site.russian | site.english

You are welcome to contact us using the addresses -
Mikhail Semyonovich Rubin -
July Samoilovich Murashkovsky

2009 ©  All rights reserved.THe rights for articles and translations from  this site belong to the authors of corresponding materials. In using the materials from this site references to the authors and the address of the site are necessary.

Editor of the English version of the web-site:  Andrey Dyachenko

site.header.on_main site.header.mail

Myths about the Trends of Engineering Systems Evolution. M.Rubin

Myths about the Trends of Engineering Systems Evolution.
M.Rubin, 2009
The system of Trends of Engineering Systems Evolution (TESE) was formed since 1956 till 1979 mainly due to efforts of G.S.Altshuller [1]. During the years to follow different proposals started to appear regarding the development of the system of trends of engineering systems evolution. Very often there are errors in these proposals, which are reinforced by promoting erroneous assertions to the rank of generally accepted laws.
We shall deal only with three myths in the present article:
- MATCEM is a full list of all fields, used in TRIZ; this is a reflection of regularities of using fields in engineering; this is the base for Su-Field.
The author thanks N.Rubina, Yu.Murashkovsky, V.Petrov and Ye. Sokolov for their assistance in the preparation of the article as well as for their remarks and suggestions.
1. The Myth concerning the existence of the Trend of S-curve evolution.
1.1. Widely spread assertion.
There are numerous publications, in which the evolution of systems in keeping with the S-curve is treated (directly or indirectly) as an independent and fundamental law [3-6]. This law is introduced into a system of laws as the main law [3], it is proposed for studying in the TRIZ training courses [6], etc. During the last years the publications appeared, which are directed at the verification of this law [4,7,8] based on the analysis of real data regarding the engineering systems evolution.
1.2. Short history of origin.
Most probably, the first mentioning of S-curve evolution of the systems could be related to mthe middle of the 19th century, it was used for forecasting of the number of population of the country (Ferhuelst, Pierre Françoit, logistic curves)[1], Gomperz curve (Benjamin Gomperz, 1799—1865), Pearle curve (Rymond Pearle, 1870—1940) [9]. Similar formulae were used for describing the growth of organisms and populations in biology (D’Arcy Thompson, 1917[2], Alfred Lotkie, 1925[3] ,etc.). Later on these approaches were used for analyzing and forecasting the development of companies, technologies, teams, for example, in works [9, 10]. And nobody since the 19th century spoke about S-curves as laws of development – this is only a method for describing the development and the forecasting of such development. For example, Ferhuelst constructed the curves of population, however the base for it were Malthus laws.
In 1975 G.S.Altshuller used S-curves for forecasting the engineering systems evolution [2]. In this work he calls it “the method of enveloping curves. In 1979 G.S.Altshuller calls them “the life lines” of engineering systems taking the form of S-curve: «The life of an engineering system (like that of other system, for example, biological ones) could be presented in the form of an S-curve, demonstrating, how the main characteristics of the system are measured in time (power, productivity, velocity, number of manufactured systems, etc.)» [1]. G.S.Altshuller nowhere calls it the law of ES evolution.
 After that the name of this phenomenon changes in the works of different authors: regularity, illustration to the law of transition from quantity to quality [5], Trend of S-curve evolution and then acquires the status of independent law [3].
1.3. Essence of phenomenon.
The essense of phenomenon, which is described by S-curve, is rather simple. For example, if the bacteria culture is placed inside a nutritive solution at the temperature of 30, they will start to gradually proliferate. Approximately after a lapse of 8-10 hours dramatic growth of the number of life cells will take place, while after 30 hours the drop in the number of live bacteria will take place [11]. The reasons are obvious: the amount of nutritive solution decreases and the very growth of bacteria could trigger the change of certain parameters, characterizing the environment of bacteria proliferation.
Thus, the phenomena (or dynamic processes, to be exact), which are described by S-curves, are characterized by at least two components and by three stages of their interaction.
Evolving system
External environment
Stage 1 – “Childhood”
Quantitative and/or qualitative changes, adapted to the use of external resources (capture of resources [13])
Offering resources for forming and/or use of the system.
