In the pages of this Startup Manual, key innovation concepts supporting this methodology are explained, as well as the application of an algorithm to accelerate the search for solutions. The methodology is based on a fundamental principle deduced from nature: for similar challenges, the same solution is applied.

This manual aims to present the minimum requirements necessary for achieving innovative solutions using 'Nature's Language of Innovation,' known as Nature's L.I., through its Aatrizinventor algorithm.
The fundamental premise behind this methodology is to recognize that 'Innovating is Meeting People's Needs.' A need to satisfy is expressed as an Innovation Challenge affected by undesirable effects, such as operational difficulty, the need to change the current situation, the desire to improve competitiveness, reduce costs and losses, or the perception or belief that it can be done differently. Failure or dissatisfaction with this need, by not overcoming the undesirable effects, affects our business, desired outcomes, daily activities, social relationships, etc. If we can declare the driving need and recognize what hinders achieving the desired satisfaction, that's where the possibility of innovation arises.
So, innovating is about solving the contradictions that arise between a need to satisfy and multiple undesirable effects that hinder its satisfaction. Additionally, the undesirable effects may also be in contradiction with each other, making it more complex to achieve the desired solution. The analysis of this difficulty led to the conclusion that it was necessary to have a systematic methodology for solving innovation challenges, allowing for an accelerated approach to the desired outcome.

The methodology, named 'Nature's Language of Innovation,' includes the following defining concepts:
Drawing on the Theory of Constraints, the formulation of an innovation challenge can be expressed as a modified multivariable evaporation cloud. For a desired goal of a physical or figurative object, there is a need to satisfy and up to 4 undesirable effects, which, through their interactions, generate up to 20 technical contradictions that need to be resolved. The relationship between the need to satisfy and the undesirable effects is governed by a physical contradiction, determined by a physical variable or characteristic. In a specific state, this variable satisfies the desired need and in the same or another state causes the undesirable effects. Consequently, the solution to an innovation challenge involves bringing this physical variable or characteristic to the most desired state, which is achieved by resolving the existing contradictions in the current situation.

To solve contradictions, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, TRIZ, was evaluated, which solves contradictions between engineering parameters by recommending inventive principles to find a solution. The findings are summarized as follows:

- Innovation parameters have their origin in engineering, but it is possible to give them a universal interpretation to apply them in any area of human development and in nature.

- TRIZ identifies 39 innovation parameters. The existence of two types of parameters in TRIZ is clearly distinguishable: quantifiable and manipulable parameters, 24 in total, which this new methodology calls parameters of undesirable effects, and qualitative non-manipulable parameters, 10 in total, which this new methodology calls needs to satisfy. These 10 parameters determine the innovation-evolution curve of any object or natural entity, in the broadest sense of the word. The same quantities are defined for both moving and stationary objects. Details of these definitions are provided in Section 6 of this Manual.

- TRIZ identifies 40 inventive principles. These principles play a role in the TRIZ Contradiction Matrix, which contains 1248 contradictions. Reviewing the participation of each principle in this matrix, along with the scope of their definitions, has allowed for the definition of three types:
Strategic inventive principles (13), driving change
Tactical inventive principles (13), focusing on change
Operational inventive principles (14), enabling change to work
This simple subdivision has proven to be incredibly useful in facilitating the identification of a specific solution applicable to the evaluated case. Details of these definitions are provided in Section 6 of this Manual.

In conclusion, when we put this methodology into practice, everyone can innovate. That is, everyone has the potential to transition from a current unsatisfactory state to a new, more desirable one, and so forth.
With this methodology, you will be able to obtain an optimal solution that has a minimum implementation cost and a maximum benefit-to-cost ratio.
To secure a successful result, adherence to the following steps becomes imperative.

STEPS TO FORMULATE AND OBTAIN AN AATRIZINVENTOR SOLUTION

STEP 1
PRELIMINARY FORMULATION ACTIVITIES

1. Choose an Innovation Challenge to evaluate.
2. Determine the type of innovation to apply:
2a. Through evolution, innovate in objects and functions of the current real situation.
2b. Through imagination, innovate by adding non-existent objects and/or functions, creating an imagined current situation for evaluation.
2c. Through imposition, innovate by imposing new conditions or desired results on existing objects and functions, generating an imposed current situation for evaluation.
3. Draw a functional object diagram for the chosen type of innovation.
4. Define the space and time in which the challenge to evaluate takes place.
5. Select Object S1 for evaluation and Object S2 with which it interacts.
6. Establish the desired objective and declare in a general manner what is affecting its fulfillment.

Example of expected result for this Step 1:

Objective: Improve Hot Coffee Service in Plastic Cup Affected by Burning Customers' Hands

STEP 2
ANALYSIS OF THE INNOVATION CHALLENGE FOR THE SELECTED CURRENT SITUATION

7. Identify the undesirable effects for Object S1 (a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 7) and correlate each one with one of the 24 predefined Innovation Parameters.
8. Define the Physical Variable or Characteristics of the Innovation Challenge to evaluate what, in a particular state, prevents the achievement of the desired objective through the undesirable effects identified. In the same state or another, it facilitates the achievement of the desired objective through the need to satisfy that you will select.
9. Decide the need to satisfy for Object S1 and relate it to one of 10 defined Innovation Parameters.
10. Create a Diagram: Modified Multivariate Evaporation Cloud (MMEC) to visually represent the previously identified information. This exercise allows you to check the logical coherence of the formulation you intend to evaluate.

Example of expected result for this Step 2:

MMEC Diagram: Improve Hot Coffee Service in Plastic Cup Affected by Burning Customers' Hands

STEP 3
EXECUTION OF THE AATRIZINVENTOR ALGORITHM

11. Enter the desired objective affected by... (an expression summarizing the undesirable effects present in the current situation).
12. Specify the evaluated Objects S1 and S2, whether moving or stationary, as appropriate.
13. Enter a description that you consider relevant and specify the number of each innovation parameter of undesirable effects identified, with a maximum of 7 parameters, marking up to 4 for evaluation. The remaining parameters are reserved for sensitivity analysis.
Additional information on the innovation parameters is provided below in Topic 6 and in the link shown above.
14. Enter physical variable or characteristic you have decided on.
15. Enter a description that you consider relevant and specify the innovation parameter number of the selected need to satisfy.

STEP 4
REVIEW OF ENTERED INFORMATION AND LOGICAL SUMMARY

16. While running the Algorithm, click on "Logic Review" to obtain a Report with the entered information and a summary of the associated logic.
The information is expressed in such a way that it allows easy verification of the logical formulation made. If you accept it, it is recommended to continue executing the algorithm. If not, correct the logic observations found and obtain the Report again.

STEP 5
ALGORITHM EXECUTION AND OBTAINING THE RECOMMENDED SOLUTION.

17. While running the Algorithm, enter the Username and Password, previously registered on the User Registration link. Click on "Aatrizinventor Solution" to execute the Aatrizinventor Algorithm and obtain the Aatrizinventor Solution Report. This report contains the Recommended Solution based on parameters selected by the User. It also provides Sensitivity Analysis with alternative solutions for evaluation.
Print or save the "Aatrizinventor Solution" Report issued, for review by the Innovation Team that will determine the Solution to apply.

PASO 6
BUILD TO A SPECIFIC SOLUTION.

18. The construction of a specific solution is the result of a thorough analysis of the recommended solution provided by the Aatrizinventor algorithm. This solution is rooted in the principles of innovation derived from nature, tacitly endorsed by countless inventors and innovators throughout human history. This, combined with the Innovation Team's knowledge of the current situation and the application of their relational thinking skills, forms the basis of this process. It's not an easy journey, but practice make to mastery. Topic 11 of this manual offers an example of how to approach the Recommended Solution, generated by the Algorithm to obtain a Specific Solution to the Innovation Challenge that has been evaluated.

HINTS TO APPLY AATRIZINVENTOR ALGORITHM

A. Define the Current Situation for Evaluation

In the case of a specific identified innovation challenge, the Innovation Team must delineate the Current Situation for evaluation. Nature's L.I. provides three potential conditions for this current situation:
A.1 Innovation through evolution, which will evaluate the actual current situation, and the resulting solution will elevate it to a higher state on the innovation-evolution curve of needs to satisfy.
A.2 Innovation by imagination, which evaluates a current situation altered by imagination, for example by adding additional objects or functions to existing objects. This creates a new imagined current situation, which may seem crude or impractical, but causes new undesirable effects that allow obtaining a solution that could even generate a jump to another innovation-evaluation curve of needs to satisfy.
A.3 Innovation by imposition, which evaluates a current situation on which a new physical variable or characteristic is imposed to represent the physical contradiction inherent to the innovation challenge, which may seem impossible. However, by evaluating this new context with new undesirable effects that arise, a disruptive solution can be reached that jumps to another innovation-evolution curve of needs to satisfy.
For more information on the types of innovation applied by Nature's L.I., please see Topic 2 below.

B. Functional Diagram of Objects for the 'Current Situation' that will be evaluated

An Object is understood as any entity, whether natural or created, human or physical, tangible or abstract, whether moving or stationary, that has its own resources or depends on resources from external sources to act, and that interacts with another object for the purpose to meet a specific objective.

To formulate the 'Current Situation' to be evaluated, the Innovation Team must have detailed knowledge, real or projected, of the Innovation Challenge to be solved to meet a desired objective.
For the defined 'Current Situation', all objects relevant to the Innovation Challenge to be solved and how they interact with each other must be identified. It is recommended to draw a graph that shows the functional diagram of identified objects.
The functional diagram must include the desired objective, expressed as:
Action verb: Example - Improve
Desired objective, which begins with a verb noun plus a specific description of the function evaluated
Example - Hot coffee service in a Plastic Cup,
Affected by, which summarizes in general terms the undesirable effects that cause dissatisfaction.

Please consult Topic 3 below for further details regarding the specified diagram.

C. Defining the Space and Time for Evaluation

For the current situation, the Innovation Team must pinpoint the specific space and time in which the innovation or operational challenge occurs. Within this defined space and time, the variables influencing the attainment of the desired objective will be identified. It's worth noting that a particular challenge may exhibit varying behaviors in different spaces and times, leading to distinct solutions for each scenario. For additional information, please see Topic 4 below.

D. Choose a pair of objects to evaluate and select Object S1

Within the objects that appear in the recommended functional diagram analyzed in section B, the innovation team must select two objects that interact and significantly influence the achievement of the desired objective. To do this, apply all the knowledge that the Innovation Team has the case evaluated. Designate one of these objects as Object S1 for an in-depth evaluation of its interaction with the other selected object, known as S2.
As you strive to achieve a desired goal, there may be multiple pairs of objects that facilitate this, allowing for greater flexibility in your choice. Some pairs may offer a simpler path to achieving the desired result.
For Object S1, it is essential to determine its state of mobility with respect to Object S2 within the defined space and time: Mobile or Stationary. This distinction plays a critical role in framing the challenge of innovation. The mobility state of Object S2 does not affect this formulation.
For additional details, see Topic 5 below.

E. Determine Undesirable Effects and the Need to Satisfy

Undesirable Effects::
The Innovation Team is tasked with pinpointing undesirable effects that impact Object S1 within the defined space and time. These effects prevent the achievement of the desired objective in the evaluated scenario.
Only the undesirable effects that align with the universal descriptions of the 24 innovation parameters defined by the Aatrizinventor algorithm should be identified for Object S1. You can find the list of these parameters in Topic 6 below.
The specific descriptions of each innovation parameter for undesirable effects are provided in the link shown at the top, along with practical examples of their application. Understanding the potential applications of these parameters is crucial for accurately framing an innovation challenge.
Between 2 and 7 undesirable effects should be identified, with each one associated with one of the 24 defined innovation parameters.
As a strict rule, the undesirable effects identified in an Innovation Challenge or Operational Difficulty that affect Object S1 are only those resulting from interactions with Object S2, supported by objective evidence of their presence in the evaluated case — no assumptions should be made. Only interactions with other objects that are present in the functional object diagram, previously prepared for the evaluated case, will be considered if these interactions are transferred or operate through. Objects S1 or S2, impacting the achievement of the desired objective in their interaction. Independent interactions of S1 and S2 that are irrelevant to the interaction of the evaluated objects will be temporarily set aside and not considered in the evaluation, following the recommendation of morphological analysis: Problems are addressed one at a time.
Do not dismiss any effect you have detected without first including it in the evaluation; it could provide a key innovation concept for the desired solution.

Need to Satisfy:
Once the identification of undesirable effect parameters is concluded, the Innovation Team is tasked with selecting a need to satisfy that aligns with any of the universal descriptions for 10 innovation parameters specified in the Aatrizinventor algorithm, as listed in Topic 6 below
The description of each need-to-satisfy innovation parameter is shown in the link indicated at the top, including application examples.
The appropriateness of selecting the need to fulfill is contingent on the Innovation Team's ability to discern the current state of innovation-evolution in the evaluated case, thereby enabling the algorithm to project a new desired state. In practice, accurately gauging the current state of evolution is not always guaranteed, making this selection process potentially iterative to find the optimal solution.
In order to reduce the impact of this inherent uncertainty, the Aatrizinventor algorithm conducts a sensitivity analysis that evaluates alternative combinations of all the selected undesirable effect innovation parameters along with all the innovation parameters required to meet needs. The algorithm assesses 350 possible combinations and presents the top 10 prioritized combinations for the Innovation Team's consideration.
For more details, please refer to Topic 6 below.

F. Physical variable or characteristic

Ultimately, the formulation process entails identifying a physical variable or characteristic that defines the inherent physical contradiction within the specified Innovation Challenge. This variable, in a particular state, triggers the undesirable effects identified, which hinder the attainment of the desired objective. Conversely, in the same or a different state of that variable, it engenders the chosen need to fulfill, thus facilitating the achievement of the desired objective.
Examples of physical variables, or characteristics encompass:
Physical state => Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma;
Physical property => Conductivity, viscosity, hardness, etc.;
Action property => Capacity, Performance, Efficiency, Quality, Performance, Skill, etc.;
Feeling property: interest, trust, commitment, willingness, etc.
It's worth noting that the physical variable or characteristic does not play a role in the Aatrizinventor algorithm, but it holds pivotal importance in formulating the innovation challenge, guiding the focus of the solution search.
For further details, please consult Topic 1 below, item 1.6.

G. Information to Input into the Aatrizinventor Algorithm

The information to be input into the algorithm is as follows:
Step 1
- Action Verb: Improve, increase, decrease, etc. - Evaluated Function affected by (add a generic gloss). You can describe it in a real, summarized, abbreviated, or coded form. - Name of Object S1 - Select Mobility of Object S1: Moving or Stationary - Name of Object S2 - Select Mobility of Object S2: Moving or Stationary Step 2
- Enter undesirable effects for the function affected by more or less difficulty as stated in Step 1
- Provide a descriptive gloss for the identified undesirable effects: real, summarized, abbreviated, or coded.
- Select the Impact of undesirable effects: more or less of the entered effect. For example, an objective can be affected by more speed of Object S1, or it can be affected by less speed; do not apply slower.
- Choose the number of the Parameter associated with the identified undesirable effect.
- Select the type of parameter participation: Yes, it is evaluated to obtain a solution. No, it is applied for sensitivity analysis.
You can select up to 7 undesirable effects. Decide on the innovation parameters to evaluate for a solution, with a maximum of 4. The remaining ones you have identified will be used for sensitivity analysis.
Step 3
- Enter the physical variable or characteristic and its associated impact mode on undesirable effects: more or less.
Step 4
Impact mode of the already entered physical variable or characteristic associated with the need to fulfill: more or less.
Enter a descriptive gloss for the identified need to satisfy: real, summarized, abbreviated, or coded.
Impact mode of the need to fulfill on verb+Function affected: more or less ease.
Select the number of the Parameter associated with the need to satisfy to evaluate. You should apply the selected need to satisfy, but the sensitivity analysis result could recommend some changes.
Step 5
- Enter the desired effect for the affected function more or less easily, in reverse as indicated in Step 1
Please see Topic 7 below, where the entire process explained up to here is shown, in the case of hot coffee in a Plastic Cup. Also see Topic 8, letter a. below, where the tables with the information entered are shown.

