This doctoral thesis marks the birth of ASIT. Roni Horowitz develops a revolutionary creative problem-solving method by radically simplifying TRIZ, Altshuller's theory based on the analysis of over 200,000 patents. Where TRIZ requires hundreds of hours of learning, ASIT (called SIT in the thesis, for Structured Inventive Thinking) can be mastered in a few hours while maintaining its effectiveness.
Submitted at Tel-Aviv University in May 1999, this 150-page research establishes the theoretical, empirical and psychological foundations of ASIT. Horowitz identifies two universal sufficient conditions characterising inventive solutions and develops a structured method systematically guiding towards these solutions. Validation is triple: theoretical through patent analysis, empirical through real problem testing, and psychological via Kreitler's meaning system.
Until the early 20th century, creativity was considered a magical phenomenon, even of divine origin. Great inventors themselves contributed to this vision: composer Mahler declared "I do not compose, I am composed", while Kekulé attributed his discovery of the benzene structure to a dream. This conception made any scientific approach to creativity impossible.
The challenge Horowitz takes on is twofold: on one hand, developing an objective test to identify truly inventive solutions (as opposed to routine or "brute force" solutions); on the other hand, transforming this test into a teachable and structured method. The stakes are high: making inventive creativity accessible to all engineers, no longer reserved for a few inspired geniuses.
Horowitz deliberately limits his field of investigation to daily engineering problems, those that arise during the development or improvement of existing systems. These are not major technological revolutions (laser, electricity, microwaves) but inventions "within a paradigm", according to Altshuller's classification. These problems, although more modest, are omnipresent in engineers' daily practice.
The thesis pursues three complementary scientific objectives, corresponding to the three main parts of the work:
First objective: develop sufficient conditions for inventive solutions. This involves identifying a set of objective characteristics that a solution must satisfy to be judged inventive by experts. Horowitz acknowledges from the outset that he is not seeking necessary and sufficient conditions (which would cover 100% of inventive solutions), but only sufficient conditions covering a large subset. The ambition is pragmatic: capturing the essence of the majority of inventive solutions with a minimum of universal conditions.
Second objective: create a structured method (SIT) guiding towards these solutions. The identified conditions must lead to an operational process. SIT is designed as a series of steps and sub-questions (prompts) organised according to a directed graph. Each sub-task must be simpler than the global problem, guaranteeing the teachability of the method.
Third objective: identify underlying cognitive processes. Even with a structured method, individual variations persist in the ability to use it effectively. Horowitz therefore seeks to identify the fundamental cognitive qualities that underlie success in using SIT. The ultimate objective is to develop cognitive training programmes mentally preparing users.
The scientific rigour of this thesis relies on empirical validation at three levels, structured in six methodically organised chapters.
Theoretical validation through case analysis. Horowitz examines several dozen real engineering problems and their solutions (coming notably from patent literature and industrial cases). For each problem, he compares routine solutions with solutions judged inventive by experts. This comparative analysis reveals recurring patterns in inventive solutions, leading to the formulation of the two sufficient conditions.
Empirical validation through experimental testing. A controlled study demonstrates that solutions satisfying both conditions are statistically judged more creative by independent experts. Simultaneously, the effectiveness of the SIT method is tested via training: participants show significant improvement in their ability to generate inventive solutions after only a few hours of learning.
Psychological validation via the meaning system. Horowitz uses the theoretical framework developed by Kreitler and Kreitler, which allows identifying the cognitive processes favoured by an individual through their meaning attribution system. Tests reveal significant differences between high-performing and low-performing SIT users, confirming the existence of specific cognitive processes underlying inventive thinking.
Horowitz's starting point is a thorough critical analysis of TRIZ, the method developed by Genrich Altshuller from the 1940s. Altshuller had analysed over 200,000 patents to identify recurring patterns in inventive solutions, resulting in a complex system comprising:
Although powerful, this complexity makes TRIZ difficult to apply in practice. Horowitz cites the revealing example of Valeo Engine Cooling which tested TRIZ and the TechOptimizer software for over 600 hours, concluding that the tools were "too heavy". This experience illustrates the gap between TRIZ's theoretical richness and its real practicability.
