return to archive list • this month's article

Critical Thinking: Comparing Polarity Management to TRIZ
By Dave Ramsey

As a practitioner of TRIZ, I am routinely reading materials that express the viewpoints of other practitioners of TRIZ.  Typically these articles express some ideas, argue some points of belief, and sometimes inspire a desire to apply what is being described.

Recently I read one of a series of articles written by Howard Smith for the May, 2007 edition of  BPTrends.  His thoughts from that article work well with a project that I am developing.  In the following article, I integrate his discussion of Polarity and TRIZ and apply it to Critical Thinking in a school classroom.

Dr. Barry Johnson has written a book titled Polarity Management, HRD Press, 1992.  In that book he describes that problems can be resolved by breaking them into "polarities".  In order to break a problem down, he suggests using a Polarity Map.    The following chart is a Polarity Map for answering the question "Should a teacher be clear and rigid or should they be flexible?"

A problem arises with this methodology from the fact that it is near impossible to solve this polarity.  In this instance, Johnson’s answer would be "Yes".  Most administrators and teachers would agree that experience shows a teacher should be both clear and flexible, not simply one or the other.

Yet, if one were to poll the students of that teacher, they might interpret clarity as rigidity and flexibility as "wishy-washy".  At one extreme, the students will say "The teacher never tells us what she/he wants," and at the other extreme "They (the teacher) don’t listen to me".  As a result, why not just tell rigid teachers to be more flexible and ambiguous teachers to be clearer? 

The rigid teacher needs to listen to students' reason, adjust to the information and become more flexible.  The weak, non-clear teacher needs to be clearer, to let the student know what she/he expects.  To avoid ambiguity the teacher then needs to stick with the direction.  The problem in this scenario is that to solve the issues it takes two teachers and typically, two teachers are not in the same location at the same time.

To create a solution to a problem of polarities using Johnson's methods, one simply has to draw arrows to show the direction of movement.    Furthermore, as shown in the polarity map the arrows can be drawn from any perspective. This provides a fair amount of flexibility in creating the solution.

However, a key problem with this method is that Johnson's polarity method indicates where a solution might lie, but the solution requires some amount of compromise or trade off.  Additionally, there is no indication or method of how to achieve the solution.

This method bears some similarity to other methods.  However, as has been experienced by others, it has its weaknesses and difficulties in application.

Overcoming the Weaknesses

The method of dividing the problem into segments - smaller problems or systems of causes and effects – and identifying them as poles or at opposing ends of a spectrum bears some similarity to methods that TRIZ practitioners use.  In TRIZ the act of identifying a polarity is the same as identifying a contradiction. 

For TRIZ, contradictions are the pinpoint of a problem.  They point the way to the creation of a solution.  If there is the presence of a contradiction, then an inventive problem has been defined. 

In conventional problem solving, it is common to settle for a compromise solution.  This is the type of solution that causes the sacrifice of one type of property or benefit so that another property or benefit can be gained.  Using this method of problem solving, it becomes a matter of "either/or".    Using TRIZ methodology causes the practitioner to think not in an "either/or" process, but to think in terms of "How can the contradiction be resolved so that the full benefits of both poles can be obtained or retained". 

Diagramming the Problem Using TRIZ Notation

Johnson's polarity model portrays problems as having two independent poles.  As a result when the poles are diagrammed using TRIZ, the diagram shows two separate systems, each with positive and harmful effects.  The fact that the poles are separate is shown in Diagram 1.

However, it is difficult to assume that the poles have no linkage.  To further reason out Johnson’s polarities, in order for there to be a problem, the two extremes cannot operate independently.  Furthermore, to create a solution one must move from one position to another position.  The poles must be linked in some manner. 

Again using TRIZ notation, the linkage of the poles can be diagrammed.  When diagrammed the situation results in a diagram like is shown in Diagram 2.  This diagram shows the poles as being linked by a continuum.  Pole 1 is at that opposite end of the continuum from Pole 2.

This equates to a TRIZ diagram that decomposes the problem into harmful and useful effects.  The diagram shows the polarity and allows the person doing the analysis to understand the relationships between the cause(s) and effects.  A simpler way of diagramming the same thing using TRIZ notation and thought methodology results in a diagram similar to Diagram 3. 

In the diagram the positive and harmful effects of each pole are displayed.  However, instead of there being two different poles, the effects are linked by a problem that must be solved in order for a solution to be present.

