04 — Comparison and when to use which

❓ Given the same afternoon and the same problem, which method should a team run?
Which method?

Side-by-side map

Dimension	SCAMPER	SIT	TRIZ
Origin	Osborn checklist → Eberle 1971	Israel mid-1990s from TRIZ	Altshuller from 1946 (USSR)
Core move	Seven prompt axes on an anchor	Five templates inside Closed World	Resolve contradictions via inventive patterns
Resource rule	Open world OK	Closed World preferred	Prefer existing resources / ideality; broader toolkit
Typical unit	Product, process, lesson, campaign	Component/attribute system	Technical (or abstracted) contradiction
Learning curve	Minutes	Days of practice	Weeks to months for depth
Cognitive load	Low	Medium	High
Best first win	Inclusive workshop divergence	Non-obvious product/service concepts from nearby resources	Stubborn engineering / system conflicts
Failure mode	Shallow novelty theater	Incrementalism / wrong system boundary	Cargo-cult matrix lookup; tool overload
Facilitation need	Low–medium	Medium	Medium–high (expert helpful)

Decision rule (practical)

❓ Is there a simple chooser that is still honest?

Use this ordered test:

Is the pain a sharp technical contradiction (improving A clearly breaks B) in a complex engineered or socio-technical system?
→ Start TRIZ (or hire TRIZ-literate help). Light version: IFR + contradiction + a short principles pass before full ARIZ.
Do you already have a product/service system and need inventive variants without adding a junk drawer of new parts?
→ Run SIT (Closed World inventory → five tools → virtual products → need filter).
Do you need fast, inclusive coverage of transformation axes with mixed audiences?
→ Run SCAMPER, then ruthlessly filter.
Unsure / mixed team / education setting?
→ SCAMPER first hour, promote the best structural ideas into SIT tools for a second hour. Escalate residual hard conflicts to TRIZ.

Sequencing beats monogamy

❓ Must an organization pick a single religion of innovation?

No. A defensible pipeline:

Frame problem & success metric
        ↓
SCAMPER (breadth, inclusion)
        ↓
SIT Closed World pass (depth on shortlist systems)
        ↓
TRIZ contradiction pass (only where trade-offs block value)
        ↓
Evidence filters (users, tech, economics, risk)
        ↓
Experiments / prototypes

Design Thinking, Lean Startup, and stage-gate processes are containers; SCAMPER/SIT/TRIZ are ideation engines that plug into the ideate/build hypotheses stages. They do not replace empathy research or market tests.

Sibling methods (orientation only)

❓ What nearby names will appear in search results?

Name	Relation
ASIT	Another simplified inventive-thinking descendant of TRIZ; often compared with SIT
USIT	Unified Structured Inventive Thinking — structured engineering-oriented simplification related to the SIT/TRIZ family
Synectics / lateral thinking	Different creativity traditions; more associative than patent-pattern
Design Thinking	Human-centered process umbrella; weak native contradiction tools; often paired with SCAMPER
Liberating Structures “TRIZ”	Name collision; not classical TRIZ

Same object, three lenses (bicycle)

❓ How do the methods feel different on one familiar product?

SCAMPER: Substitute belt for chain; combine with cargo platform; adapt motorcycle lighting; modify wheel size; put frame to gym use; eliminate gears; reverse pedaling logic.

SIT:
- Subtraction — remove seat → standing / balance concepts.
- Task unification — wheels generate power for lights.
- Attribute dependency — assist level depends on heart rate or slope.
Closed World keeps solutions near bike + rider + road.

TRIZ: Contradiction — lighter frame vs strength/safety. Principles might suggest composite materials, segmentation, local quality (reinforce only high-stress zones), dynamization (geometry changes with load). IFR: protection and stiffness appear only when needed, mass otherwise vanishes.

The bicycle does not “prefer” a method; the problem type does.

Organizational chooser matrix

Situation	Prefer
School / intro workshop	SCAMPER
Marketing campaign refresh	SCAMPER → SIT
Physical or digital product NPD	SIT
Cost-down without killing function	SIT Subtraction + TRIZ ideality
Safety-critical mechanical conflict	TRIZ
Software latency vs feature richness	TRIZ-style contradiction (translated) + SIT task unification
Executive offsite “energy”	SCAMPER (with explicit filter time)
Patent-oriented R&D culture	TRIZ
AI-assisted ideation	All three as prompt scaffolds (see 05)

Metric: did the method help?

❓ How do you know it was not just sticky-note theater?

Track a small set:

Novelty to the team (blinded peer rating vs baseline brainstorm).
Closed-world compliance (for SIT): % of concepts using only listed resources.
Contradiction removal rate (for TRIZ): concepts that claim to dissolve A-vs-B, validated by engineering review.
Advance rate: concepts that enter experiment backlog within 30 days.
Kill rate with learning: discarded concepts that still changed the brief.

If none of these move versus a time-matched control workshop, the method is costume jewelry.

← SCAMPER Mechanisms & AI →