Content uploaded by Valeri Souchkov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valeri Souchkov on May 13, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Differentiating Among the Five Levels of Solutions
© Valeri Souchkov
ICG T&C, www.xtriz.com
Published in the TRIZ Journal, July 2007
Abstract
The paper presents a novel approach to classify five levels of solutions within technological and non-
technological areas. A critique of the existing classification scheme in TRIZ is provided. Examples
illustrating a new classification scheme in technology and business areas are presented. The
proposed classification scheme is intended not only for TRIZ specialists and practitioners, but to
everyone interested in innovation.
Keywords: TRIZ, Five levels of solutions, Invention, Innovation
1. Introduction
This paper originated from numerous discussions with my customers, students and colleagues as
well as with many years of explaining the fundamentals of TRIZ (a Theory of Solving Inventive
Problems) to various audiences. It concerns one of the key elements of TRIZ which is widely known
as “Five Levels of Inventions” [1]. An original classification of inventive solutions was created by G.
Altshuller as a result of 7 years of research in the beginning of developing TRIZ, and today we
mostly take this classification for granted without much discussion. Nevertheless, this classification,
and especially its numerous interpretations often lead to confusion. Most frequent question which I
hear is “Can you explain the exact difference between levels?” Although the classification of
Altshuller seems to be easy to understand and quite rational it still does not help to answer this
question accurately.
And soon it became clear why. What do these 5 levels represent, exactly? First of all, in his research,
Altshuller wanted to understand what the difference was between solutions with “low” and “high”
degree of inventiveness (levels 1 and 4 in his original classification, [1]). He introduced a number of
criteria which allowed him to classify solutions: a) what type of knowledge was needed to come up
with a solution, b) if there was any contradiction resolved by a solution, c) what number of trials
would be needed to produce a solution. Since the analysis was performed on already known and
documented solutions mostly drawn from patent collections, it is clear that criteria a) and c) are
rather subjective. Second, in various web publications, magazine articles, and books we can find
different interpretations of these original five levels, which might considerably differ from each other,
however without clear explanation why the differences were made. We also can see different titles
for the same or very similarly defined five levels: “5 Levels of Creativity” [1], “5 Levels of
Inventions” [2,7], “Levels of Solutions” [3], “5 Levels of Innovations” [4], “5 Levels of Problems” [5],
“levels of Inventiveness” [6]. But it is obvious that the words “problems, solutions, inventions,
innovations, creativity, inventiveness” are not synonyms and cannot be unified by a single
classification. During many years of involvement with TRIZ, I heard so many different explanations
of the classification, that I was finally triggered to research the question and attempt to reduce
confusion.
The main objectives of this study were:
1. To reduce confusion of Altshuller’s classification and introduce new criteria for differentiating
between different levels of solutions.
2. To find out how to differentiate between various solutions by considering both “internal”
aspects of the solutions and their “external” aspects, that is, market applications.
3. To avoid using any highly subjective criteria such as the degree of creativity required or
resolved contradictions.
4. To create a classification this would be applicable for both problem solving and technology
forecast and help with identification of new solution strategies at the earliest project stages.
As a result of this work I suggest a new classification of the five levels of solutions which are not
limited to inventive solutions only, and which can be applied to various areas of human activities.
2
Please note that this new classification is not supposed to replace the original classification of
Altshuller which refers to inventive solutions only, but clarifies and structures one of its perspectives:
novelty of all possible solutions and it can be used within a broad context.
2. Original Classification: Strengths and Weaknesses
Let us have a look at the latest publication by Altshuller where his classification of five levels of
solutions (inventions) is mentioned [7]1. Numbers of trials and number of patents are taken from
[1]:
Level Description No. of
Trials
% of
Patents
1 Solving problems of level 1 does not lead to eliminating
contradictions and results in smallest inventions (“non-inventive”
inventions). A problem at Level 1 means that a solution method
resides within the borders of a single profession and a problem can
be tackled by every professional familiar with a relevant
engineering discipline.
1-10 35
2 Problems involve technical contradictions, which can be easily
overcome with solution methods known within engineering
disciplines of related systems. For instance, a problem related to a
metal-cutting tool can be solved by using some method known
within metal-drilling machines (since these two technical systems
can be called “related”).
