TRIZ - Substance Field Analysis

Introduction

What if there is more than one Contradiction?

What if there are complex interactions between materials and processes in the problem at hand? Is there an analysis method that allows us to scientifically find the relationships between these and identify to source of our problems? How do we leverage existing scientific solutions, that point us even more directly than a metaphoric Inventive Principle?

Substance Field Analysis: Collisions between Worlds

Recall that the TRIZ Inventive Principles are metaphoric and we need to bring them down to earth and realise the fruit of our labours. This, as we discussed, is a leveraging of Cultural Capital from previous and current generations of inventors, of dipping into the distilled wisdom of the human race. Altshuller seems to have anticipated the difficulty here: we may not have the encyclopaediac knowledge of scientific solutions from many other domains, where the same problem as the one at hand (metaphorically) manifested itself.

Hence he also documented 76 Scientific Solutions, or effects that are related to solving Contradictions. In order to facilitate that relationship, he also proposed a much-used scientific TRIZ Method, Substance-Field, or Su-Field, Analysis. We will now acquire this TRIZ method to complete our TRIZ Toolkit.

Game #1

This game idea is the result of a chance conversation in class with student Ira Patil, FSP 2022.

Things you need:

• Makey-Makey ( one per group )
• Laptop
• An App or a Game on the laptop (“Inner Game”)
• Some board game with pieces. Can use a non-board game also. (“Outer Game”)
• Paper and pencil/graphite pieces
• Classroom Furniture
• Cellophane tape to anchor “contact areas”. (See below)

Good to have:

• Additional Wire, metal foil, metal scales, keys, coins, spoons, and miscellaneous small light metallic items if you can get them

Instructions:

• Connect your Makey-Makey to the laptop over USB
• Fire up a the chosen “inner game” app on the laptop. Ensure that the game uses UP/DOWN/LEFT/RIGHT/CLICK to make things happen. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCnGTnr7eqQ. A not-too-violent arcade or RPG is also ok.
• Set up your board / non-board outer game close by.
• Connect the GND and the 5 other signals from your Makey-Makey to a variety of objects, both living and non-living, from your board game.
• If you are using a non-board “outer game”, which involves only human movement, then ensure that the floor or wall has contact areas to each of the 5 signals. These can be made, for example, with a paper stuck to the wall, a metal foil stuck on the paper itself, with a wire extended from there to the Makey-Makey.
• Play both games simultaneously. This is related to Arthur Koestler’s idea of a bisociation ¹, where we experience a collision between two frames of reference.

Questions to contemplate:

1. Does the competitive aspect of the external game allow itself to be included in the inner game?

2. Does the inner game influence movements, strategies, and plays in the outer game?

3. Can other senses (hearing, for example), be included in the game(s) in a hitherto unknown way?

4. Can the normal use of senses within the game ( e.g. sight, of course) be altered?

5. What other parameters and forces can you include in this collision between two Game-Worlds?

6. Opinions: Was some interaction between the two Games undesirable? Were others highly desirable? Describe these.

Discussion

1. The Game we played was a simulation for what is called the Substance Field Model in TRIZ.

2. In both directions, we can imagine that the two Games (and the players) project some kind of Force on the Substance of the other game. Examples:

   • If movement direction in the outer game was linked to creating a particular sound or shape on the inner game?
   • If you inner game used/made sounds, did use of this “new” sense (hearing) affect outcomes in the outer game?

3. We should look at the pair of Games and their paraphernalia, pieces, moves, movements etc mutually representing Substances and Fields: each Game exerts a Field on the Substance of the other game.

   • Were Fields entirely physical (i.e. Newtonian) in nature? Did intent, emotions such as delight, dismay, disappointment, and surprise show up as Fields?

   • Were all Fields intentional?

   • Were all Fields beneficial or were some harmful?

Models in Su-Field Analysis

To be described

Examples for Su-Field Models

To be described

The 76 Standard Solutions

To be described

How does it Work??

To be described

References

1. https://the-trizjournal.com/altshullers-greatest-discovery-beyond/

2. Project TETRIS: Chapter 3: Short Review of ARIZ: Algorithm for Innovative Problem Solving and a Case Study (PDF)

3. Project TETRIS: Chapter 4: Substance-Field ( “Su-Field” ) Analysis and Standard Solutions basic notions and rules (PDF)