Initial commit

skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/evaluators/rubric_morphological_analysis_triz.json

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+{
+  "name": "Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Evaluator",
+  "description": "Evaluate systematic innovation work using morphological analysis (parameter-option exploration) and TRIZ (contradiction resolution). Assess completeness, rigor, inventiveness, and feasibility of solutions.",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "name": "Parameter Selection (Morphological)",
+      "description": "Evaluates quality of parameters chosen for morphological box - independence, completeness, essentiality",
+      "weight": 1.1,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "Poor parameter selection",
+          "description": "Parameters are dependent (choosing one forces another), redundant, or missing critical dimensions. <3 parameters or >7 parameters making analysis unmanageable."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Weak parameters",
+          "description": "Some parameters are reasonable but significant dependencies exist, or key dimensions are missing. 3-7 parameters but some are trivial or redundant."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Acceptable parameters",
+          "description": "3-7 parameters that are mostly independent and cover major dimensions. Some minor dependencies or missing dimensions acceptable. Parameters are relevant to problem."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Good parameters",
+          "description": "3-7 parameters that are independent, essential (each meaningfully affects solution), and collectively cover solution space. Clear rationale for each parameter. Minor gaps acceptable."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Excellent parameters",
+          "description": "3-7 parameters that are provably independent (changing one doesn't force changes in others), essential (each significantly affects objectives), complete (cover all major dimensions), with clear justification for inclusion/exclusion. Optimal granularity."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Option Generation (Morphological)",
+      "description": "Evaluates quality and completeness of options listed for each parameter",
+      "weight": 1.0,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "Inadequate options",
+          "description": "Only 1 option per parameter (no alternatives), or options are not mutually exclusive (overlap significantly), or critical options missing."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Limited options",
+          "description": "2-5 options per parameter but missing obvious alternatives, or options are too similar, or some overlap. Range is narrow."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Reasonable options",
+          "description": "2-5 options per parameter covering reasonable range. Options are mostly distinct and mutually exclusive. May miss some edge cases or innovative options."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Comprehensive options",
+          "description": "2-5 well-chosen options per parameter covering full practical range. Options are distinct, mutually exclusive, and include current state plus alternatives. Good mix of conventional and novel."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Optimal options",
+          "description": "2-5 options per parameter that span the design space optimally - not too narrow (missing possibilities) or too broad (impractical). Includes creative/non-obvious options. Clear rationale for each option and why range is appropriate."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Configuration Evaluation (Morphological)",
+      "description": "Evaluates how well promising configurations were identified and evaluated from morphological box",
+      "weight": 1.0,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "No evaluation",
+          "description": "Morphological box created but no configurations generated or evaluated. Just lists parameters without exploring combinations."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Minimal evaluation",
+          "description": "1-2 configurations identified without clear rationale. No systematic exploration or comparison. Feasibility not assessed."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Basic evaluation",
+          "description": "3-5 configurations identified with some reasoning. Basic feasibility check and pros/cons listed. Comparison is qualitative only."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Systematic evaluation",
+          "description": "5-10 promising configurations identified with clear selection criteria. Infeasible combinations eliminated with justification. Configurations scored on key objectives. Top 3-5 selected."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Rigorous evaluation",
+          "description": "Comprehensive exploration with 5-10+ configurations spanning solution space. Systematic scoring matrix with weighted objectives. Infeasible combinations documented with reasons. Clusters of similar configs identified. Clear winner with quantified rationale. Sensitivity analysis performed."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Contradiction Identification (TRIZ)",
+      "description": "Evaluates how clearly and accurately technical contradictions are stated",
+      "weight": 1.2,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "No contradiction identified",
+          "description": "Problem stated but no contradiction identified, or problem is not actually a contradiction (just an optimization or constraint)."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Vague contradiction",
+          "description": "Contradiction mentioned but poorly defined. Unclear which parameters conflict or why. Example: 'need better performance and lower cost' without specificity."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Basic contradiction",
+          "description": "Contradiction stated with improving and worsening parameters identified. Correct format ('improve X worsens Y') but mapping to TRIZ 39 parameters may be imprecise or missing."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Clear contradiction",
+          "description": "Contradiction clearly stated with specific improving and worsening parameters. Correctly mapped to TRIZ 39 parameters. Physical/technical reason for trade-off explained. Verifiable as real contradiction."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Precise contradiction",