10-100 42
3 A contradiction and knowledge how to solve it reside within the
borders of the same science. “Optical” problems are solved with
knowledge of optics, “chemical” problems – with knowledge of
chemistry. One of the elements of a technical system is completely
replaced. Other elements are partly changed.
100-
1000
19
4 A new technical system is synthesized. Since the new system does
not refer to resolving technical contradictions, we can think that
this new invention was made without overcoming contradictions. In
fact, contradictions existed but they were related to an old
technical system – a prototype. In problems of level 4,
contradictions are eliminated by means which can reside far away
from the borders of science where the problem belongs to. For
instance, “mechanical” problems are solved with knowledge of
chemistry.
1000 -
10000
4
5 Inventive situation is a complex network of difficult problems. A
number of trials are virtually unlimited. As a result – a pioneering
invention. Such invention launches a radically new system, which is
accompanied by inventions of smaller levels over time. A new
technology area is created.
10000
and
more
0.3
Table 1: Altshuller’s Classification of Five Levels of Inventions in Technology
The undisputed importance of this classification is that it was the first successful attempt based on
empirical studies to explain why it was difficult to solve problems and what the difference between
different kinds of solutions was. This brings immense value to understanding nature of technical
creativity.
Nevertheless, it has always been troublesome to explain exactly differences between these levels
and identify exact borders of each level. For instance, by Altshuller, the difference between levels 4
and 5 is that at both levels a completely new system is created, but invention of level 5 launches a
new area of technology. What then are definitions of a new system and a new area of technology? At
both levels we create new systems since we utilize a different scientific principle to deliver a
function, which can be both considered as launching new technology areas. Second, this judgment
strongly depends on what we consider as a prototype system which had existed before we created a
1 Translated by V. Souchkov
3
new system. Discovery of a coherent light radiation (laser) made it possible to launch a new
technological area - using lasers to cut materials, but didn’t we have means for cutting metals before
discovering lasers? Discovery of X-rays made it possible to see through a human body, but any
surgeon could also “see through the body” by simply making a cut through it. Invention of a radio
allowed information to be transmitted over large distances, but ancient beacons and smoke signals
could do the same, or ships crossing the seas used to bring letters.
A similar explanation of the levels can be found in [3], for instance:
“[Level] 4. Solution Across Sciences. The new object is created. Choosing between
thousands or tens of thousands of possible variants. New scientific knowledge, rather than
technological information, is used. About 4 % of solutions are at Level 4.
[Level] 5 Discovery. Solution based on a scientific discovery. Choosing between hundreds of
thousands or millions of possible variants. New discoveries are made first and then applied.
About 0.3 % of solutions are Level 5.”
Again, what is the difference between two phrases “New scientific knowledge, rather than
technological information, is used” and “Solution based on a scientific discovery”? Discovery is new
scientific knowledge as well. Take, for example, invention of a semiconductive transistor. Was it
solution of level 5 or Level 4? On one hand, the transistor was based on the discovery of
semiconductive effect, which means level 5. But on the other hand, the transistor replaced a
prototype (electronic tube) which was able to deliver almost identical functions, which means we
could place this solution at level 4 as well. Then why can’t we call a solution of level 4 “Pioneering
invention” since it utilizes a new scientific principle or a principle that has been known for a long time
but never used to deliver a new function? It seems to me that we have to clearly separate between
discovery of new scientific principles and pioneering inventions which were created on the basis of
these principles, even when an idea of such invention had been born before a scientific principle was
discovered (for instance, an idea of a laser was first described in science fiction literature).
Also, Level 3 appears to be not clearly defined with respect to Level 2. What is a “related system”? A
contemporary engineer who designs metal cutting machines knows engineering within a rather broad
scope which includes knowledge of many branches of other sciences, e.g. chemistry and physics.
How to define the borders of his/her knowledge of a specific discipline, and the borders of a domain
itself? Modern technical systems might include a lot of embedded subsystems. To design a DVD-
recorder we need knowledge of programming, precision mechanics, optics, electronics, even
chemistry. Therefore it is a very subjective definition: there are no two engineers in the world who
possess absolutely identical knowledge.
