Prepared: December 26, 2025
Target Vision: Enterprise-grade TRIZ-AI solution
Timeline Horizon: 24 months
Phase 1: MVP Foundation [Q1-Q2 2026] → "Proof of Concept"
Phase 2: Production Ready [Q3-Q4 2026] → "Stable Release"
Phase 3: Market Entry [2027] → "Commercial Launch"
Phase 4: Scale & Expand [2027+] → "Enterprise Platform"
Goal: Complete, working TRIZ pipeline that demonstrates core value proposition
- Deliverable: Implement contradiction matrix lookup algorithm
# Pseudocode def identify_contradiction(parsed_problem): # Map problem text → 39 parameters improving_param = map_to_parameter(parsed_problem.desired_improvement) worsening_param = map_to_parameter(parsed_problem.undesired_consequence) # Look up in contradiction matrix principles = contradiction_matrix[(improving_param, worsening_param)] # Rank by relevance to problem context return sorted(principles, key=relevance_score)
- Tests: 50+ test cases covering all parameter combinations
- Acceptance: Can identify contradictions in 20 reference TRIZ cases
- Deliverable: Intelligent principle selection and ranking
def select_principles(contradiction, problem_context): # Get recommended principles from matrix candidates = get_principles(contradiction) # Score by: # 1. Domain relevance (manufacturing, software, etc.) # 2. Principle complexity (conservative for safety-critical) # 3. Historical success rate (when available) scores = {p: score_principle(p, problem_context) for p in candidates} return sorted(scores.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)
- Tests: Validate against domain experts for 30 test problems
- Acceptance: Top-3 principles match expert recommendations 80%+ of time
- Deliverable: Enrich effects database and enable lookup
- Expand effects_database.json with 100+ scientific effects
- Implement effect → principle cross-reference system
- Add effect domain tags (physics, chemistry, materials, etc.)
- Tests: Validate effects database completeness
- Acceptance: Can retrieve applicable effects for any principle
- Deliverable: Full OpenAI/GPT-4 integration
class OpenAIAdapter(BaseLLMAdapter): def generate(self, prompt, system_prompt=None, max_tokens=2000): response = openai.ChatCompletion.create( model=self.config["model"], messages=[ {"role": "system", "content": system_prompt or self.config["system_prompt"]}, {"role": "user", "content": prompt} ], max_tokens=max_tokens, temperature=self.temperature ) return LLMResponse( content=response.choices[0].message.content, model=response.model, usage=response.usage )
- Features:
- Token counting for cost estimation
- Retry logic with exponential backoff
- Rate limiting handling
- Context window management
- Tests: Mock API calls, validate request/response formats
- Acceptance: Successfully calls OpenAI API and returns structured responses
- Deliverable: Claude API integration
- Identical approach to OpenAI for consistency
- Acceptance: Can switch between providers via config
- Deliverable: Replace template-based generation with LLM prompting
def generate_concepts(self, problem, principles, effects): concepts = [] for principle in principles: prompt = self._build_synthesis_prompt(problem, principle, effects) response = self.llm.generate(prompt, system_prompt=SYNTHESIS_SYSTEM_PROMPT) concept = parse_concept_response(response) concept.principle_justification = principle.description concept.applicable_effects = effects concepts.append(concept) return concepts
- Prompts to create:
synthesis_prompt.txt- Generate solution from principleadvantages_prompt.txt- Identify advantages of approachchallenges_prompt.txt- Identify implementation challengesadaptation_prompt.txt- Adapt to specific constraints
- Tests: Validate prompt quality with sample outputs
- Acceptance: Generated solutions are coherent and actionable
- Deliverable: End-to-end pipeline that produces working solutions
class HeinrichPipeline: def solve(self, problem_text): # Step 1: Parse parsed = self.problem_parser.parse(problem_text) # Step 2: Identify contradictions contradiction = self.contradiction_identifier.identify(parsed) # Step 3: Select principles principles = self.principle_selector.select(contradiction, parsed.context) # Step 4: Lookup effects effects = self.effects_lookup.lookup(principles) # Step 5: Generate concepts concepts = self.concept_generator.generate(parsed, principles, effects) # Step 6: Adapt solutions adapted = self.adaptation_planner.adapt(concepts, parsed.constraints) # Step 7: Build report report = self.report_builder.build(parsed, contradiction, principles, effects, adapted) return report
- Tests: Integration tests with end-to-end execution
