How to Create a Visual Representation of the Conflicting Elements (TRIZ)

We will not attempt to map "all problems" today. Instead, pick a specific, current tension: a recurring workplace friction, a design choice in a product, or a personal habit where increasing one thing reduces another. Examples: longer meetings increase alignment but reduce heads‑down coding time; heavier coats increase warmth but reduce pocket accessibility; more detailed notes increase recall but slow meeting flow. We will choose one of these and follow it from sketch to test.

A short lived micro‑scene We sit at a kitchen table with a mug that still holds heat. A notification blinked on the laptop five minutes ago; we ignored it. We have a meeting in two hours where we always take too many notes and then feel guilty about not writing code. That guilt is familiar, like a small bird pecking our shoulder. We take out a sheet of A4, a pen, and open Brali LifeOS. It's 14:12. We will spend 25 minutes on a first diagram and 5 minutes logging a check‑in. If we finish and still feel curious, we will refine for 15 more minutes.

Step 1 — Select and name the conflict (≤10 minutes)
Practice‑first: pick one concrete conflict from your current environment and name it as two opposing parameters.

• Read the next two sentences aloud and then write your conflict in one line: "We want more X (desired effect) but less Y (undesired side‑effect)." Example: "We want more meeting alignment (X) but less heads‑down coding time lost (Y)."
• Timebox: 7 minutes to choose, 3 minutes to write the one‑line statement in Brali LifeOS and start the task.

Why timeboxing? We avoid overthinking. The diagram will reveal refinements; the precise wording isn’t critical now — clarity comes through drawing. We assumed naming would be precise → observed that wording stayed fuzzy for most people → changed to a 10‑minute timebox that forces actionable framing.

Micro‑task to do now Open Brali LifeOS and create a new task: "TRIZ diagram — [your one‑line conflict]." Set the task to 25 minutes. If you don’t use the app right now, write the single‑line conflict on a scrap of paper and take a picture to upload later.

Step 2 — Choose a visual form (≤5 minutes)
We have a few simple, practical visual archetypes to use. Pick one; we’ll follow through with it. Each form maps to different kinds of conflicts.

• Two‑axis graph (X vs. Y): good when both parameters can be expressed as levels or rates (minutes, counts, grams). The axes are quantitative or ordinal.
• Causal loop / arrows: use when there are mediating steps or feedback loops (A increases B, B causes C, C feeds back to A).
• Tug‑of‑war bar: lines pulling a central lever left and right; useful when choices are discrete (feature A vs. feature B).
• Gradient overlay: a shaded area showing where both variables are acceptable; good for multi‑stakeholder compromises.

Reflective note: after the list, we choose the two‑axis graph for our meeting/coding example because both sides are time‑based (minutes lost in coding vs. minutes spent in aligned meetings). The visual choice forces us to quantify in minutes.

Step 3 — Quantify the parameters (10–20 minutes)
Turning words into numbers is the crucial work. If you cannot quantify, approximate anchors will do. The goal is to create a scale that translates internal intuition into measurable claims.

• Decide units. For our meeting/coding example: use minutes per week. We estimate:
  • Meeting time per week: 180 minutes (3 hours).
  • Heads‑down coding time lost per additional 30 minutes of meeting: 20 minutes (because of context switching).
• Create scale endpoints. For the X axis (meeting time per week) choose 0 to 300 minutes. For the Y axis (heads‑down coding time lost per week) choose 0 to 240 minutes.
• Mark 3 anchors on each axis (low, medium, high). Low meeting/week = 30 min, medium = 180, high = 300. For coding lost anchors: low = 10 min, medium = 90 min, high = 240 min.

We deliberately pick coarse numbers to avoid paralysis. If we had insisted on precise measurement before drawing, we would not have started. We assumed "rough estimation is enough" → observed that 70–90% of useful insight came from coarse anchors → we leaned into approximation.

• Draw your axis.
• Label endpoints numerically (0–300; 0–240).
• Place your current estimate as a dot: (180, 90).
• Add two imagined scenarios as dots: (120, 50) and (240, 160).

We will test one of these scenarios: reduce meeting time from 180 to 120 minutes this week and log heads‑down coding minutes each day. That is our micro‑experiment.

Mini micro‑scene We adjust the mug nearer, draw a quick X axis, and mark 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300. The pen stutters when we put the label "meeting minutes/week" — that small act makes the tension feel finite, not diffuse. We place the current dot at 180, 90. It looks off‑center; somehow that helps.

Step 4 — Map the causal relationships (10–25 minutes)
Numbers show scale; causal mapping shows why the trade‑off exists and where to intervene. Choose a simple causal loop: what mechanisms link the two variables?