The answer is that Altshuller developed this classification from the point of view of exploring what
type of knowledge was needed to create solutions of one or another level and what degree of
creativity was required to solve one or another type of problems. Thus his classification is more
relevant to representing different processes of creating new solutions rather than to solutions
themselves. For this reason, one of the major criteria of differentiating among solutions was a
number of trials which were needed to come up with a new working idea. But this is a highly
subjective criterion. Probably, in the 1960s, this classification was relevant. Today, a problem solver
even without any knowledge of TRIZ can considerably reduce a number of trials by having instant
access to knowledge bases, online libraries, or Google by quickly exploring other domains and being
lucky to quickly find a desired answer. Also the statistical methods of Design of Experiments
drastically reduce the number of trials required to find both relationships and values of parameters
for new system designs.
As a conclusion, the original classification of five levels created by Altshuller can be better addressed
to the classification of levels of required creativity rather than solutions. In fact, in one of the earliest
TRIZ publications [1], the corresponding book chapter is rightly called “Levels of Creativity” by
Altshuller rather than “Levels of Solutions”, which followed up later [7].
3. A New Classification of Five Levels of Solutions
To categorize various solutions by the degree of their novelty and “innovativeness”, I would like to
introduce a new classification of 5 levels of solutions (including non-inventive and non-technical
solutions as well) which differentiates between novelties of solutions based on three criteria:
4
a) Function. Any man-made system is designed to fulfill a certain purpose, which, in turn, is
provided by a certain main function of the system. For instance, to fulfill the purpose of
medical investigation, we need a matching system which will deliver the function “to see
through a human body”. Functions can be both generic and very specific, and usually high-
level inventions enable delivery of generic functions which make these inventions to be
applicable across a broad range of problems and challenges.
b) Principle. This is a basic scientific effect, principle, or phenomenon which enables function
to be delivered. For instance, X-ray emission if a scientific effect which makes function “to
see through a human body” possible.
c) Market. Any man-made system delivers its function within a certain context, which meets a
certain need of a specific market. For instance, an X-ray imaging device is used for medical
market, but it can also be used in the market of security systems. With a different market
we understand a different application niche that would benefit from using a function
produced by a system.
It is important to note that with “solution” we will understand not only physical products (for
example, a classification of new products can be found in [8]), but all types of artificial systems2 and
their modifications. Thus a solution can be addressed to a new mousetrap, or an improved tool for a
manufacturing process, or a changed organizational structure, or a new business model which
assumes a certain set of components and transactions in order to be executed (for non-technical
system). When a new system is created, or we introduce a change to an existing system to reach a
desired improvement, we can define such a new or a new or modified system a solution.
Every man-made system can be described by a “Function-Principle-Market” combination. We prefer
to use the word “market” rather than “purpose” or “context” to position a system more clearly within
a specific application context from a point of view of its supersystem.
In turn, any system might involve a number of subsystems, and then our consideration depends on
what we define as a system and what as its supersystem. The same classification can apply to any
subsystem when it is considered as a system during analysis as accepted in TRIZ.
In addition, I would like to relate this new classification with the Red and Blue Ocean Strategies
presented in [9].3
4. Five Levels of Solutions in Technology
Let us have a look at 5 levels of solutions in technology:
Level 5: Discovering a new Principle
This is a starting point which can later result in breakthrough innovation. Discovery has little
to do with technology or engineering; it expands the borders of science and gives us access
to new type of resources through creating new scientific knowledge. X-rays, Tesla coil,
photovoltaic effect, semiconductivity, Hall effect, Relaux triangle, Mobius strip, chemical
catalysts, S-curve of evolution – all these are those principles which lay ground for new
innovations of the next levels.
Discoveries of level 5 (or, to be more exact, “scientific solutions”) do not address any
function or a market. These are scientific discoveries which yet to be used to design new
technical systems.
Level 4: Creating a radically new “Function/Principle” combination.
