Substance Field.
The innovation molecule.
--
I created a game. A puzzle.
It’s currently an experiment. A true minimum viable product designed to test the reaction of you, the puzzle playing public.
Imagine a vast molecule with complex interacting parts. A chain of active DNA describing an organism that interacts with the world. A molecule that transforms everything that it touches.
Imagine that this molecule is not the result of a biological process nor describes any physical chemistry. This molecule was made by human hands and describes the components of a vast machine. Any machine.
This was the dream of Russian engineer, inventor and writer Genrikh Altshuller (1926–1998). Altshuller created his Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) within which the language of this molecule for invention can be found.
This symbolic language he called the Substance-Field. An interconnected network of substances employ their physical characteristics, or fields, to transform the properties of their neighbours.
With a symbolic language to describe the internal mechanism of a machine, it could be joined with other machines to describe larger, more complex systems.
With such a molecule, perhaps we could do more than describe machines. Systems of interconnected function might act as reagents or catalysts to transform another mechanism, much like the molecules of chemistry and biology.
With the right language could this symbology solve problems?
Altshuller created a catalogue of options that could transform an existing system into a more optimal, more elegant alternative.
Now, if you’re looking to solve this puzzle, I’m nearly finished it, but need testers. If you use an Android phone and are willing to give me a hand, drop your gmail address in the comments, or send me a message. Thanks.
If you are an iPhone user, feel free to complain bitterly in the comments, and I’ll see what I can do.
How does the Substance-Field work?
Consider how language describes the interaction between two objects. We have a subject acting upon an object through some action.
A subject acts upon an object. A nail is transformed by the hammer, as it is driven into a material.
But how does the hammer drive the nail? What property does the hammer possess? The momentum of the hammer drives the nail. If we add this momentum, our diagram becomes a triangle.
This interaction is not always positive. If the hammer was not sufficiently powerful to drive the nail, we could indicate this failure with a broken line.
If the hammer was harmful to the nail, we indicate this with a wiggly, or zig zagged line.
With these few tools we could use these symbols to describe a complete system.
Imagine this language used to describe every single interaction within a complex machine, such as a rocket or an aircraft. Thousands of objects transforming the function of thousands of others, in one huge network of interactions.
If you could create a symbolic language that describes this whole system, could smaller molecules represent solutions to problems within this vast machine?
A solution molecule
Consider a substance that is not strong enough to transform another. We might represent it like this.
Perhaps we could amplify this effect with another substance that acts upon this weak player.
Or perhaps this substance is acted upon by this weak player, to transform the first directly.
Or maybe this new substance acts upon the first to make it more sensitive to the second.
Or perhaps this third substance directly enhances the field property of the weak player.
Or perhaps the weak player can influence the field of this new substance, which acts directly upon the first.
With this symbology we can illustrate five different ways in which an intermediate substance can resolve this problem.
This is only a single strategy applied four different ways. Altshuller proposed 76 additional strategies that can be employed to resolve problems within systems described using these symbols.
That’s a huge catalogue of standard, ready-made solutions to inspire you.
A problem
Altshuller succeeded in creating a symbolic language to achieve this molecular problem solving mechanism. At its heart, the Substance Field is simple. When applied, it can get very complicated indeed.
To describe a complex system upon the page with this symbology is very difficult. To recognise where the catalogue of standard solutions might act is harder still.
To understand this mechanism and to practise its operation I required a much simplified version of this symbolic language. To teach Altshuller’s work to others, I needed a practical mechanism to demonstrate its parts and exercise the techniques.
To this end, I created a game.
This game is not the full symbolic language, but perhaps exhibits just enough of its essence to open the door to a wider appreciation of the substance-field. As a result, I named the game after Altshuller’s creation, but the mechanism of this game does not represent Altshuller’s complete work.
To create a working puzzle, the biggest change I made to Altshuller's work was the addition of a resource allocation system. Each substance would be allocated a number that describes not only how much resource it required to function, but also how much resource it could offer to the system.
For example, consider a nail. It must be driven into a plank to function, and once driven will hold planks together. We allocate 2 resources to this nail to describe these needs. From where will it get what it needs?
Perhaps a hammer can offer the impetus required to drive the nail into the wood?
However, the stationary hammer only offers 1 resource to the system. If we get it moving, perhaps this hammer can offer the impetus to drive the nail.
With some momentum the single resource supplied by the hammer doubles, and offers the nail what it requires.
The insufficiency or the harm that a substance can deliver is now represented not only by broken or wiggly arrows, but a lack or excess of resource exchanged between substances.
The system is balanced and the puzzle is complete.
