Can Altshuller’s Matrix Be Skipped Using CBR and Semantic Similarity Reasoning?

  • Pei ZhangEmail author
  • Sarra Ghabri
  • Denis Cavallucci
  • Cecilia Zanni-Merk


Inventive Design is a research field born on the basis that TRIZ body of knowledge was both promising and original, but also containing inconsistencies that only an in-depth scientific work achieved by a community of researchers could handle for its evolution. Amongst the techniques used by TRIZ community, Altshuller’s Contradiction Matrix combined with the 40 Inventive Principles that appears as a flagship for newcomers and observers. This rather old tool from Altshuller has undergone many researches and a large quantity of evolutions have been proposed for its rebuilding. Nevertheless, after several attempt of practices, two major drawbacks in its use still appears to engineers. The first one is when associating contradiction’s parameters to one or several of the 39 Generic Engineering Parameters, the second is to interpret the resulting Inventive Principles appearing in the cells of the Contradiction Matrix. These two potential reasons of inefficiencies are known to TRIZ world, but only few proposals have been made by researches in the community to cope with these drawbacks. This paper proposes to report about the use of Case-based Reasoning (CBR) associated to semantic similarity algorithms as a means to directly place users in front of a set of eligible solutions when trying to solve a contradiction, therefore avoiding the use of the Contradiction Matrix. Our research has now reached a milestone since we have developed an online web-application associated with a database and a case base for testing the inventive problem-solving environment with users and compare it with classical use of the matrix. We also summarize the architecture of our methodology and illustrate it with a case study.


  1. 1.
    Al’tshuller GS, Shulyak L, Rodman S (1999) The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Worcester, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A brief history of TRIZ - Recherche GoogleGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilevbare IM, Probert D, Phaal R (2013) A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation 33(2–3):30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang P, Farhat A, Zanni-Merk C, Cavallucci D (2017) Case-based reasoning for knowledge capitalization in inventive design using latent semantic analysis. Procedia Comput Sci 112:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mann D, Dewulf S, Zlotin B, Zusman A (2003) Matrix 2003: updating the TRIZ contradiction matrix. CREAX press, Ieper, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheu DD, Chen C-H, Yu P-Y (2012) Invention principles and contradiction matrix for semiconductor manufacturing industry: chemical mechanical polishing. J Intell Manuf 23(5):1637–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mann D (2011) Natural world contradiction matrix: how biological systems resolve trade-offs and compromises. Procedia Eng 9:714–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coelho DA (2009) Matching TRIZ engineering parameters to human factors issues in manufacturing. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ 6(11):547–556Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yan W, Zanni-Merk C, Rousselot F, Cavallucci D (2015) A method for facilitating inventive design based on semantic similarity and case-based reasoning. Procedia Eng 131:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Litvin S (2004) New TRIZ-based tool—function-oriented search (FOS). In: TRIZ future conference: Florence, 3–5 November, pp 505–508Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Negny S, Riesco H, Le Lann J-M (2010) Effective retrieval and new indexing method for case based reasoning: application in chemical process design. Eng Appl Artif Intell 23(6):880–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cortes Robles G, Negny S, Le Lann J (2004) Knowledge management and TRIZ: a model for knowledge capitalization and innovation. In: World conference: TRIZ future, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deerwester S, Dumais ST, Furnas GW, Landauer TK, Harshman R (1990) Indexing by latent semantic analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci 41(6):391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang P, Zanni-Merk C, Cavallucci D (2017) Latent semantic indexing for capitalizing experience in inventive design. In: International conference on sustainable design and manufacturing. Springer, Cham, pp 37–47Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richter MM, Weber R (2013) Case-based reasoning: a textbook. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu Z, Zhao Y, Chen Y, Xiang D (2011) An improved TRIZ-CBR model for rapidly innovative design. Adv Mater Res 308–310:126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pei Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarra Ghabri
    • 1
    • 4
  • Denis Cavallucci
    • 1
    • 3
  • Cecilia Zanni-Merk
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIP @ ICube (UMR-CNRS 7357)Strasbourg CedexFrance
  2. 2.LITIS, Norm@stic (FR CNRS 3638), INSARouenFrance
  3. 3.INSA de StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance
  4. 4.ESPRIT: Ecole Sup Privée d’Ingénierie et de TechnologiesArianaTunisia

Personalised recommendations