Stage 2– “Maturity”
Intensive growth of the system
Appearance of a complex of mechanisms, decreasing the accessibility of resources (decrease in the amount of resources, degrading of conditions of using resources, making the competition more severe, appearance of limiting factors).
Stage 3 – “Old Age”
Deceleration of growth, stagnation.
Decrease of amount of resources required for system forming and/or use.
Thus, S-curve evolution cannot be considered as something, which is inherent to the system itself; it is only a result of the system interaction with external conditions (resources). Possible models of such interaction, treated as capture, are described in [13] (Section 6, Capture models). For example, with the increase in the speed of screw airplanes the constraints grew, which are associated with the approach to the sound velocity [4]. Another example – the growth of coal mining dramatically went up at the turn of the 20th century, while at present there is no growth at all, and in some regions there is a drop in tempos of coal mining growth. The reasons are ecological consequences of mining and use of coal, losses, associated with the mining, competition with other sources of energy, etc.
1.4. Evolution line is not a trend.
S-shaped form of systems evolution is only one of the possible lines of development. This form of development appears as a result of interaction of internal system development and the changes in external conditions. If the internal and external circumstances change, the shape of this line of development is changed as well.
It is shown in the work [4] that the development of actual engineering systems in keeping with S-curves is rather a rarity than a general rule. There are, for example, stepwise development curves, degree development curves, exponential curves and “split” development curves. 
In the same way it is possible to single out the variety of evolution curves in biology [12]. Evolution lines with unlimited growth are known. The length of the body of the locust has a stepwise development line. The lines of the height of the human have characteristic upheavals in certain years, which alternate with flat sections of the growth curve. If we consider such an indicator as the relationship of the size of the human brain to the size of the entire human body, it will appear that with the development of the human from the birth to maturity this indicator gradually decreases. These and other data only confirm the following – in case with S-curves we can discuss not the law of the systems evolution, but only one of the possible lines of evolution.
The lines of engineering systems evolution are formed in compliance to the trends of engineering systems evolution: tendency to ideality, elimination of contradictions, transition to supersystem, etc. This is an integral result of the action of a set of trends of engineering systems evolution.
1.5. What will change and what is not going to be changed as a result of acknowledging this myth.
It is interesting to note: acknowledging the fact that the S-curve evolution is not an independent and objective trend of systems evolution should not significantly influence the use of already created tools for systems forecasting and analysis. Neither should it influence the trends of engineering systems evolution – the system should not necessarily be structured in compliance with the trend. The trends themselves should be understood as developing along the “life lines” of engineering systems. Thus, the acknowledgement of this myth does not lead to destructive consequences.
What is going to change? First of all, the systems of engineering evolution cannot ionclude the trend of S-curves evolution. Quite a different emphasis should be placed here. It will also be necessary to acknowledge, that the engineering systems could evolve in compliance with S-curve shaped “life lines”, but they could also evolve in compliance with other types of curves. In particular, it makes relevant to single out characteristic types of lives of engineering systems. In this case it is important to identify the reasons for forming this or that type of curve out of the relationship between internal and external factors of evolution and to single out the limiting factors of evolution.
The analysis of lines of evolution should include first of all the identification of type to which the evolution curve belongs and the forces (internal and external), which take part in the formation of this line. This is a topic for independent research.
2. MATCEM Myth
2.1. Widely spread assertions.
We shall quote only several opinions on what is MATCEM:
·         MATCEM (what the world and all objects surrounding the humans as well as marketable goods are made of) -
·         It is possible to use “the magic word” "MATCEM", composed of initial letters of the words, designating the fields, which are most widely used in engineering:
o        M - mechanical field (forces and travels in different directions, pressure, friction forces, inertia, gravitational and centifugal forces, vibration, heats, aero- and hydrodynamic effects),
o       A – acoustic field (sound oscillations, ultrasound, infrasound,
o       Standing waves, resonance oscillations),
o       T – thermal field,
o       C – chemical field (interaction) using chemical reactions,
o       E – electric field (electrostatic, field of direct and alternating current),
o       M – magnetic field of a constant magnet or electric current.
·         … understanding of the processes, developing in different spheres, from MATCEM to collective unconscious…
·         All possible fields (bonds) between the components of the system – MATCEM).