H. Logical Analysis of Formulation

Enter the information detailed into the Aatrizinventor algorithm and press the "Check Logic" button: you will receive a Summary of Formulation Logic report, allowing you to verify the logical consistency of the concepts entered into the algorithm. If the report appears valid to you, then you will be in a position to request the solution recommended by the algorithm. Otherwise, go back, reformulate as needed, and obtain a new report for validation
Using the example of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup as a reference, the information that the Innovation Team will obtain to perform the logical analysis of the formulation will be as follows:

SUMMARY OF FORMULATION LOGIC FOR AATRIZINVENTOR SOLUTION
Work Paper
If you applied summary or abbreviated descriptions, have them available to review this logic.
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Evaluated Object S1
Plastic Cup - Type: Moving
Object S2 interacting with S1
CUSTOMERS - Type: Moving
Physical Variable or Characteristic
SAFETY TO SERVE HOT COFFEE
the undesirable
With Less SAFETY TO SERVE HOT COFFEE there is undesirable effects, then there is More difficulty to :
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
the desirable
With More SAFETY TO SERVE HOT COFFEE there is desirable effect, then there is More ease to :
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND

TRIZ Innovation Parameters Evaluated
TRIZ Innovation Parameters / Undesirable Effect (UDE) / Desirable Effect (DE) / Evaluate
1. Heaviness of moving object
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is More PESADEZ (TÉRMICA) PARA CLIENTES POR TENER CAFÉ CALIENTE
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: Yes

12. Shape / composition /configuration
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is Less APPROPIATE WAY TO SERVE HOT COFFEE
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: No

17. Temperature/ level of internal activity
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is More HEAVINESS (THERMAL) FOR CUSTOMERS FOR HAVING HOT COFFEE
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: No

23. Loss of substance
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is More LOSS OF SALE OF HOT COFFEE DUE TO CUSTOMER REFUSAL
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: Yes

25. Loss of Time
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is More LOSS OF TIME ON SALE OF HOT COFFEE DUE TO CUSTOMER REFUSAL
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: Yes

29. Fulfillment of desired outcome
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is Less COMPLIANCE WITH THE GOAL OF SALE OF HOT COFFEE
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: Yes

31. Object-generated harmful factors
Plastic Cup : Has More difficulty for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HAND
Because there is More HARMFUL FACTORS GENERATED AFFECTING CUSTOMERS
Effect : undesirable
Evaluate: No

13.- Stability
Plastic Cup : Has More ease for
IMPROVE SERVICE OF HOT COFFEE IN Plastic Cup AFFECTED BY BURNING CUSTOMER'S HANDS
Because there is More STABILITY TO SERVE HOT COFFEE
Effect : desirable
Evaluate: Yes
Please refer to Item 10.1 below, where the format for presenting this Summary of Logic Report is displayed.

I. Aatrizinventor Solution Report

Once you accept the logical analysis, enter your username and password, and press the "Aatrizinventor Solution" button to generate the Aatrizinventor Solution Report. This report will serve as a working document.
The solution is obtained using the classical TRIZ Contradiction Matrix with a universal approach, which contains solutions from nature and the world.
A contradiction is considered to exist when parameter A interacts with parameter B, compromising a desired objective. This contradiction is solved by improving parameter A and mitigating or preserving parameter B.

The mentioned matrix contains 1248 contradictions identified by its creator, Genrich Altshuller, around 1950, now applied with universal descriptions. The solution to each of these contradictions is achieved using inventive principles, with a maximum of 4 principles per contradiction.
TRIZ has defined 40 inventive principles, which are detailed in the link provided at the top. The link offers specific descriptions and application examples for each principle.

The link offers specific descriptions and application examples for each principle.

The report issued by the algorithm contains a Recommended Solution, deduced from the contradictions and their corresponding inventive principles formed among all entered innovation parameters, satisfying the innovation challenge under evaluation. Additionally, the report provides supplementary information that may be necessary to ensure the accuracy of the specific solution to be built, which seeks to minimize implementation costs and obtain a maximum benefit-to-cost ratio.

Below is a summary of the information contained in the Aatrizinventor Solution Report:
In the first part of the report, the general aspects of the formulation are presented as a reminder, followed by the following tables:

Table I: TRIZ Innovation Parameters, Undesirable Effects, and Need to Satisfy
his table displays the entered innovation parameters in the following order:
- Innovation parameters of undesirable effects for evaluation
- Innovation parameter of the need to satisfy for evaluation
- Innovation parameters of undesirable effects for sensitivity analysis
The Table I corresponding to the case of serve hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is also displayed in Item 10.1 below.

Table II: Specific Contradiction Matrix for Evaluated Object
Table II presents the results of the analysis conducted by the Aatrizinventor algorithm to focus on the solution. This analysis is based on an abductive hypothesis expressed through a mathematical approach to prioritizing inventive principles and contradictions, using empirical factors of comparison.
The results obtained, across a wide range of evaluated cases, have demonstrated the validity of the applied comparison criteria.
Based on the above, Table II provides the following relevant information for constructing the specific solution:
- Each contradiction in Table II displays the determined weight order for each of the contradictions: wt.i.
- ach row and column in Table II shows the calculated weighted percentage. These percentages help determine the preferred parameters, one row and one column.
This table shows:
Preferred parameters for constructing the specific solution.
Essential contradiction for constructing the specific solution.
Next highest-weight complementary contradictions (compl.) for constructing the specific solution. Initially, 4 are selected, located in the row or column of preferred parameters.
Highest-weight contradictions located outside the preferred parameters row and column, up to the fifth value: Top5.
able II, which corresponds to the scenario of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup, is presented in Item 10.2 below.

Table III: Base Solution Determined from Table II
This table is an extract from Table II, serving to summarize the initial part of the solution. It is based on the Essential Contradiction and the top four Complementary Contradictions with the highest weight. Additionally, it illustrates how the inventive principles derived from the Essential Contradiction are echoed in the Complementary Contradictions. This repetition provides further justification for their selection.
Accompanying this table is a list of Inventive Principles that contribute to the Base Solution. Each principle is briefly named including its categorization as strategic, tactical, or operational. This information is pivotal, as it establishes the conceptual framework from which the Innovation Team will craft the Specific Solution.
Table III, related to the serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup, can be found in Item 10.3 below.

Table IV: Contradiction Matrix between Needs to Satisfy and Optimization Strategy
Table IV contains the contradictions between the evaluated need to satisfy and the other 9 defined needs.
Nature's L.I. considers only one innovation parameter for need to satisfy in each evaluation, ensuring the certainty and reliability of the solution provided by the algorithm. Since there are 10 needs to satisfy defined, there are 9 additional contradictions beyond those contained in Table II that also need to be resolved to complete the final solution. It is advisable to address them after establishing a probable solution based on Table II to provide some guidance.
The rationale behind including these contradictions in the solution is explained in the context that improving the evaluated need should not adversely affect the other 9 needs not included in the evaluation.

Finding a solution for a contradiction between two innovation parameters for needs to fulfill is not straightforward, as the manipulable variable to act upon is not immediately evident. Nature's L.I. transforms this challenge into an opportunity, which is addressed as follows:
Given the aforementioned limitation, an optimization hypothesis has been proposed to deal with the repeated presence of inventive principles in multiple contradictions. This hypothesis suggests that the most promising solution is the one in which the inventive principles present in Table II cover a higher percentage of the inventive principles involved in Table IV. The Aatrizinventor algorithm calculates this percentage for each evaluated case and displays it below the corresponding Table IV.
As a higher percentage is achieved, the number of inventive principles unique to Table IV decreases, which is considered a desirable condition.
Consequently, for the analysis of the contradictions in Table IV, they are ordered giving priority to those that contain some inventive principle exclusive to said table.
Based on this, to complement the base solution already described, which considers the 5 contradictions selected from Table II, the first 3 contradictions from Table IV are added, as long as they contain inventive principles that do not appear in Table II. The remaining ones are reviewed applying the analysis criteria used in Table II.
In this way, the recommended solution for the evaluated case is formed, composed of 8 contradictions shown in Table V.
If Table IV contains more than 3 contradictions with inventive principles unique to that table, the solution obtained, although valid, will be more difficult to understand and implement, which may require consideration of sensitivity analysis alternatives.<
Below this table is a list of inventive principles that participate in up to 3 selected contradictions. Each inventive principle is briefly named, including the type of principles of each of them: strategic, tactical or operational. This last information, together with the list provided in Table III, is relevant, as it is part of the conceptual context from which the Innovation Team will build the Specific Solution.
Table IV corresponding to the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is shown in Item 10.4 below.

Table V: Recommended Solution
The Recommended Solution with up to 8 contradictions, identified in the previous Topic, will be sufficient to the extent that the Innovation Team has made the best selection of the 4 undesirable effects evaluated and 1 need to satisfy. However, in the event that the Innovation Team feels that it has not achieved the best solution because the solution obtained seems difficult to understand and implement, the algorithm performs a complementary analysis described below, which considers the following actions that allow strengthen the solution obtained or propose alternative evaluations:

a. Priority of Incidence: The algorithm determines the incidence order of inventive principles participating in Table II and marks those not included in the recommended general solution. It selects the first three and shows them below Table V for analysis by the Innovation Team to determine if they add significant value to the solution. The complete list is shown in Table VIII.

b. Sensitivity analysis: For all the parameters of undesirable effects identified by the Innovation Team, up to 7 in total, the algorithm combines them with the 10 needs to satisfy, resulting in the evaluation of 350 combinations. The results are prioritized, as shown in Table VI, yielding 10 alternative solutions. Ideally, the combination of parameters applied to derive the current solution analyzed should have been prioritized in this table. If the current solution obtained does not meet your needs, practical experience suggests that evaluating two or three of the alternatives proposed by the sensitivity analysis is highly likely to lead to an optimal solution

c. Essential Contradictions for Needs to Satisfy: For the up to 4 undesirable effect parameters selected to derive a solution, the algorithm assesses their interactions with each of the 10 defined needs to fulfill, determining the corresponding essential contradictions. The results are prioritized as detailed in Table VII. Ideally, the evaluated solution will occupy the top position in the prioritized sequence outlined in that table. If not, evaluating one or two of the highest-ranked contradictions may yield a more optimized solution.

d. Additional Pertinent Contradictions for Review: To finalize the definition of the optimal solution, it is advisable to examine the contradictions from Table II labeled as Top5 and those situated within the preferred parameters not included in the recommended solution. This helps validate the determined optimal solution and potentially introduces other necessary considerations. It is important to note that all contradictions from Tables II and IV contribute to the solution, so those not previously mentioned can be reviewed and should be aligned with the established optimal solution. Interpreting these contradictions can sometimes be an intriguing exercise in relational thinking. This helps validate the determined optimal solution and may introduce other necessary considerations.

Taking into consideration everything mentioned so far, Table V displays up to 8 relevant identified contradictions that comprise the Recommended Solution. These contradictions consist of 5 from Table II and a maximum of 3 from Table IV. These contradictions determine the direction and scope the solution can encompass in relation to the innovation challenge under evaluation. The specific solution should be derived from these contradictions, based on the inventive principles included in them.
In section J of this segment, a systematic procedure is described for constructing a specific solution, which will facilitate obtaining solutions for your innovation or operational challenges. This procedure is applied in the example developed in this manual and is shown in section 11 below.
Here it is necessary to indicate that "Nature's Language of Innovation" is very noble, you will learn by using it that it offers several paths to reach similar solutions. Practice makes perfect.
Table V corresponding to the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is shown in Item 10.5 below.

Table VI: Sensitivity Analysis
The Aatrizinventor algorithm aims to evaluate the innovation parameters freely selected by the Innovation Team, marked with the 'Yes' option in the algorithm, with the purpose of providing a solution that best addresses the challenge of innovation in evaluation.
However, experience has shown that the initial selection is not always the most suitable. Therefore, the algorithm also suggests alternative solutions. These alternatives result from the sensitivity analysis, which considers up to 7 identified undesirable effects and the 10 previously defined desirable effects. This analysis involves evaluating a total of 350 possible solutions and selecting the 10 most feasible ones.
Initially, the coverage obtained for the current evaluation is displayed, applying the criteria used in the sensitivity analysis. This allows you to determine if the first solution obtained is recommended by the sensitivity analysis.
If the first solution is not prioritized by the sensitivity analysis, or if it does not occupy the first or second position in the prioritized list, then it is recommended that some of these alternatives be re-evaluated through a new execution of the algorithm. If the parameters entered into the algorithm are correct, some combination of them may represent the optimal solution sought, characterized by minimum implementation costs and a maximum benefit-cost ratio. Furthermore, these new alternatives could offer a new perspective that pleasantly surprises us.
Reviewing the alternatives generated by the algorithm ensures a thorough evaluation and improves the likelihood of finding the optimal solution for the innovation challenge at hand.
Table VI corresponding to the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is shown in Item 10.6 below

Table VII: Essential Contradictions for Evaluated Undesirable Effects with Each Need to Satisfy
This table provides additional information for review. It displays the essential contradictions resulting from evaluating the same undesirable effects selected for the previous Table II, calculated for each of the 10 defined needs to satisfy, including the one that has already been evaluated.
The objective of this table is to determine the position occupied by the evaluated need to satisfy. Practical experience indicates that a favorable position is being among the top three. It is also desirable for the essential contradiction determined for the need being evaluated to repeat several times. It has been observed that the more repetition there is, the solution obtained in Table II becomes more accurate and focused.
Each essential contradiction is weighted based on the participation of its inventive principles with respect to the total shown in Table VII. An empirical weighting method is applied to assign each essential contradiction a weighting value. The contradiction with the highest value is set as 100%, while the others are expressed as a corresponding proportion in percentage.
Table VII corresponding to the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is shown in Item 10.7 below.

Table VIII: Analysis of Inventive Principles Incidence
The solution proposed with the inventive principles indicated in Table V should be complemented with a review of all other inventive principles identified for this challenge, as shown in Table VIII, with the following actions:
Review by the order of position of inventive principles and type: strategic - tactical - operational, which helps provide an overview of the solution and its most relevant inventive principles.
Review by the order of position of the inventive principles marked with ***, which do not participate in Table V, as they could add significant value to the desired solution. The top three positioned ones are displayed alongside Table V.
Make sure to conduct these reviews as you may uncover specific aspects that will be highly relevant to the solution.
Table VIII corresponding to the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is shown in Item 10.8 below.

Table IX: Description of Recommended Solution According to Most Relevant Identified Contradictions
This table provides a detailed description of the selected contradictions that make up the Recommended Solution shown in Table V. It consists of two parts:
Table IX.A, which describes the Base Solution, containing the Essential Contradiction and up to 4 Complementary Contradictions. These contradictions establish the context or foundation from which the Innovation Team must build the desired solution. Any other contradiction added to include necessary additional information must be consistent with this context or base. If the base solution fails to integrate an adequate solution, along with the other selected contradictions, then it must be discarded and a new one proposed.
Table IX.B, which describes the contradictions between the evaluated need to satisfy and the other selected needs, following the criteria mentioned in Table IV. These contradictions provide additional concepts to the solution, which must be compatible with the definitions of the Base Solution.
Although not described here, in some cases, it may be necessary to evaluate additional contradictions associated with a relevant incidence inventive principle deduced from Table VIII and not included in the Recommended Solution, or with a contradiction referred to as Top5, which contributes a significant effect to the solution. The details of these mentioned additional contradictions can be reviewed in the Contradictions by Parameters link.
Table IX corresponding to the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is shown in Item 10.9 below.

J. How to Build a Specific Solution

To construct a specific solution from the 8 contradictions selected by the Aatrizinventor algorithm, it's important to consider that the first two will primarily have a strategic focus, which does not yet allow for a precise specific solution. The next three contradictions have a more tactical and operational focus. When combined with the strategic perspective of the first two, they enable the proposal of a specific solution with a high degree of certainty. The final three contradictions provide additional information to enhance the certainty of the solution.
To achieve a high-quality specific solution, the Innovation Team will need to leverage all the knowledge that allowed them to formulate the Innovation Challenge or Operational Difficulty and relate it to the recommended inventive principles. They must apply their skills in relational thinking to the fullest extent and, if necessary, conduct technological or social research that enables them to find objects, methods, or specific aspects in their environment or in the world that align with the recommended inventive principles. It's important to note that there is a substantial shift in how research is conducted: it focuses on what is needed, guided and delimited by the inventive principles described here, rather than searching within a sea of diverse solutions that exist in the world. The goal is not merely to generate innovative ideas but to generate highly probable solutions to address the evaluated innovation challenge, guided by the selected contradictions and their corresponding inventive principles.
To innovate, do not expect solutions from the science that is being done today, this will serve to innovate tomorrow. The innovation challenge formulated Today needs a solution Now.

