Talk:TRIZ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment 1[edit]

Altschuler has never been to the USA, he lived in Baku, Azerbaijan, and then moved to Petrozavodsk in Russia during the violence in the Caucasus during the breakup of the Soviet Union.

More has to be said about the actual history of the movement beyond personally Altschuler. Also, need to invite more TRIZ experts to add their 5 cents. This is a fairly divergent discipline by now, and effort has to be made to give an accurate picture of it.

Does anyone use it?[edit]

Does anyone use this technique? And more importantly, are there examples of sucessful application? All the links seems to be sellers but no happy buyer is mentioned. Pavel Vozenilek 04:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And when I am here: could it be explained in the first paragraph what it is? Right now it is just bunch of acronyms giving no sense to me. I found the whole article very dubious. (I am software engineer, this could be the problem :). Pavel Vozenilek 04:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is sufficient examples to suggest that TRIZ has many takers around the world.

TRIZ is a sub-discipline of inter-disciplinary science of Creatology: the science of Creativity and Innovation and Altshuller is a great Creatologist(Sayed Mahdi Golestan Hashemim ,Iran Research Center for Creatology,Innovation & TRIZ :Golestan@creatology-triz.com) www.triz-journal.com/archives/2002/05/a/ TRIZ Work Recognized-Samsung Award -- AndriuZ 00:25, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Some citation from well know and well regarded journal isn't available? triz-journal doesn't sound as unbiased one. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You could do Your own investigation - list of clients, users of software, participants on yearly conferences, etc..:
If TRIZ is such a good idea, why isn't everyone using it?
Comments on “If TRIZ is Such a Good Idea…” --AndriuZ 04:54, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Congreses[edit]

at Samsung[edit]

My friend worked in Samsung in Korea for an internship. He told me that everybody at Samsung is using Triz.

Evidence for the Samsung TRIZ would be helpful. AndriuZ, links to TRIZ conferences and sites that have "triz" in the domain name are clearly biased and not helpful. The Japanese site you linked to does not exist. The one valid reference there is the ThinkSmart conference. How well-known is this conference? Was TRIZ presented there as a talk, or just in the proceedings? RSpeer 03:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

others[edit]

In response to your points above, while not perfect, the website I have set up via the Institution of Mechanical Engineers may go some way in helping those interested in TRIZ: Institution of Mechanical Engineers TRIZ website

INSA de Strasbourg[edit]

One can also look the through the INSA de Strasbourg [2] educational program [3] which is an international advanced master on innovative design in which are taught the advanced methods of problem resolution based on TRIZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastien.duboisINSA (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article style discussion[edit]

Google search links should not be used in articles (low control over result, it looks very unprofessional). If possible, majority of external links should be one section (quite common habit on Wiki that should be kept). I would quite like to see short example of TRIZ in opening paragraph (webpages that were linked from here had a lot of these but I could misread) instead of buzzwords currently here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced that it's used. Thanks for going to the effort, AndriuZ. I agree with the style points above, regarding how the article needs to be revised. RSpeer 23:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. It was pleasure for me. Please more specific comments for imporvement?--AndriuZ 08:15, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Well, to be a good Wikipedia article, it has to be a good explanation on its own. It shouldn't rely so much on external links (and as Pavel said, it would be best for all external links to be in a section at the bottom).

There are also too many internal links. TRIZ is not realistically going to have that many Wiki articles (and if those articles were created, I bet they would be requested to merge into the main TRIZ article fairly quickly). Long lists of linked words don't do a lot to explain TRIZ anyway. Most of them are terms that will mean nothing to the typical reader, and even those terms with existing meanings (like "System" and "Contradiction") probably have a more specific meaning within TRIZ.

Not every piece of jargon from TRIZ needs to be mentioned, especially if the jargon is not going to be explained (like "Maxi-Problem"). The article shouldn't have to go into that level of detail; it should give an overview for people unfamiliar with the field, which someone can read and understand without having to follow any links. If it is necessary to introduce some terminology, then that terminology should be explained.

An example of a situation where TRIZ could be used, and how it would be applied, near the top of the article would be useful.

