Ideal Final Result (TRIZ)

Overview

The **Ideal Final Result** (IFR) is one of TRIZ's central tools: before seeking compromises, the team formulates the ideal state — the useful function is fulfilled, **the system itself disappears**, **for free**, **with no complication**, **and no harmful side-effect**. Working backwards from that ideal is far more productive than incremental improvement from the status quo.

Altshuller distinguishes three IFR levels — increasingly radical:

IFR-1: The system solves the problem itself: The system remains, but the harmful effect disappears without a new mechanism. "The conveyor itself prevents jamming."

IFR-2: Function without the system: The useful function exists without the system being present at all. "Parts do not jam." The problem ceases to exist.

IFR-3: A supersystem resource performs the function: A resource already present in the supersystem (gravity, ambient heat, airflow …) takes over the function — for free, with no new component.

The module **does not generate solutions** — it forces a sharp goal formulation and a gap analysis: what blocks the IFR today? That gap is the actual problem statement.

Approach

• Name the system clearly — a concrete technical unit, not a whole plant.
• Capture the useful function — what should the system do? Use an active verb, not a noun.
• State the harmful effect — what goes wrong today, or where do you compromise?
• Phrase IFR-1: the system remains, but the harmful effect is eliminated by itself. Deliberately psychologically uncomfortable — that is the sign of a good IFR.
• Phrase IFR-2: the problem does not exist. This level often feels "too radical" — and that is exactly its value, exposing hidden assumptions.
• Phrase IFR-3: which resource in the supersystem could carry the function? The Resources Checklist is the natural next step here.
• Gap analysis: which concrete obstacles sit between the current state and the IFR? That list becomes the actual task list for the team.

When the system has several competing useful functions, run one IFR per function. The exercise often reveals that the functions are in conflict — that is then a case for the contradiction matrix or the physical contradiction.

Relation to other TRIZ tools

• **Resources Checklist** — the natural next step. IFR-3 asks for a supersystem resource; the checklist systematically inventories all 18 cells (6 categories × 3 levels).
• **Contradiction Matrix / Physical Contradiction** — when IFR-1 cannot be reached because two requirements clash, formalise the clash there.
• **9-Windows** — broadens the system view first. The IFR is then formulated for a specific system from the 9-Windows grid.

References & further reading

• G. S. Altshuller: "Creativity as an Exact Science" (1984), ARIZ chapter, step "IFR formulation".
• D. Mann: "Hands-On Systematic Innovation" — chapter "Ideality and Trends of Evolution".
• V. Souchkov: "TRIZ Body of Knowledge" — definition Ideal Final Result.
• oxfordcreativity.co.uk — worked IFR examples.

Examples

This module ships with the following example datasets — load any of them in the app with a single click.

Available in the following cycles

• No fixed phase in cycle DMAIC (lives in the "More" tile).
• No fixed phase in cycle DMADV (lives in the "More" tile).
• 8D: D5 — Corrective Actions