+          "description": "Contradiction precisely formulated with quantified parameters (e.g., 'increase strength from X to Y MPa worsens weight from A to B kg'). Correctly mapped to TRIZ parameters. Physical mechanism of trade-off explained. Evidence that traditional approaches require compromise. Multiple contradictions identified and prioritized if applicable."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "TRIZ Principle Application",
+      "description": "Evaluates how effectively TRIZ inventive principles are applied to resolve contradictions",
+      "weight": 1.2,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "No principles applied",
+          "description": "TRIZ principles listed but not applied to specific problem. No solution concepts generated."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Superficial application",
+          "description": "1-2 principles applied literally without adaptation. Solutions are generic or don't actually resolve contradiction. Principles may be inappropriate for this contradiction."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Basic application",
+          "description": "2-3 principles applied with some adaptation to problem. Solution concepts generated but may not fully eliminate trade-off. Principles are from recommended list (contradiction matrix)."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Effective application",
+          "description": "3-4 principles from contradiction matrix applied creatively. Multiple solution concepts per principle. Solutions address contradiction and are technically feasible. Some principles combined for stronger solutions."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Masterful application",
+          "description": "3-5 principles applied with deep adaptation and creativity. Solutions are novel, non-obvious, and fully resolve contradiction (improve A without worsening B, or improve both). Principles combined synergistically. Solutions validated against physical constraints. Evidence that contradiction is eliminated, not just mitigated."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Solution Inventiveness",
+      "description": "Evaluates novelty and creativity of solutions - do they represent true innovation or just conventional approaches?",
+      "weight": 1.1,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "No novelty",
+          "description": "Solutions are existing/obvious approaches. No departure from conventional thinking. Could have been generated without TRIZ."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Minor novelty",
+          "description": "Solutions are mostly conventional with small tweaks. Incremental improvements only. Similar to existing solutions in field."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Moderate novelty",
+          "description": "Solutions combine existing ideas in new ways or adapt proven approaches from other fields. Some inventive steps. May have patentability."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Significant novelty",
+          "description": "Solutions are non-obvious and represent genuine innovation. Apply TRIZ principles in unexpected ways. Likely patentable. Break from conventional approaches in field."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Breakthrough innovation",
+          "description": "Solutions are highly novel, potentially disruptive, opening new possibilities not previously considered. Elegant resolution of contradiction that seems obvious in hindsight but wasn't before. High patent potential. Could redefine category."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Technical Feasibility",
+      "description": "Evaluates whether solutions are actually implementable given current technology and constraints",
+      "weight": 1.0,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "Infeasible",
+          "description": "Solutions violate physical laws, require unavailable technology, or are completely impractical given constraints (cost, time, resources)."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Highly uncertain",
+          "description": "Solutions are theoretically possible but require major breakthroughs or are at edge of current capabilities. Very high risk. Costs/timelines unknown."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Challenging but possible",
+          "description": "Solutions are achievable with current technology but require significant development effort, specialized expertise, or high investment. Risks identified. Feasibility demonstrated for similar problems."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Practical",
+          "description": "Solutions are implementable with available technology and within constraints. Clear path from concept to prototype. Risks are manageable. Similar approaches proven in adjacent fields."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Readily implementable",
+          "description": "Solutions can be implemented quickly with existing technology, materials, and processes. Low technical risk. Clear implementation plan. Costs and timelines estimated. Prototyping straightforward."
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Overall Completeness",
+      "description": "Evaluates whether all necessary components of morphological/TRIZ analysis are present and well-integrated",
+      "weight": 1.0,
+      "scale": {
+        "1": {
+          "label": "Incomplete",
+          "description": "Missing major components (morphological box incomplete, no TRIZ principles applied, no solution concepts, etc.). Analysis cannot be used for decision-making."
+        },
+        "2": {
+          "label": "Partially complete",
+          "description": "Major components present but underdeveloped. Morphological box exists but shallow evaluation. TRIZ principles listed but poorly applied. Limited solution concepts."
+        },
+        "3": {
+          "label": "Mostly complete",
+          "description": "All major components present (parameters, options, configurations, contradictions, principles, solutions) but some lack depth or integration. Can be used for decisions with additional work."
+        },
+        "4": {
+          "label": "Complete",
+          "description": "All components well-developed. Morphological analysis is thorough. TRIZ contradictions clearly stated and principles applied. Multiple solution concepts. Evaluation criteria applied. Integration between MA and TRIZ (if both used). Ready for decision-making."
+        },
+        "5": {
+          "label": "Comprehensive",
+          "description": "Exceptional completeness and integration. Morphological analysis spans full design space systematically. All contradictions identified and addressed with TRIZ. Rich solution concepts (10+). Rigorous evaluation. Clear recommendations with rationale. Documentation enables replication and future refinement. Next steps defined."