·         Don’t jump over the steps of the MATCEM formula!
·         It means that the regularity (called MATCEM) in the nature of changes of engineering objects was identified based on rather a representative amount of these objects. Hence the conclusion concerning the existence of the trend, which causes it (the regularity).
·         The main rule of su-field analysis? – The finished Su-Field should be constructed to the end! MATCEM!
·         The field in the list are arranged in the order of increase of their energy-saving value – this is the so called MATCEM sequence:
·         It is possible to use the abbreviation MATCEM, which is easily rememebered and has become a kind of a “name card” of TRIZ.
In short, the essence of this myth could be rendered in the following way:
MATCEM is the main constituent (“name card”) of TRIZ or, at least, of Su-Field analysis. This is a kind of a law, regularity or a line in engineering systems evolution, identified based on the analysis of patent information. MATCEM is a list of all main fields, which are used in TRIZ (and in engineering).
We are going to show that MATCEM is not an evolution line. Neither it is a law or a regularity. This is just an acronym, which helps to recollect some physical fields, if the human being does not recollect the existence of other fields.
2.2. Essence and short history of origin.
It is possible to start the story about MATCEM with the creation of Su-Fields and interaction fields within them. In [14][4](p. 114). we find the following reference to fields and Su-Field analysis: “We shall use the term “field” rather broadly, considering, alongside “legal” physical fields also all kinds of “conventional” fields – mechanical, chemical, odor-related, acoustic, etc.”
Thus, since the very beginning the fields in Su-Field analysis were analyzed without any restrictions. In fact, ANY KIND of interaction was meant – “the space, each point of which corresponds to some vector or scalar value” (p. 113).
Now about the tendencies in the Su-Fields development. In [14] we find reference, in particular, to increase in Su-Fields controllability. Concerning the evolution of fields, the following is written: “… The main tendency of fields evolution consists in transition from mechanical and gravitational fields to electromagnetic fields. …It has to be emphasized that we are talking about the common tendency – no more than that. Introduction of magnetic fields is not a law[5]. When, for example, the main requirement of the problem is simplicity, the use of mechanical, gravitational and thermal fields is often more reasonable than the use of electromagnetic fields” (p. 123).
Thus, Su-Field analysis since the very beginning did not imply any restrictions regarding the type of field, and nothing was said about the existence of the law, which showed the type of changing fields in Su-Fields in the engineering systems evolution.
The second stage in the development of this story is the appearance of the acronym MATCEM in the works of B.Zlotin [15][6]. Several peculiarities need to be mentioned here. First of all, it was said that the “acronym MATCEM was very convenient for remembering” (p. 92). Acousticfield is missing in this acronym. It was also said that “in order to complete the Su-Fields it is necessary to use resources”. It was asserted that the selected consequence of fields “in many respects is coordinated with the stages of transition to micro-level” (p. 61).
Thus, a certain arbitrary restriction of used fields was introduced, and a certain “hint” was made at the existence of a certain regularity of using them, which is “in many respects is coordinated with the stages of transition to micro-level” .
The third stage of the myth is associated with promoting the acronym to the level of a dogma, law, problem-solving tool in the works by many authors. (See quotations from the section 2.1).
The fourth stage of this myth evolution develops under the common slogan: “one more letter should be added to the word MATCEM”. We shall only give several examples. It is proposed in [15] to add one more letter – R (radiation technologies), placing it somewhere inside the word MATCEM.
In the publication [17] it is proposed to add two letters at once – one more letter (standing for Russian word mezhmolekuliarnoje or Intermolecular) and B (biological) and recommendations are given not to be restricted by these two letters only.
The call was most probably heard. Here is one more quotation from [18]:
“in the current academic year the diploma students of the chair of organic chemistry of Chuvashija State University compile the reviews of collected patents and engineering solutions, which are based on a classification according to the pattern of application of physics and chemistry in the MATEEmCBcLNph {i.e., mechanics, characterized by the minimum of energy per unit of the body’s weight;   acoustics – oscillating mechanics of the body; heat – based on oscillations of atoms and molecules;   electricity – statics and dynamics of electrons in the bodies; magnetism – magnetic forces of attraction and repulsion; through electromagnetic oscillations – the entire spectrum of such (from radio-waves to gamma) rays; to chemistry – based on the use and transformation of substances and including more than 90 types of chemical effects (more than 110, taking into account the sub-techniques, identified in the system of chemical effects database);   further on, to biochemistry and chemistry of life – providing for energy circulation and transformation of live substance; and, finally, to nuclear physics, which is characterized by the highest energy value per unit of the bodies’ weight }».