RSpeer 22:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll try to "invent" new article. All TRIZ comunity tries to do the same :-)))
..as about "System" or "Contradiction" - IMHO situation on "lexics vs semantics" or Lexical semantics in the world is not so simple and efforts of Ontology to collect knowledge "in one place" are on big demand. TRIZ does not pretend to change meaning of regular worlds. One technique is explain your problem to the child - that means use no special terms. On the other side terms are very useful, because contaisn some regular meanings... Wikipedia is very handy tool to glue peaces together. But maybe extended explanation should go under Wikibooks? --AndriuZ 05:17, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I don't think you're even using these terms correctly. Lexical semantics is a field of computer science and linguistics; I should know, because it overlaps my field of research. And Ontology is far too general of a concept to be contained within a management system. I doubt that TRIZ addresses questions such as "What is existence?" As for other terms like contradiction, I think you are using a more specific meaning of the word, but not even realizing it, because from your perspective the TRIZ meaning is the overall meaning.
Please keep in mind that you probably have a different perspective on things because you work with TRIZ so much. Though I am convinced that TRIZ is a notable concept, it is only notable in the field of management, and it should be described in that context. It is not notably connected to linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, or fields of scientific study in general.
I also think that moving your extended discussion of TRIZ to WikiBooks is a good idea.
RSpeer 17:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for Your time & kind atention. I think You think little notNPOV (regardless of Your's 500:-)), but I leave it to Your concern. As long as I care about quality over quantity of edits lets talk here about things, only related to TRIZ domain or quality of article: (1) I see no contradiction of term in TRIZ meaning of contradiction against contradiction meaning in logic or dialectics... In other words there is no special meaning of contradiction in TRIZ. (2) Ontology (computer science) is very close too general of a concept to be contained within a management issues. (3) I beleve that our differences in perspective on things could help make this article better :-)) --AndriuZ 15:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


Point of style: should it be "inventors'" and not "inventor's" as the system is refering to many inventors? 193.35.132.150 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user 205.162.133.2[edit]

Thank You for Your contribution. Could You act more in the spirit of Wikipedia next time by fixing links, providing meaningfull comments? see for more Help:Contents --AndriuZ 00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars[edit]

Cool down with revert wars and discuss disagreements in the talk page, or I will block you all.

For starters, please explain me why the reference to the book by the original author of TRIZ keeps deleted? I am inclined to consider this as a malicious vandalism. `'mikka (t) 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genady Filkovsky: Sorry for that. My mistake. That reference should've stayed. Thanks.


Michael Slocum: All I have tried to do is make the content more complete. You can see from filkovsky's message that he believes HE controls what should be used as a reference. The Altshuller book listed does NOT even contain useful TRIZ information. I may certainly add a best selling book on Innovation that highlites the TRIZ methodology. INsourcing Innovation should be included as a reference (as should the other books filkovsky deleted). filkovsky has added much material about worhtless stuff he is involved in (like the Althshuller Prize--the Altshuller Family attorney will be directing him to not use their name very soon). filkovsky is not the final arbiter concerning TRIZ. I am recognized, respected, and a proponent of the successfull practice of TRIZ. My useful additions are relevent and important. filkovsky is anti-triz--why else does he try to ruin and bias this entry????? At least allow the addition of relevent information and stop his reverts--you'll note that I have never reverted anything.

TRIZ honours[edit]

The section contains claims (including personal ones) that currently are not supported with sources and may be considered by someone as biased and even offensive. IMHO, it should be either provided with facts or rewritten in a more neutral form. Bronx 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, 205.207.66.3 (Mr. Karasik?). Provided with your links, I somewhat cleared the issue for myself and made changes trying to make it clear for others and to remove some NPOVness. I still have a question: were Zhuravleva, Flikstein et al. not granted a Master Diploma or Sertificate or both? It seems to me that in [[4]] these two forms are sometimes used interchangeably, raising some confuse. Is there a public list of masters and sertified specialsts? Bronx 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible "get rich quick" scheme[edit]

Many of the inventive principles are quite obvious. TRIZ is just out there to sell the books that provide information on problem-solving that is vague and rhetorical. Read some of Insourcing Innovation and you'll see what I mean. Whenever you think some sort of interesting epiphany about design will be written, Slocum writes about how it cannot be discussed due to intellectual property concerns or something else. Thanks for nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.161.73 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Clause is not objective...[edit]

The version of clause about TRIZ in English essentially differs from its version in Russian. Here rules of this encyclopedia are broken all! There there was a section of " Critic TRIZ ". In it there was a referencehttp://liw1949.narod.ru/index.html. Only there there is a constructive criticism of technical version TRIZ of the sample of the last century. And here there are only for a long time out-of-date materials. You meaningly deceive the readers! 80.95.41.213 17:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Leonid Wullo (LIW1949)[reply]

Resolving contradictions[edit]

The following statement from the article contains a contradiction; either an inventor resolves a contradiction or they do not.

"The inventor typically does not resolve a contradiction but trades one of the contradictory parameter for another: No special inventivity is needed for that. Rather, the inventor develops some creative approach for resolving the contradiction"

I can't tell if TRIZ teaches that inventors should resolve contradictions or not but I think it is safe to say someone should resolve this one.