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "guidance": {
+    "by_method": {
+      "morphological_only": {
+        "focus": "Emphasize parameter selection, option generation, and configuration evaluation. TRIZ criteria not applicable.",
+        "typical_scores": "Parameter selection and option generation weighted most heavily. Configuration evaluation distinguishes good from excellent.",
+        "common_issues": "Too many or too few parameters, dependent parameters, insufficient option variety, no systematic evaluation"
+      },
+      "triz_only": {
+        "focus": "Emphasize contradiction identification, principle application, and solution inventiveness. Morphological criteria not applicable.",
+        "typical_scores": "Contradiction clarity and principle application are most critical. Inventiveness distinguishes good from excellent.",
+        "common_issues": "Vague contradictions, literal principle application, no adaptation, solutions don't actually resolve contradiction"
+      },
+      "combined_ma_triz": {
+        "focus": "Evaluate both morphological exploration and TRIZ contradiction resolution. Integration between methods is key.",
+        "typical_scores": "All criteria apply. Integration shown by: MA reveals contradictions, TRIZ resolves contradictions in configs.",
+        "common_issues": "Methods used separately without integration, contradictions in configs not addressed, MA too shallow to reveal trade-offs"
+      }
+    },
+    "by_domain": {
+      "physical_product": {
+        "parameter_examples": "Materials, manufacturing method, form factor, power source, control interface",
+        "contradiction_examples": "Strength vs weight, speed vs precision, durability vs cost, capacity vs size",
+        "triz_application": "40 principles apply directly. Use physical fields (mechanical, thermal, electromagnetic).",
+        "feasibility_focus": "Material properties, manufacturing capabilities, physical constraints"
+      },
+      "software_digital": {
+        "parameter_examples": "Architecture, data storage, interface, deployment, authentication",
+        "contradiction_examples": "Speed vs memory, features vs simplicity, security vs usability, scalability vs cost",
+        "triz_application": "Principles are metaphorical. Translate: weight→code size, segmentation→modularization, fields→abstractions.",
+        "feasibility_focus": "Technology stack maturity, development effort, performance characteristics"
+      },
+      "service_process": {
+        "parameter_examples": "Delivery channel, pricing model, timing, customization, support level",
+        "contradiction_examples": "Quality vs throughput, personalization vs efficiency, convenience vs cost, speed vs accuracy",
+        "triz_application": "Highly metaphorical. Substances→people/materials, fields→interactions/information flows.",
+        "feasibility_focus": "Operational capacity, training requirements, cost structure, customer acceptance"
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "common_failure_modes": {
+    "parameters_not_independent": "Choosing option A for parameter 1 forces specific choice in parameter 2. Fix: Redefine parameters or merge dependent ones.",
+    "too_many_parameters": ">7 parameters creates exponential explosion (5^8 = 390,625 configs). Fix: Combine or eliminate less critical parameters.",
+    "options_overlap": "Options are not mutually exclusive (e.g., 'small', 'medium-small', 'medium'). Fix: Define clear boundaries or use different parameter.",
+    "no_evaluation": "Morphological box created but no configurations explored. Fix: Generate 5-10 promising combinations and evaluate.",
+    "contradiction_not_real": "Stated contradiction is actually budget/political constraint, not physical/technical. Fix: Verify improving A truly worsens B with current approaches.",
+    "principles_not_adapted": "TRIZ principles applied literally without translation to problem context. Fix: Use principles as metaphors, adapt creatively.",
+    "solution_doesnt_resolve": "Solution concept doesn't actually eliminate trade-off, just shifts it. Fix: Verify both parameters improve (or one improves with no worsening).",
+    "unfeasible_solutions": "Creative solutions that violate constraints or require impossible technology. Fix: Ground-truth against current capabilities."
+  },
+  "excellence_indicators": [
+    "Parameters are provably independent (tested by varying one while holding others constant)",
+    "Options span full practical design space without gaps or excessive breadth",
+    "10+ configurations evaluated systematically with scored comparison matrix",
+    "Contradictions are quantified (specific values for improving/worsening parameters)",
+    "3-5 TRIZ principles applied with multiple creative adaptations per principle",
+    "Solutions are non-obvious, patentable, and demonstrably resolve contradictions",
+    "Feasibility validated through analysis or analogous examples from other fields",
+    "Integration between methods: morphological analysis identifies contradictions, TRIZ resolves them",
+    "Clear recommendations with ranked alternatives and implementation roadmap",
+    "Documentation enables replication and extension by others"
+  ],
+  "evaluation_notes": {
+    "scoring": "Calculate weighted average across applicable criteria. For morphological-only, exclude TRIZ criteria. For TRIZ-only, exclude morphological criteria. Minimum passing score: 3.0 (basic quality). Production-ready target: 3.5+. Excellence threshold: 4.2+.",
+    "context": "Adjust expectations based on problem complexity and domain. Physical products should score higher on feasibility (proven physics). Software/services may score lower on feasibility (unproven approaches acceptable). Breakthrough innovations may score lower on feasibility but higher on inventiveness.",
+    "iteration": "Low scores indicate specific improvement areas. Prioritize fixing contradiction clarity and parameter independence first (highest impact). Then improve principle application and evaluation rigor. Iterate based on prototyping/testing results."
+  }
+}

skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/methodology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,477 @@
+# Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Methodology
+
+## Table of Contents
+1. [Trends of Technical Evolution](#1-trends-of-technical-evolution)
+2. [Substance-Field Analysis](#2-substance-field-analysis)
+3. [ARIZ Algorithm](#3-ariz-algorithm)
+4. [Combining Morphological Analysis + TRIZ](#4-combining-morphological-analysis--triz)
+5. [Multi-Contradiction Problems](#5-multi-contradiction-problems)
+6. [TRIZ for Software & Services](#6-triz-for-software--services)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Trends of Technical Evolution
+
+### Concept
+Technical systems evolve along predictable patterns. Understanding these trends helps predict future states and design next-generation solutions.
+
+### 8 Key Trends
+
+**Trend 1: Mono-Bi-Poly (Increasing Complexity Then Simplification)**
+- Mono: Single system
+- Bi: System + counteracting system
+- Poly: Multiple interacting systems
+- Then: Integration/simplification
+
+**Example:**
+- Mono: Manual transmission (single system)
+- Bi: Manual + automatic (two options)
+- Poly: CVT, dual-clutch, automated manual (many variants)
+- Integration: Seamless hybrid transmission
+
+**Application:** If stuck at Bi-Poly stage, look for integration opportunities
+
+**Trend 2: Transition to Micro-Level**
+- Macro → Meso → Micro → Nano
+- System operates at smaller scales over time
+
+**Example:**
+- Macro: Room air conditioner
+- Meso: Window unit
+- Micro: Personal cooling device
+- Nano: Fabric with cooling nanoparticles
+
+**Application:** Can your solution work at smaller scale?
