Cross-reference 39 engineering parameters in a matrix to systematically identify which of 40 inventive principles resolve your technical contradiction
The TRIZ Contradiction Matrix is a systematic innovation tool developed by Genrich Altshuller through statistical analysis of over 200,000 patents. The matrix maps 39 standard engineering parameters against each other in a 39×39 grid, with each cell recommending specific inventive principles that have historically resolved that type of technical contradiction.
At its core, the matrix addresses engineering contradictions: situations where improving one parameter worsens another (e.g., increasing strength while reducing weight). Rather than accepting trade-offs, the matrix guides inventors toward breakthrough solutions by applying patterns from successful innovations across all industries.
The genius of the system is abstraction: translate your specific problem into standard parameters, use the matrix to identify proven solution principles, then adapt those principles back to your context. This leverages humanity's collective problem-solving experience encoded in patent history.
Define what you want to improve and what gets worse as a result.
Template: "I want to improve [parameter A] without worsening [parameter B]" Example: "I want to increase product strength without increasing weight"
Translate your specific parameters into Altshuller's 39 categories (e.g., weight, speed, strength, temperature, pressure, energy, reliability, measurement accuracy, manufacturability, etc.). One problem may map to multiple parameter pairs.
Example: Strength → Parameter 14 (Strength), Weight → Parameter 1 (Weight of moving object)
Find the intersection: improving parameter on one axis, worsening parameter on the other. The matrix is asymmetric—improving A while worsening B yields different principles than improving B while worsening A.
Example: Improving Strength (row 14) while worsening Weight (column 1)
The cell contains 2-4 numbered principles from the 40 Inventive Principles (e.g., Segmentation, Asymmetry, Nested Doll, Beforehand Cushioning). These are historically proven solution patterns for this contradiction type.
Example Cell Contents: [1, 8, 15, 40] → Segmentation, Counterweight, Dynamicity, Composite materials
Take each recommended principle and ask: "How could this pattern apply to my problem?" Generate multiple solutions per principle. The principles guide thinking; they don't provide ready-made answers.
Example (Composite materials #40): Replace single material with carbon fiber composite—10x strength at 1/5 the weight
Reframe your problem as different contradiction pairs to surface more principles. The "strongest" principles—those appearing multiple times—often yield the best solutions.
Example: Also try "Improve Reliability without increasing Complexity" for additional insight angles
Assess feasibility, cost, and impact of generated solutions. Build prototypes to test the most promising concepts.
Situation (Aircraft Design): Need stronger landing gear without adding weight (fuel efficiency constraint).
Application:
Outcome: Boeing Dreamliner adopted carbon fiber composite landing gear components, achieving 20% weight reduction with equal strength. The matrix guided engineers toward material substitution (Principle #40) as the breakthrough solution.