物理矛盾 (Physical Contradiction) 係指基於同一系統同一參數，產生兩個無法同時滿足的矛盾需求。為使矛盾名稱更符合商業的情境，本研究在商業領域中稱物理矛盾為「自我矛盾 (Self-Contradiction)」。本研究增強觀點映射圖 (Perception Mapping)、採用因果矛盾鏈分析 (CECCA) 來辨識商業管理的自我矛盾，再將原先應用於技術萃智領域的參數展開與參數操作 (Parameter Deployment and Parameter Manipulation) 的解題工具移轉到商業管理領域中，使得自我矛盾能有效的解決。
參數展開與操作是一套發展以消除商業領域之自我矛盾的整合型工具，共涵蓋17+10(N-1) 個解題策略來提出解題方案。再進一步運用利害關係者分析 (Stakeholder) 與關聯系統的概念以發展出一套系統化資源辨識的工具，協助使用者以系統轉移 (System Transfer) 的方式解決問題。
本研究的貢獻如下：(1) 發展一套新方法以解決商業情境之自我矛盾；(2) 整合利害關係者與關聯系統，發展出協助解題的資源辨識工具；(3) 建立一套標準流程、表單說明，促進使用者以系統化的方式解決問題。

Physical contradiction can be defined as two contradictory demands placing on the same system. To be more suitable, we use self-contradiction instead of physical contradiction in business scenarios. The research enhanced perception mapping and adapted cause effect and contradiction chain analysis (CECCA) to identify self-condictions in business scenarios. Then, we adapted parameter deployment and manipulations in technical TRIZ into business tools for solving self-contradictions effectively.
The parameter deployment and manipulation tools thus developed for solving business self-contradiction is a set of unified method which has 17+10(N-1) strategies to generate problem solving ideas. Furthermore, stakeholder analysis and system association concepts are used to systematically identify resources for problem solving using System Transfer.
The contributions of this research include: (1) Developing a set of new methods to solving self-contradictions in business scenarios; (2) Integrating the concept of stakeholder with system association to identify resources for ideas generation; (3) Establishing a set of standard procedures, forms, and instructions to facilitate problem solving.

中文部分
1. 柯于璋（2015）。利害關係人分析在政策分析之應用－以大社石化專業工業區土地使用計畫為例，政策與人力管理，頁 21-60。
2. 孫韻翔（2016）。物質–功能–屬性模型和參數操作法解物理衝突。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理研究所碩士論文，台灣新竹。
3. 許棟樑（2015）。萃智創新工具精通：上冊（四版）。亞卓國際顧問股份有限公司。ISBN 978-986-85795-2-1
4. 許棟樑（2017）。萃智管理創新：上冊（初版）。亞卓國際顧問股份有限公司。ISBN 978-986-95260-1-2
5. 許棟樑、葉俐靖（2016年9月）。參數操作：物理衝突的整合新解法。2016中華萃思(TRIZ)學會學術與實務研討會暨第九屆海峽兩岸創新方法研討會，台灣台北，台北科技大學。
6. 許棟樑、鄭祺穎（2018）。萃智系統性商業管理創新上手(譯)。亞卓國際顧問股份有限公司。ISBN 978-986-95260-2-9
7. 黃昭仁（2005）。以系統動力學探討平衡計分卡績效指標回饋影響之研究 – 以民營固網公司為例，國立中山大學碩士論文，台灣高雄。
8. 葉俐靖（2015）。參數展開與操作：物理衝突的新解法，國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理研究所碩士論文，台灣新竹。
9. 劉慧玉（2017）。航向成功企業的55種商業模式：是什麼？為什麼？誰在用？何時用？如何用？(譯)。橡實文化。ISBN 978-986-56237-0-8。
10. 潘志文、蕭詠今（2007）。TRIZ矛盾創意思考突破法(譯)。建速個人工作室。ISBN 978-986-83573-1-0
11. 蔡美惠（2012）。績效導向的觀點關係分析以辨識和解決組織衝突，國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理研究所碩士論文，台灣新竹。
英文部分
1. Billgren, C. and Holmén, H. (2008). Approaching Reality: ComparingStakeholder Analysis and Cultural Theory in the Context of Natural Resource Management. Land Use Policy, 25, 550-562.
2. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon, & Zhu, Feng. (2013). Business Model Innovation and Competitive Imitation: The Case of Sponsor-Base Business Models.Strategy Management Journal,34(4), 464-482.doi:10.1002/smj.2022
3. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing andEvaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.doi: 10.2307/258888
4. Drucker, P., (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, New York Cambridge, Philadelphia, SanFrancisco, London Mexico City,São Paulo, Singapore, Sydney.
5. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management - A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, U.S: Pitman. ISBN: 978-0521-15174-0
6. Griffin, A., & Pager, A.L. (2008). A report on measuring product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291-308.
7. Mann, D.L. (2004). Hands-On Systematic Innovation for Business & Management. UK: Lazaruss Press. ISBN 1-898546 -73-8
8. Mann, D.L. (2007). Hands-On Systematic Innovation, UK: CREAX Press. ISBN: 978-9077-07102-1
9. Martin Christopher. Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Pitman Publishing, 1992.
10. Osterwalder, Alexander & Yves, Pigneur. (2010). Business Model Generation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN: 978-0470-87641-1.
11. Porter, Michael E. (1986). Competition in Global Industries. Boston, U.S: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 978-0875-84140-3
12. Potočan, Vojko. (2013) Marketing Capabilities For Innovation - Based Competitive Advantage In The Slovenian Market. Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences,6(1), 118-134.
13. Royzen, Zinovy. (2008). Solving problems using TOP-TRIZ, TRIZCON2010.
14. Schumpeter, J.A. (1932,1934).The theory of economy development. Boston, MA:Havard 2.
15. Sheu, D. D. and Tsai M.C. (2011, May). Cause Effect and Contradiction Chain Analysis for conflict Identification and Problem Solving. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Systematic Innovation, Shanghai, China.
16. Sheu, D. D. and Tsai, M. H. (2012, July). Performance-oriented Perception Relationship Analysis for Organizational Conflict Identification and Resolution. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Systematic Innovation, Seoul, South Korea.
17. Sheu, D. D., Tsai, E. & Rau, H. (2012, July). Integration between Cause-effect Chain Analysis and Root Contradiction Analysis and Its Applications. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Systematic Innovation, Seoul, South Korea.
18. Sheu, D. Daniel and Jealousy Hong. (2017). Resource Identification Method Based on Demand-Supply Thought Provoking Questions for Problem Solving. International Journal of Systematic Innovation, 4(4), 67-82. (SCOPUS)
19. Sheu, D. Daniel, Rachel Yeh. (2016, July). Parameter manipulations: unified strategies for solving physical contradictions. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Systematic Innovation, Lisbon, Portugal.
20. Sheu, D. Daniel, Yeh, Rachel. (2018). Parameter Deployment and Separation for Solving Physical Contradictions. Accepted by TRIZ Future Conference 2018.
21. Souchkov, Valeri V. (2007). Breakthrough Thinking With TRIZ for Business and Management: An Overview. London, UK: ICG Training & Consulting.
網路文獻：
1. 維基百科，利害關係人。檢自https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/利害關係人理論 (Oct. 21, 2017)
2. MBA智庫百科，衝突管理。檢自http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E5%86%B2%E7%AA%81%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86 (Jan. 18, 2018)