- Acceptance: Can run complete analysis on 10 diverse problems
-
Unit Tests: Expand from stubs to comprehensive coverage
- Contradiction identifier: 50+ test cases
- Principle selector: 30+ test cases
- Concept generator: 20+ test cases
- LLM adapters: 40+ test cases
-
Integration Tests: End-to-end pipeline validation
- 20 diverse TRIZ case studies from literature
- Ground truth: Expert-validated solutions
- Success metric: Generated principles match expert top-3 in 80% of cases
-
TRIZ Methodology Tests: Validate TRIZ fidelity
- Contradiction matrix lookup: 100% accuracy
- Principle selection: Matches classical TRIZ recommendations
- Parameter mapping: Correct identification of system elements
-
Create: 10-15 canonical TRIZ problems with expert-validated solutions
- Example: Classical problems from TRIZ literature
- Documentation: Why each principle is appropriate
- Metrics: Scoring rubric for solution quality
-
Use: Regression testing for all future changes
- API Documentation: Auto-generated from code (Sphinx)
- Pipeline Tutorial: Walk-through with example problem
- Architecture Deep-Dive: How each component works
- Contributing Guide: Clear instructions for extending system
- Deployment Guide: Local setup + Docker
✅ Must achieve:
- Complete TRIZ pipeline produces solutions end-to-end
- Golden test suite passes with 80%+ principle selection accuracy
- All core modules have unit tests (>70% coverage)
- LLM integration working with both OpenAI and Anthropic
- Can handle 100+ problems without errors
- Documentation sufficient for developer onboarding
Goal: Robust, deployable, observable system ready for real users
- Global error handler with structured logging
- Circuit breaker for LLM API calls
- Fallback strategies:
- If LLM unavailable: Use rule-based concept generation
- If contradiction not found: Return all 40 principles ranked by domain
- Validation: Validate all inputs, return helpful errors
- Structured logging with correlation IDs
- Metrics collection:
- Pipeline execution time
- LLM token usage (cost tracking)
- Principle selection accuracy (vs. human evaluation)
- User satisfaction (if telemetry enabled)
- Dashboards: Basic health monitoring
- Environment-based config:
# config.yaml llm: provider: openai # or: anthropic, ollama model: gpt-4-turbo temperature: 0.7 max_tokens: 2000 database: type: sqlite # or: postgresql path: ./heinrich.db logging: level: INFO format: json
- Secrets management: Support for .env files and environment variables
- Feature flags: A/B testing for algorithm variants
- Implement: SQLite (local) or PostgreSQL (production)
- Schema:
- Problems analyzed (with metadata)
- Solutions generated (with feedback)
- User evaluations (rating solutions)
- Case history (for learning)
- Purpose: Enable learning from user feedback
- Endpoints:
POST /api/v1/solve - Solve a problem GET /api/v1/problems/:id - Retrieve past problem POST /api/v1/feedback - Rate solution quality GET /api/v1/principles - List all principles GET /api/v1/parameters - List all parameters GET /api/v1/statistics - System statistics - Features:
- OpenAPI/Swagger documentation
- Rate limiting (100 req/min per API key)
- Pagination for large result sets
- JSON response formatting
- Commands:
heinrich solve "problem description" heinrich list-principles heinrich validate-knowledge heinrich serve # Start API server
- Simple problem input form
- Solution visualization
- History browser
- (Can defer to Phase 3)
-
Dockerfile:
- Multi-stage build (dev dependencies stripped)
- Security: Non-root user
- Health checks
-
docker-compose.yml:
- Heinrich API service
- Optional PostgreSQL
- Optional monitoring (Prometheus)
- GitHub Actions:
- Run tests on every PR
- Lint code (flake8, black)
- Type check (mypy)
- Security scan (bandit)
- Build Docker image
- Deploy to staging on push to main
- Local: Docker Compose
- Cloud: AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Run, Azure Container Instances
- Enterprise: Kubernetes-ready
- Complete: Add type hints to all functions
- Tool: mypy for static type checking
- CI: Fail build if type errors
- Docstrings: Google/NumPy style for all public functions
- Code comments: Explain why, not what
- Examples: Every module should have usage example
- Target: 80%+ code coverage
- Tools: pytest with coverage.py
- Reports: HTML coverage reports in CI
- Formatter: Black (automatic code formatting)
- Linter: flake8 + pylint
- Pre-commit: Hooks to prevent non-compliant commits
- Identify bottlenecks:
- Is it problem parsing?
- Is it LLM API calls? (Usually yes)
- Is it data loading?