It's essential to consider that the evaluation involves the interaction between Object S1 and Object S2, and how this affects a specific function within a defined space and time. Object S1 may require changes in space, time, physical composition, or functional characteristics. It may also involve partial or complete substitution by another object or other recommended changes.
Each inventive principle described briefly in Table V and detailed in Table IX of the Solution Report may include multiple innovation concepts recommended by TRIZ, identified as a, b, c, and so on. However, not all these concepts are applicable to a specific case being evaluated, so a detailed review of each concept associated with the corresponding inventive principles is required.
The Innovation Team should select those innovation concepts that align best with the innovation challenge they are evaluating, relying on their own knowledge and conducting a relational thinking analysis. If necessary, they can also seek support from relevant third parties.

It cannot be guaranteed that there is only one specific solution. Therefore, to determine a high-quality specific solution, it may be necessary to project different alternative solutions, guided by the selected inventive principles and constrained by the defined space and time for the evaluation.
In Table IX, in the descriptions of the relevant inventive principles associated with the highlighted contradictions, Object S1 is marked with an asterisk (*). This is done to emphasize that when reading an inventive principle, the evaluated object can be considered in various possible states or conditions. For example, it can be maintained in its current situation while changing its operation, placed in a modified current situation by adding or removing components and/or functions, or placed in a completely new state with a different physical and/or operational composition and configuration from the current one.
The message here is as follows: read the contradictions and their inventive principles with the necessary flexibility, limiting only the interpretation of the contradiction being reviewed to ensure it leads to a coherent narrative conducive to an innovative solution.

The first requirement to construct a specific solution is to have a sufficient command of the application of the 40 defined inventive principles. To achieve this, it is necessary to read the descriptions of each of them in the link above, which are divided into innovation concepts. Examples are provided for each inventive principle to facilitate their application. It's worth noting that the innovation concepts can range from 1 to 6 for each principle and can be applied independently or in combination. There are 105 defined innovation concepts in total.
This approach is crucial since each challenge to be solved can present multiple solution options. These are determined by the number of innovation concepts that involve the inventive principles present in each contradiction proposed by the Aatrizinventor algorithm.
The Innovation Team must be able to adequately direct the combinations of innovation concepts contained in the inventive principles, with which they will resolve each contradiction. To achieve this, the Innovation Team must use knowledge of the current situation to determine the applicability of each proposed innovation concept for the suggested contradictions. This will allow you to formulate a Specific Solution, which integrates the particular solutions of all the contradictions analyzed to build a comprehensive solution for the case.
As an example, to illustrate the considerable number of specific solutions that a contradiction can generate, let's consider the extreme case of the contradiction between the innovation parameters 9. Speed and 22. Loss of energy. This contradiction is resolved using inventive principles 14. Sphericity - Curvature - Angle (which includes 5 innovation concepts), 20. Continuity of useful action (3 innovation concepts), 19. Time-Varying Action/ Periodic or Pulsating (4 innovation concepts), and 35. Transformation / Change of parameters (3 innovation concepts). This implies considering 5x3x4x3 = 180 probable solutions. This is because there will be many combinations of innovation concepts that propose solutions with different scopes, different from the object being evaluated, for a specific state of innovation-evolution in which it is located.
If, through knowledge of the current situation, 2 innovation concepts are discarded for each indicated inventive principle, then the universe of possible solutions is reduced to 3x1x2x1=6 solutions. With this level of focus and targeting, it can be asserted that, based on a deep understanding of the current situation, it is possible to innovate from 39 innovation parameters and 40 inventive principles. Although some may find this insufficient, this approach allows for optimal solutions within a vast universe of millions of alternatives offered by the Aatrizinventor algorithm.

INTERPRETATION OF A CONTRADICTION:

A contradiction composed of inventive principles tells a logical and coherent story that will become part of the proposed solution. In this process, the knowledge expressed in the formulation of the Innovation Challenge or Operational Difficulty serves as the basis for defining its contribution to a specific comprehensive solution.
For an accurate interpretation of a contradiction, the first recommendation is to apply relational thinking. This means that for each inventive principle included in the contradiction, broken down into detailed innovation concepts labeled as a, b, c, etc., the innovation team must be able to contextualize them in various contexts, levels, dimensions, times, and directions in which they can be applied. This is always done while maintaining a focus on the knowledge of the innovation challenge under evaluation.
The innovation concepts mentioned as a, b, c, etc., can be applied independently or complementarily. Some of these concepts define more specific aspects, while others are broader. This shows that in the latter case, there is the possibility of applying various solutions tailored to the evaluated circumstances while maintaining the general idea.

Additionally, in each described contradiction, three concepts have been added to help define the solution:

a. Types of inventive principles proposed by Nature's L.I.
- Strategic Inventive Principles (13), which are the driving forces of change;
- Tactical Inventive Principles (14), which ensure the functionality required for change; and
- Operational Inventive Principles (13), which enable the change to function effectively.
Strategic inventive principles are the ones with the most participation in the TRIZ Contradiction Matrix used by Nature's L.I. Consequently, the essential contradiction that Nature's L.I. identifies is often composed mostly of this type of principle. This explains why the essential contradiction provides general aspects of the solution that the Innovation Team must recognize and complete by reviewing all the contradictions selected by Nature's L.I. This allows for a comprehensive solution to the innovation challenge.

b. Relationship between TRIZ separation principles and inventive principles. Reference Darrel Mann
The Separation Principles correspond to another TRIZ innovation technique for finding solutions, which is applied here as a complement to the solutions proposed by the inventive principles and is indicated in Table IX for each selected inventive principle for the recommended solution. These separation principles are as follows:
Time Separation
Space Separation
Condition Separation
Separation between Parts and Whole, which is further divided into:
Subsystem Separation
Supersystem Integration
Alternative Separation, and
Reverse or Indirect Separation
Each inventive principle is related to one or two separation principles, whose practical recommendations facilitate the understanding of the solutions proposed by the inventive principles. This relationship is shown at the end of each description of the principles in the contradictions recommended by the Aatrizinventor algorithm. More information about the separation principles is provided in Topic 2 of the Extended Manual.

c. Relationship between Solution Strategies and Inventive Principles, Reference: Darrell Mann
Solution Strategies correspond to well-known approaches in the field of management that are applied to support the resolution of the evaluated challenges. These strategies are detailed in Table IX for each selected inventive principle in the recommended solution.
These recommendations include improving attributes, increasing performance, enhancing quality factors (such as quality, reliability, maintainability, compatibility, human factors, safety, and protection), as well as considering problem relief if a solution has not yet been found.
Each inventive principle is linked to one or more of these solution strategies, making it easier to understand the solutions proposed by the inventive principles. This relationship is presented at the end of each description of the principles in the contradictions recommended by the Aatrizinventor algorithm.
For more information on the separation principles, you can refer to Topic 2 of the Extended Manual.

FINAL REMARKS

The application of the Nature's Language of Innovation has proven to be reliable and capable of generating evolutionary and disruptive solutions in various fields of human development. It has also been possible to explain phenomena that occur in nature, achieved in the real world, seemingly intuitively and recursively. However, it is demonstrated here that these correspond to the application of the inventive principles described by this methodology.
You can view these examples and others related to human development in the link "Solved Cases." It is recommended to practice with the algorithm using the selected innovation parameters for each of them.
Additionally, it has been confirmed that innovation challenges often involve multiple variables. Therefore, the solutions proposed by Aatrizinventor consist of a set of contradictions, where each of them contributes to the required integral solution, following the inventive principles as suggested by the methodology. It is important to emphasize that there is no single solution, as it will depend on several factors such as knowledge, available resources, and the state of technology, among others.

Finally, it is crucial to highlight that the success of the application of this Nature Innovation Language lies in its foundation in nature, which is simple, homogeneous, recursive and feedback-driven. Furthermore, this methodology is highly flexible, facilitating the application of acquired knowledge in various contexts that may initially seem different. Forms of innovation repeat themselves and can be used coherently to address similar challenges.
In summary, the Nature's Language of Innovation brings us closer to a deeper understanding of the divine nature of which we are a part. Through this, to a better understanding of the 'God of Spinoza' in whom Albert Einstein believed.

Back to list

1.1 Conceptual Foundations

The "Nature's Language of Innovation" Nature's L.I., is a comprehensive innovation methodology based on knowledge and an essential philosophical concept:

"The current situation determines the future, which in turn will condition the next"

This philosophical concept has been extracted from a quote found on page 127 of the book "The New Alliance, Metamorphosis of Science", written by Ilya Prigogine (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1977) and Isabelle Stengers. The mentioned quote refers to: the Hegelian philosophy of nature, which posits the existence of a hierarchy in nature, where each level is conditioned by the previous level, surpassing it and negating its limitations, and then conditioning the next level, in which the spirit working in nature manifests itself in a more suitable and less limited manner.
Nature's L.I. has validated this evolutionary philosophical concept as the predetermined sense of innovation-evolution in nature and, consequently, in humanity, which is a part of it.

On the other hand, the present situation referred to by Nature's L.I. is the "Now," to which Einstein gave special significance. In the same aforementioned reference book, the book "The Philosophy of Rudolph Carnap," 1963, is also cited:
Carnap recounts how Einstein confided to him one day his intense concern about the problem of the "Now." Einstein explained to him that the experience of the "Now" had a special meaning for human beings, something fundamentally different from the past and the future. However, this significant difference did not have, nor could it have, a place in physics.
Carnap said that he responded to Einstein that everything that occurs objectively can be described by science. On one hand, physics is responsible for describing the temporal sequence of events. On the other hand, the particular characteristics of human experiences in relation to time, including the different human attitude toward the past, present, and future, can be described and, in principle, explained by psychology.
Einstein believed that these scientific descriptions are not capable of satisfying our human needs and that there is something essential about the "Now" that escapes the domain of science.

In line with this perspective, Nature's L.I. focuses on the present, on the "Now," posing an innovation challenge without prior requirements of science or technology. Its main focus is to identify the undesirable effects present in the "Now" and, consequently, the unmet needs that arise from them. Based on this identification, solutions are developed based on recognized inventive principles, utilizing available science and technology each time. The solutions follow a curve of innovation-evolution, which is constantly changing in human beings.

1.2 Predominant Thinking Type for Innovation

Innovation has multiple perspectives as its aim is to address constantly evolving needs. Therefore, innovation is not an exact science. It requires a combination of relational and logical thinking skills, as referenced by Steven F. Ungvari.

Relational thinking is an idea generator that allows for finding connections between seemingly divergent concepts and combining them into a coherent solution that relates to the innovation challenge at hand. This type of thinking is innovative and comfortable exploring different methods and solution alternatives.

On the other hand, logical thinking is methodical and tends to be less flexible. It focuses on details and prefers clear and precise definitions to achieve a consistent and robust solution. Logical thinking is organized, systematic, and thrives when the processed information is well-grounded.

1.3 Methodological Foundations

Nature's L.I. brings together concepts from the Theory of Constraints (TOC) developed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) and its Contradiction Matrix introduced by Genrich Altshuller, and the Morphological Analysis Method (AM) created by Fritz Zwicky.

This integration has allowed for formulating innovation challenges at any initial state, from an operational challenge solution to a completely disruptive innovation solution, based on undesirable effects, needs to be met, and standardized inventive principles with a universal description, applicable in any realm of nature and human development.

Nature's L.I. drives an essential paradigm for humanity:

Innovation arises to meet people's needs.

The potential of the Nature's L.I. methodology has allowed for the identification of three types of innovation:

A. Evolutionary Innovation, corresponding to the evolutionary process of innovation existing in nature. Here, existing undesirable effects are solved to first satisfy basic needs until reaching a stable satisfaction plateau, where the process of improvement and change gradually slows down. Living beings and plants in nature have followed this type of innovation.

B. Imagination-driven Innovation, corresponding to an ability developed by humans. Humans can imagine a desired condition, even a crude or seemingly impractical one, and from there identify undesirable effects that this new condition causes. Solving these undesirable effects enables a leap in the evolutionary process to new states of satisfaction.

C. Imposition-driven Innovation, corresponding to another ability developed by humans. Humans can self-impose a specific condition that would facilitate the satisfaction of needs to achieve a specific goal. However, this imposed condition generates unforeseen new undesirable effects, the solution to which leads to disruptive leaps that result in higher levels of satisfaction.

1.4 Tools for Accelerated Solution Approaches

To conduct the practical application of Nature's L.I., the Aatrinventor Algorithm is used. This algorithm provides an accelerated approach to the solution and can be accessed through the website aatrizinventor.com.

The Aatrinventor Algorithm assesses innovation or operational challenges that occur when two objects, understood in the broadest sense of the word (physical, conceptual, social, imagined, etc.), interact in a specific time and space involving multiple variables. The algorithm provides a solution aimed at minimizing costs and maximizing the benefit-to-cost ratio.
Specifically, it analyzes the interaction between two objects selected by the Innovation Team: Object S1 and Object S2. This pair of objects is obtained from a functional diagram of objects representing the innovation challenge or difficulty.
However, this interaction contains a physical contradiction that affects Object S1. This contradiction is determined by a physical variable or characteristic that, in a specific state, satisfies a requirement needed to facilitate the achievement of the desired objective. On the other hand, this same physical variable or characteristic, in the same previous state or another state, causes undesirable effects that hinder the achievement of the desired objective.
These physical contradictions, in the indicated states, generate technical contradictions that need to be solved.
A technical contradiction occurs when two different parameters of an object conflict with each other at the same time and space. In the current situation, if the goal of an object needs improvement, there is Parameter 1 that facilitates it, but there is Parameter 2 that hinders it. TRIZ defines this difficulty as a contradiction that needs to be solved. The search for a solution is posed in the following terms: how to improve Parameter 1 and mitigate or preserve Parameter 2? TRIZ solves this contradiction based on inventive principles.
Nature's L.I. has identified 10 needs that must be satisfied and 24 undesirable effects that must be avoided. This allows for the exploration of a wide spectrum of solutions based on millions of possible combinations of innovation parameters. These solutions are constructed from standardized contradictions contained in the classical TRIZ Contradiction Matrix, which Nature's L.I. has given a universal character.
Each combination evaluated by the algorithm consists of one need to satisfy and four undesirable effects. The algorithm is designed to simultaneously analyze up to 10 needs to satisfy and up to 7 undesirable effects, which implies evaluating a total of 350 combinations. This greatly facilitates obtaining a precise final solution.

The needs to satisfy and the applied undesirable effects are called innovation parameters, which have been defined by Nature's L.I. with a universal description. Innovation parameters are derived from the engineering parameters identified in the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving TRIZ, developed by Genrich Altshuller in the 1950s.

To find a solution, the algorithm evaluates up to 20 technical contradictions formed by pairs of selected innovation parameters. In each pair, one parameter must be improved to achieve the desired goal, while the other must be mitigated or preserved. Each technical contradiction is resolved using up to 4 inventive principles established by TRIZ, which 'Nature's L.I.' has defined a universal description for them. These principles are derived from the inventive engineering principles contained in the classic TRIZ Matrix of Contradictions, which identifies a total of 40 principles. Each of them is made up of specific innovation concepts, which can vary from 1 to 6 per principle.

1.5 Modified Multi-Variable Evaporating Cloud (MMEC)

To better understand the logical relationships between the objective, physical variable or characteristic, the need to satisfy, and the undesirable effects, Nature's L.I. recommends that innovators represent these variables using a logical diagram that analyzes the innovation or operational challenge, taking as a reference the Theory of Constraints (TOC) Evaporating Cloud, which is referred to as the Modified Multi-Variable Evaporating Cloud. Below is an example of this diagram, which describes manufacturing problems for cars when the condition of manufacturing without design compromises is imposed as the physical variable or characteristic. The solution provided by the algorithm leads to a disruptive innovation solution based on a robotic car manufacturing system. See case in the link above, Solved Cases, Theme 9.

To construct the Modified Multi-Variable Evaporating Cloud, it is necessary to make initial decisions for the evaluation using the aatrizinventor algorithm. These decisions are as follows:
a) Select up to 4 undesirable effects that will be considered for evaluation, from a maximum of 7 effects that the algorithm accepts. This involves choosing a combination of 4 effects from a total of 35 possible ones. The selection of these undesirable effects will be based on your best judgment regarding the innovation challenge being evaluated. The remaining undesirable effects will be included by the algorithm in the sensitivity analysis already referred to.
b) Select the need to satisfy that will be evaluated, choosing it from the ten defined ones. Again, your choice will be based on your best judgment or estimation of the state of innovation-evolution in the challenge being evaluated.