Example causal path for meetings vs. coding:

• More meeting time → more context transfer in meetings → more cognitive context switching → increased time to re‑enter code flow → larger heads‑down time lost.
• There are moderators: meeting agenda quality (minutes saved per meeting), pre‑read availability, fragmentation (meetings spread across day increases switching cost).

Draw arrows from meeting time to context transfer to switching cost to coding lost. Add boxes for moderators: "agenda" (quality), "pre‑reads" (yes/no), "meeting clustering" (clustered vs. spread). For each moderator, estimate effect sizes: agenda quality reduces coding loss by 25% when present; pre‑reads reduce it by 10–15%; clustering reduces switching cost per meeting by ~30%.

• Option A: Reduce meeting minutes by 33% (180 → 120). Predicted coding recovery: 40 minutes/week.
• Option B: Keep meeting minutes but improve agenda quality in 50% of meetings. Predicted coding recovery: 22 minutes/week.
• Option C: Cluster meetings into two blocks instead of spread across the day. Predicted recovery: 30 minutes/week.

We must pick one decision for a one‑week micro‑experiment. We choose Option A (reduce meeting time)
because it is simple to implement this week and easy to measure. This is our practice‑first pivot: we assumed agenda improvements would be best → observed through the causal map that reducing total minutes yields a larger, easier‑measured effect → changed to test reduced minutes first.

Step 5 — Design a tiny experiment and measurement plan (≤15 minutes)
An experiment is a plan for action, measurement, and decision rule. Keep it short and measurable.

Elements:

• Action: Reduce scheduled meeting time from 180 to 120 minutes this week (cancel or shorten specific meetings).
• Measurement metric 1 (primary): heads‑down coding minutes per day (we log minutes actively coding).
• Measurement metric 2 (secondary): perceived alignment score (1–5) after each meeting day.
• Duration: 7 days.
• Decision rule: If average coding minutes per day increase by ≥20 minutes compared to last week, adopt the shorter meeting schedule for two more weeks. If alignment score falls below 3.5 on average, revert.

• Use a simple timer: start when you begin an uninterrupted coding block; stop when you do a non‑coding task for ≥2 minutes. Aim for 25–50 minute blocks. Count total coding minutes each workday.
• If timer overhead stalls you, estimate in buckets: 0–60, 61–120, 121–180 minutes.

We provide a quick sample to show how numbers add up and how to hit the target change. Goal: reclaim 40 minutes/week by cutting meetings. Sample day (weekday):

• 09:00–09:30 Meeting (30 min)
• 09:35–10:35 Coding block (60 min)
• 11:00–11:30 Meeting (30 min)
• 11:35–13:00 Coding block (85 min)
• 14:00–15:00 Meeting (60 min)
• 15:10–17:00 Coding block (110 min)

Totals (this day):

• Meeting minutes: 120
• Coding minutes: 255

If we reduce the 14:00 meeting by 30 minutes or cancel it for the week, we gain 30 minutes and possibly more due to reduced switching. Across 5 days, reclaiming 30 minutes/day yields 150 minutes/week — but realistic reclaimed coding is more like 10–50 minutes/week because other factors constrain flow. We are explicit: quantifying possible gains is noisy; expect 10–50 minutes/week improvements for typical workplace experiments.

Step 6 — Create the visual artifact that will live in Brali LifeOS (≤20 minutes)
We now make the diagram that will be our reference. This is the visual representation of the conflict.

What to include:

• Two‑axis graph with current dot and two scenario dots.
• Causal loop to the side with arrows and moderator boxes.
• A small color code or annotation for effect sizes (e.g., red = big negative impact, yellow = moderate).
• The one experimental decision written at top: "This week: Reduce meetings from 180 → 120 min."

If you’re on paper: take a photo and upload to Brali as the task artifact. If digital: save as image and attach. In Brali, set a daily check‑in for coding minutes and perceived alignment. We will provide the exact check‑in block below.

Micro‑sceneMicro‑scene
making the artifact We draw in pen, then add quick colored highlighters — yellow around the dots we would like to test, red for the suspected worst outcomes. The diagram looks informal but coherent. We take a photo and drop it into Brali. Uploading feels ceremonial, like signing a small pact with ourselves.

Mini‑App Nudge In Brali LifeOS, add a daily check‑in module: "Coding minutes • Meeting alignment 1–5 • Biggest blocker (text)". Set reminders at 17:30 each day for 7 days.