Even such a variant could be encountered: MATCEMor [19], which does not mean anything horrible (not a mortuary) – simply one more type of interaction is added – the organizational one.
In Bacu one of the training sessions of G.S. Altshuller was attended by a priest, who proposed to include the Holy spirit with the fields of interaction.
And this was not an end of MATCEM “improvement”. The enthusiasts don’t forget the letter I (information field) and L in Light field, and E in Economic interaction and P in Psychology, E in Ergonomics, P in Politics and many other letters of the alphabet..
2.3. Not a trend, not a regularity, not a tool…
It would be strange to prove that MATCEM is not a law or a regularity – nobody ever tried to prove the opposite. The problem does not consist only in the fact that the list is not exhaustive – there is a great number of fields and types of interactions, which should necessarily be used in Su-Fields and which were not rejected since the very beginning of Su-Field analysis. The very sequence of these letters most probably means nothing. There are different suppositions regarding the fact, in what sequential order they are constructed:
- in the order of transcending to micro-level;
- in the order of increasing controllability;
- in the order of increasing the energy density of the fields.
Attentive analysis shows that neither of these variants is ideal: mechanical interaction could appear to be better controlled than thermal one; the sources of magnetic fields could be greater than the sources of heat or chemical interaction; the density of thermal energy could appear to be higher than the density of magnetic field, etc. I am not asking about the fact what place in this row (and according to what property) should be occupied by biological, informational, social, psychological and other types of field interaction.
It is rather difficult to call MATCEM an efficient tool for problem-solving, synthesis and forecasting of engineering systems evolution. The list of fields is incomplete – we have already proved it. The sequence of using fields is rather arbitrary – the reverse order of using these fields is not going to be any worse. Proposed fields are also rather nebulous. For example, what is a mechanical field? Mechanical motion? Coriolis forces? Centrifuge force? Hydraulics? Acoustics? Use of shock waves? One letter cannot substitute several sections of physics at once.
The majority of engineering systems embody several fields simultaneously, for example, cars, machines, computers. There are systems, which don’t transcend from the fields, which are dominating in them to other fields – for example, furniture, houses, bridges and other systems. There are many examples, showing how the sequence in the development of the systems, proposed by MATCEM, is not adhered to at all. For example, the evolution of clocks first involved fire, light (flame and sun clocks) and only after that transition to water and mechanical fields took place.
The efficiency of using MATCEM is comparable to the efficiency of playing dice, on the sides of which there are symbols of different fields[7].
2.4. What should be changed.
I strongly hope that at least for those, who have read the present article, MATCEM is not going to be the “name card of TRIZ” or the basis for Su-Field analysis and decidedly it will not be considered as an efficient tool for engineering problems solving. Quantitative analysis of resources and the application of effects’ indices could give much more.
There is no reference to MATCEM either in the requirements of A TRIZ to the education of TRIZ specialists ( ), or in the development “Basic knowledge on TRIZ” [20]. I could only hope that while developing the TRIZ training programs, the opinions from these authoritative methodological recommendations will be taken into account.
It would also be highly desirable that the acronym MATCEM should not become a reference pattern of a scientific research in the field of TRIZ. It could appear now that TRIZ research in the field of biology [21-24] is less important or at least not sufficiently complete for the development of this direction in TRIZ, until the letter B appears in the corresponding acronym.
The phenomenon of MATCEM myth flourishing proves that the TRIZ trainees and practitioners have a need for using a simple, accessible and high-quality tool for using substances and fields for solving problems and forecasting the development of the systems.
I hope that everyone understands – if someone has a sudden wish to use a well-known acronym as a memorizing tool, no punishment is stipulated for that. Simple we needn’t overdo the thing and announce it to be a trend.