Experience teaches us that our common sense can sometimes mislead us. Therefore, the initially selected undesirable effects and the need to satisfy may not be the most accurate ones, leading to solutions that may have little relevance to the knowledge of the innovation challenge being evaluated. For this reason, the sensitivity analysis provides 10 alternative combinations for reevaluation and deciding on the best solution.
As a result, the first cloud that is constructed can change. This is part of the process.

The diagram shown below is the optimal result of the analysis conducted for manufacturing cars without design compromises.

1.6 Physical Contradiction and Physical Variable or Characteristic

It is necessary to highlight the role played by the physical contradiction expressed through the physical variable or characteristic. It does not participate in the Aatrizinventor algorithm, but it is fundamental in formulating the innovation challenge since it guides where to focus the solution. For example, in the case mentioned above regarding car manufacturing, imposing the condition of manufacturing without design compromises generates a disruptive solution of robotized car manufacturing. See examples of application in the above link, User Manual, Topics 9 and 11.

For a more illustrative example, below is an innovation-evolution map of the home that satisfies my life, presented by Samsung Electronics at Trizfest 2017 in Krakow, Poland, where our company participated. It details how the physical variable or characteristic, represented in blue boxes, changes while improving satisfaction in the home.

Nature's L.I. invites you to access a highly systematic way to obtain accurate and reliable innovation solutions, with minimal cost and maximum benefit-cost ratio, using your knowledge of the current situation of the challenges you face, to meet your real or potential needs in any field of human development, including those you may consider impossible to satisfy.

Back to list

The creator of Nature's L.I. draws from 30 years of personal experience in the mining and electrical industry. During this time, he actively engaged in the planning and oversight of extensive industrial maintenance plans, as well as the engineering and execution of high-value industrial projects. This extensive background has enabled us to outline a common progression of project implementation steps and establish correlations with specific innovation parameters.

a. The first major step is for the project to become operational and easy to operate.
Parameter 33. Ease of operation.

b. With operation, the first limitations arise, such as "the pump is not properly adjusted," "the valve is set too high," etc. Actions are required to make it easy to change the operating and equipment maintenance conditions according to production requirements.
Parameter 34. Ease of change, repair, and maintenance.

c. Once the limitations have been resolved, the next step is to achieve the desired production result, following a production increase ramp.
Parameter 32. Ease of achieving the desired result.

d. After reaching the projected production level, the next step is to measure process productivity indicators and take appropriate adjustment actions as needed.
Parameter 39. Productivity.

e. The next project challenge is efficient energy use. This is a challenging equation to solve: producing as projected with minimal energy, controlling process variability, and adapting to the capacity and availability of energy-supplying equipment.
Parameter 19. Use of energy by moving object

f. Once an optimal state of energy use is established, the next step is to achieve process reliability. It involves ensuring that equipment operates at the intended capacity and during the scheduled time, without unexpected shutdowns or capacity losses. Maintenance should also occur at the planned intervals and with the programmed duration.
Parameter 27. Reliability

g. The next challenge for the process is to make it capable of adapting to the variability presented by its various relevant variables: process operational conditions, raw materials, supplies, and labor.
Parameter 35. Adaptability or versatility
Note: Regarding this parameter, it has been found to have a dual role, one as a need to satisfy in the project implementation stages, and the other as an undesirable effect of an evaluated object S1 not adapting to the variability of an object S2 with which it interacts.

h. After meeting the previously mentioned requirements, the next challenge is to achieve operational autonomy. This is facilitated through the use of continuous contracts for raw materials, supplies, and services, along with the implementation of control at all stages, including manual control and standalone automatic control. Subsequently, we move towards distributed control, robotic operations, and the emerging field of artificial intelligence.
Parameter 38. Extent of automation/ Autonomy

i. Once the steps described above are fulfilled, the next step is to ensure the stability of the process, approaching maximum satisfaction. The process or activity must be predictable over time and the results must be as expected, affected only by accepted random causes.

j. Finally, optimization actions should enable a fully satisfying and everlasting operation, within the operation cycle or planned action.
Parameter 15. Duration of action by moving object.

As it could be appreciated, it has been possible to associate innovation parameters proposed by TRIZ with the natural stages of project development. The selected parameters are characterized by not being related to physical or operational variables that can be acted upon. Professional experience teaches us that to satisfy the needs associated with these parameters, multifactorial actions must be taken.
This conclusion gave rise to the division of TRIZ's 39 parameters into 24 innovation parameters for undesirable effects that need to be addressed and 10 parameters for desirable effects that reflect the expected outcome of the actions taken, both for moving and stationary objects.
The use of Nature's L.I. in a large number of cases of innovation has allowed us to validate this comparison and extrapolate it to nature and all human development actions. Nature's L.I. has postulated and confirmed that innovation processes follow a curve of innovation-evolution of needs to be satisfied, as shown below. The numbering of these parameters remains consistent with TRIZ, with universal applicability.

Consequently, Nature's L.I. states that when two objects interact, they follow a curve of innovation-evolution of needs to be satisfy. This innovation process starts from a basic level of ease of operation and progresses towards the solution of various emerging needs, reaching a maximum level of everlasting satisfaction.
Humans have managed to make leaps and transitions between different ascending innovation-evolution curves, achieving astonishing and unparalleled development. This suggests that through intuition and creativity, they have applied inventive principles present in nature since ancient times, allowing them to discover innovative solutions. To recognize this ability developed by humans, Nature's L.I. proposes that when facing a challenge, humans apply at least three types of innovation, enabling them to evolve. Furthermore, two of these forms of innovation provide them with the ability to jump to new innovation-evolution curves.

Innovation is conducted based on the established current situation, under the following conditions:

Innovation by evolution :
Seeks a change from the current real situation to a new state or condition of greater satisfaction. It remains on the current S curve of innovation-evolution.
For example, see Extended Manual, Topic 9, item 9.3:
Evolution Solution: Improving the survival capacity of the Sea Squirt Larva, affected by a lack of food.

Innovation by imagination:
Seeks a change from an altered real situation by including additional, crude, and/or seemingly impractical objects or functions to reach a new state or condition of greater satisfaction. It can jump to a new S curve of innovation-evolution.
For example, see Extended Manual, Topic 9, item 9.4:
Imagination Solution for the first attempt of a primitive man to reach Mars: Improving the conditions for flying to Mars affected by negative environmental effects.

Innovation by imposition:
eeks a change from an altered real situation through an imposed solution, establishing an idealized desirable variable or condition that may seem impossible to reach a new state or condition of greater satisfaction. Jumps to a new S curve of innovation-evolution.
For example, see Extended Manual, Topic 9, item 9.5:
Solution by Imposition of Desired Physical Variable: Robotic Production of Cars without Design Compromise.

Undoubtedly, the great challenge for each type of innovation is to construct a functional diagram of objects that is representative of the evaluated case. Relational thinking skills are essential for identifying the actual or altered current situation and relating it to the defined innovation parameters.

Back to list

The functional diagram of objects is a practical tool that allows for a clear visualization of the objects involved in the innovation challenge. All existing interactions between pairs of adjacent objects Si and Sk must be identified, along with the relevant field, whether physical or figurative, that connects them through a substance or significant characteristic identified as Sik.
A functional diagram of objects can be as detailed as necessary.

Below are two examples of object functional diagrams:
a. Improve the service of hot coffee in a Plastic Cup affected by burning the customer's hand, and
b. Ensure stable navigation for a ferry affected by seawater entering the cargo space. This occurred in 1994 in the Mediterranean Sea and resulted in the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia ferry, causing the loss of 852 lives.
c. Design the best toy for children affected by designer paradigms.

Functional diagram of objects
Improve the service of hot coffee in a Plastic Cup affected by burning the customer's hand

Functional diagram of objects
Ensure stable navigation for a ferry affected by seawater entering the cargo space

Once the Object Functional Diagram for the innovation challenge you wish to solve has been defined, the next step will be to select object S1 for evaluation and object S2 with which it interacts. Objects S1 and S2 can be specific objects identified in the diagram or combinations of these objects. The undesirable effects affecting object S1 in its relationship with object S2, which you identify given the knowledge of the innovation challenge, will allow you to validate the selection you have made.
Depending on the complexity of the challenge, there may be more than one pair of objects to evaluate. A concrete example is the case of the sinking of the Estonia Ferry: As will be seen later, two solutions preventing the sinking are developed. This is why it is said: formulating an innovation challenge is an art.

In item 5 of this Manual, recommendations for the selection of objects S1 and S2 are shown, applied to the cases evaluated here.

Back to list

Evaluating an innovation challenge using Nature's L.I. involves the interaction between Object S1 and Object S2 in a specific space and time. In this defined environment, undesirable effects and needs to satisfy are identified, expressed as innovation parameters for the current situation under evaluation. It is important to note that within this defined space-time, the variables associated with the selected innovation parameters must exhibit a proportional relationship, either direct or inverse. In other words:
For two variables, A and B, each associated with a different innovation parameter, it must be the case that if Variable A increases, then Variable B always increases, or if Variable A increases, then Variable B always decreases. This applies to all possible combinations between A and B.
In certain innovation challenges, there may not be full certainty that the required proportionality holds throughout the evaluated space and time. Nevertheless, the solution provided by the aatriziventor algorithm will always be valid within the range of space-time where this proportionality requirement is met. Prior analysis of evidence of behavior singularities in the current situation will help determine the appropriate space-time to evaluate.

Back to list

Object: Any entity, whether natural or material, human or physical, tangible or abstract, moving or stationary, possessing its own resources or depending on resources from external sources, and interacting with another object to perform a specific desired function.

The TRIZ methodology has demonstrated that an object's mobility behavior is crucial for determining the solution when certain innovation parameters, such as weight, length, area, volume, energy usage, and duration, are involved. Therefore, it is essential to identify this state based on the following definitions:
Mobile Object S1: An object that can easily change its position in space in relation to Object S2, either by itself or as a result of external forces. If Object S1 appears stationary in relation to Object S2 and there is a desire for it to move, then Object S1 should be considered moving.
Stationary Object S1: An object that does not change its position in space in relation to Object S2, neither on its own nor due to external forces. If Object S1 moves along with Object S2, maintaining the relative position between them, then Object S1 can be considered stationary.
Moving or Stationary Object S2: The same definitions as above when interacting with Object S1.

The selection of Objects S1 and S2, which will be the focus of the evaluation, is a crucial decision based on a comprehensive study of the innovation challenge. The choice of Object S1 is particularly relevant as it will be used to identify undesirable effects that affect the achievement of the desired goal proposed for the innovation challenge. In case of uncertainty, it is recommended to initially select as Object S1 the one that, according to the knowledge of the current situation, appears to have the most potential for experiencing changes and presents more evidence of undesirable effects. For a given selection, the roles of S1 and S2 can also be reversed, requiring a new identification of undesirable effects associated with the new Object S1.
Any object identified in the functional diagram can be selected as Object S1 to formulate the innovation challenge. It is recommended to form pairs of objects to analyze different selection alternatives. These pairs of objects can consist of individual objects identified in the diagram or a group of objects grouped based on a common purpose.

Example of pairs of objects analyzed for the complex case of the sinking of the Estonia ferry, as shown in Topic 2

Pair of Objects A:
[Cargo Space Sb] [Ferry Sa] Water enters the cargo space, destabilizing the ferry and causing it to capsize. Here, the first challenge arises: How to prevent water from entering the cargo space and destabilizing the ferry?

Pair of Objects B:
[Door-Visor Sc+Se+Sf] [Cargo Space Sb] Now the challenge is: How to prevent water from entering the cargo space in the event of a failure in the Door-Visor?

Pair of Objects C:
[Cylindrical Locking Pin Se of Door-Visor Sc] [Male-Female Parts Sf of Door-Visor Sc] In this instance, the goal is to prevent the Pin from wearing out due to its interaction with the male-female parts, allowing water to enter the ferry.

Pair of Objects D:
[Operator of Pin Sg Door-Visor Sc] [Cylindrical Locking Pin Se Door-Visor Sc] It is unlikely that the Operator will take actions to control Pin wear since the possibility of wear is accepted as part of the Pin's design compromise or engineering trade-off.

Pair of Objects E:
[Unstable Sea Sd] [Door-Visor Sc] Finally, we could evaluate: How to prevent the unstable sea from reaching the Door-Visor, making it impossible for water to leak into the ferry?.

Examples of solutions to the indicated pairs of objects:

All the questions posed above are valid. Each pair of objects is associated with undesirable effects that impact directly or indirectly, and the associated solution will improve the affected main function: if any of these questions is solved, the ferry capsizing is prevented.
For this ferry case, solutions have been found for two pairs of objects identified above.
Solution 1:
Solution for Pair of Objects A, with Object S1: Cargo Space and Object S2: Ferry, as shown in the publication by Souchkov, Valeri, (updated 2010), "Root Conflict Analysis (RCA+): Structured Problems and Contradictions Mapping," proposes a solution to this challenge by filling the empty cargo spaces with foam or airbags to prevent water accumulation inside the cargo space, thereby avoiding destabilizing the ferry, which could lead to capsizing and sinking. This solution is detailed in the Extended Manual provided on this site, as linked above, applying Nature's L.I. and its aatrizinventor algorithm. See Extended Manual Topic 15. Build a Specific Solution, Case D.1.
Solution 2:
Another solution found in the literature is for Pair of Objects B, with Object S1: Cylindrical Locking Pin of Door-Visor and Object S2: Male-Female Parts of Door-Visor, as described in the book by Rantanen, Kalevi & Domb, Ellen, (2008), 'Simplified TRIZ?, which outlines a rather simple solution to this problem patented in the 1990s (yes, in the last decade of the 20th century, not in the 19th century), involving the use of a conical pin to replace the cylindrical one. This solution is detailed in the Extended Manual provided on this site, as linked above, applying Nature's L.I. and its aatrizinventor algorithm. See Manual Topic 15. Build a Specific Solution, Case D.2.
As can be seen, formulating an innovation challenge to find the optimal solution is a significant task for the Innovation Team, requiring in-depth knowledge of the current situation.

Back to list

6.1 Universal Innovation Parameters

Nature's L.I. utilizes the 39 innovation parameters from TRIZ, with a universal description, divided into 24 innovation parameters for undesirable effects and 10 for needs to satisfy, separated for moving Object S1 and stationary Object S1. They are shown below.

6.2 Innovation Parameters for Undesirable Effects and Selection Criteria

The innovation parameters (24) applied by Nature's L.I. to represent undesirable effects of an Object S1 in an innovation challenge have their origin in the classic definition by its creator Genrich Altshuller. Now, Nature's L.I. provides them with a universal description that facilitates their use in any realm of nature and human development, beyond their deduced origin from engineering.
The large number of exercises conducted with the Aatrizinventor algorithm has allowed us to validate the new descriptions and recognize the permanent validity of the classic TRIZ Contradiction Matrix as a permanent source of innovative solutions.
It is true that this matrix has been questioned by several innovators, some of whom have even redefined certain parameters and inventive principles to address specific contradictions. However, in light of the results obtained with aatrizinventor, these redefinitions are simply particular interpretations of particular cases, which in no case replace the proven universality of the classic TRIZ contradiction matrix.
Continuing with the parameters, in the link shown at the top, in the first section, descriptions are provided for the innovation parameters that can be associated with undesirable effects (UDE), along with guidance on how to relate them to undesirable effects that may arise based on in-depth knowledge of the evaluated current situation. These descriptions apply regardless of the type of innovation chosen: evolution, imagination, or imposition.

The logic for detecting undesirable effects is as follows: an evaluation space-time is established, and for each innovation parameter for undesirable effects (24), the question is whether it is possible to associate it with an undesirable effect present in the innovation challenge.
For each innovation parameter that can be associated with an undesirable effect, four validation criteria are recommended for the evaluator to decide whether to include it in the evaluation, as indicated below:

a) Critical Effect: There is objective evidence that the undesirable effect is present and significant in the innovation challenge, so the associated innovation parameter should be selected for evaluation.

b) Non-Relevant Effect: There is some evidence of its presence in the innovation challenge, but a logical analysis suggests that it may not be as significant, potentially leading the solution in a distorted direction by giving it more importance than it deserves. In doubt, do not select the associated innovation parameter. If the solution obtained without this effect is unsatisfactory, you can reconsider your decision and re-evaluate.

c) Negligible Effect: There is no evidence of its presence in the innovation challenge, so the possible innovation parameter associated with it should not be selected.

d) Accepted Effect: There is evidence that an undesirable effect is present in the innovation challenge, but the Innovation Team decides to accept its behavior, allowing the solution to have this degree of freedom.
e)Protected Effect: There is a situation that occurs especially in chained innovation processes, where in the first stage, there is an undesirable effect parameter that is improved. In the second stage, there are other related parameters that need improvement and could affect the already improved parameter. In these cases, consider including this latter parameter in the evaluation to further improve it or preserve the improvement already achieved.