Fixed, check please. Bronx 10:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useful tool[edit]

I am an Australian mechanical engineer, and have on occasion used TRIZ to help solve problems. I have found it to be a very useful tool, such that when used appropriately it suggests other avenues to explore. It is however only a tool, and people should not have unrealistic expectations of it. It will not help with every problem, nor does it always get it right. At the same time, people are wrong to unfairly criticize it, (eg. get rich quick scheme) as it has a solid technical basis and really does work. If you are in any doubt then I suggest you learn the technique (it's really not that difficult) and try applying it to your problems. Logicman1966 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article intro should be modified to state that TRIZ is about technical creativity and innovation.[edit]

TRIZ is not a general method of being creative, i.e. you will not write a better symfony. TRIZ is a method for technical creativity and innovation. This should be stated in the beginning of the article. I have just read Altshullers 'Creativity as an exact science - The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems' (translated by Anthony Willians, ISBN 0-677-21230-5, 4th printing, 1998; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Inc.). The book states over and over again, that its methods is for the solution of technical problems, so please make that clear in the article. Right now the article seems like a sales ploy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.21.93 (talk) 17:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It is a sales ploy BUT that is GREAT. Sales is great. Sales is what moves stuff. It is also a tool (TRIZ). It is also a real life get rich method. However, just like getting rich on stocks: there is no "one right method". Its about a combination of personal judgement and frameworks and tools - and even then getting rich is never guaranteed - but you must try and tools enables this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.152.93 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Page sounds like an advertising. More cleanup, and on linked articles, need to be done. --Statsone 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

https://ai-news.ru/2018/01/biohimik_populyarizator_nauki_daniel_laman_protiv_triz_bredovogo_ucheniya.html 31.148.164.20 (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

looks just like robinson resolution principle (1965 - source MathWorld) (logic)[edit]

Where You are removing "impossibles" (contradictions), for example: water and not water, until You have nothing left to remove (of courese sometimes it can't be done).... FIXME please 84.16.123.194 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues tag[edit]

This article has a massive amount of unsourced material, and what sourcing there is, is from TRIZ advocates. It reads partly as POV for TRIZ, as well as some POV inserted against TRIZ, or reflecting what seems to be a split in the TRIZ movement. It's also not very clearly written. The lede gives the reader no particular idea of what TRIZ is, apart from something really wonderful. (I actually had to look at other sites to get a clear idea of what TRIZ meant). An anonymous IP editor recently reversed an attempt to at least get rid of the unsourced stuff, and has since added more unsourced or poorly sourced material. This isn't good. I put a message on their talkpage, but they've continued to edit since then.

I suggest trimming down to the basics. The information about Altschuller should be transferred to his article. RS critiques of TRIZ need to be found. This seems to be a movement with a lot of passionate advocates; we need to be aware of such editing patterns.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "unsourced stuff" to you ? What you consider to be "unsourced" is in fact references to TRIZ publications. Ignorance of something is not a ground for starting editing articles written by the knowledgeable people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.128.37 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for stopping edit warring (Oh dear, you've just crossed 3RR). "unsourced stuff" to me is what is not in accordance with the rules on sourcing. For example, a link to metodolog.ru, with no indication of what article is being referenced, and in any case, it does not appear to be a site that conforms to sourcing rules. It has no apparent reputation for fact checking, and its "editor", Aleksandr Kudryavtsev, does not appear to be anything other than a protege of Altschuller, and thus not an independent source. Another example of the problematic material: Statements such as "Very often managers try to introduce TRIZ into their organizations in order to not be blamed for failures (a kind of "due diligence" and a means of preventing such accusations as "why have you not used TRIZ ?")" are completely unsourced. Your comments that "ignorance of something is not a ground for starting editing articles" is quite apt- you appear ignorant (wilfully so, given that I have already pointed you to the relevant rules you are breaking) of how this encyclopedia works. I'm filing a report to ask for you to be blocked for a short time. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is "independent source" for you ? There is no a signle line in the article that is based on "independednt source" in your sense. You have to delete the entire article to conform with your interpretation of "independent source" because independent commission of inquiry into the theory, practice, and efficiency of TRIZ has been never established. There is simply no "independent" body on the matter of TRIZ. As for site Metodolog, it is quite a reputable source. As for reference to a specific article on this site, it will be provided shortly. Other references will be also provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.128.37 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of what constitutes an independent source is explained in WP:IS and in WP:OR. Also note that per WP:CONSENSUS, when an edit has been challenged, as was done with your edits, it must not be re-added unless and until explicit consensus to re-add it is established at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided in the article conform to the definition of independent source. You simply bend this definition and try to impose your own interpretation of it. As for consensus, don't you think that you have to first know something in TRIZ to judge, edit, and demand consensus with your opinion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.128.37 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRIZ does seem to have devoted followers, complete with schisms. It's a shame this IP has chosen not to operate within the bounds of civility and rules on how article are written and sourced. It would be very helpful if someone with good knowledge of TRIZ and Wiki policies, and an ability to edit it from an NPOV could turn up and help improve the article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. On the one hand you deleted what people knowleageable of TRIZ wrote, and on the other hand appeal to such people to turn up and improve the article. Why would they start improving it again ? So that to allow you to vandalize it for the second time ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.29.253 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the IPs who want to contribute[edit]

To the various anonymous Canadian IPs (one, two, three different people?): Are you interested in learning how to contribute to Wikipedia? If you're interested in improving (what is obvious to any experienced editor) a very poorly done article, the first thing you have to understand is the policy on verifiability, and the associated issue of reliable sourcing. They are there for a reason.