The change in the operation principle and in the field being used could appear to be efficient irrespective of any acronyms. It could be that someone would take the trouble to analyze the resources of the system and he properties of the system components – it will make it easier to search for fields, which are needed for synthesis of a new operation principle of the fields. No less useful is the use of an index of physical effects[8]. Efficient is the transfer of a method for implementation of a required function from other areas. Mechanisms for transition along the line of increasing fields controllability are described in [33, 34]
Creation of a simple and efficient tool for searching for a new operation principle of the system is a topic for additional research.
3. Myth concerning the trend of completeness of the system parts.
3.1. Erroneous assertion.
Erroneous is not the very trend of systems parts completeness in the following formulation:
“a necessary condition for essential viability of the engineering system is the presence and the minimum workability of system main parts” [1], but its following explication, refinement:
“Each engineering system should include four main parts: the motor, the transmission, the working member and the control member”.
We shall explain below, where the error is.
3.2. Short history of origin.
In 1867 Karl Marx in the first volume of his book “The Capital”, descxribing the role of machines in the formation of the capital and enhancement of the workers exploitation, remarked that “it is necessary to study, how an instrument of labor transforms from a tool into a machine or in what way a machine is different from an artisan’s tool”.[25] .
In 1956 G.S.Altshuller and R.B.Shapiro in their article [26] give the following quotation: “Karl Marx in “The Capital” offered a structural-and-functional characteristic of the machines: "Each developed set of machines (entwickelteMaschinerie) consists of three significantly different parts: machine-motor, transmission mechanism and finally, the machine-tool or a working machine”. Further on, it will become a basis for formulating the trend ofcompleteness of engineering system parts. 
In 1973 G.S.Altshuller goes back to the topic of development of engineering objects through formation of their parts. In [27, Supplement 2] «The general pattern for engineering systems evolution” is quoted. In fact, all this table could be looked upon as a rendering of the trend of completeness of system components: first come individual parts of the system, then the integration of these parts via activity of the human, then other elements appear instead of the human, which enable to create the new stable engineering system. It is interesting that the quoted pattern does not include any reference to motor, transmission and working member.
As far as I understand, the notion of “engineering system” was first used in [27, p. 229]. It is important to mention that in 1973 G.S.Altshuller used this term actually for describing machines. Here are some examples of engineering systems from [27]: heating system, hydrotransport, submarines, steamboats, steam locomotives, telegraph, glass manufacturing.
In 1977-1979 in the works [28 and 1] G.S.Altshuller formulated the system of engineering evolution and, in particular, the trend of system parts completeness – the engineering system should include four main parts: motor, transmission, working member and control member. During the following years the formulation of the trend remained, but the engineering system was understood not as a machine, but as any technical object, intended for performing this or that function [29]: nail, thread, ampule, brick, telescope, water in the swimming pool, etc.
3.3. Why the “trend of completeness” is not a trend.
A simple substitution of notions took place. K.Marx in 1867 wrote about the machines, not about all engineering systems. If we assume that any engineering system should consist of four “significantly different” components (according to Marx), then it is necessary:
- either to acknowledge that, for example, the motor (or transmission or a tool) is not an engineering system, since it is not characterized by completeness of system parts;
- or to assume that, for example, the motor itself consists of an endless set of subsystems of other motors, transmissions and tools (actuating members).
The second supposition completely destroys the structures offered by Karl Marx, to which G.S.Altshuller and R.B.Shapiro refer in [26]. For K.Marx the origination of a machine is a basis for forming large industry and capital. An essential difference of instruments of labor from machines, according to Marx, is the presence of three mutually connected “significantly different parts: machine-motor, transmission, finally, a machine used as a labor instrument, or a working machine” [25]. If we suppose that the instruments of labor consist of the same triad (moto-transmission-instrument of labor), we cannot speak about any kind of industrial revolution and a new stage in the development of economics – nothing essentially new happened in this case.
In order “to save” the trend, one has to follow the first variant – neither the motors, nor instruments of labor (actuating member) are engineering systems. It was proposed in [30]. According to this version neither the plough, nor an arrow and other instruments of labor are engineering systems. This negation is based on the “law”[9]. What’s the use of it for the system of TESE? Does it mean that “incompletely engineering systems” develop not according to the trends of engineering evolution, but according to some other laws? No, this is not true. The only meaning of this innovation is to get rid of internal contradictions of the trend of engineering systems completeness.