To propose a solution to an innovation challenge, the aatrizinventor algorithm requires the Innovation Team to provide the following information:
Identify the undesirable effects present in the innovation challenge under evaluation, up to a maximum of 7 parameters. Practical experience suggests that typically between 3 and 7 parameters are detected, which the algorithm can process in sets of 4 at a time. If you obtain more than 7, you should first check the evaluation space-time; it could be the case that certain effects occur outside the defined space-time, either partially or entirely, and therefore should not be considered. If that is not the case, you should reduce the space-time to be evaluated, as you may be combining different challenges.
As an example, Topic 8 of the Extended Manual provides selection tables for parameters of undesirable effects. Remember, practice makes perfect.

6.3 Innovation Parameters for Needs to Satisfy

The innovation parameters (10) applied by Nature's L.I. to represent needs to Satisfy for an Object S1 in an innovation challenge, as shown in the table above, also have their origin in the classic definition by its creator Genrich Altshuller, which Nature's L.I. provides with a universal description that facilitates their use in any realm of nature and human development, beyond their deduced origin from engineering.
A need to satisfy for an Object S1 evaluated is understood as a quality to be achieved in an evolutionary process of satisfaction. It begins with the ease of operation, the ability to change, and achieving the desired result. It continues with optimal resource management in productivity and efficient energy use. It goes on to being perceived as reliable and adaptable or versatile in behavior and its relationship with Object S2. Finally, it achieves autonomy in action or automation to reach a stable condition of permanent satisfaction.

To propose a solution to an innovation challenge, the aatrizinventor algorithm requires the Innovation Team to provide the following information:
Select the need to satisfy that you want to improve based on a deep understanding of the current situation.
It is important to recognize that the decision to select the need to satisfy will depend on the knowledge of the current situation's evolutionary state. However, this decision can be influenced by the experience, paradigms, and desires of the Innovation Team, which may not always align with the best practices of the language of nature's innovation. This discrepancy could lead to a solution that is not understandable to the Innovation Team, which could be wrongly attributed to the aatrizinventor algorithm.
To support the Innovation team's decision, the algorithm performs a sensitivity analysis that includes up to 7 undesirable effects and 10 possible needs to satisfy. This allows up to 350 solution alternatives to be evaluated in a single run of the algorithm, selecting the 10 best weighted ones to include in the aforementioned report, to be considered by the Innovation Team.

In this way, through two or three runs of the algorithm, it is possible to obtain an innovative solution for the evaluated innovation challenge. This solution is expected to have minimal cost and maximum benefit-to-cost ratio.

6.4 Inventive Principles

Nature's Language of Innovation resolves contradictions using the TRIZ Contradiction Matrix, using inventive principles shown below.

UNIVERSAL TRIZ INVENTIVE PRINCIPLES

TYPES OF TRIZ INVENTIVE PRINCIPLES

Nature's Language of Innovation has added a new property to the inventive principles: Strategic, Tactical and Operational, which are defined according to the participation they have in the 1248 contradictions identified by TRIZ.

Nature's Language of Innovation postulates that there is a 5x5 contradiction matrix that solves the innovation challenge or existing problem, delivering a solution of minimum cost and maximum benefit / cost ratio. As an example, below is a specific matrix that has been deduced for 'Improve service of hot coffee in a plastic cup affected by burning the Customers' hand'. The matrix shows the undesirable effects, expressed as TRIZ innovation parameters: 1,23,29,25, and the desirable effect or need to satisfy, also as TRIZ innovation parameter: 13. In each cell the inventive principles that solve the contradiction between each pair of parameters are shown.

Specific Contradiction Matrix to Improve Service of hot coffee in a plastic cup with a Need to Satisfy: Stability

Additionally, there is the matrix of contradictions between the selected need to satisfy, 13. Stability in this case, and the other defined needs to

Matrix between Needs to Satisfy to Improve Hot coffee service in a plastic cup for Needs to Satisfy: Stability

This simple example of drinking hot coffee in a plastic cup will demonstrate how Nature's L.I. solves business problems using a universal description of TRIZ inventive principles and parameters, the original description of which has an engineering bias. The universal descriptions that are provided facilitate the solution of innovation challenges in any field of knowledge and can explain the innovation-evolution processes of nature, as a continuous solution of needs to satisfy. Nothing is spontaneous or random, everything has a reason: the current situation will determine the future and this in turn will condition the next.

Back to list

Example for Case: Improve the Service of Hot Coffee in a Plastic Cup that Burns the Customer's Hand
At this Topic, we summarize the work of formulating the innovation challenge that the Innovation Team must conduct before using the Aatrizinventor Algorithm. Reviewing and ensuring conformity with the formulated logic is key to obtaining a suitable solution for the innovation challenge.

7.1 Functional Diagram of Objects

7.2 Selection of Undesirable Effects

7.3 Selection of Desirable Effect

For the evaluation, a desirable effect must be selected from among the 10 defined. Deciding on the desirable effect is a statement of intent regarding the state of innovation-evolution one wishes to achieve. The already identified undesirable effects should enable the Innovation Team to estimate the current state of innovation-evolution. Based on this, the selected desirable effect can be justified to attain a solution. However, the mentioned selection exercise does not always lead to the optimal solution.
Anticipating this, the Aatrizinventor algorithm assists the Innovation Team by conducting a sensitivity analysis for various combinations of selected undesirable effects and the 10 possible desirable effects. The analysis performed by the algorithm allows for proposing alternative solutions for the Innovation Team's decision.

It is highly recommended to review 2 or 3 alternative solutions with an open mind, without preconceptions. This approach may reveal pleasantly surprising solutions.

As an example, in a preliminary approach to the case of hot coffee in a plastic cup, due to an engineer's bias, the variables of coffee temperature (parameter 17) and the damage it caused by burning the customer's hand (parameter 31) were prioritized, directing the innovation challenge towards people's safety. However, the sensitivity analysis prioritized a different combination of parameters, shifting the main focus towards business outcomes, i.e., improving (reducing) sales losses and mitigating time loss due to the rejection of plastic cups with hot coffee. In other words, increasing sales and improving product turnover.

7.4 Modified Multiple Variable Evaporation Cloud for Recommended Solution

Back to list

The previous work shown allows you to have all the necessary information to enter into the Aatrizinventor algorithm. You can enter up to 7 innovation parameters for undesirable effects, up to 4 for evaluation and up to 3 for sensitivity analysis. 1 innovation parameter is entered for need to satisfy and the remaining 9 are left for sensitivity analysis. Thus, the aatrizinventor algorithm evaluates 350 alternative solutions and recommends the 10 bests. The details of entering this information can be seen below.

a. Information Entry

STEP 1: OBJECTIVE AND INTERACTING OBJECTS

STEP 2: OBJECTIVE AFFECTED BY UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS CAUSES OF DISSATISFACTION

STEP 3: PHYSICAL VARIABLE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS CAUSES OF DISSATISFACTION

STEP 4: PHYSICAL VARIABLE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF DESIRABLE EFFECT CAUSE OF SATISFACTION AND ASSOCIATED TRIZ PARAMETER

STEP 5: OBJECTIVE EXPECTED DUE TO DESIRABLE EFFECT CAUSE OF SATISFACTION

Back to list

Before obtaining the solution through the Aatrizinventor algorithm, it is advisable to conduct a preliminary analysis of the formulated logic for addressing the innovation challenge under evaluation. In other words, it is necessary to review that the selected undesirable effects are consistent with the innovation challenge and are indeed affecting the sought-after objective of the innovation. Once the information entry is completed, by clicking on "Review Logic," included at the end of Step 5, the algorithm will generate a report called "Nature's L.I. Formulation Logic Summary," as shown below. It is essential for the Innovation Team to carefully read this report. If the Innovation Team agrees with the logic presented in the report, then it is recommended to proceed with the process to obtain a solution.
Example of Logic Summary for the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup:

In case of finding inconsistencies or errors in the report, it is necessary to go back and make the necessary corrections. The logic analysis report should be generated again, and once the Innovation Team definitively accepts the report, they will be in an appropriate position to request the solution.
It is crucial to note that reviewing and eventually correcting the formulation logic are key steps before proceeding to obtain a suitable solution for the evaluated case. These steps ensure that the formulation of the innovation challenge and its undesirable effects are coherent and appropriate, thereby maximizing the certainty of the obtained solution.
Additionally, it is important to highlight that the logical formulation of the innovation challenge is a necessary but not sufficient step to obtain an optimal solution. For this reason, the algorithm performs a sensitivity analysis, as explained in Topic 6 and as shown in the example in the following Topic 10.

Back to list

Once the required information has been entered to obtain a solution, you must enter the registered username and password and click the "Aatrizinventor Solution" button. This action will display the report: AATRIZINVENTOR SOLUTION REPORT.
This report contains all the necessary information to obtain a solution for the assessed challenge. It is divided into tables I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VII, VIII, and IX, which provide relevant information for the solution. The following explains the content of each table and what useful information it provides, with which the algorithm forms the solution.
The tables shown here as an example correspond to the challenge of improving the Hot Coffee in Plastic Cup Service, affected by burning the hand of customers. This report begins with the detail of the information entered into the Aatrizinventor Algorithm. All the information required for this report can be written as the User wishes, to safeguard the privacy of the analysis. In particular, the explanation of the selected undesirable effects for evaluation is presented in the report in a generic manner, as the actual information is managed only in the User's Server environment.

Back to list

Table I presents the innovation parameters selected to evaluate the challenge that must be resolved for the interaction between an Object S1 and an Object S2, and no more. The selection of undesirable effects should be based on a thorough review of the current situation, identifying them based on the objective evidence present within the predefined space and time of evaluation. Meeting this requirement is crucial: If you don't connect the dots of the current situation well, the algorithm will provide an incoherent solution.
The choice of the need to satisfy should reflect the best estimate of the state of innovation-evolution of Object S1 being evaluated. Recognizing the criticality of this selection process, the Aatrizinventor algorithm provides flexibility to change parameters and conducts a sensitivity analysis to offer alternative solutions. These alternatives are based on different combinations of the parameters entered with all defined needs to satisfy. A total of 350 solution alternatives are analyzed. See Item 10.6.

Table I: Innovation Parameters Under Evaluation

Back to list

Below is Table II, which shows the evaluation of the contradictions formed between the innovation parameters selected by the Innovation Team for evaluation, as detailed in Table I. These parameters are related to the undesirable effects and corresponding needs to satisfy, allowing for the determination of the Base Solution.

It is important to note that this table does not include the innovation parameters intended for sensitivity analysis, whose participation depends on the sensitivity displayed in Table VI. Therefore, what is presented is a preliminary result based on the knowledge possessed by the Innovation Team to address the evaluated challenge.

Practice teaches us that it is desirable that this first selection of parameters should be part of the solutions recommended by the sensitivity analysis conducted by the Aatrizinventor algorithm, which will be seen in Table VI below. If this does not occur, the interpretation of this first solution could be more complicated for its effective implementation and it may be necessary to apply a new combination of parameters to evaluate. The final Base Solution chosen will determine the direction of the recommended solution.

All the contradictions shown in Table II have an empirically calculated weight, identified as wt.i. Contradiction wt.1 is called the essential contradiction and is highlighted with the abbreviation 'Es,' and it can be found in any position of the matrix. The four heaviest contradictions located in the row and column of the preferred parameters are referred to as complementary contradictions and are indicated with 'Compl.' These five contradictions make up the Base Solution presented in Table III.

Additionally, the Top5 contradictions that are outside the row and column of the preferred parameters are highlighted. It is essential to take them into account as they may contain additional inventive principles that need to be included in the final solution, which will be defined in Table V.

The Recommended Solution by the algorithm consists of the Base Solution and the Solution Among Needs to Satisfy. The latter consists of a selection extracted from the contradictions between the evaluated need to satisfy and the other defined needs to satisfy, as detailed in Table IV. The Recommended Solution is available in Table V.

Finally, it is important to mention that there are inventive principles present in Table II, whether in the Top5 or other locations, which are not part of the Recommended Solution. In Table V, the three most relevant principles identified, along with the associated contradictions, are shown for the purpose of evaluating if they contribute significant aspects to the desired solution. For more detailed information on the incidence of inventive principles in Table II, as well as to identify all those that do not participate in the Recommended Solution in Table V, you can consult Table VIII.

10.2 Table II: Base Solution Contradiction Matrix

Back to list

Here is Table III, which is an excerpt from Table II, showing only the essential contradiction and the 4 complementary contradictions that make up the Base Solution.
In the essential contradiction marked with 'Es,' inventive principles are highlighted, and some of these principles are repeated in certain complementary contradictions. This repetition helps reduce the inventive principles that need to be integrated coherently to establish a specific solution.

A list of participating inventive principles is also provided in Table III, indicating their type: Strategic, Tactical, or Operational. Operational principles, along with tactical ones, offer more specific initial guidance. For example, in the case of "Hot Coffee Service in a Plastic Cup Affected by Burning Customers' Hands," as shown here, these principles already provide some significant and coherent signals for defining a solution:
PI.18 Vibrations/Energy Variations, Tactical, indicating the need for a cyclical movement between the Plastic Cup and the customer: 'take it, release it.'.
PI.20 Continuity of Useful Action, Operational, suggesting an improvement in the continuity of the service.
PI.5 Merging/Separating, Operational, indicating that the Plastic Cup should be merged with another object to enhance the interaction between the Plastic Cup and the customer.
PI.31 Using/Removing Unused Parts, Operational, suggesting the need to use some unused part of the Plastic Cup.
This initial analysis already reveals a trend, with the inventive principles from the contradictions between needs to satisfy yet to be considered, as they are selected in Table IV.
In another case, if applying the above exercise makes it difficult to project a solution, it is recommended to review the results of the sensitivity analysis and consider another alternative. If you have correctly selected innovation parameters representing the identified undesirable effects for the evaluated case, it can be asserted that there is a possible optimal solution. On average, 2 or 3 additional evaluations will lead to the optimal solution. If you are unsure about a parameter, evaluate with and without it. Sometimes, this simple exercise will enough.

10.3 Tabla III Base Solution

Back to list

Here is Table IV, which displays the Contradiction Matrix between Needs to Satisfy and the Optimization Strategy.

Table IV serves two simultaneous objectives. First, it aims to solve contradictions between the evaluated need to satisfy and the other defined needs. The logic behind this is that the improvement of the evaluated need to satisfy should not worsen the performance of the other ones. Therefore, these contradictions need to be addressed and solved.

Secondly, this stage must adhere to the hypothesis of optimizing the solution to the evaluated challenge, which posits that the most promising solution is one in which the inventive principles present in Table II cover a higher percentage of the inventive principles participating in Table IV.

To determine the optimal solution, the coverage percentage is calculated for the evaluated case, and it is sought to have no more than three contradictions containing inventive principles not included in Table II. This is an iterative process, supported by alternative combinations of innovation parameters proposed by the sensitivity analysis explained in Table VI. The Aatrizinventor algorithm suggests that these up to three contradictions constitute the solution between needs to satisfy, which, together with the Base Solution, gives rise to the Recommended Solution for the evaluated innovation challenge, as shown in Table V.

list of participating inventive principles in the selected contradictions from Table IV is also provided, indicating their type: Strategic, Tactical, or Operational. Operational principles, along with tactical ones, offer more specific complementary guidance. For example, in the case of "Hot Coffee Service in a Plastic Cup Affected by Burning Customers' Hands," as shown here, these principles provide significant and coherent specific signals considering the innovation parameters that originate the contradictions they participate in.

10.4 Table IV Solution between Needs to Satisfy

Once again, upon reviewing the tactical and operational inventive principles, they provide indications on where to direct the solution
PI.8. Anti-Weight/ Compensation - tactical type, which suggests offsetting the temperature affecting the Customer by combining the Plastic Cup with another object,
PI.30. Simple Shapes/ Ways to Interact - tactical type, which proposes using a thin flexible sheet to isolate the temperature affecting the Customer,
PI.34. Discarding and Recovering - actical type, indicating that the flexible sheet should be used and then discarded, followed by the recovery of a new one,
PI.16. Partial or Excessive Actions - operational type, and finally, making the solution adjustable, "a little more, a little less, 'in other words, the "never well-pondered theory of oscillating digits.'.

