TRIZ - Games

Introduction

I have used my Readwise (https://readwise.io) highlights to create a set of Games that can bring the experience of TRIZ Principles into the classroom. These games are designed to be engaging and educational, allowing participants to explore TRIZ concepts in a hands-on manner. They lean on my highlights about forms enabling creativity and clear goals in play (forms as engines of creativity, clear goals each step), and use head-fake learning via games (indirect learning).

GAME 1: Resource Hunt Sprint

Goal: Train eyes for available resources (fields, substances, structures, time, space).

Round 1:

1. Give a simple Object system and a harm, preferably a picture.: (e.g., paper airplane: wing angle, weight, nose stiffness; or a website button: size, color, copy).
2. Teams list all internal/external resources in 3 minutes, then propose which of the resources listed are controllable or uncontrollable.

Why: Reinforces fundamentals before “fancy stuff” get fundamentals down and encourages breadth first produce many ideas, many different ideas.

Output: Put the Resources down in an Ishikawa Diagram.

Round 2: Repeat with a more complex Situation

GAME 2: Turn the Knobs (Contradiction Discovery)

Goal: To surface a TRIZ adminstrative/technical/physical contradiction by “turning the knobs,” stating it accurately via rapid A/B experiments using DOE basics.

Setup:

• Pick the simple Object system with tunable “knobs” / resources that are controllable
• Define two outcome metrics/situations that tend to move in opposite directions when knobs are changed (e.g., speed vs. stability; conversion vs. time-on-page).

Round 1:

1. Teams vary one knob at a time across extremes (turn-to-max-and-min). Observe how Metric A improves while Metric B degrades, forcing a TRIZ-style contradiction statement: “We need X high and X low simultaneously.”
   • ⁠Quick A/B test design with goal/metric (A/B to optimize).
   • ⁠DOE mini: vary 2 factors at low/high (2^2), measure outcome (factorials; DOE principles).
   • Confounding variable, if found, can lead to TRIZ Physical Contradiction
   • The note linking confounders to a “Physical Contradiction in TRIZ” fits well here (Art of Statistics).
   • This mirrors how confounders and splits can reverse associations, as in the note on contradictions and Simpson’s paradox.
2. Teams articulate the contradiction clearly.
3. Obtain a max of 3 Contradictions.

Round 2: Repeat with a more complex Situation

GAME 3: Contradiction Duel / Auction (Engineering contradictions)

Cards:

A. TRIZ Parameter Cards (49 parameters (print multiple)) B. Contradiction Prompts

• ⁠Improve X but worsens Y. Name X, Y in your problem.
• ⁠Physical contradiction: need hot and cold; large and small; fast and slow. Identify your pair.
• ⁠Hidden confounder: two metrics move together because of Z. Find Z (confounding insight). A confounding parameter is often like a TRIZ Physical Contradiction.(PC)

1. Each Team gets randomly picked 4 Cards containing TRIZ Parameters.
2. Each team proposes two Technical Contradictions (A vs. B) that embody the Contradiction, using these 4 Parameters.
3. Each Team has to make the metaphors apparent to others.
4. The most surprising Technical Contradiction wins the auction!
5. Bonus for finding the Confounding Factor Z!

GAME 4: TRIZ 40 Principles Sprint

Cards to print (front = Title; back = Prompt)