+
+**Trend 3: Increasing Dynamism & Controllability**
+- Fixed → Adjustable → Adaptive → Self-regulating
+
+**Example:**
+- Fixed: Solid chair
+- Adjustable: Height-adjustable chair
+- Adaptive: Chair that conforms to posture
+- Self-regulating: Chair that actively prevents back pain
+
+**Application:** Add adjustability, then feedback control, then autonomous adaptation
+
+**Trend 4: Increasing Ideality (IFR - Ideal Final Result)**
+- System delivers more benefits with fewer costs and harms
+- Ultimate: All benefits, no cost/harm (ideal is unattainable but directional)
+
+**Formula:** Ideality = Σ(Benefits) / [Σ(Costs) + Σ(Harms)]
+
+**Application:** Systematically increase numerator (add benefits) and decrease denominator (remove costs/harms)
+
+**Trend 5: Non-Uniform Development**
+- Different parts evolve at different rates → contradictions emerge
+- Advanced subsystem bottlenecked by primitive subsystem
+
+**Example:** High-performance engine limited by weak transmission
+
+**Application:** Identify lagging subsystems and bring them to parity
+
+**Trend 6: Transition to Super-System**
+- Individual system → System + complementary systems → Integrated super-system
+
+**Example:**
+- Computer alone
+- Computer + printer + scanner (separate)
+- All-in-one device (integrated super-system)
+
+**Application:** What complementary systems can be integrated?
+
+**Trend 7: Matching/Mismatching**
+- Matching: All parts work in coordination (efficiency)
+- Mismatching: Deliberate asymmetry for specific function
+
+**Example:** Matched: All wheels same size (car). Mismatched: Different front/rear tires (drag racer)
+
+**Application:** Sometimes deliberate mismatch creates new capabilities
+
+**Trend 8: Increasing Use of Fields**
+- Mechanical → Thermal → Chemical → Electric → Magnetic → Electromagnetic
+
+**Example:**
+- Mechanical: Manual saw
+- Thermal: Hot wire cutter
+- Electric: Powered saw
+- Magnetic: Magnetic coupling
+- Electromagnetic: Laser cutter
+
+**Application:** Can you replace mechanical action with a "higher" field?
+
+### How to Apply Trends
+
+**Step 1:** Identify where current system is on each trend
+**Step 2:** Predict next stage in evolution
+**Step 3:** Design solution that leapfrogs to next stage
+**Step 4:** Look for contradictions that arise and resolve with TRIZ principles
+
+---
+
+## 2. Substance-Field Analysis
+
+### Concept
+Model systems as interactions between substances (S1, S2) and fields (F) to identify incomplete or harmful models and transform them.
+
+### Basic Model: S1 - F - S2
+- **S1:** Object being acted upon (workpiece, patient, user)
+- **F:** Field providing energy (mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical, magnetic)
+- **S2:** Tool/agent acting on S1 (cutter, heater, medicine, interface)
+
+### Complete vs Incomplete Models
+
+**Incomplete (Doesn't work well):**
+```
+S1 ---- S2   (No field, or field too weak)
+```
+**Solution:** Add or strengthen field
+
+**Complete (Works):**
+```
+S1 <-F-> S2   (Field connects substances effectively)
+```
+
+### 76 Standard Solutions
+
+TRIZ catalogs 76 standard substance-field transformations. Key examples:
+
+**Problem: Incomplete model (S1 and S2 not interacting)**
+- **Solution 1:** Add field F between them
+- **Solution 2:** Replace S2 with more reactive substance S3
+- **Solution 3:** Add substance S3 as intermediary
+
+**Problem: Harmful action (field F causes unwanted effect)**
+- **Solution 1:** Insert substance S3 to block harmful field
+- **Solution 2:** Add field F2 to counteract F1
+- **Solution 3:** Remove or modify S2 to eliminate harmful field
+
+**Problem: Need to detect or measure S1 (invisible, inaccessible)**
+- **Solution 1:** Add marker substance S3 that reveals S1
+- **Solution 2:** Use external field F2 to probe S1
+- **Solution 3:** Transform S1 into S1' that's easier to detect
+
+### Application Example
+
+**Problem:** Need to inspect internal pipe for cracks (S1 = pipe, can't see inside)
+
+**Substance-field analysis:**
+```
+Current: S1 (pipe) - no effective field - S2 (inspector)
+Incomplete model
+```
+
+**Solutions via standard models:**
+1. Add ferromagnetic particles + magnetic field (field F reveals cracks)
+2. Add ultrasonic field (detect reflection changes at cracks)
+3. Add pressurized dye penetrant (substance S3 reveals cracks)
+
+**Selected:** Magnetic particle inspection (proven technique)
+
+---
+
+## 3. ARIZ Algorithm
+
+### Concept
+ARIZ (Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving) is systematic step-by-step process for complex problems where contradiction isn't obvious.
