Pragmatic innovations – part 1
Given the breadth of the material, we’ve decided to publish the article in three parts. Each week, we’ll explore a new aspect of this fascinating journey, delving into the history of innovation as a discipline.
In this first part, the history will be uncovered, and we shall learn how the theory emerged and transformed into first practical tools.
Pragmatic innovations…
…or how creating innovation became an innovation in itself
Prolog
Nowadays, mentioning the word “innovation” in conversation can provoke a strong reaction – sometimes even making people want to change the subject. The term seems omnipresent. Innovations receive grants, they’re patented, marketed, and monetized. Everything now claims the title of innovation. Everyone is either developing or implementing some form of it. Every improvement, every change is labeled as innovation, making it understandable why some might feel weary or even skeptical about this overused buzzword.
That said, it’s undeniable that the world is progressing rapidly. Technologically, we’re more advanced than ever. Modern industrial, telecommunication, electronic, and even quantum solutions are continuously pushing boundaries, often inspiring surprise and even awe – at least for those who can grasp their complexity. For everyone else, they’ve simply become a part of our accepted reality. Looking back even a few years highlights the speed of this change. Remember the 2006 World Cup final, when Zinedine Zidane famously headbutted Marco Materazzi, an act that effectively cost France the game against Italy? While that wasn’t too long ago, it’s notable that no one in the world captured that moment on an iPhone. Why? Because the iPhone hadn’t been released yet; its first generation hit the market a year later. Today, we see new versions launched annually, so much so that it’s hard to keep track of which generation we’re on.
Without a doubt, humanity has reached an unprecedented pace of progress. We are surrounded – almost inundated – by technological innovations. Yet, a key question remains: where do these innovations truly come from, and how do we draw the line between a genuine breakthrough and just another “incremental” upgrade?
One might think that a true innovation, a groundbreaking concept with a capital “I,” comes only from a rare genius who, in a flash of insight, creates something transformative – an idea so remarkable that, once materialized, seems obvious to everyone else. Such a concept can disrupt entire industries, reshape consumer preferences, and even drive competing products out of the market. While this scenario might be true in some cases, I argue that most innovations are born from a much more deliberate process.
The development of a major innovation typically involves countless hours of analysis, planning, and strategic forecasting to identify which business areas have the potential to become transformative. This is followed by hundreds, if not thousands, of hours dedicated to testing, experimenting, and prototyping. Finally, a substantial investment of time goes into positioning the product in the market, promoting it, and building consumer awareness.
In other words, while a brilliant idea is always welcome, most companies can’t afford to wait for a flash of inspiration and hope it’ll resonate positively with consumers. Major global players, as well as local entrepreneurs, must actively design their innovations – whether they’re minor or radical – and the development process itself needs to significantly boost the product’s chances of market success.
I’ll return later to how the innovation process works and how it can be made effective, but for now, let’s look at Interbrand’s “Best Global Brands 2020” report [1]. This report lists the world’s hundred most valuable brands. In the top quartile, we see giants like Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung, Toyota, Intel, IBM, Cisco, and Ikea. These corporations are known for introducing substantial innovations to the market and ensuring these innovations endure. For these companies, the word “innovation” is far from overused.
But let’s pause and consider: how can we measure these innovations? Is the latest iPhone a single innovation, or is it a collection of smaller, internal improvements that consumers may not see directly but benefit from daily? There are likely several ways to quantify this, but one approach stands out. Typically, if a company has invested considerable resources into creating an innovation, it will aim to protect it from competitors for as long as possible to maximize returns. And how are technological innovations safeguarded? Through patents, of course.
Let’s examine two companies from the report that consistently patent their technological advancements. We’ll compare them alongside their estimated brand value in successive Interbrand reports. In the charts, we have two South Korean giants from the electronics and automotive industries: Samsung and Hyundai. We compare the number of patent applications filed by these companies (focusing solely on filings with the U.S. Patent Office, as patenting in the U.S. is costly and tends to cover “most valuable” innovations with the highest expected return or strategic importance) and their brand value, expressed in billions of USD.
Figure 1. Comparison of number of patents and brand value for Samsung and Hyundai.
Source: own compilation based on Interbrands “Best Global Brands” reports and data from patent databases.
At first glance, it’s easy to spot the correlation between the number of patents filed and a brand’s rising value. What’s more, in both cases, there’s a noticeable acceleration in patent filings, which directly aligns with a corresponding increase in brand value. For Samsung, a surge in patents occurred in 1997, followed by a dip and then another rapid increase after a few years. In Hyundai’s case, the acceleration took place a bit later, around 2008. This raises an important question: what innovative activities were underway at these companies during these years?
I’ll explore this in detail in the following sections. For now, let’s stop for a while at the question of whether success in innovation (both in development and market entry) is just a matter of luck, or whether it can be approached more systematically.