Horowitz's contribution consists of extracting the universal essence of TRIZ by asking: what do the most elegant solutions analysed by Altshuller have in common? This inductive approach leads to the identification of two simple, universal and teachable sufficient conditions, capturing the spirit of TRIZ without its operational complexity.
The creation of ASIT rests on a fundamental observation by Horowitz: by analysing the most elegant solutions from patents studied by Altshuller, a recurring pattern emerges. These solutions do not consist of adding new types of objects to the system, but of using differently the resources already present. They do not fight against the problem by force, but transform the very cause of the problem into a solution.
This observation leads Horowitz to formulate the hypothesis that two simple conditions could characterise a large subset of inventive solutions, making TRIZ's complexity superfluous. Where TRIZ proposes 40 inventive principles to memorise and a contradiction matrix to index them, ASIT reduces learning to understanding two universal concepts.
The contrast is striking: while TRIZ training requires hundreds of hours (the Valeo example cites 600 hours), the SIT method developed by Horowitz can be taught in a few hours. This drastic complexity reduction does not come at the expense of effectiveness, as empirical tests demonstrate: participants trained in SIT generate significantly more inventive solutions than before.
Horowitz identifies two sufficient conditions that, when simultaneously satisfied, characterise an inventive solution:
1. The Closed World Condition: An inventive solution does not introduce new types of objects into the system. It only reuses resources already present in the problem or its immediate environment. This condition aligns with TRIZ principles of ideality ("the ideal system is when there is no system") and resource utilisation, but simplifies them considerably.
The Closed World is not an arbitrary constraint but an observed characteristic of solutions judged most elegant. It also explains why these solutions often evoke the reaction "Why didn't I think of that sooner?": all necessary elements were already present, only their combination was non-obvious.
2. The Qualitative Change Condition: An inventive solution uses or cancels the very cause of the problem to resolve it. This condition allows "breaking" the contradictions that TRIZ seeks to resolve, but in a more direct and accessible way. Instead of fighting against the problem, one transforms it qualitatively.
Horowitz illustrates these two conditions with the now-famous radio antenna example: An antenna in a region with harsh winters accumulates snow that, when freezing, becomes so heavy it risks breaking the antenna. Conventional solutions violate the Closed World: adding a heating system, installing a protective shield, reinforcing the structure with more material. The inventive solution satisfying both conditions: design the antenna so that accumulated ice reinforces its mechanical structure. The snow, cause of the problem, becomes the solution. No new object is added (Closed World). The problem is transformed qualitatively (Qualitative Change).
From the two fundamental conditions naturally emerge five operational tools that concretely guide the search for inventive solutions. Horowitz shows that these tools are not arbitrary but logically derive from the conditions: each tool represents a systematic way to simultaneously satisfy the Closed World and Qualitative Change.
The thesis details the logic of these tools and their integration into the SIT method. Since this foundational thesis, SolidCreativity has evolved the method with significant operational developments, adapting and refining these tools for various practical applications beyond the initial technical engineering.
The validation of sufficient conditions relies on a rigorous methodology combining two parallel studies. In the first, experts evaluate the creativity of solutions to various engineering problems on a scale of 1 to 5. In the second, independent evaluators determine whether these same solutions satisfy or not the two sufficient conditions. Integrating the results reveals a significant correlation: solutions satisfying both conditions systematically obtain high creativity scores.
Even more remarkably, the validation of SIT method effectiveness shows measurable results. Before training, participants mainly generate routine solutions. After a few hours of SIT learning, the distribution of solutions shifts significantly towards solutions satisfying the sufficient conditions and judged inventive by experts. This quantifiable improvement demonstrates that inventive creativity is not solely an innate gift but can be developed through a structured method.
Psychological validation via Kreitler's meaning system identifies the cognitive processes that distinguish high-performing SIT users. Results show significant differences in the use of certain meaning dimensions and types of cognitive relations. This discovery opens the way to targeted cognitive training programmes, reinforcing the mental processes underlying inventive thinking.