2 To define a system, we prefer to use the following definition: “A system is a delineated part of the universe
which is distinguished from the rest by an imaginary boundary.”
http://www.necsi.org/guide/concepts/system.html
3 For those who are not familiar with the concept of Blue and Red Oceans, please visit
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_kim_blue_ocean_strategy.html to see a short overview of the
concept.
5
Solutions of level 4 result from creating radically new functions on the basis of a certain
scientific principle discovered at level 5. It is not important if the same principle was used
before or not for delivering other functions. Level 4 means that a particular scientific
principle or effect has never been used before to deliver some particular function in any
market area. As a result, a radically new combination “Function/Principle” is created which
launches the first market for the combination. For instance:
• The first radio transmitter: Function: “To transmit electromagnetic signal”. Principle:
Electromagnetic waves generation and propagation.
• The first X-ray imaging device: Function: “To see through objects”. Principle: X-ray
emission.
• The first semiconductor transistor. Function: “To amplify electronic signal”. Principle:
Effect of semiconductivity.
• The first photovoltaic (solar) panel. The function “To generate electricity”. Principle:
photovoltaic effect.
• Ebay.com: Function: “To auction”. Principle: Web-based transactions.
Many solutions of level 4 are known as “pioneering”. As we can see, solutions of level 4 can
be based on both recently made scientific discoveries and knowledge which has been already
for some time but never used to create some specific function. For instance, the same
principle of semiconductivity can fulfill two different functions: “amplify a signal” and “switch
a signal”. It was known how to deliver both functions before semiconductors (electronic
tubes), but since a new physical principle was used, in both cases we create two radically
new “Function/Principle” combinations by designing two different electronic devices, and the
use of semiconductors helped to create new markets (for instance, portable electronic
devices). Level 4 solutions completely reside within the Blue Ocean strategy since we create
something which has not existed yet and thus create new systems and new markets.
Level 3: Extending a known “Function/Principle” combination to a new Market.
Solutions of level 3 result from using a known “Function/Principle” combination within a new
context to provide a specific purpose. What is a new context? Usually this means a new
application area, technological niche, or we prefer to say, a new market – since any time
when we transfer a known “Function/Principle” combination to a new application area, this
will be a new market for a technical system based on the combination. In most cases,
solutions of level 3 require re-engineering or adaptation of existing designs based on the
same “Function/Principle” combination to satisfy new demands. Examples:
• The function “To see through” which is based on the principle “X-Ray emission” can be
used not just for medical purposes (medical market). It can be used in a number of
different applications within different markets, like non-destructive testing of
constructions, security systems in airports, and so forth.
• The function “To generate electricity” on the basis of photovoltaic effect is used in solar
panels installed on the roof of a car (assuming that first photovoltaic panels were already
used but for static applications only, e.g. powering phone booths along highways).
• The function “To displace” which is achieved on the basis of the effect of thermal
expansion can be used both for exact positioning of a table in a microscope and a
magnetic head in a tape recorder.
• The function “To auction” based on the web-based transactions can be used not just for
selling physical objects, but for example, to organize bidding of intellectual property.
• Introducing a function of “remote control” based on radio-frequency to mp3 player
(assuming that previously it was never used for mp3 players).
Level 3 solutions usually address the Blue Ocean strategy as well, since they either expand
known solutions to new markets, or enable resolving contradictions within the existing
markets by providing qualitative jumps and replacing the existing combination
“Function/Principle” with a more effective one within the existing market.
Level 2: Qualitative improvement of the existing “Function/Principle/Market” combination
Solutions of level 2 address qualitative changes and improvements of components or their
configuration within a technical system which is based on the existing
“Function/Principle/Market” combination. Usually these solutions result from relatively simple
6
modifications of the existing subsystems to improve quality and performance of a system
without replacing the existing working principles behind subsystems. Also, solutions of level
2 can be obtained by simple merging of several existing technical systems as long as no new
extra system effect is produced or a contradiction is resolved (once we obtain a new system
effect, these inventions will be of a higher level), but to reduce price, save space, increase
convenience, etc:
• Improving geometric profile of a tire to provide a better grip with a road.
• Introducing an insulating layer to a coffee pot to decrease heat loss.