  • On wikipedia almost everyone is anonymous (a few choose to be open, but they're rare). Nobody is selected by wikipedia on the grounds of their expertise.
  • We have no idea when someone claims to be an expert if they're telling the truth. So we do not allow material in just because an anonymous editor says "look, I know lots about this, so this bit should go in."
  • On the other hand, we can have criteria about sourcing - peer reviewed journals, books by academic publishers, quality newspapers.

so:

  • It does not matter in real life how much of an expert an editor claims to be, every substantive piece of information you add to the encyclopedia needs to be sourced properly.
  • Wikipedia does not contain "the truth", it contains what is verifiable in real world sources.

So when we want sourcing, it doesn't matter whether it's "true" or not, or how much you say you know, it needs to be sourced, and sourced properly, and with the editor stating the source. Metodolog.ru, for example, does not appear to be a "reliable source" in the wikipedia definition. (If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means provide it.) As for Triz journal - it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, and it's run by advocates of TRIZ. This makes it a problematic source for various kinds of information, particularly any evaluation of the TRIZ method. Wikipedia should not have articles that are merely puff pieces for someone's favourite thing. Statements on the effectiveness of TRIZ need to be sourced.

As for original research:

  • What original research means: Any analytical argument put forth in an article has to be an argument made by a suitable reliable source, not by an editor.
  • Where there are real-world disagreements on the topic, Wikipedia does not take sides, but reports the disagreement. Regarding Triz, I understand there's a split been caused by triz and anti triz, and also a debate about the applicability of Triz to fields outside engineering. Wikipedia should report these disagreements, not say which one is correct. Various additions by anonymous IPs have violated this principle.
  • A corollary of this is neutrality. Wikipedia should not be used as a forum to propagandise a particular view of the topic. Even if you think that alternative interpretations are intensely stupid and wrong, if they appear in appropriate reliable sources, they also need to be described. All critiques must be drawn from stated real world sources, not from the minds of editors.

The last point to emphasise is that you must be polite to other editors. There are people with extremely strong disagreements on topics who manage to work together because they remain civil. The IPs have insulted people and effectively refused to discuss their issues at all. It does not matter if an editor is "right" or not, if they cannot work with people, they will get blocked.

Remember - wikipedia is by far the most successful example of internet volunteering ever. Despite all the jokes studies show it actually has a high record of accuracy, and has become one of the top sites in the world. It's done that by following the principles outlined above. As TRIZ advocates, surely you should be interested in how wikipedia has managed to do that relying on the principle that anyone can edit, regardless of qualifications, shouldn't you? It's a contradictory situation, after all. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I've just come across this, which shows that the editor of the self-published "anti-triz journal" lives in Ottawa. The journal is hosted by the same ISP (Sympatico) that supports the IPs editing from Ottawa. Just in case Yevgeny Karasik is one of those IPs, or someone associated with him, they should read the rules on conflicts of interest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

While we wait for protection to end, here are three more sources independent of the TRIZ movement itself, where the full articles are appear to be available.

  • Stratton, R. and D. Mann, 2003, Systematic innovation and the underlying principles behind TRIZ and TOC. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 139(1-3): p. 120-126.
  • From Russia With TRIZ. By: Smith, Emily M., Mechanical Engineering, 00256501, Mar2003, Vol. 125, Issue 3 - some good stuff on the origins of TRIZ.
  • TRIZ: an inventive approach to invention Manuf. Eng -- August 2002 -- Volume 81, Issue 4, p.171–177 - good overview

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Krolikov, you appear to be very energetic but naive. Journal of Materials Processing Technology is indeed independent of the TRIZ movement, but authors of its artciles might be not. Darrell Mann (the author of the first your "independent" reference is TRIZ teacher, consultant, etc. Although he calls his modifications of TRIZ "systematic innovation" it does not change the fact that it is based on TRIZ. All other articles in your list were also written as TRIZ propaganda by TRIZ advocates. The fact that they were published in independent journals does not make these articles independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.128.51 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not naivety - you've just misunderstood the rules. That someone is attached or not to the TRIZ movement is not the issue. It's whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and quality. As bullet points:
  • There is nothing wrong with TRIZ advocates per se, it is the reputation of the forum in which they publish that counts. Triz journal and particularly the anti-Triz journal appear to be lacking in this respect.
  • The Journal of Materials Processing Technology has a peer review process and an editorial board of established academics at high level universities. It is published by a well-respected journal house. It therefore clearly passes the rules for a reliable source.
  • As an example of how this works: Steven Hawking sounding off about the state of astrophysics on a personal blog is not, on Wikipedia at least, a reliable source on the state of astrophysics. However, if he does it in a paper in Nature it would be an entirely different matter. Do you see?
If you think these articles are not representative of the state of knowledge on TRIZ, you have to find sources that pass wikipedia standards that show other viewpoints. (If there are no such sources, then you might want to go and get published in such a source before you bring your ideas to wikipedia.) Look at it this way - you're not going to get round the policies here. You may as well work with them to improve the article in the way you feel it's lacking. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are naive in your believe that the rules can be understood uniquely. Unfortunately all rules have a degree of vagueness and are subject to interpretation. You just try to impose one of interpretations. Please note that the rules say that the decision on whether a source is reliable or not depends on context. The peer review requirement is just one of possible criteria. Ultimately everything is up to the context and the judge. In this regard it is appropriate to ask who the judges are. To me what Steven Hawking writes on his blog is a reliable source but most articles in peer reviewed journals are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.128.51 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusing the margins with the centre. The existence of leeway is not the same as having a completely free hand. Perhaps you could quote the part of sourcing policy that you think supports your view. I'll repeat the point: ignoring these policies as flagrantly as you seem to want to do will get you nowhere. It might not surprise you that there are occasionally hobbyhorse editors who ignore the rules out of some need for a sense of self-righteous persecution and who don't care about wasting other people's time while they acquire it. I trust you are not one of those. I trust you are interested in writing an encyclopedia, not using Wikipedia as a soap box.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Perhaps you could quote the part of sourcing policy that you think supports your view". Here it is: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context." [5]. You see, it depends on the context, and everybody see the context differently. It is a well known fact from times of Rome! Well, I am not going to teach you the basics of jurisprudence. I hope you at least know that rules are just another name for law (in Latin law is lex, which means "rule"). And why do you think lawyers exists if everybody understands rules/laws the same way ? Your mentioning of "margins" and "the center" is simply demagogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.129.230 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RSN notice[edit]

