter from the line IF is pushed to its absolute extreme. If something was supposed to be light, it should now weigh nothing; if it was supposed to be small, it should now cease to exist entirely.

Strengthening this parameter will require corresponding adjustments to the THEN and BUT positions in the contradiction model.

Important! From this point onward, we will be working exclusively with the intensified contradiction in ARIZ.

Step 1.6. Formulate the problem model

In step 1.6, we use all the previous steps and formulate an ARIZ problem model. The ARIZ problem model should include:

the conflicting pair,
the intensified definition of the conflict, and
the X-factor.

Step 1.7. Apply standard inventive solutions

In Step 1.7, based on the diagrams created in Step 1.3, substance-field models are constructed and standard inventive solutions are applied.

The entire analysis conducted in Part 1, along with the construction of the problem model, results in a significant refinement of the problem.

Implementation of step 1.7 is not mandatory and can be skipped. Regardless, standard inventive solutions application will reappear in part 5 of ARIZ.

Part 2. Analyzing the problem model

Part 2 of ARIZ focuses on analyzing the resources available within the system and its supersystem.

ARIZ is designed for projects that allow only minimal changes to the system. This usually rules out the introduction of new resources, which makes identifying existing resources absolutely critical.

Part 2 consists of three steps, during which we identify the main types of resources considered in ARIZ:

space resources,
time resources, and
substance and field resources of the system and its supersystem, including their parameters.

Step 2.1. Define the operating zone

In Step 2.1, the spatial resources of the system are identified. The operating zone (also called operating space) refers to the area where the conflict identified in the problem model occurs.

According to the previously formulated contradiction, the system faces two opposing requirements. One must be fulfilled in operating zone 1 (OZ-1), the other in operating zone 2 (OZ-2). If these zones are separated, the contradiction may be resolved by separating the contradictory demands in space. If the zones overlap, then other methods must be explored to resolve the contradiction.

Step 2.2. Define the operating time

In this step, the time resources of the system are identified.

The operating time is most simply defined as the time in which the conflict identified in the problem model occurs. According to the contradiction, the system faces two opposing requirements. Operating time 1 (OT-1) is the period during which the first requirement of the system is met, while operating time 2 (OT-2) is the period during which the second requirement occurs.

It is essential to determine whether these zones are separated or overlapping. If these times are different, the contradiction can be resolved by separating the contradictory requirements in time. If the times overlap, the separation is not possible hence a different strategy is required.

Step 2.3. Define the substance-field resources (SFR)

In the final step of Part 2, the focus shifts to the analysis of substance and field resources – both those already present and those that can be easily accessed or introduced.

The resources under consideration include:

1. internal resources:

product resources, and
tool resources,

2. external resources.

During resource analysis, we are interested not only in the presence of a substance or field. Special attention is given to their parameters or features, which are considered particularly valuable in ARIZ. When creating a list of resources, everything that comes to your mind should be included, as any resource could be a potential candidate for solving the problem.

The internal resources of the conflicting pair are the first to be analyzed. Since both the tool and the product are already located in the conflict zone, their associated resources are also present – no additional effort is required to deliver them.

Compared to the tool, the product’s resources may be more limited in terms of availability. While we often have the freedom to modify the tool as needed, making changes to the product may be subject to design, functional, or business constraints.

When it comes to external resources, the search begins in the immediate surroundings of the conflict – the operating zone. However, it is beneficial to expand the search area, as there may be low-cost or even free resources available in the supersystem. Nearly every engineering project has access to universal resources like air and gravity. Additionally, nearby systems may generate waste or possess surplus materials or fields that could be valuable for solving the problem.

Part 3. Defining the ideal final result and formulating the physical contradiction

Part 3 of ARIZ focuses on the ideal final result (IFR) and identifying physical contradictions that hinder achieving it.

Step 3.1. Formulate IFR

In Step 3.1, we return to the requirements defined for the X-factor based on the intensified technical contradiction from Step 1.6. Now, we can supplement these requirements with those identified in Steps 2.1 and 2.2, relating to the operating zone and operating time.

To formulate the ideal final result (IFR), a template is typically used. However, in some projects, applying the template word-for-word may result in a confusing or unclear statement. In such cases, it’s recommended to break the text into several separate sentences to clearly and effectively convey the intended meaning.

Step 3.2. Formulate the intensified ideal final result

At this stage, the X-factor from Step 3.1 is replaced with a specific available resource.

Keep in mind that the only resources that may be used to replace the X-factor are those identified in Step 2.3 – using any other resources is not in line with ARIZ. However, the replacement can be a single resource or a combination of several.

It is recommended to consider SFRs in the following order:

SFR of the tool,
SFR of the supersystem,
other external SFR,
SFR of the product (if not restricted).

Modifications to the product are usually significantly restricted or even completely prohibited. However, there are rare situations where the product may be allowed to change on its own, change temporarily, or be combined with a void, etc. SFR of the product may be considered only if such modifications are explicitly permitted.

The list of resources identified in Part 2 is usually quite long. Considering each one as a potential X-factor would significantly extend the project timeline. That’s why in Step 3.2, it is recommended to start by considering 5 to 6 selected resources. If using them does not lead to satisfactory results, you can return to Step 3.2 later in the ARIZ process to explore other resources.

Step 3.3. Define the physical contradiction on macro-level

The intensified ideal final result (IFR) concepts developed in Step 3.2 usually do not yet solve the mini-problem. It is highly likely that the chosen resources are prevented from acting effectively as X-factors due to underlying physical contradictions. Identifying these contradictions enables us to attempt to resolve them.

For formulating the physical contradictions here, we usually use the following pattern:

The parameter [specify] of the resource [specify] should be value 1 [specify] to eliminate the harmful action [specify] and/or value 2 [specify] to provide the useful function [specify].

When approaching the formulation of physical contradictions, we typically encounter one of the following three scenarios:

The contradiction can be clearly formulated and processed.
After formulating the contradiction, it turns out that the selected resource has no influence or connection to the parameters that need to be changed. At this stage, the resource is set aside – it may be reconsidered later in the ARIZ process.
It becomes clear that only one demand of the contradiction is justified. This means the contradiction does not actually exist – and we’ve just found the solution.

The physical contradictions formulated in Step 3.2 represent models of entirely new problems that had not been previously identified – yet they are precisely what gives ARIZ its distinctive power.