There is one more method of saving the authoritativeness of internally contradictory “trend” – it is not obligatory to fulfill the demands of this trend. It is written in [30] about this “trend”: “However, in creation and improvement of ES, it is often violated”.
The publication [3] includes a more particular utterance concerning four standard units of the trend of system parts completeness: “Some of these units could be missing”. And , further on, we read the following: “This trend has a fairly restricted application”.
Transition from the notion of “a machine” to the notion of “an engineering system” leads to the appearance of internal contradictions in the trend of system parts completeness,to the necessity to deprive the instruments of labor of appurtenance to engineering systems. In practice of engineering systems analysis this “trend” not only appears useless, but also ogten leads to erroneous assertions and conclusions.
3.4. What should be changed.
Let us formulate the contradiction, which manifested itself long ago: if we consider that every engineering system should include four main parts: motor, transmission, working member and control member, then the instruments of labor (working member) cannot be related to engineering systems, and the motor, taken separately shall neither be called an engineering system, etc.
V.Petrov [35] sticks to the following viewpoint: «ES is understood by me as a system consisting of working (actuating) member, source and transducer of energy (information) as well as the control system. If a certain element is missing, this is not an ES. It could be an instrument, for example, a working memeber, a mechanism or a machine...”[10].
Another approach is proposed by Yu.Murashkovsky. The engineering system should consist of 4 functional units (motor, transmission, working member, control member) and can be regarded as ES only during the performance of its main function. Thus, an instrument of labor is a part of an ES only at that very moment, when it (instrument of labor) is used for the implementation of the function. In other words, in keeping with this approach, the knife, lying on the table, is not an ES. However, when it is used for cutting bread, it becomes a part of the system “motor” (hand) – “transmission” (handle and the main part of the blade) – “working body” (cutting edge of the blade).
What is the shortcoming of the viewpoint, which implies that the instrument of labor (otr other components of the machine) permanently or during the non-functioning are not looked upon as an engineering system. The thing is that all other trends of ES evolution are applicable to these “non-engineering” systems: elimination of circumstances, elimination of contradictions, tendency to ideality, transition to supersystem and to the micro-level, etc. And only one trend causes problems. Maybe, it would be better to substitute this law for another one?
Another approach is proposed in [31]: “The completeness of ES is associated with the completeness of functional structure of ES operation principle and its exhaustive material embodiment”.
In [32] a supposition was made that “… it is possible to single out the typical function-targeted systems (FTS). In this case the trend of system parts completeness could be substituted by a more correct trend: the systems should at least perform a set of functions, which is necessary for the type of FTS, to which the given system relates”.
For example, it is possible to single out at least three types of functioning systems (that is, systems having the main function):
1. Type of the engineering system “Working member” (instrument of labor)”. The main function is to change the parameters of the object being processed (the object of function). It should consist at least of three constituent functions: to change the target parameter of the function object; to combine the working member with the subject of the function; to unite (and to uncouple) the carriers of first and second function.
For example: arrow, pike, needle, knife, pencil, etc. 
2. Type of the engineering system “Motor”. The main function is to generate the required energy flow of substance or field. It should consist at least of three constituent functions: to generate kinetic energy (energy of motion) from potential energy; to generate the required form of motion (flow); to convert the carrier of the first function into the carrier of the second function. Characteristic is the very fact of conversion of one type of energy into another one. 
For example: Steam engine – potential energy of coal is converted using steam into mechanic motion. Electric motor – potential energy of electricity (voltage) is converted through electromagnetic transformation into mechanical motion.
3. Type of the engineering system “Transmission”. The main function is to change the characteristic of the energy flow of substance or field. It should consist at least of three constituent functions: to accept and to get the energy flow; to pass the energy flow with required parameters (characteristics); to convert the carrier of the first function into a carrier of the second function. Characteristic is the variation of parameters of energy flow without changing the energy type.