+
+### ARIZ Steps (Simplified)
+
+**Step 1: Problem Formulation**
+- State problem as given
+- Identify ultimate goal
+- List available resources (time, space, substances, fields, information)
+
+**Step 2: Mini-Problem**
+- Define "ideal final result" (IFR): system achieves goal with minimal change
+- Formulate mini-problem: "Element X, using available resources, must provide [desired effect] without [harmful effect]"
+
+**Step 3: Physical Contradiction**
+- Identify conflicting requirements on single element
+- Example: "Element must be hard (for strength) AND soft (for flexibility)"
+
+**Step 4: Separate Contradictions**
+Four separation principles:
+- **In space:** Hard in one location, soft in another
+- **In time:** Hard during use, soft during installation
+- **Upon condition:** Hard under load, soft when relaxed
+- **Between system levels:** Hard at macro level, soft at micro level
+
+**Step 5: Application of Resources**
+- What substances are available? (in system, nearby, environment, products/derivatives)
+- What fields are available? (waste heat, vibration, gravity, pressure)
+- How can cheap/free resources substitute for expensive ones?
+
+**Step 6: Apply Substance-Field Model**
+- Model current state
+- Identify incomplete or harmful models
+- Apply standard solutions
+
+**Step 7: Apply TRIZ Principles**
+- If not solved yet, use contradiction matrix
+- Try 2-3 most relevant principles
+
+**Step 8: Analyze Solution**
+- Does it achieve IFR?
+- What new problems arise?
+- Can solution be generalized to other domains?
+
+### ARIZ Example (Abbreviated)
+
+**Problem:** Bike lock must be strong (resist cutting) but lightweight (portable)
+
+**Step 1:** Goal = secure bike, Resources = lock material, bike frame, environment
+
+**Step 2:** IFR = Lock secures bike without added weight. Mini-problem: Lock, using available resources, must resist cutting without being heavy.
+
+**Step 3:** Physical contradiction - Lock material must be thick/strong (resist cutting) AND thin/light (reduce weight)
+
+**Step 4:** Separation - In space (strong in critical area only), Upon condition (hard when attacked, normal otherwise)
+
+**Step 5:** Resources - Can we use bike frame itself? Environment (anchor to heavy object)?
+
+**Step 6:** Substance-field - Add alarm field (makes cutting detectable even if lock is light)
+
+**Step 7:** TRIZ - Principle #40 (composite materials): Use hardened steel inserts in lightweight frame. Principle #2 (taking out): Secure bike to immovable object, lock just prevents separation.
+
+**Step 8:** Solution - Lightweight cable with selective hardening + alarm. Achieves security without excessive weight.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Combining Morphological Analysis + TRIZ
+
+### When to Combine
+
+**Use case:** Complex system with multiple parameters (morphological) AND contradictions within configurations (TRIZ)
+
+### Process
+
+**Step 1:** Build morphological box for overall system architecture
+
+**Step 2:** Identify promising parameter combinations (3-5 configurations)
+
+**Step 3:** For each configuration, identify embedded contradictions
+- Does this configuration create any trade-offs?
+- Which parameters conflict within this configuration?
+
+**Step 4:** Apply TRIZ to resolve contradictions within each configuration
+- Use TRIZ principles to eliminate trade-offs
+- Improve configurations to be non-compromise solutions
+
+**Step 5:** Re-evaluate configurations now that contradictions are resolved
+- Configurations that were inferior due to contradictions may now be viable
+
+### Example: Designing Portable Speaker
+
+**Morphological Parameters:**
+- Power: Battery | Solar | Wall plug | Hybrid
+- Size: Pocket | Handheld | Tabletop | Floor
+- Audio tech: Mono | Stereo | Surround | Spatial
+- Material: Plastic | Metal | Wood | Fabric
+- Price tier: Budget | Mid | Premium | Luxury
+
+**Configuration 1: Pocket + Battery + Stereo + Plastic + Mid**
+- Contradiction: Pocket size (small) vs Stereo (needs speaker separation for stereo imaging)
+- TRIZ Solution: Principle #17 (another dimension) - Use beamforming or psychoacoustic processing to create virtual stereo from single driver
+
+**Configuration 2: Tabletop + Solar + Surround + Wood + Premium**
+- Contradiction: Solar (needs light, outdoor) vs Wood (damages in weather)
+- TRIZ Solution: Principle #30 (flexible shell) - Protective cover deploys when outdoors, retracts indoors
+
+**Outcome:** Both configurations now viable without compromises
+
+---
+
+## 5. Multi-Contradiction Problems
+
+### Challenge
+Real systems often have multiple contradictions that interact.
+
+### Approach
+
+**Step 1: Map all contradictions**
+```
+Contradiction 1: Improve A → worsens B
+Contradiction 2: Improve C → worsens D
+Contradiction 3: Improve A → worsens D
+...
+```
+
+**Step 2: Identify primary contradiction**
+- Which contradiction, if resolved, eliminates or eases others?
+- Which contradiction is most critical to success?
+
+**Step 3: Resolve primary contradiction first**
+- Apply TRIZ principles
+- Generate solution concepts
+
+**Step 4: Check if resolving primary affects secondary contradictions**
+- Did solution eliminate secondary contradictions?