As seen, the Base Solution and the Solution between Needs to Satisfy gradually provide meaningful concepts to form the Recommended Solution that the Aatrizinventor algorithm will provide, always based on the knowledge of the current situation.

If Table IV contains more than 3 contradictions with inventive principles not included in Table II (nT2), then it is likely to be more challenging to construct a specific solution. In such cases, it is recommended to seek an alternative combination of parameters in Table VI of the sensitivity analysis. Choosing another need to be satisfied, as shown in Table VII Essential Contradictions of Needs to Satisfy (NS) for the same evaluated undesirable effects for Plastic Cup, is also an option.

To evaluate the recommended inventive principles here and the corresponding contradictions (up to 3) they participate in, the Base Solution must guide an initial context of the solution, as the contradictions between needs to satisfy do not identify which variable, property or characteristic of the object S1 must be improved.

Inventive principles marked with nT3 are included in Table II but do not participate in the Recommended Solution shown in Table V. The Innovation Team should review the contradictions where these principles participate to determine if there are other specific aspects that could be significant for the solution or to confirm the projected solution.
Unmarked inventive principles are included in Table II Specific Contradiction Matrix and in Table V Recommended Solution.

Back to list

Next, we present Table V, which displays the Recommended Solution selected for the evaluated innovation challenge. This solution should result from a rigorous analysis of the available alternatives, including the innovation team's proposal and the alternatives recommended by the sensitivity analysis.
In this table, the participation of inventive principles belonging to essential contradictions marked with 'Es' is highlighted.
A list of all inventive principles participating in this table is also shown, indicating their type: Strategic, Tactical, or Operational.
Moreover, for each inventive principle, a summary of the defining innovation concepts is provided. With these concepts, the Specific Solution for the evaluated challenge should be derived, integrating the strategic, tactical, and operational inventive principles contained in the aforementioned list. We recommend an 'integrated specific reading' of inventive principles per contradiction, applying relational thinking skills.

10.5 Table V Recommended Solution

Inventive Principles Included in the Recommended Solution

To develop a Specific Solution based on the contradictions provided in Table V, where S1: Plastic Cup interacts with S2: CUSTOMERS, the Innovation Team must analyze the selected inventive principles listed below. This involves reviewing all the innovation concepts recommended by each of these principles. An initial practical exercise is to choose at least one concept from each principle that is applicable to the challenge under evaluation.
Once the concepts per inventive principle have been selected, it is essential to conduct an 'integrated specific reading' for the contradictions indicated in Table V. If this recommended reading can demonstrate a coherent logical thread with the evaluated case for each selected contradiction and for the set of recommended contradictions, then it can be considered that there is a possible innovation solution.
To complete the definition of the specific solution, it is necessary to review the relevant inventive principles from Table II that were not included in the Recommended Solution in Table V, which are presented above.
For more details on the recommended contradictions, you can refer to the complete descriptions of the inventive principles by contradiction, as shown in Table IX.
In Topic 11 of this Starter Manual, an example is provided to develop the Specific Solution from the Recommended Solution generated by the Aatrizinventor algorithm, based on the 'Nature's Language of Innovation.' Identifying a specific solution is a systematic and iterative process that involves multiple concepts and seeks to determine a comprehensive solution with minimal implementation cost and maximum benefit-to-cost ratio.
In the inventive principles described below, an asterisk (*) has been added to the name of the object under evaluation. This is done to remind us that the descriptions of the inventive principles consider that the Plastic Cup can maintain its current physical or functional state, change to a modified state, or even transition to a new state, as needed to achieve the desired goal.
Please make the most of your relational thinking skills.

The summarized descriptions of the Inventive Principles included in the Recommended Solution, shown below, should be applied to the evaluated challenge for the defined space and time, within which the undesirable effects that have been evaluated were identified. Remember, not all the concepts described below apply to finding the desired solution. Knowledge of the actual, real, imagined, or imposed situation will guide this selection:

Below is a summarized description of the inventive principles included in the recommended solution shown above. As an example, the innovation concepts selected by the Innovation Team to build the solution are highlighted. This underlining is not included in the Aatrizinventor Innovation Report:

Essential contradiction
Improve: (+) 23. Loss of substance and Attenuate or Preserve: (+) 25. Loss of Time
IP.15. Dynamics - strategic type (1)
a. Allow (or design) the characteristics of PLASTIC CUP*, external environment, or process to change to an optimal, or to find an optimal, operating condition.
b. Divide PLASTIC CUP* into parts that are capable of relative movement between each other.
c. If PLASTIC CUP* (or process) is rigid or inflexible, make it flexible or adaptive.
d. To enhance the dynamics of PLASTIC CUP* or the process, use feature(s) or object(s) available in the nearby environment.
IP.18. Mechanical Vibrations/ Energy Variations - tactical type (2)
a. Move PLASTIC CUP* by cycles with energies that activate it.
b. Cause PLASTIC CUP* to oscillate or vibrate. Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic).Use the resonant frequency of PLASTIC CUP*. If necessary, decrease frequency.
c. Use vibration-generating fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* instead of mechanical vibration generators. Combine sources of oscillations.
d. Apply alternation of PLASTIC CUP* or its parts or functions.
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (3)
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.10. Preliminary Action - strategic type (4)
a. Perform the required change in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, before it is needed (either fully or partially).
b. Pre-arrange PLASTIC CUP* and other objects, if necessary, in such a way that they can come into action from the most convenient place and without losing time for their delivery.

Complementary contradiction #1
Improve: (+) 1. Heaviness of moving object and Attenuate or Preserve: (-) 29. Fulfillment of desired outcome
IP.28. Mechanics Substitution - strategic type (5)
a. Replace a direct or manual action in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with a mechanical action or a tool.
b. Replace a mechanical means in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with sensory (optical, acoustic, vibration, taste, smell, feelings or other sensory fields) means.
c. Use mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychological or other fields to improve action of PLASTIC CUP*.
d. Change from static fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* to moving fields, from unstructured fields to those with structure, or vice versa.
e. Use fields in conjunction with fi eld-activated parts, components, or particles (e.g., magnetic field and ferromagnetic particles) in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (6)
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.26. Copying/ Replicating - strategic type (7)
a. Instead of using PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its unavailable, expensive, fragile parts or properties, use simpler and inexpensive copies or replicates to perform the desired function and, if possible, with improved characteristics and properties, while disregarding the harmful, undesirable, or unnecessary ones.
b. Imitate PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its parts or properties, leveraging the relevant available environment.
c. If simple copies, or replicates are already being used, apply copies, or replicates of a higher level or technical.
IP.18. Mechanical Vibrations/ Energy Variations - tactical type (8)
a. Move PLASTIC CUP* by cycles with energies that activate it.
b. Cause PLASTIC CUP* to oscillate or vibrate. Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic). Use the resonant frequency of PLASTIC CUP*. If necessary, decrease frequency.
c. Use vibration-generating fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* instead of mechanical vibration generators. Combine sources of oscillations.
d. Apply alternation of PLASTIC CUP* or its parts or functions.

Complementary contradiction #2
Improve: (+) 1. Heaviness of moving object and Attenuate or Preserve: (+) 25. Loss of Time
IP.10. Preliminary Action - strategic type (9)
a. Perform the required change in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, before it is needed (either fully or partially).
b. Pre-arrange PLASTIC CUP* and other objects, if necessary, in such a way that they can come into action from the most convenient place and without losing time for their delivery.
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (10)
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.20. Continuity of Useful Action - operative type (11)
a. Make sure work is executed on continuously with PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Make all parts of PLASTIC CUP* work at full load, all the time.
c. Eliminate all idle or intermittent actions or work of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.28. Mechanics Substitution - strategic type (12)
a. Replace a direct or manual action in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with a mechanical action or a tool.
b. Replace a mechanical means in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with sensory (optical, acoustic, vibration, taste, smell, feelings or other sensory fields) means.
c. Use mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychological or other fields to improve action of PLASTIC CUP*.
d. Change from static fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* to moving fields, from unstructured fields to those with structure, or vice versa.
e. Use fields in conjunction with fi eld-activated parts, components, or particles (e.g., magnetic field and ferromagnetic particles) in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.

Complementary contradiction #3
Improve: (-) 29. Fulfillment of desired outcome and Attenuate or Preserve: (+) 25. Loss of Time
IP.32. Perception/ Appearance/ Color Changes - strategic type (13)
a. Change how is perceived, the appearance or shape of PLASTIC CUP* in relation to the object S2with which it interacts.
b. Change the color, or appearance, of PLASTIC CUP* or its external environment.
c. Change the transparency of PLASTIC CUP* or its external environment.
IP.26. Copying/ Replicating - strategic type (14)
a. Instead of using PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its unavailable, expensive, fragile parts or properties, use simpler and inexpensive copies or replicates to perform the desired function and, if possible, does with improved characteristics and properties, while disregarding the harmful, undesirable, or unnecessary ones.
b. Imitate PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its parts or properties, leveraging the relevant available environment.
c. If simple copies, or replicates are already being used, apply copies, or replicates of a higher level or technical.
IP.28. Mechanics Substitution - strategic type (15)
a. Replace a direct or manual action in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with a mechanical action or a tool.
b. Replace a mechanical means in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with sensory (optical, acoustic, vibration, taste, smell, feelings or other sensory fields) means.
c. Use mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychological or other fields to improve action of PLASTIC CUP*.
d. Change from static fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* to moving fields, from unstructured fields to those with structure, or vice versa.
e. Use fields in conjunction with fi eld-activated parts, components, or particles (e.g., magnetic field and ferromagnetic particles) in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.18. Mechanical Vibrations/ Energy Variations - tactical type (16)
a. Move PLASTIC CUP* by cycles with energies that activate it.
b. Cause PLASTIC CUP* to oscillate or vibrate. Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic).Use the resonant frequency of PLASTIC CUP*. If necessary, decrease frequency.
c. Use vibration-generating fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* instead of mechanical vibration generators. Combine sources of oscillations.
d. Apply alternation of PLASTIC CUP* or its parts or functions.

Complementary contradiction #4
Improve: (+) 1. Heaviness of moving object and Attenuate or Preserve: (+) 23. Loss of substance
IP.5. Merging/ Separating - operative type (17)
a. Bring PLASTIC CUP* closer or merge with other objects with similar or identical operations or functions.
b. Bring PLASTIC CUP* closer or merge with other objects with similar operations or functions for them to act together at the same time.
c. Merge different shapes or actions into PLASTIC CUP*.
d. If there are objects fused to PLASTIC CUP, and if necessary, apply a separation action.
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (18)
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.3. Local Quality - strategic type (19)
a. Improve quality in a localized way, for parts, components, or conditions of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Change the structure, action, or procedure of PLASTIC CUP* from uniform to non-uniform, or vice versa.
c. Change the external environment (or external influence) of PLASTIC CUP* from uniform to non-uniform, or vice versa.
d. Make each part of PLASTIC CUP* function in the conditions that are most suitable for its operation.
e. Make each part of PLASTIC CUP* fulfill a different and useful function.
IP.31. Using/ Removing Unused Parts - operative type (20)
a. Take advantage of unused parts of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Remove or do not use unnecessary parts of PLASTIC CUP*.

Contradiction between Needs to Satisfy #1
Improve: 13. Stability and Preserve: 38. Extent of automation/ autonomy
IP.1. Segmenting/ Integrating - strategic type (21)
a. Divide PLASTIC CUP* into existing and/or new parts, shapes, phases, states, or conditions.
b. Integrate different existing or new parts, forms, phases, states or conditions of PLASTIC CUP* in a single entity. c. Make PLASTIC CUP* easy to disassemble or assemble.
d. Increase or reduce the degree of fragmentation or segmentation of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.8. Anti-Weight/ Compensation - tactical type (22)
a. To compensate for the heaviness/lightness or incidence of PLASTIC CUP*, merge it with other objects or independent own parts that provide an effect to improve the current situation.
b. To compensate for the heaviness/lightness or incidence of PLASTIC CUP*, make it interact with the environment.
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (23) a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.

Contradiction between Needs to Satisfy #2
N°7 Improve: 13. Stability and Preserve: 35. Adaptability or versatility
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (24)
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.30. Simple Shapes/ Ways to Interact - tactical type (25)
a. Use flexible rods and ropes, or similar one-dimensional functionality, or shells and thin films, or similar two-dimensional functionality, for PLASTIC CUP*, instead of complex three-dimensional structures, in type and number of components and shapes.
b. Separate/isolate PLASTIC CUP* from the external environment with simple shapes, using flexible rods and ropes, or similar one-dimensional, or shells and thin films, or similar two-dimensional.
c. Use in or for PLASTIC CUP* simple forms or ways of interacting with object S2, in one or two dimensions, with other dimensions reduced to a minimum. This is in order to reduce the number of resources and actions necessary to achieve the desired objective.
IP.34. Discarding and Recovering - tactical type (26)
a. Make portions of PLASTIC CUP*, which have fulfilled their functions or are unnecessary, go away(discard by absorption, dissolving, evaporating, etc.).
b. Conversely, restore consumable parts of PLASTIC CUP* directly in operation.
IP.2. Taking out/ Adding - strategic type (27)
a. Separate an interfering part or a property from PLASTIC CUP*, or single out the only necessary part (or property) of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Add new parts or properties to PLASTIC CUP*.

Contradiction between Needs to Satisfy #3
N°8 Improve: 13. Stability and Preserve: 34. Ease of change, repair or maintain
IP.2. Taking out/ Adding - strategic type (28)
a. Separate an interfering part or a property from PLASTIC CUP*, or single out the only necessary part (or property) of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Add new parts or properties to PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.35. Transformation / Parameter Changes - strategic type (29)
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.10. Preliminary Action - strategic type (30)
a. Perform the required change in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, before it is needed (either fully or partially).
b. Pre-arrange PLASTIC CUP* and other objects, if necessary, in such a way that they can come into action from the most convenient place and without losing time for their delivery.
IP.16. Partial or Excessive Actions - operative type (31)
a. If the objective of PLASTIC CUP* in its interaction with CUSTOMERS is difficult to fully achieve using a given solution, then use 'a little less' or 'a little more' of the same solution.

Specific analysis for each case
Relevant inventive principles from Table II not included in Recommended Solution
IP.24. Intermediary (Pos.(8) - tactical type (32)
a. for PLASTIC CUP*, use an intermediary carrier article or intermediary process.
b. Merge PLASTIC CUP* temporarily with another object (which can be easily removed or removed by itself).
IP.21. Skipping/ Avoiding (Pos.(10) - tactical type (33)
a. Make sure that with PLASTIC CUP*, the process, or certain stages (e.g., destructible, harmful, or hazardous operations), are conducted at high speed or during a minimum time of exposure to the risk.
b. Eventually, skip certain process stages PLASTIC CUP*.
IP.14. Spheroidality - Curvature - Angle (Pos.(14) - tactical type(34)
a. For the interaction between PLASTIC CUP* and Object S2, instead of using rectilinear parts, surfaces, or shapes, use curvilinear, enveloping, or angled parts.
b. For the interaction between PLASTIC CUP* and Object S2, instead of acting in a linear or direct way, interact in an indirect way or with curvilinear, surrounding, or angled movements.
c. Move PLASTIC CUP* from flat to spherical surfaces; from parts shaped as a cube (parallelepiped)to ball-shaped structures.
d. Use rolls, balls, spirals, domes in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
e. Go from linear to rotary motion, use centrifugal forces in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
f. If there is Spheroidality , curvature or angle, increase or reduce, as applicable, in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.

Note that here three tactical principles are presented:
PI.24, which recommends using a carrying handle to operate the plastic cup,
PI.21, which recommends minimizing exposure to risk, to which the plastic cup exposes the Customer,
PI.14, which recommends applying curved or angled shapes to the plastic cup.

The complete exercise for building a specific solution is shown in Point 11 of this document.
For this particular case, the applied solution to the plastic cup is to transform it by combining it with a cardboard sheet, which acts as a simple tool to facilitate the movement of the cup without the customer getting burned. The sheet should be prepared in advance, and the plastic cup should be modified to have an angled or conical shape that facilitates the attachment of the cardboard sheet.
It is worth noting that the application of PI.14 in this case is a challenging exercise in applying relational thinking. It also demonstrates the value of meeting the requirement outlined here to provide an 'integrated reading' of each recommended contradiction in Table V.