I've asked a question at the reliable sources noticeboard here about the use of TRIZ journal as a source.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book References[edit]

I have studied TRIZ extensively. I have a whole library of books about TRIZ on my book shelf. Many of them are still listed at Amazon. Some are out of print. Others are only available in Russian and quite rare. I'm not sure what the discussion is here, but TRIZ is VERY notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - it's not about notability. It's about having a properly sourced and written article. It's in a pretty poor state right now. The IPs who have been edit warring are having some cognitive issues regarding sourcing policies. The only non-notable things are probably some of the other offshoot articles about TRIZ concepts, which I think should be merged back into here. The main issue is what is RS commentary and what is primary sourcing. A lot of publications are produced by the TRIZ movement, and so are not considered reliable secondary sourcing. (If you have a whole library, you must be rich. Many of the books are extortionately priced!) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Smithh: it is not a discussion. It is an attempt of an anti-Altshuller (and most likely anti-semitic as appears from his other dirty remarks) Russian guy to excercise his authority. To this end he will bend the wikipedia's rules as he pleases, resort to demagogy, and if you don't agree with him, he will call other wikipedians, with a higher rank, to confirm his position (as he already did so by contacting a wikipedian codenamed "airplaneman" who put the lock), etc. When one starts fighting a bureaucrat he ends up fighting the entire bureaucratic machine. This is the law of bureaucracy: to not allow the outsiders to get upper hand in the fight with a bureaucrat. Wikipedian bureaucracy (i.e. wikipedians and their boards, etc.) is no different. It simply has a too narrow authority, over wikipedia only. It is instructive to observer this tiny bureaucracy in action and make conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.129.230 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP, I've placed a warning on your userpage for making quite a horrible and unfounded personal attack. You can't even get my ethnicity or nationality right. You're clearly here to cause trouble. (Although I must admit I'm fascinated as to what kind of clinical paranoia would lead anyone to find anti-semitism in anything I've ever posted on Wikipedia, let alone on this subject.) For the record, I'm not against or for Altschuller. I just want a decent Wikipedia article on his theories. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are here to cause trouble. Every other your phrase is name calling (such as "schism", "paranoia", etc.). Please heed to your own appeal to be polite and stop name calling.

I had understood there was a schism, based on commercialisation, over-reach and an association with Intelligent Design - and a clear dislike of TRIZ journal on the part of the anti-TRIZ journal people. (Schism is not an insult, and I don't know how it could be construed as such). For example this comment from here: "Anti TRIZ-Journal is not anti-TRIZ. Rather it is a group of TRIZ professionals who are anti TRIZ-Journal (the popular journal site on the net)." The Intelligent Design writer William Dembski writes here that anti TRIZ-Journal represents in part an attempt to extricate TRIZ from the unwelcome embrace of ID, reflected in an Anti T-J posting here. There was also an old version on wikipedia that dsecribed Anti Triz-Journal as a "critique of TRIZ and TRIZ-journal by former close associates of Altshuller" and the POV comment on the recent version here that described anti T-J as "the genuine TRIZ journal" (the link to triz-journal.com had been taken out completely), as well as repeating that it carried critiques of TRIZ. Then there's this paper here written by Karasik which says "get rid of the TRIZ-commerce spirit of Invetion Machine, Ideation International, the TRIZ-journal, CREAX, and the likes, aiming at just making money of TRIZ and which became an obstacle to the TRIZ evolution. All real TRIZniks are called to the task !".
Of course, Anti TRIZ-Journal appears to be largely the work of Karasik. Scientific Computing World describes him in an otherwise quite flattering mention, as "in a minority" and "a gadfly" - so perhaps I am overestimating the scale of the split, or at least the cohesion of this opposition to the perceived commercialisation and over-extension of TRIZ concepts.
And thankyou for re-factoring your latter comments into something marginally closer to civility - perhaps it will be possible to work together on improving this article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I also apologize for mistaking you for one of the many anti-Altshuller guys in Russia that are driven by anti-semitism. It is apparent now that you are not one of them. As for working together on the article I don't mind to help. My first remark is that Altshuller never analyzed patents on behalf of the Russian Navy. His work in the "Inventions Inspection" department of the Caspian Flotilla was not about patents analyzing but about analyzing sailors' proposals to see if they constitute an invention, and, if so, help document the proposals, help submit claims to inventions, etc. He scanned and analyzed patents at his own leisure, not on behalf of the Navy.