+- Did solution worsen secondary contradictions?
+
+**Step 5: Resolve remaining contradictions**
+- Apply TRIZ to each remaining contradiction
+- Check for conflicts between solutions
+
+**Step 6: Integrate solutions**
+- Can multiple TRIZ principles be combined?
+- Are there synergies between solutions?
+
+### Example: Electric Vehicle Design
+
+**Contradictions:**
+1. Improve range → worsens cost (large battery expensive)
+2. Improve acceleration → worsens range (high power drains battery)
+3. Improve safety → worsens weight (reinforcement adds mass)
+4. Reduce weight → worsens safety (less structure)
+
+**Primary:** Range vs Cost (most critical for market adoption)
+
+**TRIZ Solutions:**
+- Principle #6 (universality): Battery also serves as structural element (improves range without added weight/cost)
+- Principle #35 (parameter change): Use different battery chemistry (higher energy density)
+
+**Secondary contradictions affected:**
+- Weight reduced (battery is structure) → helps safety-weight contradiction
+- Can now afford stronger materials with weight/cost savings
+
+**Integrated solution:** Structural battery pack with high energy density cells
+
+---
+
+## 6. TRIZ for Software & Services
+
+### Adapting TRIZ to Non-Physical Domains
+
+**Key insight:** TRIZ principles are metaphorical. Translate physical concepts to digital/service equivalents.
+
+### Software-Specific Mappings
+
+| Physical | Software/Digital |
+|----------|------------------|
+| Weight | Code size, memory, latency |
+| Strength | Robustness, security, reliability |
+| Speed | Response time, throughput |
+| Temperature | CPU load, resource utilization |
+| Pressure | User load, traffic |
+| Shape | Architecture, data structure |
+| Material | Technology stack, framework |
+| Segmentation | Modularization, microservices |
+| Merging | Integration, consolidation |
+
+### TRIZ Principles for Software (Examples)
+
+**#1 Segmentation:**
+- Monolith → Microservices
+- Single database → Sharded databases
+- Batch processing → Stream processing
+
+**#2 Taking Out:**
+- Extract auth into separate service
+- Externalize config from code
+- Offload computation to client (edge computing)
+
+**#10 Preliminary Action:**
+- Caching, pre-computation
+- Ahead-of-time compilation
+- Pre-fetch data
+
+**#15 Dynamics:**
+- Adaptive algorithms (change based on load)
+- Auto-scaling infrastructure
+- Dynamic pricing
+
+**#19 Periodic Action:**
+- Polling → Webhooks (event-driven)
+- Batch jobs on schedule
+- Garbage collection intervals
+
+**#23 Feedback:**
+- Monitoring and alerting
+- A/B testing with metrics
+- Auto-tuning parameters
+
+**#28 Mechanics Substitution:**
+- Physical token → Digital certificate
+- Manual process → Automated workflow
+- Paper forms → Digital forms
+
+### Service Design with TRIZ (Examples)
+
+**#1 Segmentation:**
+- Self-service tier + premium support tier
+- Modular service packages (pick what you need)
+
+**#5 Merging:**
+- One-stop shop (multiple services in one visit)
+- Bundled offerings
+
+**#6 Universality:**
+- Staff cross-trained for multiple roles
+- Multi-purpose facilities
+
+**#10 Preliminary Action:**
+- Pre-registration, pre-authorization
+- Prepare materials before appointment
+- Send info in advance (reduce appointment time)
+
+**#24 Intermediary:**
+- Concierge service
+- Service coordinator between specialists
+- Customer success manager
+
+**#25 Self-Service:**
+- Online booking, FAQ, chatbots
+- Self-checkout, automated kiosks
+
+---
+
+## Quick Decision Trees
+
+### "Should I use morphological analysis or TRIZ?"
+
+```
+Do I have clearly defined parameters with discrete options?
+├─ YES → Is there a performance trade-off/contradiction?
+│   ├─ YES → Use both (MA to explore, TRIZ to resolve contradictions)
+│   └─ NO → Use morphological analysis only
+└─ NO → Do I have "improve A worsens B" situation?
+    ├─ YES → Use TRIZ only
+    └─ NO → Neither applies; use other innovation methods
+```
+
+### "Which TRIZ technique should I use?"
+
+```
+Is problem well-defined with clear contradiction?
+├─ YES → Use contradiction matrix + principles (template.md)
+└─ NO → Is problem complex/ambiguous?
+    ├─ YES → Use ARIZ algorithm (Section 3)
+    └─ NO → Model as substance-field (Section 2)
+```
+
+### "How many TRIZ principles should I try?"
+
+```
+Did first principle fully solve contradiction?
+├─ YES → Done, move to evaluation
+└─ NO → Try 2-3 principles recommended by matrix
+    Partial solution?