• Making a surface of a solar panel corrugated to better concentrate sun rays and
collect more heat.
• Merging alarm clock and CD-player.
• Merging a key holder and a flashlight.
• Merging a TV screen and a microwave oven.
Level 2 solutions reside usually within the Red Ocean strategy since they do not create new
functionality neither open new markets; they just improve or merge already existing
solutions.
Level 1: Quantitative improvement of the existing “Function/Principle/Market”
combination
Solutions which only require a quantitative change of a value of a certain parameter or a
couple of parameters within a technical system based on the existing
“Function/Principle/Market” combination. These solutions can also be obtained as a result of
optimization. Examples:
• To reinforce a building, its walls are made thicker.
• To increase capacity of a ship’s cargo deck, the deck is made bigger.
• To increase stability of a camera during long-focus photo shots, the camera is made
heavier.
• To drive a car economically, we can find an optimal ratio between speed of the car
and fuel consumption.
These solutions do not require any inventive thinking, and they also address the Red Ocean
Strategy. To obtain the desired result, just changing a value of a parameter or a combination
of parameters is enough.
Table 2 summarizes classification of solutions for technology.
Level Description Example
5
Discovery of a new Principle X-rays discovery
4
Creation of a radically new
“Function/Principle” combination
X-ray emission (principle) is used
to “see through” (function) a
human body, thus launching a new
technology area: X-Ray medical
machines
3
Extending a “Function/Principle”
combination to a new Market
X-ray technology is brought to
other areas: non-destructive
testing of constructions; X-ray
security systems in airports, etc.
2
Qualitative Improvement within
existing
“Function/Principle/Market”
combination
Pulsating mode of a “Flash” X-ray
device to capture fast moving
objects
7
1
Quantitative Improvement:
Simple change of a value of a
parameter or optimization
Increasing the power of X-Ray
generator for testing larger objects
Table 2: Five Levels of Solutions in Technology
5. Five Levels of Solutions for Business and Management
The classification of 5 levels of solutions presented above is not limited to technology only. We can
apply it to virtually any area of human activities which deal with man-made systems. The table
below provides an example of separating between 5 levels of solutions in business areas.
Level Description Example
5
Discovery of a new Principle Introducing a concept of
investment (instead of a loan)
4
Creation of a radically new
“Function/Principle” combination
Launching a first shareholder
company: financing via
investments
3
Extending a “Function/Principle”
combination to a new Market
Selling shares to open market
rather than to a closed group of
investors (the first public
company)
2
Qualitative Improvement within
existing
“Function/Principle/Market”
combination
Introducing different types of
shares
1
Quantitative Improvement:
Simple change of a value of a
parameter or optimization
Issuing extra shares
Table 3: Five Levels of Solutions in Business
6. S-curve of Evolution and Proposed Classification
As well known in TRIZ, majority of man-made systems and specifically technical systems tend to
evolve by following the “S-curve of evolution” which indicates three stages of system’s evolution:
birth, growth and maturity. An S-curve model of evolution establishes a correlation between the
growth of an overall performance of a main function of a given system and time. Introduction of the
proposed classification of solutions does not change the existing model, and all 5 levels can be
mapped to the existing S-curve model as well. However, to properly understand what level of
solution is, we should consider not only evolution of a specific system, but evolution of an entire
range of technical systems which were developed to deliver the same main function. If we consider
an evolution line of a specific main function over time, we will observe a line of S-curves which
represent different systems delivering the same main function but based on different principles. For
instance, a function of audio recording was first delivered by mechanical recording, then by
electromagnetic orientation of domains in ferromagnetic material, then by digitizing sound and using
laser light to change color of spots in media. Each of these technologies is represented by a relevant
S-curve and evolves until it meets a barrier established by its underlying principle. To “jump” to a
new S-curve, a new principle must be found. Thus, transitions between S-curves are provided by
solutions of levels 3 or 4: either by migrating and adapting an already existing “function/principle”
8
combination from some other area or by creating a totally new “function/principle” combination by
using scientific results of level 5.