A: Inventive Principles

1. ⁠Segmentation
   • ⁠Back: Break object/process into parts. Name 3 useful splits.
2. ⁠Taking out
   • ⁠Back: Remove a problematic component. What value remains?
3. ⁠Local quality
   • ⁠Back: Make one area different. Where should properties vary?
4. ⁠Asymmetry
   • ⁠Back: Introduce intentional imbalance. What improves?
5. ⁠Merging
   • ⁠Back: Combine functions/components. What becomes redundant?
6. ⁠Universality
   • ⁠Back: One part, many jobs. Which part can do 2+ roles?
7. ⁠Nested doll
   • ⁠Back: Place inside another. What protection or leverage arises?
8. ⁠Anti-weight
   • ⁠Back: Counterbalance or buoyancy. What cancels load?
9. ⁠Preliminary action
   • ⁠Back: Do work in advance. What can be pre-staged?
10. ⁠Preliminary anti-action
    • ⁠Back: Pre-empt harm. How to neutralize before it occurs?
11. ⁠Cushion in advance
    • ⁠Back: Add buffers. What fails safely?
12. ⁠Equipotentiality
    • ⁠Back: Keep level potentials. Where to remove gradients?
13. ⁠The other way round
    • ⁠Back: Invert roles/flows. What benefit appears
14. ⁠Spheroidality
    • ⁠Back: Prefer curves/rotation. What moves smoother?
15. ⁠Dynamics
    • ⁠Back: Make adjustable. What parameter should vary?
16. ⁠Partial/excessive actions
    • ⁠Back: Do a bit more/less. What threshold flips outcome?
17. ⁠Another dimension
    • ⁠Back: Add direction/layer/time. What unlocks?
18. ⁠Mechanical vibration
    • ⁠Back: Oscillate/pulse. What becomes easier?
19. ⁠Periodic action
    • ⁠Back: Intermittent instead of continuous. What saves energy?
20. ⁠Continuity of useful action
    • ⁠Back: Keep value flowing. Where are idle gaps?
21. ⁠Rushing through
    • ⁠Back: Pass quickly to avoid issues. What to blitz?
22. ⁠Blessing in disguise
    • ⁠Back: Use a harm as resource. How to repurpose the “waste”?
23. ⁠Feedback
    • ⁠Back: Add fast feedback. What to sense and adjust?
24. ⁠Intermediary
    • ⁠Back: Add a mediator. Who/what bridges incompatibilities?
25. ⁠Self-service
    • ⁠Back: Let system maintain itself. What can self-clean/tune?
26. ⁠Copying
    • ⁠Back: Use a cheap replica. Where is a “digital twin” enough?
27. ⁠Cheap short life
    • ⁠Back: Disposable beats durable. Where is throwaway better?
28. ⁠Mechanics substitution
    • ⁠Back: Replace with fields/chemistry. What to dematerialize?
29. ⁠Pneumatics/hydraulics
    • ⁠Back: Use fluids. What benefits from compliance?
30. ⁠Flexible shells/films
    • ⁠Back: Thin layers. What wraps/seals/adapts?
31. ⁠Porous materials
    • ⁠Back: Add pores. What filters/cools/lightens?
32. ⁠Color changes
    • ⁠Back: Encode with color. What visibility alerts?
33. ⁠Homogeneity
    • ⁠Back: Same materials interact better. What to unify?
34. ⁠Discarding and recovering
    • ⁠Back: Throw away or reclaim. What to detach?
35. ⁠Parameter changes
    • ⁠Back: Tune size/temp/speed. Which single knob matters most?
36. ⁠Phase transitions
    • ⁠Back: Exploit state change. What thresholds help?
37. ⁠Thermal expansion
    • ⁠Back: Use expansion. What could self-actuate?
38. ⁠Strong oxidants
    • ⁠Back: Use active environments. What accelerates?
39. ⁠Inert environment
    • ⁠Back: Prevent reactions. Where to isolate?
40. ⁠Composite materials
    • ⁠Back: Combine materials. What hybrid wins?

One-page rules:

• ⁠Players: 3–6. Time: 20–30 min.
• ⁠Setup: Each team gets two challenges from the previous round.
• ⁠Play: 3 rounds x 5 minutes. Draw 3 Principle cards per round. Generate at least 1 idea per card for each challenge.
• ⁠Scoring: Each round, teams star their best idea; swap with neighbors for peer “field” validation per my creativity notes (gatekeepers/field). Peers award 0–2 points for novelty/usefulness. Use Fluency, Flexibility, Elaboration. Highest total wins.
• ⁠Debrief: Note surprises and how you surprised others (surprise diaries).

Round 1: A/B to Probe the Space

4. Split Teams into 2: Randomize who tests A or B first; collect outcomes quickly.
5. Multiple teams can work on A and on B respectively for replication. This mirrors web A/B practices with rapid iteration and large-N sensitivity in principle (A/B testing overview) and uses DOE fundamentals like randomization and replication (DOE principles).

Facilitation tips:

• Force crisp hypotheses before testing to avoid post hoc stories, aligning with conjectures-and-refutations discipline (Popper via Taleb).
• Keep tests short, playful, and disciplined—creativity plus rigor (playfulness and discipline).
• Encourage phrasing alternatives as questions to reduce defensiveness during design debates (phrase alternatives as questions).

GAME 3: 20Q to Random Forests for TRIZ Patterns

Cards

• ⁠Target Deck: 20 common product/service problems (e.g., “Fragile device in transit,” “Slow onboarding”).

• ⁠Question Cards (blank): Players write yes/no questions that partition possibilities, inspired by TRIZ categories (materials, time, control, intermediaries, separation).

• ⁠Insight Cards:

  • “Change dimension”
  • “Intermediary”
  • “Preliminary action”
  • “Self-service”
  • “Parameter change” (each nudges question design)

Rules

• ⁠Players: 3–6. Time: 20 min.
• ⁠One chooser draws a Target, others ask up to 20 yes/no questions to identify the problem type. After reveal, each player proposes 1 TRIZ-inspired fix from their Insight card. Link to my 20Q-as-decision-tree highlight (20Q ~ decision trees).
• ⁠Score: Guessing team 1 point for identify; +1 if at least one fix earns peer upvote for feasibility.
• ⁠Debrief patterns found across rounds.

GAME 5: Blessing-in-Disguise Hack

Cards:

⁠“Waste” Deck: latency, heat, noise, byproduct, queue, scrap, error logs, failed sessions.

⁠Converts Deck:

• Energy harvesting
• Signaling/telemetry
• Secondary market
• Catalyst/seed
• User delight
• Training data

Rules:

• ⁠Draw 1 Waste + 2 Converts; pitch how the harm becomes resource (blessing in disguise). 2-minute turns; peers vote novelty/usefulness.

Printing layout tips

• ⁠Card size: 3.5 x 2.5 in (Poker) or 2.75 x 4.25 in (bridge). 8 per page fits Letter/A4. Use duplex short-edge flip.
• ⁠Color codes by set for easy sorting; keep plain-style text for teaching clarity (plain style for teaching).
• ⁠Add “round goals” on card bottoms for clear stepwise flow (clear goals).