In today’s world, even the most remarkable innovation can struggle to capture public attention. With the flood of information and competing messages, consumers are increasingly selective about what they engage with. As a result, while some innovations quickly gain traction and yield financial rewards, others, no matter the investment behind them, fade into obscurity. Predicting which path any single innovation will take is difficult. Nevertheless, despite the risk of market failure, developing and implementing new innovations has become essential for companies – whether large corporations or small and medium enterprises powering today’s economies.
Creating something of genuine value is essential for survival but can be challenging, time-consuming, and costly. So, what can companies do to manage the risk of potential failure? The answer lies in innovating the innovation process itself. This might sound counterintuitive, but decades ago, it became clear that waiting for a flash of genius isn’t a viable strategy. Instead, innovators must take action – and that action cannot be random. Development efforts need to be intentional, effective, and efficient. In short, innovation needs to be approached pragmatically: develop what has the highest probability of success, improve only the parameters that consumers value, and seek solutions to problems in areas where the issue may be a matter of life or death.
The question remains: how can this be done? The remainder of this article traces the history and evolution of a pragmatic and systematic approach to creating innovations and provides some insights into answering this critical question.
Part 1, or how much can be inferred by reading patents
The story I’m sharing today began about a century ago [2]. In 1926, Genrikh Altshuller was born in Tashkent (now the capital of Uzbekistan), but he spent nearly all of his childhood and later scientific life in Baku, Azerbaijan. A twist of fate and a series of fortunate events kept him from the front lines of World War II, landing him instead in the Patent Department of the Caspian Fleet in Baku. This was a perfect case of “the right person, in the right place.” For a young man who had already shown an inventive streak in school – having created a diving apparatus powered by hydrogen peroxide – this position was ideal. Not only did it provide a livelihood, but it also gave him a platform to hone his skills.
Altshuller was intrigued by inventions and the processes behind them. His curiosity drove him to analyze patents describing various “technical systems” (his term for any system designed and created to serve a specific function). It was through studying these systems and their patent documentation that he began to lay the groundwork for his later theory. He observed that many technological solutions aimed to resolve a specific challenge: overcoming a contradiction between technical parameters. This refers to a fairly common case in engineering: improving one parameter in the system very often leads to the deterioration of another. For example, increasing strength unfortunately results in increased weight, or enhancing engine power leads to higher fuel consumption, and so on.
Altshuller’s first article, co-authored with Raphael Shapiro, was published in Questions of Psychology in 1956 [3]. This paper presented the findings from their patent analysis, introducing concepts like technical contradiction, ideality, inventive systems thinking, the law of completeness of a technical system, and inventive principles. The authors also proposed the first structured method (an algorithm) to support the process of solving inventive challenges.
A few years later, in 1963, Altshuller introduced the first version of the Trends of Engineering Systems Evolution. The following year, he developed the initial version of the contradiction matrix, later known as the Altshuller Matrix. Within less than a decade, the classic Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (Russian: teoriya resheniya izobretatelskikh zadach, or TRIZ) had taken shape.
One of the most widely recognized tools Altshuller developed is the contradiction matrix, designed to address problems where improving one parameter of a system causes another to deteriorate.
The contradiction matrix is structured as a table with 39 typical parameters listed along both the horizontal and vertical axes. The vertical axis identifies the parameters that need improvement to solve the problem, while the horizontal axis lists the parameters that worsen as a result of introducing a specific change or technology. At the intersection of a row and column, the matrix provides a cell containing numbers that correspond to recommended Inventive Principles – generalized patterns of inventive solutions.
This tool serves as a bridge between problem models and generalized solution models, making it a powerful aid for systematically addressing technical contradictions.
Earlier, I provided two examples where improving one parameter directly causes the deterioration of another. Other parameters included one can find in the matrix weight of moving object, weight of stationary object, speed, shape, temperature, loss of energy, measurement accuracy, object-affected harmful factor, ease of implementation, extent of automation, etc. These examples highlight that not all parameters have a strict physical interpretation or a clearly defined unit of measurement.
However, the purpose of the contradiction matrix isn’t to measure changes with precision. Instead, it focuses on identifying the changes themselves, their impact on specific parameters, and the direction of that impact. The matrix aims to link parameters that improve with those that deteriorate simultaneously and for the same underlying reason when a change is introduced into the technical system.
Figure 2. Genrikh Altshuller explaining the principle of the Contradiction Matrix. 1986, Chelyabinsk.
Source: Zakhar Vintman’s archival materials.
Reducing the vast range of parameters encountered in projects to just 39 generalized ones is a remarkable achievement. Although attempts have been made over time to expand this list [4], the classic set has proven sufficient for the vast majority of projects. However, Altshuller’s true genius lay in analyzing tens of thousands of patent solutions that addressed these contradictions and distilling the most common approaches to resolving them. Ultimately, he identified 40 universal methods and termed them Inventive Principles. He integrated these principles into his matrix, guiding inventors and engineers to potential solution paths when faced with contradictions in their creative processes.
Let’s consider a few examples:
- If the speed is improving while stability of the object composition is worsening, suggested inventive principles include mechanics substitution, such as change from static to movable fields, from unstructured fields to structured, or homogeneity, which involves making objects interacting with any given object of the same material (or material with identical properties).