During evolution of a single S-curve which represents a specific system with clearly defined
boundaries, majority of solutions will belong to levels 1-3, where solutions of level 3 are primarily
used to improve subsystems which deliver corresponding sub-functions (Figures 1 and 2).
Sometimes evolution of a subsystem delivering a sub-function can also involve solutions of level 4,
especially in complex systems. In these cases, we tend to consider such a subsystem as a separate
system. For instance, we might say that GPS navigation is one of the sub-functions of a car, but
such situations mostly address dealing with embedded systems which are usually being developed as
independent technologies and deserve separate consideration.
Time
Overall Performance of Main Function
Main function is invented and it is
based on a solution of level 4
(which in turn, based on level 5)
Performance of main function is
radically improved using a new
solution of level 3 or 4
Solutions of levels 1 and 2;
might include solutions of level
3 for sub-functions
. . .
Figure 1: S-curves of evolution for a specific main function and levels of solutions
Time
Overall Performance of Capturing Images
The first photo camera: capturing image (function) by exposing
chemicals to light (principle). This is a solution of level 4 since it
is based on a scientific principle (level 5).
Function “Capture Image” is now based on a
principle of a light capturing digital matrix
(solution of level 4 since such combination
never existed before)
Optimization and improvement of subsystems (solutions of
level 1-2); e.g. introducing LCD screen to display shooting
parameters (solution of level 3 for a sub-function).
Digital Camera
Film Camera
Figure 2: Example of transition to a more advanced technology and starting a new S-curve by
providing a new principle for delivering main function.
9
I would also have to note that the original classification of 5 levels of solutions by Altshuller did not
take into consideration non-innovative solutions and thus they were not included to the S-curve
model of evolution. But these solutions can also contribute to improved performance and
functionality of systems; therefore we must take them into account if we want to see a full picture.
7. Tasks and Levels of Solutions
The proposed classification can be used to identify what results can be expected when we define a
project: is it going to be a non-innovative improvement (level 1); slight innovative improvement
(level 2); a radical change (levels 3 and 4); or we need further fundamental research (level 5). Table
4 summarizes possible tasks and expected results.
Task Level of required solution
We want to optimize functionality or performance of an existing
system without introducing new innovative solutions
level 1
We want to introduce “light” qualitative improvement of a system
and its subsystems without introducing new technologies from
outside
level 2
We want to merge several systems together to increase convenience
of use or share system resources
level 2
We want to find a radically new principle for a subsystem which
delivers a sub-function based on a principle which has never been
used in a system’s domain before
level 3
We want to merge several systems to produce a new function which
is not a function of the systems given
Level 3
We want to find a radically new principle for main function of a
system based on already existing technologies but not yet used in a
system’s domain
level 3
We want to find a new application area (market) for a technology
behind an existing system
level 3
We want to create a radically new way of delivering a function which
is yet unknown and launch a new technology or introduce
“disruptive” innovation
level 4
We want to discover a new scientific principle, effect, or a property level 5
Table 4: Tasks and expected results
Understanding what level of solution we target also helps to better define a scope of a project and
future changes. The classification also helps to evaluate obtained ideas during problems solving or
idea generation processes: the higher level of an idea is, the more time and effort supposedly will be
required to develop the idea to a working solution and implement it.
Let us have a look at the example: suppose, we would like to improve the existing mousetrap or
invent a new one. Even before starting to generate ideas, we can identify a solution of what level
we would like to achieve4:
• Level 1: We do not introduce anything new except varying a certain parameter of a classical
mousetrap. Probably, we can make a spring stronger, or put a more smelly cheese.
• Level 2: A basic concept of a classical mousetrap won’t change at this level, but we can
introduce more serious modifications (e.g. change design of the device) or combine the
mousetrap with something else which will help to improve its functionality (or sell better!).
For the classical mousetrap we have the following Function/Principle/Market combination:
Function is “To trap a mouse”, Principle is “Force of mechanical spring which is released by
the mouse”, Market is “Household products for catching mice”. These won’t change: a new
mousetrap will still will be a modified classical mousetrap. What can we do? Add something
4 Note that in this example we limited ourselves to inventing a new mousetrap; therefore we did not consider
other possible solution directions like “how to avoid mice getting to a house”.