+    ├─ YES → Combine principles (Section 5)
+    └─ NO → Re-examine contradiction (may be mis-stated)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Summary: When to Use What
+
+| Situation | Method | Section |
+|-----------|--------|---------|
+| **Explore design space systematically** | Morphological Analysis | template.md |
+| **Clear "improve A worsens B" contradiction** | TRIZ Contradiction Matrix | template.md |
+| **Complex problem, unclear contradiction** | ARIZ Algorithm | Section 3 |
+| **Modeling interactions, detecting issues** | Substance-Field Analysis | Section 2 |
+| **Predict future product evolution** | Trends of Evolution | Section 1 |
+| **Multiple related contradictions** | Multi-Contradiction Process | Section 5 |
+| **Software/service innovation** | Adapted TRIZ Principles | Section 6 |
+| **Complex system with trade-offs** | MA + TRIZ Combined | Section 4 |

skills/morphological-analysis-triz/resources/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
+# Morphological Analysis & TRIZ Template
+
+## Quick Start
+
+**For Morphological Analysis:**
+1. Define 3-7 parameters → 2-5 options each → Build matrix → Evaluate combinations
+
+**For TRIZ:**
+1. State contradiction (improve A worsens B) → Look up in matrix → Apply 3-4 recommended principles
+
+**For Both:**
+Use morphological analysis to explore space, TRIZ to resolve contradictions in configurations.
+
+---
+
+## Part 1: Problem Definition
+
+**Problem Statement:** [Clear, specific description]
+
+**Objectives:**
+1. [Primary objective - measurable]
+2. [Secondary objective]
+3. [Tertiary objective]
+
+**Constraints:**
+- Cost: [Budget limit]
+- Size/Weight: [Physical limitations]
+- Time: [Timeline]
+- Materials: [Allowed/prohibited]
+- Performance: [Minimum requirements]
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- [ ] [Measurable criterion 1]
+- [ ] [Measurable criterion 2]
+- [ ] [Measurable criterion 3]
+
+---
+
+## Part 2: Morphological Analysis
+
+### Step 1: Identify 3-7 Independent Parameters
+
+**Parameter 1:** [Name] - [Why essential]
+**Parameter 2:** [Name] - [Why essential]
+**Parameter 3:** [Name] - [Why essential]
+[Continue for 3-7 parameters]
+
+**Independence check:** Can I change Parameter 1 without forcing changes in Parameter 2? (Yes = independent)
+
+### Step 2: List 2-5 Options Per Parameter
+
+**Parameter 1: [Name]**
+- Option A: [Description]
+- Option B: [Description]
+- Option C: [Description]
+[2-5 mutually exclusive options]
+
+[Repeat for all parameters]
+
+### Step 3: Build Morphological Matrix
+
+```
+| Parameter      | Opt 1 | Opt 2 | Opt 3 | Opt 4 | Opt 5 |
+|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
+| [Param 1]      | [A]   | [B]   | [C]   | [D]   | -     |
+| [Param 2]      | [A]   | [B]   | [C]   | -     | -     |
+| [Param 3]      | [A]   | [B]   | [C]   | [D]   | [E]   |
+
+Total: [N1 × N2 × N3...] = [Total configs]
+```
+
+### Step 4: Generate 5-10 Promising Configurations
+
+**Config 1: [Name]**
+- Parameter 1: [Selected option]
+- Parameter 2: [Selected option]
+- Parameter 3: [Selected option]
+- **Rationale:** [Why promising]
+- **Pros:** [Advantages]
+- **Cons:** [Disadvantages]
+
+[Repeat for 5-10 configurations]
+
+### Step 5: Score and Rank
+
+| Config | Obj 1 | Obj 2 | Obj 3 | Cost | Feasibility | Total | Rank |
+|--------|-------|-------|-------|------|-------------|-------|------|
+| Config 1 | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Sum] | [#] |
+| Config 2 | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Sum] | [#] |
+
+**Selected:** [Top-ranked configuration]
+
+---
+
+## Part 3: TRIZ Contradiction Resolution
+
+### Step 1: State Contradiction
+
+**Improving Parameter:** [What we want to increase]
+- Current: [Value]
+- Desired: [Target]
+
+**Worsening Parameter:** [What degrades when we improve first]
+- Acceptable degradation: [Threshold]
+
+**Contradiction Statement:** "To improve [X], we must worsen [Y], which is unacceptable because [reason]."