- If reliability is improving while manufacturing precision is worsening, one of the recommended principles is segmentation, suggesting that an object be divided into independent parts or designed for easy disassembly and assembly.
It’s important to stress that the Contradiction Matrix and Inventive Principles do not provide ready-made solutions. These tools won’t turn someone without engineering expertise into an instant inventor. Instead, they offer statistically proven directions for resolving contradictions. For an experienced engineer, however, these tools can serve as an invaluable source of inspiration.
In the years that followed, Altshuller worked to promote his theory and its practical applications. Over time, it gained recognition in increasingly broad circles. Training camps were organized, where participants – aspiring experts in pragmatic innovation – immersed themselves for weeks in the study of classic TRIZ tools, refining their understanding and application of the methodology.
Figure 3. Commemorative photo from a training course organized in 1985 in the city of Miass near Chelyabinsk.
Source: Zakhar Vintman’s archival materials.
An intriguing anecdote from a different field is that, as early as the 1960s, Altshuller began developing what we might now call a simple computer. This device, eventually named Evrotron and completed in the 1970s, was designed to function as an automated Contradiction Matrix. In modern terms, Altshuller was working not only on the software but also on the hardware, creating an integrated system to support innovation processes.
Figure 4. Genrikh Altshuller and the Evrotron – the first inventive machine.
Source: https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-zen_doc/34175/pub_5d2cc96f4e057700ad303d84_5d2ce5a0f0d4f400afcbf8e1/scale_1200.
In the 1970s, Altshuller crossed paths with Valery Tsurikov, another visionary who was among the first in the world to recognize the potential of artificial intelligence. At the time, Tsurikov was already developing AI-driven software in what is now Belarus. In 1974, the two men recognized the synergy between their work and the immense potential of combining the TRIZ methodology with artificial intelligence. Just a year later, Tsurikov created the first prototype of a system for what he called the Invention Machine. By 1988, a functioning prototype of the invention machine itself had been completed.
Tsurikov’s team succeeded in automating methods for generating new ideas based on the TRIZ methodology. They also developed a semantic processor that indexed a database of global patents and scientific articles, enabling inventors to find solutions across a wide range of technical fields. The invention machine’s story didn’t end there [5]. Its evolution, particularly Tsurikov’s journey to success in the U.S. market after his move in 1991, is fascinating and one I’ll touch on shortly.
Before diving into that, let’s return to the training programs led by Altshuller. By the time of his death in 1998, Altshuller had personally trained several hundred individuals in TRIZ. The highest distinction – the TRIZ Master certification – was awarded by him to just 65 people. Among them were individuals like Valery Mikhailov (first from the left in the photo below), Boris Zlotin (second from the left), and Michail Shusterman (first from the right). A full list of those who completed the entire TRIZ specialization under Altshuller’s direct mentorship can be found on the Altshuller Institute website [6].
Figure 5. Genrikh Altshuller accompanied by Valery Mikhailov, Boris Zlotin and Michail Shusterman, among others.
Source: Zakhar Vintman’s archival materials.
Many of Altshuller’s students, who began their training in the 1980s under his guidance, completed their courses after his passing, earning certificates from the MATRIZ Dissertation Board. Among these TRIZ pioneers was Sergei Ikovenko, a professor at both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University. He has trained generations of TRIZ practitioners and contributed to numerous publications.
Professor Ikovenko played a pivotal role in popularizing TRIZ internationally, helping it evolve into a more modern framework tailored to the demands of a capitalist economy. This evolution also led to a significant collaboration between Ikovenko and Valery Tsurikov, who was based in the United States at the time. Tsurikov invited Ikovenko to join his newly established company, Invention Machine Corporation, where the professor took a leading role in the training division.
*
To be continued… 😊
*
About the author
Błażej Czajkowski
An expert in grants and support instruments with over 15 years of experience advising companies on obtaining and managing financial assistance for investment and R&D projects. A passionate advocate of the TRIZ methodology.
References
- The report is available on Interbrand’s website: https://www.interbrand.com/thinking/best-global-brands-2020-download/
- Biographical information on Genrikh Altshuller: https://matriz.org/about-matriz/about-founder/
- © Альтшуллер Г.С., Шапиро Р.Б., 1956 О ПСИХОЛОГИ ИЗОБРЕТАТЕЛЬСКОГО ТВОРЧЕСТВА //Вопросы психологии, № 6, 1956. – с. 37-49
- Full text of Darell Mann available on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281497740_Comparing_the_Classical_and_New_Contradiction_Matrix-Part1-Zooming_Out and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228875813_Comparing_The_Classical_And_New_Contradiction_Matrix_Part_2_Zooming_In.
- Details of the creation of the Invention Machine are presented in the timeline available at: https://www.seecore.org/d/2011_time-lineIM.pdf and in the article https://dev.by/news/true-machina
- https://www.aitriz.org/triz/triz-masters