The second issue is with you repeating the myth about the content of his letter to Stalin. The graph you mention simply could not be true because during wars the rate of innovaion is usually the highest. Recall invention of submarine during American Civil War, etc. Soviet Union won the war because accomplished outstanding innovaions during it. Its technology outpeformed the German one. Also the Great Purge started in 1937 and ended in 1939. If innovation plunged during these years (presumably due to the imprisonment of innovators), then how could it spring back during 1940 and then plunge again during 1941-1945 ? I doubt all this story about Altshuller drawing such a graph and sending it to Stalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.173.241 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you apology - I'm glad we can work together on this. For Altshuller's work analysing sailor's proposals - do you have a source we can use? I think for something like that, something written by Altshuller himself would be fine (self-descriptions are fine for non-controversial, non-promotional material). As for the letter to Stalin - you're right that the two dip drop in innovation sounds a little odd, although we can't presume that Altshuller's analysis at the time was correct. I added it because it was a nice story (I'm always amazed by flashes of naivety amongst people during Stalin's rule - almost like the Tsarist "little father" attitude, and Altshuller was very young at the time.) But it's only one source, so it doesn't have to stay in. The puzzle is why Altshuller was imprisoned for 25 years in the first place. I've read one website that says it was because he was Jewish (and it almost coincides with the beginning of the Doctors' Plot), but similarly, we need to have a good source to say that, or we just have to say nothing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've taken out the reference to the graph, and replaced it with "sharp criticism" sourced to altshuller.ru (not a great source for wiki to use, but still). I've found this pdf which is a translation of part of Leonid Lerner's 1991 article in Ogonyok, but much of the detail there seems dubious. This idea that he was invited to meet Beria, and then later wrote a personal letter to Stalin criticising the state of the USSR all seems a bit odd to me (does a person write critical letters to Stalin after meeting Beria?) and I can find little else that repeats this apart from an article in French which reads like it was based on Lerner's account. And then there's the information about how Altshuller's interrogators felt - which is speculative. The whole thing feels a little bit like a tale expanded after many tellings.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to ask the Alsthuller Foundation (altshuller.ru) if they have documents about the letter to Stalin, or at least the written Altshuller's recollections. As for why he was imprisoned for 25 years, that was the capital punishment at that time. No executions. Too many people were lost during war and purges and executions were stopped. If you ask why he got the capital panishment, the answer is, of course, not because he was Jewish but because he did something what was punishable by capital verdict in the times of Stalin. For example, he publicly spoke derogatory about Stalin in the street (http://magazines.russ.ru/znamia/2006/1/li2.html). Also the tone of his letter to Stalin was derogatory, and he did not call him "comrade", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.173.241 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, perhaps a lot of this detail is better off on the Genrich Altshuller page - which also needs work. The Lisyanskaya account is only a sentence, and the context and time is not clear - not clear enough for us to say it's a contributing factor in his arrest. What do you think? By the way, I find it hard to believe that he didn't address Stalin as товарищ. In "How to become a Genius" available here, he stated that (emphasis mine):

Мы написали письмо Сталину. Письмо было на тридцати страницах. Письмо писалось полгода. Поначалу мы считали- ну, первая страничка будет посвящена тому, насколько велика роль Сталина в ТРИЗ, дальше страниц 20 текста по существу и, наконец, заключение. Вот такая картина предполагалась. По мере того как мы-копались в материалах по изобретательству, стало ясно, что не нужна ТРИЗ в СССР образца 48-го года, 46-го года. Что изобретения гибнут, и что чем больше изобретений будет сделано, тем больше изобретений погибнет, и смысла особого в нашей теории поэтому нет...