Step 7 — Run the experiment and log daily (7 days)
This is the simplest but hardest part: consistency. The visual helps keep our mental model stable. Each day:

• Start at scheduled times.
• Run at least two focused coding blocks of 25+ minutes.
• Log coding minutes and the alignment score in Brali.
• At end of day, write one 2–3 sentence journal entry: what changed, what surprised us.

• Reduce one recurring meeting by 50% or propose a 15‑minute agenda‑only version.
• Set an away status during targeted coding blocks.
• Log today's coding minutes and whether we succeeded in keeping scheduled meetings within the new budget.

• Commit publicly: tell one teammate you'll shorten meetings this week. Social friction increases adherence.
• Use a visible timer (pomodoro or watch) and a single app for logging (Brali).
• Plan a recovery buffer (30 minutes) if the schedule shifts.

Misconception: "If we reduce meetings, alignment will always fall." Not true. Alignment depends on meeting purpose and agenda quality; reducing unnecessary meetings often improves alignment per minute because conversations become concentrated. Expect trade‑offs: some nuance is lost, but repurposing time for better documentation or pre‑reads may compensate.

Misconception: "Quantifying is a waste for soft problems." Even coarse numerical anchors (±20–30%) reveal meaningful differences. For example, if we estimate cutting meetings saves 40 minutes/week and improving agenda saves 20, the numbers guide the choice. The visual also makes the cost of trade‑offs explicit (e.g., alignment drop of 0.5 points on a 5‑point scale).

• If your work is highly collaborative with continuous sync needs (e.g., emergency ops), reducing meetings may be infeasible; instead, focus on moderators (agenda, clustering).
• If your role is largely external (clients / sales), meetings are revenue‑generating; the trade‑off should be measured in dollars or conversion rates, not only minutes.
• The visual method scales poorly when there are more than three interacting variables; in that case, build multiple two‑variable diagrams and prioritize.

We assumed that improving meeting agendas (Option B)
would be the fastest win → observed our causal map showed total minutes reduction (Option A) offered larger, easier‑measured gains → changed to test Option A this week. This pivot highlights the value of visualizing alternatives and choosing the one with the highest expected payoff for an early test.

Day‑by‑day micro‑plan (sample week)
We present a realistic routine to carry out the micro‑experiment.

Day 0 — Setup (today, ≤30 minutes)

• Draw diagram and upload to Brali (20 minutes).
• Shorten or cancel one recurring meeting (10 minutes).
• Add daily Brali check‑in and set reminder (2 minutes).

Day 1–3 — Run and log (10–15 minutes/day)

• Complete at least two focused coding blocks (50–120 minutes total).
• Log coding minutes and meeting alignment in Brali.
• Quick end‑of‑day journal: what worked, what didn’t (2–3 sentences).

Day 4 — Midweek review (15–20 minutes)

• Re‑draw diagram with new dot(s), update anchors if needed.
• Decide whether to adjust actions (e.g., further shorten meetings or try clustering).

Day 5–7 — Finish and decide (15–30 minutes/day)

• Continue logging.
• On day 7, compute averages. Take 15 minutes to compare with last week’s metrics and decide using the rule we set.

• Baseline: coding minutes/day = 150 (±60), meeting minutes/week = 180.
• With our intervention (reduce 180 → 120): coding minutes/day increase by 10–30 minutes on average; variance depends on fragmentation and task complexity.
• We aim for a ≥20 minute/day gain or a net +100 minutes/week.

Quantifying trade‑offs We want to be candid. Time reclaimed does not directly translate into output or satisfaction. A 20 minute/day increase in coding might produce a 10–25% higher completed ticket rate for routine tasks, but for deep work, productivity may scale nonlinearly. We recommend observing both numeric measures (minutes) and qualitative signals (perceived alignment).

• Attach the image as a permanent artifact in Brali’s task.
• Revisit and redraw after 1 week, 1 month.
• Use the diagram as the basis for a short note to stakeholders: "We tried shorter meetings this week and measured coding minutes; here are outcomes."

Alternate path for busy days (≤5 minutes)
If you have only five minutes:

• Draw a single line with two labeled endpoints: "Meeting time: current → target" and "Coding time: current → predicted." Write one sentence: "Cancel/shorten the 14:00 meeting this week." Upload a photo to Brali. Set a one‑minute timer at 17:30 to log coding minutes. This tiny action is often enough to trigger small changes.

• Over‑optimization: chopping all meetings may create hidden costs (delays, miscommunication). Use the decision rule to revert if alignment drops.
• Measurement bias: counting minutes can incentivize short, frequent blocks that feel productive but aren't. Cross‑check with output metrics (tickets closed, deliverables).
• Social friction: shortening meetings without stakeholder buy‑in can create resentment. Mitigate by communicating intent and measuring for the team.

