Triz Product Architect

When product people say "we need to balance X and Y," TRIZ says: wrong frame. There's a way to get both. Find it.

This skill turns trade-off thinking into breakthrough thinking for product architecture, UX design, feature strategy, and technical decisions.

Fuller said: "Can ONE element do TWO jobs?" That's TRIZ Principle #6. Rams said: "Less, but better." That's increasing ideality. Teenage Engineering ships instruments, not apps. That's IFR made real.

TRIZ isn't a methodology checkbox. It's a lens that reveals the solution space your intuition can't see.

Before applying TRIZ, verify:

• Real contradiction: "Improving A genuinely worsens B" → Use TRIZ
• Resource constraint: "We can't afford both" → Not TRIZ (it's budgeting)
• Preference conflict: "Stakeholder wants X, user wants Y" → Not TRIZ (it's alignment)
• False dilemma: "We assumed A and B are linked but they're not" → Reframe, no TRIZ needed

If it's a real contradiction, proceed.

Step 1: IFR — Define the Impossible Ideal

"The [feature/system] ITSELF [delivers value] WITHOUT [cost/complexity/friction]"

Product IFR templates:

• "The navigation itself reveals the right content without the user searching"
• "The onboarding itself teaches the app without a tutorial"
• "The data model itself stays consistent without sync logic"
• "The UI itself adapts to the user without settings"

Why IFR first: It prevents premature compromise. You can't find a breakthrough if you've already accepted the trade-off as inevitable.

Step 2: Identify the Contradiction

Technical Contradiction (improving A worsens B):

"If we [add/improve A], then [B gets worse]"

Map A and B to product parameters (see references/product-lens.md).

Physical Contradiction (same element needs opposite properties):

"[Element] must be [Property] for [use case X]
AND [Opposite] for [use case Y]"

Product examples:

• Technical: "More personalization → more privacy concern"
• Physical: "Search must be visible (discoverability) AND invisible (clean UI)"

Step 3: Resolve

For Technical Contradictions:

1. Map to product parameters (references/product-lens.md)
2. Identify relevant principles (top 15 for product work listed in references)
3. Generate 2-3 concrete solutions per principle
4. Evaluate: Does it approach IFR?

For Physical Contradictions — Separation:

Step 4: Validate Against IFR

For each solution, score:

1. Ideality: Does it increase benefits while reducing cost+harm?
2. Elegance: Would Fuller approve? Does one element do two jobs?
3. Invisibility: Does the user notice the mechanism, or just the value?
4. Buildability: Can we ship this in the current architecture?

Step 5: 9-Screen Check (Optional but Powerful)

Before committing, zoom out:

This reveals:

• Whether you're solving yesterday's problem
• Whether the solution aligns with where things are heading
• Hidden resources in the supersystem you haven't used

When deciding "what should this become?", check where you are on these curves:

S-Curve positioning: Is this feature in infancy (invest), growth (scale), maturity (optimize), or decline (replace)?

IFR

"The [system] itself [delivers X] without [Y]"

Contradiction

• Type: Technical / Physical
• Statement: "If [A], then [B worsens]" or "[Element] must be [X] and [not-X]"
• Product Parameters: [Mapped from references/product-lens.md]

Resolution

Recommendation

Primary: [Approach name]

• Why: [Rationale tied to IFR]
• What makes it TRIZ-good: [Which contradiction it resolves, not compromises]

If blocked: [Fallback approach]

Evolution Check

• Current position on S-curve: [stage]
• Next evolution step: [prediction]
• Does this solution move us forward on the curve? [yes/no + why]

Design Thinking (MEMORY.md rules):

• "NEVER just extend existing patterns" → TRIZ's IFR forces you to question the frame
• "Always generate 2-3 fundamentally different approaches" → TRIZ principles generate structurally different solutions, not variations
• "Apply Fuller deeply" → Fuller IS Principle #6 (Universality). TRIZ makes Fuller systematic.
• "Can ONE element do TWO jobs?" → That's the core of increasing ideality

When to reach for this skill vs others:

• ios-design-lead: HOW it looks and feels → after TRIZ decides WHAT to build
• mindcraft-advisor: WHY users need it → feeds INTO the contradiction definition
• system-architect: HOW to build it technically → after TRIZ resolves the architectural contradiction
• triz-product-architect (this): WHAT to build when faced with competing approaches

Escalation path:

1. Simple trade-off → Contradiction Matrix (2 min)
2. Deeper analysis → Full workflow with 9-Screen (15 min)
3. Nothing works → ARIZ algorithm via installed /triz skill (30+ min)
4. Need design space exploration → /morphological-analysis-triz skill

This skill handles steps 1-2. For 3-4, it hands off to the installed TRIZ skills with a properly framed problem statement (which is half the battle).

For full TRIZ methodology (40 principles, 39 parameters, ARIZ, Su-Field): → Use installed skills at ~/.agents/skills/triz/ and ~/.agents/skills/morphological-analysis-triz/

Describe:

1. What you're trying to achieve
2. What's blocking you or what trade-off feels inevitable
3. Any approaches you've already considered

I'll identify the contradiction and find the resolution that doesn't compromise.