+
+### Step 2: Map to TRIZ 39 Parameters
+
+**TRIZ 39 Parameters (Quick Reference):**
+1. Weight of moving object
+2. Weight of stationary object
+3-4. Length (moving/stationary)
+5-6. Area (moving/stationary)
+7-8. Volume (moving/stationary)
+9. Speed
+10. Force
+11. Stress/pressure
+12. Shape
+13. Stability of composition
+14. Strength
+15-16. Duration of action
+17. Temperature
+18. Illumination
+19-20. Energy use
+21. Power
+22-26. Loss of (energy, substance, info, time, quantity)
+27. Reliability
+28-29. Measurement/manufacturing accuracy
+30-31. Harmful factors (external/internal)
+32-34. Ease of (manufacture, operation, repair)
+35. Adaptability
+36. Device complexity
+37. Difficulty of detecting/measuring
+38. Automation
+39. Productivity
+
+**Map your contradiction:**
+- Improving: [Map to one of 39]
+- Worsening: [Map to one of 39]
+
+### Step 3: Lookup Recommended Principles
+
+**From TRIZ Contradiction Matrix:** [Lookup improving × worsening]
+
+**Recommended Principles:** [#N, #M, #P, #Q]
+
+**40 Inventive Principles (Brief):**
+1. Segmentation - Divide into parts
+2. Taking Out - Remove disturbing element
+3. Local Quality - Different parts, different functions
+4. Asymmetry - Use asymmetric forms
+5. Merging - Combine similar objects
+6. Universality - Multi-function
+7. Nesting - Matryoshka dolls
+8. Anti-Weight - Counterbalance
+9. Preliminary Anti-Action - Pre-stress
+10. Preliminary Action - Prepare in advance
+11. Beforehand Cushioning - Emergency measures
+12. Equipotentiality - Eliminate lifting/lowering
+13. The Other Way - Invert
+14. Spheroidality - Use curves
+15. Dynamics - Make adaptable
+16. Partial/Excessive - Go over/under optimal
+17. Another Dimension - Use 3D, layers
+18. Mechanical Vibration - Use oscillation
+19. Periodic Action - Pulsed vs continuous
+20. Continuity - Eliminate idle time
+21. Rushing Through - High speed reduces harm
+22. Blessing in Disguise - Use harm for benefit
+23. Feedback - Introduce adjustment
+24. Intermediary - Use intermediate object
+25. Self-Service - Object services itself
+26. Copying - Use cheap copy
+27. Cheap Short-Living - Replace expensive with many cheap
+28. Mechanics Substitution - Use fields instead
+29. Pneumatics/Hydraulics - Use gas/liquid
+30. Flexible Shells - Use membranes
+31. Porous Materials - Make porous
+32. Color Changes - Change color/transparency
+33. Homogeneity - Same material
+34. Discarding/Recovering - Discard after use
+35. Parameter Changes - Change physical state
+36. Phase Transitions - Use phenomena during transition
+37. Thermal Expansion - Use expansion/contraction
+38. Strong Oxidants - Enrich atmosphere
+39. Inert Atmosphere - Use inert environment
+40. Composite Materials - Change to composite
+
+**For detailed principle examples, see [methodology.md](methodology.md).**
+
+### Step 4: Apply Principles
+
+**Principle #[N]: [Name]**
+- **How to apply:** [Specific adaptation to problem]
+- **Resolves contradiction:** [Explain how]
+- **Feasibility:** [High/Medium/Low]
+
+[Repeat for 3-4 principles]
+
+### Step 5: Combine Principles (Optional)
+
+**Combined Solution:**
+- **Principles:** [#N + #M]
+- **Synergy:** [How they work together]
+- **Result:** [Concrete design concept]
+
+---
+
+## Part 4: Output Format
+
+Create `morphological-analysis-triz.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# [Problem Name]: Systematic Innovation
+
+**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
+
+## Problem
+[Problem statement, objectives, constraints]
+
+## Morphological Analysis (if used)
+
+### Matrix
+[Parameter-option table]
+
+### Top Configurations
+1. [Config name]: [Parameters] - Rationale: [Why] - Score: [X]
+2. [Config name]: [Parameters] - Rationale: [Why] - Score: [Y]
+
+## TRIZ Analysis (if used)
+
+### Contradiction
+Improve [X] → Worsens [Y]
+
+### Applied Principles
+- Principle #[N] ([Name]): [Application] → [Result]
+- Principle #[M] ([Name]): [Application] → [Result]
+
+### Solution Concepts
+1. **[Concept name]:** [Description] - Pros: [X] - Cons: [Y]
+2. **[Concept name]:** [Description] - Pros: [X] - Cons: [Y]
+
+## Recommendation
+**Primary Solution:** [Name]
+- Description: [What it is]
+- Why: [Rationale]
+- Next Steps: [Actions]
+
+**Alternative:** [Name] (if primary fails/too risky)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quick Examples
+
+**Morphological Analysis (Lamp Design):**
+```
+Parameters: Power (battery/wall/solar), Light (LED/halogen), Control (switch/app/voice), Size (desk/floor/wall)
+Total: 3 × 2 × 3 × 3 = 54 configurations
+Promising: Battery + LED + App + Desk (portable smart lamp)
+```
+
+**TRIZ (Electric Vehicle):**
+```
+Contradiction: Increase range → worsens cost (large battery expensive)
+Principles: #6 (Universality - battery is structure), #35 (Parameter change - different chemistry)
+Solution: Structural battery pack with high energy density cells
+```
+
+**Combined MA + TRIZ:**
+```
+1. Build morphological box → Find promising configurations
+2. Identify contradictions in top configs
+3. Apply TRIZ to eliminate trade-offs
+4. Re-evaluate configs with contradictions resolved
+```
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+**Morphological Analysis:**
+- Keep 3-7 parameters (too many = explosion)
+- Ensure independence (changing one doesn't force another)
+- Don't enumerate all combinations (focus on promising clusters)
+
+**TRIZ:**
+- Verify real contradiction (not just budget constraint)
+- Adapt principles creatively (metaphorical, not literal)
+- Combine multiple principles for stronger solutions
+- Check for new contradictions introduced by solution
+
+**For advanced techniques:**
+- Trends of evolution → See methodology.md Section 1
+- Substance-field analysis → See methodology.md Section 2
+- ARIZ algorithm → See methodology.md Section 3
+- Detailed principle examples → See methodology.md Section 4