Но письмо мы все же написали, и было в нем только два абзаца, ближе к концу, о том, что методика изобретательства существует и что ее надо преподавать в вузах, и так далее. В 48-м году нас не посадили. Все кончилось благополучно... Понимаете, мы нутром чуяли, что великий вождь народов не снизойдет до этого, он не снисходил до других более важных дел, и трудно было ожидать его делового вмешательства. Мы подстраховались. Мы напечатали еще 30 экземпляров и разослали их всем министрам, ну, скажем, по вопросу введения в вузе основ патентоведения — министру вузовского образования, и так далее. Мы получили 14 ответов. Любопытный штрих для документов той эпохи: все эти 14 ответов не содержали ни категорического "нет", ни категорического "да". То есть те, кто отвечал, допускали, что есть одна миллионная шанса, что великий вождь прочтет и скажет, что это — хорошо. Поэтому насмерть ругать нельзя, ну а о том, чтобы хвалить, не может быть и речи. "Да, в вузах надо ввести методику изобретательства и основы патентоведения... но у нас нет преподавателей, а подготовка преподавателей — большая программа, лет на тридцать—сорок рассчитанная... Да, будем стараться". Письма наши были разосланы для подстраховки основного письма. А основное письмо где-то медленно проходило по своим каналам. Был застойный этап культа личности, решения принимались медленно, но принимались. И в 50-м году нас арестовали. Началось обычное следствие...

Would he really have been suicidal enough not to address Stalin politely? Would he really draw such rudeness to the attention of other ministers? This is not the impression of Altshuller I have so far. Anyway, for this page I think we can put in the two year gap between letter and arrest, and the sending of letters to ministers. The other stuff can go to Genrich Altshuller. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that sending letters to all ministers after they have not received response from Stalin was not suisidal ? If this acount is true it attests to his crazyness. I don't think that this account is credible. His (and Shapiro's) friend, Leonid Filkovsky, writes about 19 letters sent to the central newspapers, not ministries (http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/Pro_Altshullera.html, http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/LF_re_official_biography_of_altshuller.html).

You are right, Altshuller was not rude. His voice was soft. But he could say unpleasant things in that soft voice (see e.g. http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/LF_part3.html and http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/LF_part4.html).

I don't believe what is written in "How to become a genious". I read somewhere the statement of his wife, made after his death, that he never told the stories of his arrest and imprisonment to anyone. Apparently she meant the stories like in "How to become a genious" that appeared in the late years of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.31.197 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is more a conversation for the bio page, but anyway. We're wandering into verboten ground in Wikipedia terms. Filkovsky's account and various other "gospels" are, like Altshuller's writings about himself, primary sources. If we start to piece them together to create a picture of Altshuller, we are performing original research. So unless there are proper secondary sources, we may just have to stay silent on certain issues. An article subject's writings about himself would typically be more tolerated as a source (mainly for his opinions rather than facts). Now you have produced primary material contradicting Altshuller's version, we more or less have to reject using it (and Filkovsky's version) as unsuitable for sourcing factual information. As Wikipedia editors we have to leave judgement regarding which version is correct to "reliable sources" - recognised experts writing in proper fora. I'm surprised there hasn't been a properly published biography of Altshuller. It would solve a lot of problems! It's frustrating, as it would be nice to add a bit of colour to what we write. As it stands, we have to get information only from the bare descriptions in articles on TRIZ in the literature.
By the way, I've started reading the short story Zinochka. It's a cute story so far, and thankfully written simply enough for my atrophying Russian to tolerate without too many trips to the dictionary. What's his standing as a science fiction writer? (He's barely published in English).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.61.190 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Would someone be so kind as to explain why the external link to opensourcetriz.com was eliminated? All books and teaching materials are freely given. I realize that the material is not classical or mainline TRIZ, that is why it was in the external links section. Please revert this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRIZguy (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRIZguy - I guess it was me that took it out. It didn't seem to me to meet the criteria for WP:EXTERNAL - as you say, it's not mainstream TRIZ. We don't usually have links on non-notable or unexamined interpretations of topics. (It is, for one, a form of publicity or promotion) Could you make a case according to the external links guidelines?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to go to opensourcetriz.com and download the book concerning resolving problems. I believe that you will discover that it is still TRIZ. Because it is not fully mainstream, I chose to publish it as an external link rather than as a spin-off of TRIZ in the main body. The tools are rearranged somewhat, but the individual pieces are still recognizable. I think that you will find that the section on separation principles is very practical and useful. I have been applying, teaching and studying TRIZ for nearly two decades and have proven the worth of these methods many times in products that were actually patented and produced. The books have a pedigree and have been somewhat widely circulated for some time as free downloads. All chapters of a former version were published on the TRIZ Journal and were a popular download. I admit that it is possible to find these books in paperback form, but the proceeds are given to humanitarian aid. All books on the opensourcetriz website are for free download. Nothing is sold on the site and no reference is made to anything for sale. If someone wants to get paperback copies, they are on their own, but I can tell you that nobody does, largly because they are offered here for free. I make these available, particularly for people in developing countries that cannot afford expensive texts. Some of the books have been translated into other languages, including Japanese and Spanish. (I spoke on the topic of these books as one of the keynote speakers at the Japanese TRIZ symposium in 2007). I hope that this meets your criterion as "notable" and "examined". It is hard for me to imagine what more I could do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRIZguy (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether these are great books is neither here nor there. It's whether you have evidence (not just what you say here, but documented evidence) that the site is considered a useful guide to TRIZ. You admit it's not mainstream. Secondly, you appear to have a conflict of interest here. I see from the history of the article you have made a couple of attempts to introduce the material, and that you appear either to personally know the author, or are the author himself. You also professionally promote these materials. That they are not for profit is not a clincher. Conflict of Interest includes benefit by reputation. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for people to promote their work or that of their colleagues, no matter how well-intended that promotion is. I can't see how your site passes WP:EXTERNAL, and judging from edit histories, neither can a few others. This does not mean the site is bad, but that it is not appropriate here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, here is a summary of the objections: 1. There is no documented evidente that the site is considered a useful guide to TRIZ. 2. Further, it is not mainstream TRIZ, therefore it could never be considered a useful guide to TRIZ. 3. Removal of the link by others, because they thought there was a conflict of interest, is evidence of continuing conflict of interest. 4. Promoting material that I have authored is sufficient to a create conflict of interest because this could further my reputation. 5. Because I teach others at work to use these materials creates a conflict of interest.