Back to list

Next, Table VI is presented, which aims to propose alternative combinations of innovation parameters, based on up to 7 parameters that have been entered. This is done in order to minimize the uncertainties of an innovation challenge, where it may be difficult to determine the parameter combination that delivers the optimal solution to the challenge under evaluation. The Innovation Team will decide whether to consider them for evaluation. Best practice recommends reviewing one or two of the proposed combinations, whether from Table VI.A or Table VI.B.

The Aatrizinventor algorithm for accelerated solution approximation does not apply a formula that provides exact results. This is because the selection of innovation parameters to be evaluated depends on the evolutionary state of the innovation challenge under evaluation. Practice has shown that alternative solutions are needed to find the one that provides the greatest satisfaction. Initially, the algorithm operated with 4 undesirable effects and a specific need to satisfy, and often did not reach a satisfactory solution. By including more undesirable effects and incorporating all the needs to satisfy, sensitivity analysis quickly led to an optimal solution.
Undoubtedly, the experience of the Innovation Team in the specific domain where the innovation challenge occurs, along with knowledge of how variables change, will be essential for the proper formulation of the challenge and the interpretation of the solutions proposed by the algorithm.
Ultimately, the solution will be the result of an alliance between the Innovation Team and Nature's L.I. Extending, as proposed by Prigogine and Stengers in their book 'The New Alliance' in 1977, innovation in human development in the 21st century should be the result of an alliance between Humanity and divine Nature.

The Aatrizinventor algorithm is designed to simultaneously analyze up to 10 needs to satisfy and up to 7 undesirable effects, which implies evaluating a total of 350 combinations. This allows for providing a solution based on the information decided by the Innovation Team, along with a sensitivity analysis that prioritizes the 10 most promising solutions. This capability greatly facilitates obtaining a precise final solution. Below is the result obtained for the case of serving hot coffee in a plastic cup.

To compare the parameter combination of innovation being evaluated with the combinations proposed by the sensitivity analysis, Table VI can include three types messages, which are added to each matching combination, based on the criteria that is met:
(E) Combination of TRIZ innovation parameters evaluated in this Aatrizinventor Solution is prioritized here.
(U) Combination of TRIZ innovation parameters shows a match only in the evaluated undesirable effects.
Combination of TRIZ innovation parameters evaluated in this Aatrizinventor Solution is NOT prioritized here.

If the combination of parameters that you have selected does not satisfy you, it is recommended to select 2 or 3 of those prioritized in Table VI Sensitivity analysis. To evaluate any of the selected alternatives you must click Reset and re-enter the required information.

10.6 Table VI Sensitivity Analysis

Back to list

Below is Table VII, which shows the essential contradictions obtained for each of the defined Needs to Satisfy, considering the same undesirable effects that have been evaluated, not including those considered for sensitivity analysis.
This table is based on the calculation of a global coverage (Cob.GL), which is determined by combining two values: the coverage from Table IV (Cob.NS) already explained, and a relative coverage (Cob. between CE) obtained in this Table VII by comparing the essential contradictions identified for the 10 parameters of Needs to satisfy.
This global coverage (GL) is based on expert weighting criteria to prioritize solutions for the various Needs to Satisfy. Experience with aatrizinventor indicates that the most effective solutions are those with higher global coverage, preferably exceeding 90%.
The Innovation Team may decide whether it is advisable to conduct a new evaluation with another Need to Satisfy, selected from the results provided in Table VII. This decision will be made primarily when the evaluated Need to Satisfy is not classified among the three highest positions in the Table. In this table, the position of the evaluated Need to Satisfy for the case of serving hot coffee in a plastic cup is highlighted:13. Stability.

Back to list

Next, Table VIII is presented, which shows a prioritized analysis of the inventive principles included in TABLE II. Specific Contradiction Matrix. As an example, the inventive principles obtained from the contradictions formed by the parameters evaluated for the Plastic Cup Object are shown, resulting in the Recommended Solution presented in Table V. These parameters are:
(+) 1. Heaviness of moving object
(+) 23. Loss of substance
(+) 25. Loss of time
(-) 29. fulfillment of desired outcome
Par. NS: (+) 13. Stability
Inventive principles marked with *** are not included in the Recommended Solution (Table V). The first three marked ones are described alongside Table V to be considered in the evaluation. Sometimes, these make a specific and significant contribution to the solution. It is recommended to conduct an additional review, within the context determined by Table V, following the order of their position.

It's important to highlight that inventive principles can encompass various innovation concepts with different applications. Some open up a range of possibilities that demand our utmost relational thinking skills. From practical experience, the inventive principles with the most diverse options are as follows:

IP.3 Local Quality operates on a localized or micro level, requiring thorough analysis to decide the level at which it will be applied.

IP.13 Inverse or Indirect Action, which seems clear when it comes to changing a direct action between evaluated objects. In other cases, when an action oriented to the evaluated object is required: Turning it over, placing it upside down, changing its position or condition, it is not simple to identify the most advisable course of action.

IP.14, Sphericity - Curvature - Angle, which is one of the most unexpected inventive principles for me, considering all possible curved or angled forms of application, fixed or rotational. It demands rigorous relational thinking. It has created a new paradigm for me: In innovation, the shortest distance between two points is a curve.

IP.18, Vibrations/ Energy Variations, which, originating in engineering, prioritizes mechanical vibrations. In nature, this principle is expressed in a more general form, associated with energy variations that allow the achievement of an objective based on oscillations of an object or its function: An object moves back and forth to interact with a danger, a tree sways to resist the wind, the sea moves through waves to protect its diversity, the farmer plants in harvest cycles, man competes in laps in a race, etc.

IP.22, Turn Harm into Benefit, "make lemonade if you have lemons," is challenging in the sense of finding a positive action from a harmful effect. It works and is of minimal cost: the cargo ship that ran aground in the Suez Canal, mainly due to low tide, was freed by leveraging the rising tide, the man sinking in the snow due to the low area of his foot expands the interaction area by putting on snowshoes to walk, etc.

IP.26 Copy/ Replicate, which involves obtaining an improved object or copy from something as simple as adding a cardboard sheet to a plastic cup, replicating a caretaker in a field by creating a scarecrow, to replicating a man with a robot or doing the work of a data analyst with artificial intelligence software.
Inventive principle 26, along with 27 and 28, explains the emergence of artificial intelligence.>

IP.27, Short-Lived Cheap Objects, which aims to divide an object or function into multiple low-cost, short-lived components, properties, or characteristics, to facilitate the achievement of an objective at minimum cost or difficulty. Some examples include the separation of minerals into segments to obtain concentrations of various primary products, transient phenomena in physical-chemical processes to separate components, nanotechnology to manipulate matter on a nanoscale, the division of large volumes of information into bits for processing in computers, etc.

IP.28 Mechanical Substitution, which encompasses all forms of generating motion, from a tool to loosen a nut, sensory signals to activate movement, the use of energy fields to propel objects, integration of diverse fields to generate structured or synchronous movements, and finally, the use of energy fields to activate particles that generate movement, such as the magnetic levitation train. Using fields to activate particles to generate movement should be the challenge of the 21st century: traveling to space without the need for riding on a bomb!!

Back to list

In Table IX, the detailed description of the contradictions selected by the algorithm to form the recommended solution is shown, identified in Table V. This table, included in the Aatrizinventor Innovation Report, is divided into 2 parts: IX.A, which displays the 5 contradictions composing the Base Solution, and IX.B corresponding to the 3 contradictions marking the Solution between Needs to Satisfy.
In the following section, Point 11 details these contradictions for the case Service of Hot Coffee in Plastic Cup and provides a recommendation on how to use them to construct a Specific Solution.

Back to list

CONTRADICTIONS AND RECOMMENDED INVENTIVE PRINCIPLES FOR BUILDING A SPECIFIC SOLUTION

As an example of how to build a Specific Solution based on the selected Recommended Solution, the case of Improve hot coffee service in a plastic cup affected by burning the Customer's hand is developed below, which has been explained in detail in this Startup Manual

The Aatrizinventor algorithm provides a Recommended Solution that involves addressing a set of contradictions based on the inventive principles they consist of. Each contradiction should contribute a part of the specific solution, integrating its inventive principles coherently. All contradictions must contribute to a comprehensive and consistent solution that addresses the evaluation challenge.
To facilitate the analysis of these contradictions, the recommended inventive principles for each of them are presented below, divided into four groups.
The detailed contradictions shown below is available in Aatrizinventor Report Table IX. The specific analysis of these contradictions must be conducted by the Innovation Team.

GROUP 1: This corresponds to the first two contradictions in Table III belonging to the Base Solution, composed of the heaviest-weighted principles, typically of a strategic nature. These contradictions guide the solution's strategy. Strategic principles are more generic in character, so it may not yet be possible to project a solution, only general guidelines. The following groups will give more specific signals, which could require a new review of these principles, to consolidate the solution. The following list shows the inventive principles of Group 1.

ESSENTIAL CONTRADICTION
Contradiction order wt.1
Parameter to improve: (+) 23. Loss of substance
TO IMPROVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Loss of substance or relevant value, interacting with S2
Parameter to attenuate or preserve: (+) 25. Loss of Time
TO ATTENUATE OR PRESERVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Loss of time or causes a bottleneck interacting with S2
Inventive principles IP(s) : [15,18,35,10]
15. Dynamics, Str. IP (Pos.11):
a. Allow (or design) the characteristics of PLASTIC CUP*, external environment, or process to change to an optimal, or to find an optimal, operating condition.
b. Divide PLASTIC CUP* into parts that are capable of relative movement between each other.
c. If PLASTIC CUP* (or process) is rigid or inflexible, make it flexible or adaptive.
d. To enhance the dynamics of PLASTIC CUP* or the process, use feature(s) or object(s) available in the nearby environment.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving performance; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security); Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
18. Mechanical Vibrations/ Energy Variations, Tac. IP (Pos.5):
a. Move PLASTIC CUP* by cycles with energies that activate it
b. Cause PLASTIC CUP* to oscillate or vibrate. Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic). Use the resonant frequency of PLASTIC CUP*. If necessary, decrease frequency.
c. Use vibration-generating fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* instead of mechanical vibration generators. Combine sources of oscillations (e.g., ultrasonic, and electromagnetic).
d. Apply alternation of PLASTIC CUP* or its functions.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
10. Preliminary Action, Str. IP (Pos.2):
a. Perform the required change in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, before it is needed (either fully or partially).
b. Pre-arrange PLASTIC CUP* and other objects, if necessary, in such a way that they can come into action from the most convenient place and without losing time for their delivery.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving performance

COMPLEMENTARY CONTRADICTION 1
Contradiction order wt.2
Parameter to improve: (+) 1. Heaviness of moving object
TO IMPROVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Heaviness, value, cost, or restriction, whether physical or figurative interacting with S2
Parameter to attenuate or preserve: (-) 29. Fulfillment of desired outcome
TO ATTENUATE OR PRESERVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has Less Achievement of desired outcome interacting with S2
Inventive principles IP(s) : [28,35,26,18]
28. Mechanics Substitution, Str. IP (Pos.3):
a. Replace a direct or manual action in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with a mechanical action or a tool.
b. Replace a mechanical means in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with sensory (optical, acoustic, vibration, taste, smell, feelings or other sensory fields) means.
c. Use mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychological or other fields to improve action of PLASTIC CUP*.
d. Change from static fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* to moving fields, from unstructured fields to those with structure, or vice versa.
e. Use fields in conjunction with field-activated parts, components, or particles (e.g., magnetic field and ferromagnetic particles) in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
26. Copying/ Replicating, Str. IP (Pos.13):
a. Instead of using PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its unavailable, expensive, fragile parts or properties, use simpler and inexpensive copies or replicates to perform the desired function and, if possible, do so with improved characteristics and properties, while disregarding the harmful, undesirable, or unnecessary ones.
b. Imitate or replicate PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its parts or properties, leveraging the relevant available environment.
c. If simple copies, or replicates are already being used, apply copies, or replicates of a higher level or technical complexity.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
18. Mechanical Vibrations/ Energy Variations, Tac. IP (Pos.5):
a. Move PLASTIC CUP* by cycles with energies that activate it
b. Cause PLASTIC CUP* to oscillate or vibrate. Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic). Use the resonant frequency of PLASTIC CUP*. If necessary, decrease frequency.
c. Use vibration-generating fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* instead of mechanical vibration generators. Combine sources of oscillations (e.g., ultrasonic, and electromagnetic).
d. Apply alternation of PLASTIC CUP* or its functions.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)

STARTING A SOLUTION
The application of these two contradictions requires the Innovation Team to select the applicable innovation concepts for the evaluated case. Below the analysis that has already been conducted is shown.

Solution to improve more losses due to Customer rejection (Par.23) and Attenuate more time loss in sales due to Customer burns (Par.25)
Par.[23,25]: PI.[15,18,35,10]
PI.15, Strategic: Change the dynamic of movement between the Plastic Cup* and the Customer.
PI.18, Tactical: Plastic Cup* should have a cyclic movement between the resting point and the Customer.
PI.35, Strategic: Transform the physical state of Plastic Cup*, making it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.10, Strategic: Strategic: The change of Plastic Cup* should be performed before it becomes necessary for the Customers.
Comment: The described contradiction shows how to improve the economic strategy of the hot coffee sales business: Reduce sales losses and improve their turnover.

Solution to Improve more Heaviness of Plastic Cup movement due to hot Coffee (Par.1) and Attenuate less achievement of business sales target (Par.29).
Par.[1,29]: PI.[28,35,26,18]:
PI.28, Strategic: Mechanism that allows the Customer to move the Plastic Cup* should be improved to one that is safer. This principle considers all possible ways to generate movement, so each time it is applied, further contradictions should be considered to specify the most suitable solution.
PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.26, Strategic: A copy or replica of the current Plastic Cup should be generated to enhance the functionality of a Plastic Cup* for serving hot coffee. Whenever this principle is applied, further contradictions should be considered to specify the most suitable solution.
PI.18, Tactical: Plastic Cup* should have a cyclic movement between the point of delivery or rest and the Customer.

GROUP 2: These correspond to the following three contradictions from Table V, also belonging to the Base Solution. In these contradictions, more tactical and operational inventive principles appear, allowing for a better focus on the solution. The tactical and operational concepts added by this group of inventive principles should be consistent with the strategic focus deduced from Group 1.