For example: band wheel revolution motion is translated at a distance. Gear wheels in the clocks translate and change the characteristic of revolution motion. The reducer translates the change in revolution momentum. Hydraulic system with a piston translates the pressure from one place to another, changing its characteristic. The pair screw – nut converts revolution motion into translation motion.
4. Type of the engineering system “Control system”. The main function is to control the required characteristic of the object of the function. It should consist at least of three constituent functions: to generate controlling action (based on comparing parameters, assigned algorithm or otherwise); change the necessary parameter of the object of the function; translate the action of the first function into the action of the second function. Characteristic is the presence of the goal, execution control, stability and reliability of control, etc.
For example: car accelerator, TV switch, regulator of lamp light brightness, etc.  
In an actual engineering system one and the same carrier could perform several functions simultaneously. As Yu.Murashkovsky noted, some constituent components of the engineering system could really appear only for the necessary period of time. For example, in airjet engines part of the engine is integrated with transmission and actuating member (jet flow), which also appear only during the process of engine functioning.
Probably, other types of functioning systems are also possible, for example, transport, communication systems, calculation systems, for which a typical functional pattern could be constructed.
Proposed approach eliminates contradictions in the trend of completeness of system parts and most probably could be used for describing not only engineering systems.
Probably, other approaches to the development of the trend of completeness of the system parts are also possible. In all cases it will require additional research.
1. Certain “trends” and “regulations” , which are generally accepted in TRIZ, in reality appear to be a myth. It makes it necessary to revise not only individual trends and tools of TRIZ, but also the entire TESE system.
2. In forming TESE system it is important to trace historical components of these trends in economic, social and other aspects. It is necessary to take into account the openness of engineering systems [36], their association with other regularities in the development of civilization.
3. It is possible to single out five stages of myth formation:
·         Formation of the idea, paradigm in its initial form (the myth is not yet created)
·         Enlarged treatment of initial idea (probably, with some limitations or warnings)
·         Many authors promote the enlarged treatment to the rank of universally accepted trend (origination of the myth)
·         Attempts are made to correct the myth in order to eliminate the contradictions, which have appeared
·         A new paradigm is set forth or more exact constraints are stipulated for the use of the paradigm.
Final remarks
As a rule, the myths are attractive: they are bright, easy to remember, they don’t require any factual proof. However, it is important not to forget that this is only a myth. It should not be promoted to the rank of the universal law. Understanding the existence of this or that myth should be a starting platform for the discussion concerning the new TESE system and new research in this field.
It is clear that three myths about the trends of engineering systems evolution don’t make an exhaustive list. It is quite probable that the article concerning myths in TESE could have a continuation.
1. G.S.Altshuller. Creation as an exact science. Theory of inventive problem solving, Moscow, “Sowietskoje radio publishers”, 1979
2. Altshuller G. On forecasting the engineering systems evolution. – Baku, 1975. – 13 p. (manuscript) .
3. A. Liubomirsky, S. Litvin, Trends of engineering systems evolution, GEN3 Partners, February 2003,
4. Kynin A.., Lenyashin V.A. Evaluation of engineering systems parameters using the growth curves, TRIZ-Summit-2008,
5. Esphyr Zlotina, Vladimir Petrov. Introduction to the theory of inventive problem-solving, Manual. Tel-Aviv, 1999.
6. V.A.Shiryajeva. Development of system-and-logics thinking of the students during the process of studying the inventive problem-solving (TRIZ)
Autoabstract of the dissertation of the applicant for the Ph.D degree, Saratov, 2000
7. A. Kynin, V. Lenyashin, N.Feygenson. Evolution of engineering systems
8. A.. Kynin, V.A. Lenyashin, N.B.Feygenson. Selection of parameters for development of engineering systems along the “life line”
9. Joseph P. Martino. Technological forecasting, (Translated from English, original title: “Technological Forecasting for Decision-making”, New York – 1972) “Progress Publishers”, Moscow - 1977, 592 p.