- Cache layers:
- Knowledge base (in memory)
- Parameter/principle lookups
- LLM API responses (for identical requests)
- Make LLM calls async to handle concurrent requests
- Benefits: Single server instance handles multiple users
- Input validation: Sanitize problem text
- Output validation: Never return secrets in logs
- Dependency scanning: Check for vulnerabilities
- Secrets: No hardcoded API keys
- User data: Minimal collection (only what's needed)
- Retention policy: Delete old problems after 90 days (configurable)
- Logging: Don't log full problem text (only hashes)
- Security policy: SECURITY.md with responsible disclosure
- Privacy policy: What data is collected and how
✅ Must achieve:
- Passes security audit checklist
- API serves 100+ requests/minute stably
- Deployment to 3+ cloud platforms successful
- 80%+ test coverage
- Zero critical vulnerabilities in dependencies
- Comprehensive error handling (no crashes)
- Logging/monitoring operational
- Can run offline (no required external dependencies)
Goal: Launch commercial product with competitive advantage
- Goldfire Insight: Analyze pricing, feature set, positioning
- Custom GPT + TRIZ: Understand DIY alternatives
- Patent AI tools: Learning from adjacent market
-
Interviews: 20-30 with target customers
- R&D teams in manufacturing
- Innovation managers in tech
- Patent attorneys
- Consulting firms using TRIZ
-
Surveys: What problems do they have with existing solutions?
- Identify: Unique value proposition
- Example: "Explainable AI that actually follows TRIZ principles, not just mimics them"
- Example: "Faster than Goldfire, cheaper than consultants"
- Example: "Integrates with your existing tools (Jira, Confluence, etc.)"
- Create: Specialized versions for key industries
- Manufacturing (mechanical systems)
- Software/Tech (feature design)
- Materials science (new materials)
- Business processes (non-technical)
- Multi-step problems: Solve cascading contradictions
- Team collaboration: Multiple users on one problem
- Solution comparison: Side-by-side evaluation
- Patent analysis mode: Find solutions to patented problems
- Integration APIs: Connect to Jira, Confluence, GitHub, Slack
- Add: Industry-specific effects databases
- Validate: Have domain experts review principle selections for their field
- Create: Case study library with documented solutions
- Build: 50+ validated case studies
- 10 from manufacturing
- 10 from software/product
- 10 from materials science
- 10 from business process
- 10 from historical TRIZ problems
- Metrics:
- Principle selection accuracy vs. human experts
- Execution time vs. classical TRIZ consultants
- Cost per problem solved
- User satisfaction scores
-
Write: 3-5 technical papers
- "Hybrid TRIZ-AI for Systematic Innovation"
- "Empirical Evaluation of Principle Selection Accuracy"
- Case studies in target journals
-
Conference presentations: TRIZ conferences, innovation summits
Option A: Freemium SaaS
- Free tier: 5 problems/month
- Pro: $99/month (unlimited, API access)
- Enterprise: Custom (dedicated instance, training)
Option B: Per-Use API
- $0.50 - $5.00 per problem solved
- Depends on complexity (LLM tokens used)
- Volume discounts for enterprise
Option C: Hybrid
- Subscription for web app + pay-per-call for API
- Best of both worlds
Target 1: Innovation Teams (SME)
- Pricing: $199/month
- Problem: Need systematic innovation
- Solution: DIY tool that guides the process
Target 2: Consulting Firms
- Pricing: Custom enterprise contract
- Problem: Scale TRIZ expertise beyond consultants
- Solution: AI as accelerator, not replacement
Target 3: Patent/R&D Organizations
- Pricing: $10-50k/year
- Problem: Generate novel solutions at scale
- Solution: Integrated into their workflow
- Closed beta: 50-100 power users (TRIZ practitioners)
- Collect: Feedback and usage metrics
- Document: Success stories and testimonials
- Announcement: Blog post, Twitter, newsletter
- Pricing announcement: Clear pricing tiers
- Marketing: Technical blog about TRIZ + AI
- Partnerships: Start conversations with TRIZ organizations
- Community building: TRIZ + innovation community
- Content marketing: Guides, tutorials, case studies
- Sales process: Enterprise sales for larger deals
- Partnerships: Integrations with complementary tools
✅ Must achieve:
- 1,000+ paying users or $50k+ MRR
- 80%+ customer satisfaction score
- Benchmarked against Goldfire (comparable or better accuracy)
- 3+ published case studies
- 50+ validated test cases in industry domains
- 10+ integration partnerships
- Sustainable unit economics (CAC payback < 12 months)
Goal: Enterprise-grade platform serving innovation teams globally
- Add: Specialized tools for specific industries
- R&D Suite: Problem + Solution tracking
- Innovation Portfolio: Manage multiple projects
- Impact Measurement: Track implemented solutions' ROI
- Integrations: Jira, Confluence, GitHub, Slack, MS Teams
- APIs: Robust API for embedding in customer workflows
- Webhooks: Real-time event notifications
- Localization: Not just translation, cultural adaptation
- Regulatory: Compliance with data laws (GDPR, CCPA, etc.)
