Alfonso, It depends on the objective and the application context. Anyway, what the criteria are for assessing the against each other. My experience is that TRIZ is more systematic, while BS is more heuristic. Regards, I.H.

Dear Alfonso,

in comparison to brainstormings TRIZ is more formalised. That can be an advantage. Sitting in front of an empty whiteboard having to come up with a solution can be inhibiting. Designers sometimes refer to it as "Fear of the Blank Page". It also forces you to precisely state the problem. But the solution space is limited. Is it true that it really covers all possible solutions? Furthermore, the TRIZ model was devised with a focus on physical solution. What if there'd be a digital solution? In todays world digital solutions can help alleviate or even expunge physical dilemmas. Or maybe there is even a non-technical solution. I am not sure how good TRIZ could handle this. Is someone here who has experience in using TRIZ for digital solutions?

A brainstorming - on the other hand - does not have such limitations. But Brainstormings can be tricky. One important rule is that everybody just tells what ideas come to his mind, no matter how simple, redundant, or even stupid the idea might be. It is a classic argument against brainstormings that you can hardly find team members who are relaxed and uninhibited enough to do that. Who wants to say something absurd or stupid in front of colleagues? But it is often a stupid/absurd idea that triggers thinking outside of the box. You need a good moderator who can helps create a good atmosphere. And even then the group may not be able to create really new ideas.

You may want to look into alternative methods like Brainwriting. In general, Brainwriting groups outperform brainstorming groups. See e.g. http://www.fastcompany.com/3033567/agendas/brainstorming-doesnt-work-try-this-technique-instead

But in the end, I do not think these methods are mutually exlusive. Even if you have a set of solutions from the contradictions matrix, these are abstract. You have to find solutions for these solutions. That isn't always just a matter of linear thinking and requires creativity, again. Furthermore, the methods used during ideation are only the first step. You need to consider the whole process. How do you foster empathy for the users' situation? How do you evaluate your ideas? Do you give your chance to fail fast so that you can correct flaws before you enter the market?

Regards, Jan

OK Jan. Thanks for the article link.  I agree that other available methods shall be better, but professional engineers  them uses Brainstorming, may be because they were not taught other method, as Brainwritting.  Engineering education should be aware of this and enhance by syllabus courses, for instance.

Personally I apply visual-thinking creative methods, like mindmapping, or just sketching. Other interesting visual methods are C-Sketch and Brainsketching.  Visual thinking is basic for engineering, and creativity for engineering is clearly linked to visual reasoning.

In my opinion, the best efficient way is to apply TRIZ with Brainstorming. Because, TRIZ generally proposes more than one solution principle, any person can produce innovative solutions with different aspects according to the solution principles of TRIZ. In other words, TRIZ also allows you to think heuristic on a problem as well as systematic way. Regards. M Mayda.

Dear Dr. Mayda, I agree with your proposal to apply these methods in combination. Kind regards,

I.H.

Dear Dr. Horvath, Thank you so much. Best regards. M.Mayda

Shahab makes a good distinction between Technical tools versus Mental simulation tools.  

1. Technical tools (e.g. TRIZ, ARIZ, somebody consider QFD), which help designers go through a systematic patent search process. 

2. Mental stimulation tools (e.g.  Brainstorming, Delphi, Osborn, Analogy), which helps  designers explore possibilities via a generative/ heuristic thinking through process.

I also agree with Imre Horvath and Murat Mayda that if two are applied together, it is possible to get to the results faster or  achieve your objectives with the type of novelties (innovative solutions) that you may be looking for.

In addition,  there is a third category of tools called process mapping tools (such as IDEF, IFLOW, etc.), which help designers identify the bottlenecks or gaps in their processes (both in current or future states).

To that regard, the attached IFLOW methodology paper may be of some interest to you.

Hope this helps...

Conference Paper A flow-chart-based methodology for process improvement

Thanks. Mr Prasad for the attachment.

In my opinion, and experience in the development of courses with engineers, TRIZ is more formal for specific engineering problems; However, require rain of ideas, because that is the workings of our brain, therefore, some authors suggest that only 10% of the ideas that are generated, are remembered, are written, are put in place; then, to TRIZ have to engage in that dialogue allowing generate many possible ideas and in this way, the tool has fruits.

In my opinion, brainstorming alone is not enough to identify problems and even less to solve them. TRIZ helps structure the thinking and should encompass brainstorming in several phases.

Methodologically, it is also important to consider task dependence and (human) knowledge dependence. This makes a combined application of the two more effective.

Brainstorming provides divers creative thinking. TRIZ helps more concrate and structured thinking. Both must be applied in engineering design process.

TRIZ is much more encompassing than brainstorming. Comparing TRIZ and brainstorming is like comparing a whole industry with a single tool. That being said, if we try to compare a single TRIZ tool (like the inventive standards) with brainstorming for the goal of idea generation, we will see that TRIZ provides to the problem solver knowledge extracted from many high level inventions, while brainstorming relies only on the involved team's repertoire.

TRIZ is most applied to engineering, to problems having to do with the formal modeling, when they should be present various alternatives, when different similar resources should be used and you should choose one that fits the circumstances of the project, but for this, all the ideas of the players should welcome (involved), it is best to have several visions that only the director of the project Therefore, arises a kind of brainstorming unstructured, so it should be given shape so there is the Coordinator and all ideas are taken present.

If you look into the everyday life of an engineer, I guess your observation of selecting Brainstorming over TRIZ seems to be true. This is due to the various constraints, and most important of them being the time limits for arriving to a solution and its deployment. I have been through numerous situations where I wanted to put TRIZ into action, but could not due to time constraints. The "quick fix required" situations dominate my work and I have to move on to brainstorming. 

If we look at such constraints Brainstorming seems to help. But I believe the solutions thus arrived are far from being optimal. 

TRIZ certainly is a methodical approach, and if deployed along with AFD (Anticipatory Failure Determination - for problem solving), can help to get things done in much faster pace. The best part of TRIZ is that it helps to "solve" the contradictions of trade-offs in the domain with the approach of consolidation and giving due address to individual antagonistic situations of the contradiction. 

Another voice I keep hearing is that TRIZ sort of calls for "One man Army" and Brainstorming is a "Team Game". I don't know how true is this or is there any sense in this at all in this argument. 

Brainstorming is much less effective than TRIZ. You generate a lot of ideas, but you could be led away from the best solution. TRIZ provides the best solution in no time, especially if your task matches with TRIZ stanadrs. The advantage of brainstorming is that you can learn it quickly (in days),  to say nothing about TRIZ. To become proficient TRIZ solver you need to spend about 10-12 months of active learning and practicing.

I think both are important. I love the flow of TRIZ analysis which really helped me a lot to solve my design problem. 

There are other options besides just contrasting the two methodologies (TRIZ vs. BS). They (i) may be combined based on the consideration of their partially complementing nature, and (ii) they, in theselves or together, can be extended with other elements that can enhance their potentials and effects even more. Rigorous studies in these two directions would be important and useful.

Do you think that SCAMPER should be in cases an alternative of TRIZ when using in combination to Brainstorming?

For the engineering problems of development under the scheme of the scientific computing method, of course it is best TRIZ, but for its proper and most application, considering different strategies, it should help brainstorming. With this technique, method or strategy, does flow from your mind different ideas, to be assessed, any is transcendent to TRIZ.