This is a generalization of Johnson’s polarity.  However, it allows the reader to understand how TRIZ goes on to focus attention on the point of contradiction.  The points of contradiction, in this case the “problem”, along with the effects of the contradiction are displayed.  In the diagram, the relationships are portrayed in a manner that is equivalent to the ones that they play within the system. 

When the TRIZ notation/diagramming methods are used, various effects and operators are identified by color and shape.  The green rectangle is a positive effect/operator.  The light red rectangle with rounded corners is a negative effect.  The effect that is shown in yellow is both positive and negative; it starts out as indicated by its shape and is turned yellow by the fact it is in contradiction – it creates both positive and negative effects. 

The arrows indicate the connections and the direction of the cause effect relationship.  In some instances, the arrow has a cross hatch mark on it.  An arrow with a cross hatch mark on it indicates that the cause that it originates from produces an effect that serves to counteract the effect that it is linked to.

Case Study

As a way to further explain the methodology involved with TRIZ, a case study can be utilized.   To maintain a point of reference, the case will use a polarity diagram to show a problem that involves the relationships between teamwork and individuality.  This can be a situation much like is found in any schoolroom or in a business organization. It portrays any situation where there is a potential for working within a team while still, at times, needing to be an individual.

The first step within Johnson’s Polarity Method results in splitting the map into separate poles - one that deals with Team Play and one with Individualism. The resulting polarity diagram is in Diagram 4.  Individualistic behavior and its positive and harmful effects are shown on the left.  Team Play along with its positive and harmful effects are shown on the right. 

Using this diagram allows the observer to understand the relationships between the two poles.  However, as shown by the colors, to solve the problem of harmful effects of behavior at the poles, one must move toward the center or more toward the top of the diagram.  This means that the person has to move toward greater contradiction.

The problem with this is that, generally, a person who is expected to operate in situations where contradictory behavior is required becomes overwhelmed by the stress.  As a result, several harmful effects are produced.  In essence, the solution creates more problems. 

By contrast the same problem can be analyzed using TRIZ methodology.  A simplification of the problem leads to splitting the system of behavior into the poles that were identified in the polarity diagram.  Then, after each separate pole is diagrammed, the whole problem can be diagrammed into one fully connected diagram showing the cause effect relationships that are embodied in the problem.

As each pole is diagrammed, the usefulness and harm is identified and indicated by the TRIZ notation system.   In addition, for ease of understanding, the harmful effects have been grouped in a method similar to the way they are grouped in the polarity diagram. 

In some instances, translation from the polarity map to TRIZ notation requires exchanging terms or describing conditions in a different manner.   In this case the following changes are used:

• The terms "synergistic effects" and "no synergistic effects" cause "synergistic effects" to be located in two opposing places.  For TRIZ notation, the term "synergistic effects" will be used as a positive condition/effect. The positive synergistic effects will then be counteracted by other operators.
• "Divergent actions" and "isolation from the team" are operators that are caused by other conditions.  Together, they counteract "Synergistic effects" the positive condition/effect. 
• Similarly, "Personal needs met" is produced by a combination of other effects. 
• Finally, "team support" must be positive and is counteracted by "isolation from the team" that arises out of individualistic behavior.

It is common in conventional thought processes to consider a pole as either useful or harmful.  In fact however, it is rarely true that the solution to a problem is “either/or” and that opposite poles are either only positive or are only negative. 

To accurately diagram the problem, it is necessary to connect the poles.  As a result, it is necessary to consider both poles as either useful or harmful.  Neither individualistic behavior, nor team play will be 100% successful and at times either type of behavior type may create harmful effects.  This creates a contradiction in that both poles have both usefulness and may create harm. 

If both extremes are considered to contain elements of usefulness and elements of harm, they can be connected into a model where the two poles are not opposing forces.  In fact they simply are both positive and negative resources.  This is consistent with the thought processes that are encompassed in TRIZ.  In themselves, resources are neither harmful, nor positive; they are what they are.  However, as resources, they act either solely or with other resources to produce an effect that may be wither harmful or positive.

The diagram of the individualistic behavior pole shows the positive and harmful elements of individualistic behavior.  Individualistic behavior causes and/or interacts with several highly useful results.  In spite of this relationship with the useful outcomes, in many instances the relationship is to counteract the useful effect. 

