TRIZ works well because it shows us the patterns behind how innovations happen.

But there's one clear limitation when we try to use TRIZ outside traditional engineering: many of its parameters are tied to physical concepts. Words like "weight," "force," or "temperature" naturally make us think of mechanical systems, even though the same contradictions appear just as clearly in business, software, social systems, and management.

This work tries to solve this limitation by identifying the fundamental variables that sit below the original TRIZ parameters, while keeping their analytical strength.

<aside> 💡

This framework can help individuals and teams to:

• Think across different domains
• Identify the actual contradiction rather than just the symptoms
• Avoid false trade-offs
• Reuse solution patterns that have worked before
• Explain complex problems more clearly
• Make decisions that consider both short-term benefits and long-term system health

Most importantly, it trains people to see systems, not just problems.

</aside>

Links

TRIZ Contradiction Matrix

Parameters (Domain Independent)

Parameters (Engineering-Original)

Worked Examples: Applying the Fundamental TRIZ Parameters

Worked Examples 2: Applying the Fundamental TRIZ Parameters

Conclusion: What This Framework Is — and What It Is Not

The Core Problem

The original 39 TRIZ parameters work very well in engineering, but when applied to non-physical domains, people often:

• Force metaphorical interpretations
• Lose consistency between parameters
• Mix up properties, states, and outcomes
• Redefine terms differently across domains

This changes TRIZ from a rigorous contradiction framework into a loose ideation tool.

The root issue is not with TRIZ itself, but with how abstract the parameter names are.