10
which attracts mice better than cheese (a mousetrap playing music – do mice like music?).
Or use several springs instead of a single one. And so forth.
• Level 3: This level requires replacement of the existing “function/principle” combinations at
the market of catching mice with a new, previously unknown combination. Therefore we
should look at other areas (domains, markets) where a more generic function “To trap a
relatively small moving object” is delivered, and this object should not necessarily be mice or
some other small animals. For instance, to catch flies, an adhesive tape can be used.
Probably, a very strong adhesive tape can catch mice as well?
• Level 4: Here we need to create a new unique combination “function/principle” which has
never been used before for catching any relatively small moving objects objects. Level 4
strongly depends on discoveries of level 5 and requires knowledge of various sciences.
Probably, we can generate some “exotic” electromagnetic wave that will stun mice within a
certain distance from its source?
• Level 5: Discovery of a new type of electromagnetic waves with such characteristic that
later could be used to stun small animals will be placed at level 5.
As we can see, each level forces our thinking in a new direction. If an existing problem involves a
contradiction that should be eliminated, it is clear that we can generate these solutions at levels 2-4,
and the more difficult contradiction is the higher level of solution it requires.
Conclusions
First of all, the proposed classification helps to better understand what innovation is. In fact,
innovative solutions reside at level 2-4, where level 2 represents incremental innovations, level 3 –
radical innovations for a specific market segment, and level 4 – pioneering innovations.
As clear, a number of solutions of level 1, similarly to the original Altshuller classification, is
considerably larger than solutions of the previous levels.
Figure 3: A pyramid of 5 levels of solutions
After introducing this new classification in 2005, I found it much easier to explain the difference
between solutions levels. This classification also helps to evaluate existing solutions by judging at
what level they bring novelty and how significant it is, and identify what level of solution we would
like to expect before we start solving a problem or develop a new solution.
I would also like to invite the readers to discuss the proposed classification.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Karel Bolckmans, Ellen Domb, and Dmitry Kucharavy
for their extremely valuable input during my work on this paper.
PRINCIPLES
FUNCTIONS
MARKE
TS
QUALITATIVE
VARIATIONS
QUANTITATIVE
VARIATIONS
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
11
References
1. Altshuller G, The Innovation Algorithm. TRIZ, Systematic Innovation, and Technical
Creativity. Translated, edited and annotated by L. Shulyak and S. Rodman, First Edition.
Technical Innovation Center, Inc., Worcester, 1999
2. TRIZ Experts website, http://www.trizexperts.net/5levels.htm
3. Rantanen K., “Levels of Solutions”, The Online TRIZ Journal, December 1997,
http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/1997/12/d/index.htm
4. Kraev V., “Levels of Innovation – Lesson Two”, The Online TRIZ Journal, November 2006,
http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2006/11/05.pdf
5. Altshuller G., Creativity as an Exact Science, Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1994
6. Mazur G., “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)”, http://www.mazur.net/triz/
7. Altshuller G., “Levels of Solutions”, in: To Find an Idea, 3rd Edition, Petrazavodsk,
Scandinavia, 2003 (in Russian), http://www.altshuller.ru/triz/levels.asp
8. Crawford M. & Benedetto A.D, New product management. 7th ed. Irwin: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
9. Chan Kim W. & Mauborgne R., Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market
Space and Make Competition Irrelevant, Harvard Business School Press, 2005
About the author:
Valeri Souchkov brings experience with TRIZ and Systematic Innovation since co-founding Invention
Machine Labs in Minsk, Belarus in 1988. Since that time he has been involved in training and
consulting customers worldwide, among which are a number of Fortune 500 companies. In 2000, he
initiated and co-founded the European TRIZ Association ETRIA and since 2003 heads ICG Training
and Consulting (www.xtriz.com), a company in the Netherlands that develops, uses and promotes
techniques and tools of Systematic Innovation both for commercial and government organizations in
technology and business areas. Mr. Souchkov is also an invited lecturer of the University of Twente
in TRIZ and Systematic Innovation and can be reached at valeri@xtriz.com