COMPLEMENTARY CONTRADICTION 2
Contradiction order wt.3
Parameter to improve: (+) 1. Heaviness of moving object
TO IMPROVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Heaviness, value, cost, or restriction, whether physical or figurative interacting with S2
Parameter to attenuate or preserve: (+) 25. Loss of Time
TO ATTENUATE OR PRESERVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Loss of time or causes a bottleneck interacting with S2
Inventive principles IP(s) : [10,35,20,28]
10. Preliminary Action, Str. IP (Pos.2):
a. Perform the required change in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, before it is needed (either fully or partially).
b. Pre-arrange PLASTIC CUP* and other objects, if necessary, in such a way that they can come into action from the most convenient place and without losing time for their delivery.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving performance
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
20. Continuity of Useful Action, Oper. IP (Pos.15):
a. Make sure work is executed on continuously with PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Make all parts of PLASTIC CUP* work at full load, all the time.
c. Eliminate all idle or intermittent actions or work of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
28. Mechanics Substitution, Str. IP (Pos.3):
a. Replace a direct or manual action in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with a mechanical action or a tool.
b. Replace a mechanical means in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with sensory (optical, acoustic, vibration, taste, smell, feelings or other sensory fields) means.
c. Use mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychological or other fields to improve action of PLASTIC CUP*.
d. Change from static fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* to moving fields, from unstructured fields to those with structure, or vice versa.
e. Use fields in conjunction with field-activated parts, components, or particles (e.g., magnetic field and ferromagnetic particles) in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes

COMPLEMENTARY CONTRADICTION 3
Contradiction order wt.6
Parameter to improve: (-) 29. Fulfillment of desired outcome
TO IMPROVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has Less Achievement of desired outcome interacting with S2
Parameter to attenuate or preserve: (+) 25. Loss of Time
TO ATTENUATE OR PRESERVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Loss of time or causes a bottleneck interacting with S2
Inventive principles IP(s) : [32,26,28,18]
32. Perception/ Appearance/ Color Changes, Str. IP (Pos.6):
a. Change how is perceived, the appearance or shape of PLASTIC CUP* in relation to the object (S2) with which it interacts.
b. Change the color, or appearance, of PLASTIC CUP* or its external environment.
c. Change the transparency of PLASTIC CUP* or its external environment.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
26. Copying/ Replicating, Str. IP (Pos.13):
a. Instead of using PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its unavailable, expensive, fragile parts or properties, use simpler and inexpensive copies or replicates to perform the desired function and, if possible, do so with improved characteristics and properties, while disregarding the harmful, undesirable, or unnecessary ones.
b. Imitate or replicate PLASTIC CUP*, or any of its parts or properties, leveraging the relevant available environment.
c. If simple copies, or replicates are already being used, apply copies, or replicates of a higher level or technical complexity.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
28. Mechanics Substitution, Str. IP (Pos.3):
a. Replace a direct or manual action in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with a mechanical action or a tool.
b. Replace a mechanical means in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, with sensory (optical, acoustic, vibration, taste, smell, feelings or other sensory fields) means.
c. Use mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychological or other fields to improve action of PLASTIC CUP*.
d. Change from static fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* to moving fields, from unstructured fields to those with structure, or vice versa.
e. Use fields in conjunction with field-activated parts, components, or particles (e.g., magnetic field and ferromagnetic particles) in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes
18. Mechanical Vibrations/ Energy Variations, Tac. IP (Pos.5):
a. Move PLASTIC CUP* by cycles with energies that activate it
b. Cause PLASTIC CUP* to oscillate or vibrate. Increase its frequency (even up to the ultrasonic). Use the resonant frequency of PLASTIC CUP*. If necessary, decrease frequency.
c. Use vibration-generating fields in, or for, PLASTIC CUP* instead of mechanical vibration generators. Combine sources of oscillations (e.g., ultrasonic, and electromagnetic).
d. Apply alternation of PLASTIC CUP* or its functions.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)

COMPLEMENTARY CONTRADICTION 4
Contradiction order wt.10
Parameter to improve: (+) 1. Heaviness of moving object
TO IMPROVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Heaviness, value, cost, or restriction, whether physical or figurative interacting with S2
Parameter to attenuate or preserve: (+) 23. Loss of substance
TO ATTENUATE OR PRESERVE (UDE): PLASTIC CUP has More Loss of substance or relevant value, interacting with S2
Inventive principles IP(s) : [5,35,3,31]
5. Merging/ Separating, Str. IP (Pos.9):
a. Bring PLASTIC CUP* closer or merge with other objects with similar or identical operations or functions.
b. Bring PLASTIC CUP* closer or merge with other objects with similar operations or functions so that they can act together at the same time.
c. If there are objects fused to PLASTIC CUP*, and if necessary, apply a separation action.
d. If objects are merged, and if necessary, apply a separation action.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Integration in supersystem
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
3. Local quality, Str. IP (Pos.16):
a. Improve quality in a localized way, for parts, components, or conditions of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Change the structure, action, or procedure of PLASTIC CUP* from uniform to non-uniform, or vice versa.
c. Change the external environment (or external influence) of PLASTIC CUP* from uniform to non-uniform, or vice versa.
d. Make each part of PLASTIC CUP* function in the conditions that are most suitable for its operation.
e. Make each part of PLASTIC CUP* fulfill a different and useful function.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving performance; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security); Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
31. Using/ Removing Unused Parts, Oper. IP (Pos.17):
a. Take advantage of unused parts of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Remove or do not use unnecessary parts of PLASTIC CUP*.
(e.g., make an object porous or add porous elements – inserts, coatings, etc. If an object is already porous, use the pores to introduce a useful substance or function).
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving if a solution has not yet emerged.

CLARIFYING A SOLUTION
The 3 contradictions described above allow us to determine specific aspects of the solution, mainly with tactical and operational inventive principles.

Solution to improve more heaviness of Plastic Cup movement due to hot coffee (Par.1) and attenuate more time loss in sales due to Customer Burns (Par.25)
Par.[+1,+25]: PI.[10,35,20,18]
PI.10, Strategic: The change of Plastic Cup* should be performed before it becomes necessary for the Customer.
PI.35, Strategic: Transform the physical state of Plastic Cup*, making it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.20, Tactical: All inactive or intermittent actions or operations of Plastic Cup* with Customer should be eliminated.
PI.28, Strategic: Mechanism that allows the Customer to move the Plastic Cup* should be improved to one that is safer. This principle considers all possible ways to generate movement, so each time it is applied, further contradictions should be considered to specify the most suitable solution.

Solution to Improve the low achievement of business sales target (Par.29) and Attenuate time loss in sales due to Customer burns (Par.25).
Par.[-29,+25]: PI.[32,26,28,18]
PI.32, tactical: The way Plastic Cup* is perceived by the Customer should be changed. Due to the generic nature of this principle, every time it is applied, further contradictions should be considered to specify the most suitable solution.
PI.26, Strategic: A copy or replica of the current Plastic Cup should be generated to enhance the functionality of a Plastic Cup* for serving hot coffee. Whenever this principle is applied, further contradictions should be considered to specify the most suitable solution.
PI.28, Strategic: Mechanism that allows the Customer to move the Plastic Cup* should be improved to one that is safer. This principle considers all possible ways to generate movement, so each time it is applied, further contradictions should be considered to specify the most suitable solution.
PI.18, Tactical: Plastic Cup* should have a cyclic movement between the point of delivery or rest and the Customer.

Solution to improve the heaviness of Plastic Cup movement due to hot coffee (Par.1) and Attenuate sales losses due to Customer rejection (Par.23).
Par.[+1,+23]: PI.[5,35,3,31]
PI.5, Operational: Plastic Cup* should be joined or fused with another object with similar or compatible functions to act together at the same time to contain the heat that burns the Customer's hand.
PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.3, Strategic: Each part of Plastic Cup* should serve a different and useful function, changing it from uniform to no-uniform.
PI.31, Operational: Unused parts of Plastic Cup* should be utilized, in this case, its outer part.

GROUP 3: It corresponds to the first three contradictions between Needs to Satisfy that are shown in Table IV, which contain inventive principles that do not participate in Table II, where the base solution already described is defined. The analysis of this group of inventive principles must be consistent with the solution approach deduced from groups 1 and 2 already seen. These contradictions present inventive principles of various kinds, which allow the solution to be complemented. The objective of including these contradictions is also to ensure that the improvement of the evaluated need to satisfy does not worsen the other needs to satisfy. The List of contradictions of Group 3 shown below.

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN NEEDS TO SATISFY N° 1
Parameter to improve 13. Stability
IMPROVE > PLASTIC CUP has More Desired stability to interact with S2
Parameter to preserve 38. Extent of automation/ autonomy
PRESERVE > PLASTIC CUP has more desirable effect for parameter 38. Extent of automation/ autonomy
Inventive principles IP(s) : [1,8,35,0]
1. Segmenting/ Integrating, Str. IP (Pos.12):
a. Divide PLASTIC CUP* into existing and/or new parts, shapes, phases, states, or conditions.
b. Integrate different parts, shapes, phases, states, or existing or new conditions of a PLASTIC CUP* into a single entity..
c. Make PLASTIC CUP* easy to disassemble or assemble.
d. Increase or reduce the degree of fragmentation or segmentation of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space / Separation in subsystem
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving performance; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security); Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
8. Anti-weight/ Compensation, Tac. IP (Pos.):
a. To compensate for the heaviness/lightness or incidence of PLASTIC CUP*, merge it with other objects or independent own parts that provide an effect to improve the current situation.
b. To compensate for the heaviness/lightness or incidence of PLASTIC CUP*, make it interact with the environment.
For example, compensate for the heaviness of PLASTIC CUP* subject to a gravitational field, or exposed to a magnetic field, or subject to an economic value or price, or subject to a chemical bond, or subject to intellectual rigidity, a paradigm, or prejudices.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)


CONTRADICTION BETWEEN NEEDS TO SATISFY N° 2
Parameter to improve 13. Stability
IMPROVE: PLASTIC CUP has More Desired stability to interact with S2
Parameter to preserve 35. Adaptability or versatility
PRESERVE: PLASTIC CUP has more desirable effect for parameter 35. Adaptability or versatility
Inventive principles IP(s) : [35,30,34,2]
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
30. Simple Shapes/ Ways to Interact, Tac. IP (Pos.7):
a. Use flexible rods and ropes, or another option with similar one-dimensional functionality, or shells and thin films, or another option with similar two-dimensional functionality, for PLASTIC CUP*, instead of complex three-dimensional structures, in type and number of components and shapes.
b. Separate/isolate PLASTIC CUP* from the external environment with simple shapes, using flexible rods and ropes, or another option with similar one-dimensional functionality, or shells and thin films, or another option with similar two-dimensional functionality.
c. Instead of using complex forms or methods with PLASTIC CUP* to interact with S2 Object, one should use simpler ways or methods, employing flexible objects or means, either physical or conceptual, operating predominantly in one or two dimensions, with other dimensions to the minimum. This is in order to reduce the number of resources and actions necessary to achieve the desired objective.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes
34. Discarding and Recovering, Tac. IP (Pos.):
a. Make portions of PLASTIC CUP* , which have fulfilled their functions or are unnecessary, go away (discard by absorption, dissolving, evaporating, etc.).
b. Conversely, restore consumable parts of PLASTIC CUP* directly in operation.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving if a solution has not yet emerged
2. Taking Out/ Adding, Str. IP (Pos.4):
a. Separate an interfering part or a property from PLASTIC CUP*, or single out the only necessary part (or property) of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Add new parts or properties to PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN NEEDS TO SATISFY N° 3
Parameter to improve 13. Stability
IMPROVE: PLASTIC CUP has More Desired stability to interact with S2
Parameter to preserve 34. Ease of change, repair or maintain
PRESERVE: PLASTIC CUP has more desirable effect for parameter 34. Ease of change, repair or maintain
Inventive principles IP(s) : [2,35,10,16]
2. Taking Out/ Adding, Str. IP (Pos.4):
a. Separate an interfering part or a property from PLASTIC CUP*, or single out the only necessary part (or property) of PLASTIC CUP*.
b. Add new parts or properties to PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in space
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes
35. Transformation/ Parameter Changes, Str. IP (Pos.1):
a. Change PLASTIC CUP*'s physical or chemical state (e.g., in shape, in composition, to a gas, liquid, solid or plasma).
b. Change the composition or condition of PLASTIC CUP* by adding or removing components.
c. Change the concentration or consistency; change the degree of flexibility; change the temperature or the level of internal activity of PLASTIC CUP*.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation by condition / Separation alternative
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving 7 quality factors (Quality, Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, Human Factors, Safety, Security)
10. Preliminary Action, Str. IP (Pos.2):
a. Perform the required change in, or for, PLASTIC CUP*, before it is needed (either fully or partially).
b. Pre-arrange PLASTIC CUP* and other objects, if necessary, in such a way that they can come into action from the most convenient place and without losing time for their delivery.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving attributes; Improving performance
16. Partial or Excessive Actions, Oper. IP (Pos.):
a. If the goal of PLASTIC CUP* is hard to achieve fully, using a given solution’s method; then the problem may be considerably easier to solve, using “slightly less” or “slightly more” of the same method.
Separation principle for PLASTIC CUP* : Separation in time
Solution strategy for PLASTIC CUP* : Improving performance

COMPLEMENTING A SOLUTION
The 3 contradictions described above allow us to determine another specific aspects of the solution, to complement the solution reached.

Solution to Improve more Stability of hot coffee service in Plastic Cup (Par.13) and Preserve more extent of automation/autonomy of hot coffee service in Plastic Cup (Par.38).
Par.[+13,+38]: PI.[1,8,35,0]
PI.1, Strategic: Plastic Cup* must be divided into existing and new parts, each with different functions.
PI.8, Tactical: Compensate for the heaviness of Plastic Cup* due to hot coffee by combining it with another object that provides an effect to improve the current situation.

PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
Solution to Improve the Stability of hot coffee service in Plastic Cup (Par.13) and Preserve the adaptability or versatility of hot coffee Service in Plastic Cup (Par.35).
Par.[+13,+35]: PI.[35,30,34,2]
PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.30, Tactical: Separate/isolate Plastic Cup* from the external environment, using thin flexible covers films curved. This inventive principle allows determining in this particular case the specific application of strategic inventive principles 28 and 26: Improve the mechanics of movement using a tool or mechanism such as a flexible sheet attached to the Plastic Cup (IP.28) and make a replica of the Cup Plastic, which is something as simple as a Plastic Cup with a flexible sheet attached (IP.26).
PI.34, Tactical: Remove parts of Plastic Cup* that have fulfilled their functions or are unnecessary, or restore consumable parts of Plastic Cup* directly into operation.
PI.2, Strategic: Add new parts to Plastic Cup* to interact with the Customer.

Solution to Improve the Stability of hot coffee Service in Plastic Cup (Par.13) and Preserve the ease of Change, Repair, or Maintenance the hot Coffee service in Plastic Cup (Par.34).
Par.[+13,+34]: PI.[2,35,10,16]
PI.2, Strategic: Add new parts to Plastic Cup* to interact with the Customer.
PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.10, Strategic: The change of Plastic Cup* should be performed before it becomes necessary for the Customer.

PI.16, operational: Adjust a given solution method slightly more or less until the solution is optimal.

Group 4: It corresponds to the up to three contradictions selected by the Innovation Team, which are deduced from the inventive principles that do not participate in the Recommended Solution, identified in Table VIII and listed Table V, see item 10.5. The contradictions in which the aforementioned innovation parameters participate are not described in the Aatrizinventor Report, then they must be seen in the link 'Contradiction by Parameters' in the Startup Manual. The application of these contradictions in the case of serving hot coffee in a Plastic Cup is detailed below.

Solution to Improve more sales losses of hot coffee in Plastic Cup (Par.23) and Attenuate less achievement of the hot coffee sales target in Plastic Cup (Par.29).
Par.[+23,-29]: PI.[35,10,24,31]
PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.10, Strategic: The change of Plastic Cup* should be performed before it becomes necessary for the Customer.
PI.24, Tactical: For Plastic Cup*, use a carrying article or an intermediate process.
PI.31, Operational: Unused parts of Plastic Cup* should be utilized, in this case, its outer part.

Solution to Improve more Stability of hot coffee service in Plastic Cup (Par.13) and Preserve more Heaviness of Plastic Cup movement due to hot Coffee (Par.35).
Par.[+13,+1]: PI.[21,35,2,39]:
PI.21, Tactical: Ensure that with Plastic Cup*, the process or certain stages are conducted at high speed or for a minimum exposure to risk.
PI.35, Strategic: Physical state of Plastic Cup* should be transformed to make it more flexible for interaction with the Customer.
PI.2, Strategic: Add new parts to Plastic Cup* to interact with the Customer.
PI.39, Operational: Add neutral or convenient parts, or inert or active additives to Plastic Cup* or its environment.

Contradiction Solution to Improve more sales losses of hot coffee in PLASTIC CUP* (Par.23) and Preserve more stability of hot coffee service in PLASTIC CUP* (Par.13).
Par.[+23,+13]: PI.[2,14,30,40]
PI.2, Strategic: Add new parts to Plastic Cup* to interact with the Customer.
PI.14, tactical: For interaction between Plastic Cup* and Object S2, instead of using straight-line pieces, surfaces, or shapes, use curved or angled shapes: an angled Plastic Cup*, with varying diameter with height, to facilitate the attachment of a thin, flexible sheet.
PI.30, tactical: Separate/isolate Plastic Cup* from the external environment, using thin flexible covers films curved.
PI.40, operational: Change Plastic Cup* from a uniform material, state, or condition to a composite one.

The contradictions and their inventive principles shown here demonstrate the multivariable nature of innovation solutions, which the Aatrizinventor algorithm develops rapidly, leaving no loose ends. And if something goes wrong, you can fix it with the same algorithm.
The comprehensive solution obtained for the case of serving hot coffee in a plastic cup has required many concepts to take shape. To highlight the result of the analysis, a picture is worth a thousand words.

The contradictions and their inventive principles presented here describe a systematic, fast, and effective way to find innovative solutions. To innovate, "don't wait for the lightbulb to turn on," that method is slow and costly. The Nature's Language of Innovation can address challenges in any area of human development, regardless of complexity, and provides solutions with minimal implementation costs and a maximum benefit over costs ratio.

Back to list