Did I state these correctly? Please add and delete as you feel appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRIZguy (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, except point 3, and possibly point 5. In your attempts to put in the material, you revealed that you knew (or were) the author in an edit summary. That is the COI. That you have tried to put it in a couple of times before would be considered suspicious by many editors, but is not directly evidence of COI. The thing is, your account has done little else but try to add this link - and so is a Single Purpose Account - which, while not against the rules, raises red flags. As for point 5 - if it's your aim in real life through affiliations to promote these specific materials, there's a COI.
There are two issues here - should the link be in the article (I think no), and should you yourself be adding material, rather than asking other editors to review your suggestions on the talkpage - with as full a declaration of interest as you can (Internet privacy etc. respected, of course). This second part I think you're following fine. It leaves your hands a bit tied, but that's what COI rules do anywhere. If you're not happy with my view on the suitability of the link, you can ask for a third opinion. (see here as to how that works).
btw - remember to sign your posts with four ~ symbols. At the moment a bot is signing your posts for you, and it's cluttering the edit history. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really trying to get to the heart of the objections and state them succintly from what I believe to be your point of view so that I can know how to respond. If these are not your objections, then please state them succintly. It appears that your objections are: (1) There is no documented evidence that the site is considered a useful guide to TRIZ. (2) The site describes material that is not mainstream TRIZ, therefore it could not be considered a useful guide to TRIZ. (3) I am the author or know the author of the material which is sufficient to a create conflict of interest because this could further my reputation or the reputation of the author(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRIZguy (talk • contribs) 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where's there's been innuendo. Your version is clear. If you want I can be very blunt about the first two: 1) We have no evidence it is used as a general reference for TRIZ (unlike, for example, material at altshuller.ru or triz-journal.com) 2 It appears to be quite peripheral to the topic. On both counts it seems to fail WP:EXTERNAL. Please ask for a third opinion if you do not think this is fair.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than ask for a third opinion, I would rather try to work this out. Being direct in your summary helped. I have spent some time in trying to understand the rules of wikipedia. I can see that there is room for interpretation of the rules and ways that a reference could be changed to make it acceptable. What I would like to know is what changes to the site and its materials would be required to meet your interpretations of these rules? (Interpretation is necessary and is not a backhanded criticism). As for #1, what (objective or subjective) evidence would you require to show that people are using it as a general reference to TRIZ? The website statistics and interpretation of behaviors seem to indicate that people are using this site for this purpose. We would be happy to supply you with the data that we have. As for #2, I am a little confused that you believe that it is quite peripheral to the topic. Would you mind going into a little more detail? As for #3, we are willing to make some exceptional changes such as removing all references to authors and co-authors in the books and in the site in order to avoid the possibility of advancing our reputations. The vast majority of the work is not original research, but rather a decomposition of TRIZ into its various tools and then setting them into a particular order. I will admit that the references are weak or non-existant to the individuals that authored the individual tools. Our next version should remedy that. TRIZguy (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for part 1, you'd need to show that a good number of reliable sources refer to it as a source. As for part 2, you yourself say it is not mainstream. As for part 3 - it doesn't matter that the names are taken off it, as far as I understand COI. You're still trying to get your own work into wikipedia. This is effectively doing original research by the back door. Decomposition is original research (read the policy on original research). Bluntly, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion of someone's work. It's not an advertising space. It's not a means of propagating ideas. It's an encyclopedia. Why don't you go to a good publishing house and get the material published? In the last analysis, wikipedians do not decide quality - we leave that up to other people.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just comment that while the website in question may be non-mainstream in its formulation and packaging of the material, the content and substance does appear to be based upon core TRIZ concepts. Whether or not this suffices to alleviate any Wikipedia-specific concerns about the website, I cannot say. 141.213.50.21 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram[edit]

The second diagram doesn't look very helpful. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like a diagram that only makes sense if you already understand a lot about TRIZ. Any comments?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It btter be removed.70.49.139.132 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with European TRIZ Association[edit]

Support - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, TRIZ is a Russian technique, while the European TRIZ Association is an international organization based in Germany with publications, two separate (related) entities. –Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged as proposed - BobKilcoyne (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TRIZ&oldid=1204712489"