The major contribution of this thesis is demonstrating that it is possible to drastically reduce TRIZ complexity while maintaining its effectiveness. Moving from 40 inventive principles, 76 standards, a contradiction matrix and 1000 catalogued effects to only 2 universal conditions represents a radical simplification.
This simplification is not an impoverishing vulgarisation but a distillation of the essence. Horowitz shows that the two sufficient conditions capture the core of what makes a solution inventive in the majority of cases studied by Altshuller. The 40 TRIZ principles can be seen as specific instantiations of the two more general ASIT conditions.
The practical impact is considerable: where TRIZ learning requires hundreds of hours and expert accompaniment, ASIT becomes accessible in a few hours of training. This democratisation of inventive creativity responds to the initial objective: broadening the circle of engineers capable of generating inventive solutions, rather than reserving this capacity for a few highly trained TRIZ specialists.
Beyond operational simplification, Horowitz brings rigorous scientific foundations to ASIT. The triple validation (theoretical, empirical, psychological) gives the method an academic credibility rare in the field of creativity methods.
Psychological validation via Kreitler and Kreitler's meaning system is particularly innovative. By identifying the cognitive processes underlying effective SIT use, Horowitz shows that the method is not just a set of mechanical rules but relies on specific mental processes. These processes, once identified, can be reinforced by targeted training.
This approach opens a fascinating perspective: inventive creativity can be developed not only by learning a method, but also by reinforcing the cognitive processes that underlie it. Horowitz thus suggests a two-stage training: first preparatory cognitive training (pre-SIT training) reinforcing relevant meaning dimensions and relation types, then learning the SIT method itself.
In chapter 6 devoted to future research perspectives, Horowitz explicitly identifies extending ASIT to other domains as a promising path. He mentions notably: management, strategic planning, marketing, advertising, and new product development.
Horowitz nevertheless recognises the main difficulty: "The main difficulty in applying the sufficient conditions framework to these new domains will be formulating the Closed World Condition." In engineering, defining system boundaries and identifying component objects is relatively straightforward. In more abstract domains like marketing or strategy, this delimitation becomes more complex.
Questioned about this difficulty foreseen by Horowitz (formulating the Closed World outside engineering), SolidCreativity confirmed that this concern proved surmountable. The works of Takahara (2003), Tyl (2011), Maume (2016) as well as SolidCreativity's field experience have since demonstrated ASIT's applicability beyond technology and established modalities for composing closed worlds for management, strategy, services and business model innovation via ASIT-BIM and ecoASIT notably.
Despite this recognised difficulty, Horowitz expresses confidence in extending ASIT: "A future research subject could be extending the theory to other fields". This intuition proved prophetic, as evidenced by subsequent developments.
Author : Roni Horowitz
Title : Creative Problem Solving in Engineering Design
Type : Doctoral thesis (Doctor of Philosophy)
University : Tel-Aviv University
Supervisor : Prof. Oded Maimon
Advisor : Prof. Shulamith Kreitler
Submission date : May 1999
Number of pages : 150 pages (+ appendices)
Language : English
Keywords : ASIT, SIT, TRIZ, creativity, engineering, Closed World, Qualitative Change, invention, sufficient conditions, problem solving
Access to complete document (PDF) : https://www.asit.pro/publication/Creative%20Problem%20Solving%20in%20Engineering%20Design,%20thesis%20by%20Roni%20Horowitz.pdf
The complete document (150 pages) is available for free download on ASIT.pro. For any academic citation, please refer to this source document.
The extensions mentioned by Horowitz in chapter 6 of his thesis (applications to management, marketing, strategic planning and other non-technical domains) have since been largely covered by SolidCreativity works as well as several international scientific researches. These developments confirm the relevance of Horowitz's intuitions about ASIT's potential beyond technical engineering.
The difficulty identified by Horowitz concerning formulating the Closed World in non-technical contexts has been progressively overcome. Theses like those of Tyl (2011) for eco-innovation, Maume (2016) for business strategy, and field experience accumulated by SolidCreativity have demonstrated the universal applicability of ASIT's founding principles.
This foundational thesis established ASIT's scientific foundations. Discover how to concretely apply this method.