- Support: Multi-language customer success team
- Combine:
- TRIZ systematic approach (existing)
- Design Thinking (empathy)
- Lean methodology (rapid testing)
- Systems thinking (complex systems)
- Implement: Multiple AI agents working together
- Domain expert agent (understands industry)
- TRIZ specialist agent (applies methodology)
- Critic agent (evaluates solutions)
- Orchestrator (coordinates)
- Learn: From successful solutions over time
- Improve: Principle selection based on user feedback
- Personalize: Adapt to company's innovation culture
- SAML/OAuth integration for enterprises
- Role-based access control
- Audit trails for compliance
- Analytics dashboard: Problem solve patterns
- Custom reports: Board-ready metrics
- Export: PDF, Excel, custom formats
- Premium support: 24/7 response times
- Dedicated success manager for enterprise customers
- Training programs for innovation teams
# Backend
Framework: FastAPI (async, auto-docs)
Database: PostgreSQL (scalable)
Caching: Redis (performance)
Task Queue: Celery (async LLM calls)
Monitoring: Prometheus + Grafana
Logging: ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana)
# Frontend
Framework: React or Vue.js
API Client: TanStack Query (React Query)
Visualization: D3.js or Plotly (solution diagrams)
# DevOps
Containerization: Docker
Orchestration: Kubernetes (Phase 3+)
CI/CD: GitHub Actions (current) → ArgoCD (Phase 3)
Infrastructure: Terraform (IaC)
# Testing
Unit/Integration: pytest + pytest-asyncio
API Testing: Postman / REST Assured
Load Testing: Locust or k6-
Team:
- 1 Technical Lead (full-time)
- 2 Backend Engineers (full-time)
- 1 QA/Test Engineer (full-time)
- 0.5 DevOps Engineer (part-time)
- 0.5 Technical Writer (part-time)
-
Cost: ~$150-200k (salary + overhead)
-
Infrastructure: ~$2-3k/month (cloud, LLM APIs)
-
Add:
- 1 Product Manager
- 1 Security Engineer
- 1 Full-stack Engineer
-
Cost: ~$280-350k
-
Infrastructure: ~$5-8k/month
-
Add:
- 1 VP Product / CEO
- 2 Sales / BD
- 1 Marketing / Content
- 1 Customer Success
- 1 Data Analyst
-
Cost: ~$600-750k + sales commissions
-
Infrastructure: ~$10-20k/month + LLM costs
| Phase | Timeline | Funding Needed | Suggested Route |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | 6-8 months | $300-500k | Bootstrapped or Angel round |
| 3-4 | 12-18 months | $1-2M | Seed round from deep-tech VCs |
| Scale | 2+ years | $5-10M | Series A from innovation/enterprise VCs |
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| LLM quality insufficient | High | Start with GPT-4, build rule-based fallback |
| Market doesn't value TRIZ | Medium | Validate with customer interviews early |
| Competitors move faster | Medium | Focus on niche (explainability) vs. general |
| LLM API costs too high | Medium | Implement caching, offer on-prem option |
| Talent acquisition | High | Build in tech hubs, offer equity |
| TRIZ experts skeptical | Medium | Include domain experts in development |
- ✅ Working end-to-end pipeline
- ✅ 80%+ principle selection accuracy
- ✅ 2,000+ lines of tested code
- ✅ 1,000+ problems solved without errors
- ✅ <5 second average solve time
- ✅ 99% uptime SLA
- ✅ 1,000+ active users
- ✅ $50k+ monthly recurring revenue
- ✅ 80%+ Net Promoter Score
- ✅ 10,000+ active users
- ✅ $500k+ annual revenue
- ✅ 4+ enterprise customers
- Week 1-2: Finalize Phase 1 sprint backlog
- Week 2-3: Assign development team
- Week 3+: Start with Contradiction Identifier (highest impact)
- Parallel: Begin customer discovery interviews
This roadmap is a living document. Update quarterly based on learnings, market feedback, and technical discoveries.
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: December 26, 2025
Next Review: March 2026