Once you learn about TRIZ - Then what?

Preface: I'm by no means a TRIZ expert, truth be told I hardly qualify as a novice. That said, all levels of TRIZ practitioners share a problem I do know something about, “How do you introduce a new idea into an organization?” With this proviso in place, let’s proceed with the article.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you’re a problem solver of any sort, whether you’re an engineer, doctor, programmer or a manager - then from time to time you’re going to stumble across a method or process that you just know will benefit others if only they’ll adopt it. You’ll then discover, sometimes much to your surprise, that your enthusiasm for your new found solution isn't shared by those around you. TRIZ is an excellent example.

Welcome to the very common problem of implementing a Change.

If TRIZ teaches us anything it’s that we repeat certain problem solving solutions time and time again. We don't set out to do this consciously, but nevertheless the solution patterns repeat. The core strength of TRIZ, is that it advises us to identify, categorize and generalize these solution patterns and use them consciously.  There is a flip side to this, there are also patterns of failure, ‘solutions’ we try time and time again that don't lead us towards our goal. In a sense, the whole purpose of TRIZ is to help us avoid the ‘solutions’ which don't work. TRIZ attempts to steer us towards the successful problem solving techniques by steering us away from the less effective approaches.

The “Buy-in” strategy in traditional Change Management is a perfect example of a commonly used problematic approach to a common management problem. Yes, I know that questioning the value of a commonly held belief is heretical, but it is an accurate assessment of its efficacy.

Here's the general problem with 'Buy-in';

Typically, when we find a good, new solution we get enthusiastic, sometimes wildly enthusiastic about it. Our immediate strategy is to try and convince others that this solution is the answer to all our problems. We want them to ‘buy-into’ the new idea, after all, we know it works. Our approach is to concentrate on the benefits of this solution. Our goal? To get our audience or organization to adopt the new idea.

And then we’re surprised when they respond with, “Why?”

It doesn't matter what new idea we're trying to implement or in what organizational context we’re operating, we will always encounter this well meaning “Why?” We then incorrectly, in my opinion and experience, label it as ‘resistance to change’. We also mislabel this phenomenon as being ‘negative’ and perhaps even as an ‘obstacle to progress’.

The problem we've created is this: We're attempting to sell a solution, before getting agreement on the problem.

Here’s an experiment, we'll make it incredibly simple. Walk into the office next to yours and say to the person, “Stand up.” (or “Stand up!” if you want to increase the intensity of the experiment.) What is their response? They will either ask “Why?”, at the very least they'll think it and you'll get a dirty look.

What you just conducted was the simplest of change experiments. The “Why?” you received isn’t trivial, it needs to be answered in some fashion if you’re to get the victim subject to stand.

If you want a more robust experiment, one performed by a PhD, one with ‘convincing’ statistics, then consider the test performed by Dr. Robert Cialdini (Described in his book, “Influence: Science and Practice” ISBN 0-321-18895-0)

This experiment was conducted at a busy photocopier. The research student stepped to the front of the queue and asked: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” The result was that 60% of the time she was allowed to make her copies.

On the next trial she asked instead: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I'm in a rush?” This increased her success rate (immediately making copies) to 94%.

To test if  “…because I'm in a rush” was the deciding factor for the change, they changed the opening line to: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?”

Her success rate remained close to 94% at 93%. The initial request with no reason given is 60%, adding even the flimsiest of reasons, ‘because’ to the unspoken ‘Why?’ increases that success rate to 93%.

So… if you’re trying to implement TRIZ (or anything else for that matter) what is your answer to the reasonable question ‘Why?’ going to be? That it’s ‘better’ isn’t enough. That’s basically what we’re saying when we're enthusiastic and merely sing the praises of a new solution. 

What people need to hear is a description of the problem that TRIZ is supposed to solve. You cannot sell anyone the benefits of anything until they agree that the benefits are necessary.

So? What problems does TRIZ solve? What are the failings of your existing problem solving process? Can you point to specific failings which everyone agrees need addressing? Can you measure what it costs in lost opportunity costs to take ‘X’ months to solve a problem? Can you then estimate how long it would take when using TRIZ? If that’s too difficult, or circumspect, is it possible to identify an existing outstanding problem which has defied solution at great cost to the organization? Can the cost of not solving it justify a different approach?

Part 1 of 2.

? 2015, Peter de Jager. Peter is a Keynote speaker/consultant/writer on Change related issues. You can contact him at [email protected]

 If you're puzzled as to what exactly TRIZ is? - That was a little bit intentional - NOW you have a reason to learn more... Click below;