CI015
Allocate advanced tooling investment proportionally to expected process return, using low-cost methods for lower-impact improvement projects.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Process contradiction CI015 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Higher Process Capability Improvement vs. Lower Investment in Tools
Business Context. Improving process capability to Six Sigma levels sometimes requires investment in new measurement equipment, software, or automation, but budget constraints limit how much organizations are willing to spend on improvement tooling.
Process TRIZ Resolution. Rather than pursuing the most advanced tooling for every improvement project, organizations should invest in advanced tools selectively for the highest-impact processes while using low-cost, manual methods for improvement projects with smaller expected returns.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 3 (Local Quality) reserves advanced tooling investment for the highest-impact processes.
Principle 2 (Taking Out) removes unnecessary tooling investment from lower-impact improvement projects.
Principle 35 (Parameter Changes) matches tooling investment level to the expected return of each project.
Expected Outcome
Meaningful capability improvement
Controlled tooling investment
Efficient allocation of improvement budget
Sustainable investment pace
Decision Indicators
Every improvement project requests the same level of tooling investment.
Tooling budget has grown faster than measurable process improvement.
Low-impact projects receive the same investment as high-impact ones.
No prioritization framework guides improvement tooling decisions.
Advanced tools sit underutilized on lower-priority processes.
If several of these indicators are present, the contradiction is likely active and the Process TRIZ resolution above should be evaluated.