Resilience vs Development Cost
Map critical functions and credible failure scenarios first, then concentrate resilience investment there rather than duplicating every system uniformly.
CyberTRIZ analysis · RealEstateConstruction contradiction DSP026 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Business Context
Buildings may require protection against extreme weather, flooding, utility failure, equipment breakdown, cyber disruption, or other events. Increasing resilience through redundant infrastructure, stronger construction, backup systems, and protective measures can substantially increase development cost.
Real Estate & Construction TRIZ Resolution
Resilience should be based on critical functions and credible failure scenarios rather than universal duplication. Passive protection, strategic equipment location, shared backup capacity, modular recovery systems, adaptable spaces, and targeted strengthening can reduce vulnerability without requiring every system to operate independently during every possible disruption.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 11 – Beforehand Cushioning provides protection where disruption would create severe consequences.
Principle 3 – Local Quality concentrates resilience investment on critical systems and vulnerable locations.
Principle 6 – Universality enables backup resources to support multiple critical functions.
Expected Outcome
Greater asset resilience
Controlled resilience expenditure
Faster recovery from disruption
Better protection of critical functions
Decision Indicators
Early indicators include:
Resilience strategies rely primarily on complete system duplication.
Critical and noncritical functions receive identical protection.
Resilience measures threaten project feasibility.
Low-cost passive protection opportunities remain unused.
Cost pressure causes resilience provisions to be eliminated entirely.