Matrix 2016 updating the triz contradiction matrix
Consequently, any interpretation of the differences between the two is inevitably going to contain a degree of uncertainty.
Nevertheless, it is worth discussing some of the changes that have taken place with respect to, first, the Inventive Principles that feature more frequently in the new Matrix than they did in the original version.
There are dangers in adopting this kind of approach of course, but nevertheless it can be a valid way of approaching problems under some circumstances.
This column indicates that there have been some quite significant shifts that have taken place between the two matrices.
The aims of that second article are to explore the stability of the new Matrix and to provide quantified data on how well the two matrices predict the Inventive Principles being used by recent inventors.
The aim of this article is primarily to explore the differences between the two matrices in terms of the overall prioritized sequence of Inventive Principles recommended by the Matrix.
Nevertheless, there is perhaps likely to be a correlation with the increased emphasis on sustainable solutions on the one hand and the marked rise of manufacture of disposable goods in the Far East, and the reduced emphasis on patenting of design solutions in the countries in that part of the world.
In other words, Principle 27 may still be being used as frequently as ever, but that designers using it as a strategy are patenting such solutions far less frequently.
It is these differences that are the subject of the remainder of the article.