 

Likewise, the Team Play pole displays similar relationships.  The combination of being linked to both harmful and useful results/effects is highlighted in the cause/effect chain that originates with personal sacrifice being required to produce team play which then produces synergistic effects.  Most will acknowledge that, with going to excess all of the effects and outcomes of this chain are useful.  However, the fact that Personal Sacrifice and Team Play are in yellow shows that there is contradiction created by the fact that most observers of behavior will acknowledge that too much conformity, lack of recognition and too much personal sacrifice are all harmful conditions. 

When the two diagrams are combined, this thought pattern is even more evident.  However, the fact that the poles are neither all positive nor all negative creates a complex set of interactions to work through.  As a result, the diagram of the combined poles is more complex.  In order to ease the complexity, the main components of the poles are still identified by their placement at near each end of the diagram. The cause and effect interactions can be traced and consideration given to the contradiction points that are displayed in yellow. 

It is interesting to note that in the middle of the diagram there are several operators that are acted upon by both individualistic behavior and team play.  It is this combined interaction upon the shared elements that makes this problem a complex problem to solve.   This is illustrated in the Case Problem Diagram.  It shows that, if emphasized, one type of behavior will tend to counteract another behavior.  This is in spite of the fact that the behavior that is being counteracted is a useful and desired behavior.

It is at this point the Polarity Method would leave the user to draw a personal conclusion about how to solve the problem.  It leaves the user to understand that they have to move one way or another to either maximize or minimize an effect.  TRIZ however, provides a tool to help reduce the trial and error that is a natural part of problem solving. 

In classical TRIZ, there is a series of steps (an algorithm) that if followed, allows the user to eliminate the potential solutions that will be non-productive.  This allows the user to eliminate a large portion of the trial necessary for solving the most difficult solutions.  Furthermore, integrated in the algorithm is a series of principles and operators that when one or more of them are properly applied to the problem, will present a solution that provides the benefits of both poles and minimizes or eliminates or the harmful effects.

The classical TRIZ algorithm is time consuming and tedious to follow.  However, when the problem is diagrammed in modern TRIZ notation (as shown in this article) the algorithm cam be automated, several steps are combined into one step and several solutions are delivered within a very short amount of time.   Once the potential set of solutions are developed, the software then prompts the user to apply selected principles and operators appropriate to solving the problem.

The solution development tools use the problem diagram.  Once the problem has been diagrammed, the solution tool traces through the causes and effect chains to develop potential solutions.  The solutions are then listed for consideration by the user.

In order to illustrate the potential, the case diagram was used to allow the tools to develop a series of solutions.  The resulting list contains 24 solutions for consideration.  Among the solutions delivered from the case problem are the following ones that are the most interest and that showed the most potential for the author.

• Find an alternative way to obtain Individual Initiative that does not require Individualism.

• Find an alternative way to obtain Individual Creativity that does not require Individualism.

• Find an alternative way to obtain Entrepreneurial Spirit that does not require Individualism.

• Find an alternative way to obtain Personal Needs Met that does not require Individualism.

• Find an alternative way to obtain Common Direction that provides or enhances Cohesive Unit while not being influenced by Individualism.

• Resolve the contradiction: Individualism should be provided to produce Few, Short Meetings, Entrepreneurial Spirit, Individual Creativity, Individual Initiative and Personal Needs Met while shouldn't be provided to avoid Isolation, Selfish Me Talk  and Hero culture  and shouldn't be provided to avoid counteracting  Synergistic Effects, Team Support of Self, Common Direction and Each Job is Important.

• Resolve the contradiction: Personal Sacrifice should be provided to produce Team Play and shouldn't be provided to avoid Neglect of personal needs.

• Find an alternative way to obtain Team Play that offers the following:  provides or enhances Synergistic Effects and Team Support of Self, does not cause Too much conformity and No one stands out. At the same time it should not influence Few, Short Meetings and should not require Personal Sacrifice and Cohesive Unit.

• Resolve the contradiction: Team Play should be provided to produce Synergistic Effects and Team Support of Self and shouldn't be provided to avoid too much conformity, No one stands out and shouldn't be provided to avoid counteracting Few, Short Meetings.

  
This list is an example of the solutions provided.  A review of the list shows several potential solutions that, if investigated further and the principles and operators were applied, would yield unique and valuable new methods of behavior.

This article addresses only one use of the critical thinking processes utilized in modern TRIZ.  In spite of the relatively simplicity of the comparison, it hints at why TRIZ methodology should not be overlooked when solving problems of all types or when teaching others to think critically in order to solve problems and make better decisions.

For more information, contact Dave Ramsey at dramsey@aptimise.com.