Systematic Inventive Thinking
|A to Z of |
| Next |
Historically, both Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT) and TRIZ, like all methods derived from the original ARIZ, descend from the pioneering work of Genrich Altschuller. They all share a basic underlying assumption - that innovative solutions share common patterns, that these patterns can be translated into a set of Thinking Tools, and that we can use these Tools to generate new creative ideas. But in spite of their common heritage, SIT is quite different from TRIZ in several crucial ways, especially in terms of practical application. These are some differences between the methods:
- SIT uses a minimal set of tools, principles, and guidelines. There are six basic principles and five thinking tools (plus two more for MarCom and Advertising), versus the dozens or at times hundreds in TRIZ-based methods. Thus, SIT is much simpler to learn and use. SIT's steamlined structure shortens the path to a desired result, and significantly reduces training time, including training of trainers.
- SIT's toolbox is more compact and streamlined, because SIT is a pure thinking method. We're able to use the same tools in nearly unlimited areas, without recourse to a database of any kind (versus the large data base of effects and examples in TRIZ).
- SIT is applicable to a variety of fields, and is not limited by a set of examples within one domain, the method has been applied to a wide range of areas: New Product Development, Problem Solving, Marketing Communications, Advertising, Strategy, and Conflict Resolution. SIT has been proven successful for products and services, and as a method for enhancing organizations' overall innovative abilities.