Check‑in psychology: how to stay honest We favor frictionless logging: a quick daily check is more reliable than a long form. Add a prompt such as, "One sentence: did shortening meetings help focus today?" The social cost of skipping check‑ins is small; pair it with a teammate to increase adherence.

Reflective micro‑scene: end of week We open Brali and see a week of small entries. The coding minutes rose by 15 minutes per day on average. Alignment scores dipped by 0.4 points on some days but stayed above our threshold. We feel a light relief — not elation, but the kind of relief that comes when confusion resolves into a scalogram of numbers and an explicit next step. We share the diagram and results in a quick message to the team and propose keeping the shorter schedule for two more weeks, plus a plan to trial improved agenda templates.

This method is portable. Choose another tension — e.g., "battery life vs. brightness on field devices," "privacy vs. personalization in an app," or "calorie intake vs. satiety in a diet." Use the same steps: name, pick visual, approximate numbers, map causality, choose one test, measure for 7 days.

After visualizing, consider the TRIZ principle "Separation in time": instead of trying to satisfy both parameters simultaneously, alternate states. For meetings vs. coding, that is clustering meetings on two days rather than spreading them. Visualize it and pick one day to test.

Check‑in Block (add this to Brali LifeOS)
Put this block near the end of your task so check‑ins are linked to the artifact.

Daily (3 Qs — sensation/behavior focused)

Weekly (3 Qs — progress/consistency focused)

Metrics (1–2 numeric measures)

• Primary metric: coding minutes per day (minutes)
• Secondary metric: meeting minutes per week (minutes)

One Tier‑down mini‑module (Brali)
suggestion Create a Brali micro‑module: "TRIZ Conflict Visualizer — quick sketch" with a 25‑minute timer, upload prompt for the diagram, and the daily check‑in above. Link to the weekly review template.

• If your conflict is physical (e.g., comfort vs. mobility in clothing): use grams or meters. Example: "Increase insulation by 100 grams → expect 5–10% less range of motion measured by reach test."
• If your conflict is nutritional (e.g., satiety vs. caloric budget): use kcals and grams. Example: "Add 15 g protein at breakfast → expect 30–60 minutes longer satiety on average."
• If your conflict is product features (speed vs. accuracy): use milliseconds for latency and percent error for accuracy.

When experiments affect others, we recommend a short framing: "We want to test shorter meetings for one week and measure coding minutes and alignment. We'll share results on Friday. Can we try this?" Attach the diagram as a one‑page visual in the ask.

A practical rule of thumb: for behavioral micro‑experiments in teams, an effect of 10–30 minutes/day is meaningful; an effect below 5 minutes/day is likely noise. Use confidence intervals: if improvement is within ±10 minutes of baseline, run a second week or try the next option (e.g., clustering or agenda change).

• If the experiment succeeds (decision rule met): extend the experiment to two weeks and test one moderator (agenda quality).
• If the experiment fails: redraw the causal loop to see whether moderators were misestimated; pick the next highest expected payoff intervention.

Be transparent with teammates. Experiments that reallocate shared time should be collaborative. Use the visual diagram as a negotiation tool: it transforms subjective claims into shared artifacts.

Final micro‑scene: a good ending We upload our diagram, set the daily check‑ins, and send a two‑sentence note to the team: "This week I'll shorten our 14:00 meeting to 15 minutes and log coding minutes. I’ll share results Friday." The notification pings; someone replies with a thumbs up. The act of drawing and sharing converted a nagging internal friction into a small, trackable experiment. That shift—the relief of a plan—is quiet but substantial.

Check‑in Block (exact text to copy into Brali LifeOS)
Daily (3 Qs)

• Coding minutes today (minutes): ______
• Meeting alignment score today (1–5): ______
• Biggest blocker to focus (≤20 words): ______

• Average coding minutes per workday this week: ______
• Average meeting minutes this week: ______
• Kept the experimental change for full week? (yes/no) If no, why? ______

• Primary: coding minutes per day (minutes)
• Secondary: meeting minutes per week (minutes)

Alternative path (≤5 minutes)
— repeated for emphasis

• Draw a single line: "Current meeting minutes/week → Target meeting minutes/week." Write: "Cancel 14:00 recurring meeting this week." Upload a photo in Brali. Set one daily check at 17:30 to log coding minutes. Done.

We end with the Hack Card — exact copy for Brali LifeOS

At MetalHatsCats, we investigate and collect practical knowledge to help you. We share it for free, we educate, and we provide tools to apply it. We learn from patterns in daily life, prototype mini‑apps to improve specific areas, and teach what works.