10. B. L. Zlotin, A.V.Zussman. Models for the creator, TRIZ Journal, 93,1 Theory of teams development, Kishinyov, 1994,
11. N.Green, W.Stout, D.Taylor. Biology, volume 1.Moscow, “Mir publishers”, 1993, p. 21.
12. N.Green, W.Stout, D.Taylor. Biology, volume 3. Moscow, “Mir publishers”, 1993, p. 158-169.
13. .Rubin, Principle of capture and variety in systems evolution. Introduction to the theory of capture. 2006, Saint-Petersburg.
14. Theory and practice of inventive problem solving/Edited by G. Altshuller. - Gorky, 1976. - 198 p.
15. Search for new ideas: from insight to technology (Theory and practice for inventive problem solving). /G.S.Altshuller, B.L.Zlotin, A.V.Zussman, V.I.Filatov. - Kishinyov: Cartia moldoveniaske, 1989.- 382 p.
16. S.I.Suminov, K.A.Sklobovsky. Why is the Letter R missing in the word MATCEM? TRIZ Journal, 96, 1 (No.11)
17. Yu.Belsky. “Systematization of Su-Field analysis and using it beyond the limits of engineering systems”, materials of dissertation on TRIZ, 2008,
18. V.A.Mikhailov, T.V.Kuznetsova, D.A.Grishanov. Chemical effects for engineers and one more effect, materials of conference TRIZ-Fest 2009, Saint-Petersburg,
19. “Engineering management”, Training program and curriculum for 2002, Chair of engineering management of Moscow Energy Institute (Technical University),
20. S.Litvin, V.Petrov, .Rubin. Basics of TRIZ knowledge, 15.01.2007,
21. V.A.Buchwalov, Yu.S.Murashkovsky. Inventing the turtle. How to use TRIZ in the school course of biology. A book for teachers and students. Riga. - 1993. - 124 p.
22. Altshuller G.S. Bioeffects – analogs of physical effects. -Baku, 1982.
23. V.I.Timokhov. Biological effects. Cognition. Information and methodological collection of materials for teachers and students. Issue 5, Riga. Scientific and engineering center “Progress”. Pedagogical technology laboratory. 1993. - p. 4-31.
24. V.I.Timokhov. Collection of cards on biological effects. Teaching aids for biology teachers. - Gomel: Literary creative laboratory “ICO”,1993. 47 p.
25. K. Marx. The Capital. Book one. Section four. Production of relative surplus exchange value. Chapter Thirteen. Machines and large industry. 1. Evolution of machines.
26. Altshuller G.S., Shapiro R.B., On psychology of inventive creation//Voprossy psikhologii, No. 6, 1956. - P. 37-49
27. Algorithm of invention /G.S.Altshuller. – 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. - M.: Moskovsky rabotchy publishers, 1973. - 296 p.
28. On Trends of engineering systems evolution. / G.S.Altshuller.- Baku, 1977.- 15 p.
29. G.S.Altshuller. To find an idea, Novosibirsk, 1991.
30. Yu.P.Salamatov, “System of trends of engineering evolution”, collection of materials “Chance for an Adventure”, Petrozavodsk, “Karelia”, 1991.
31. Rubin M.S., Studies in the trends of engineering systems evolution. Saint-Petersburg, 2006,
32. Rubin M.S., On theory of designing innovative technological systems, 2008, Saint-Petersburg.
33. Petrov V. Transition to more complicated and energy intensive forms. – Tel-Aviv, 2002
34. Petrov V., Zlotina E. Structural Su-Field analysis. – Tel-Aviv, 1999.
35. Petrov V. Trends of engineering systems organization. –, 2002
36. Murashkovsky Yu.S. “Beyond the limits of laws”, TRIZ-Summit 2006
August12, 2009.

[4] Chapter 4, devoted to Su-Field analysis is written by I.Flickstein.
[5] Bold type by M.Rubin
[6] G.S.Altshuller never used this acronym and did not approve of using it.
[7] No wonder, if such dice really appear at the TRIZ training sessions. Perhaps, someone will invent the method of using two or three cubes at once in order to prompt the combination of fields. (M. Rubin).
[9] It is interesting to compare two opposing viewpoints. In [30], for example, it is written: “The origin of ES is associated with the invention of the plough in Neolith: the plough (working member) furrows the earth, the tongue (transmission) is fastened to the harness of the cattle (motor), while the handle of the plough is controlled by the human (control member)”.
K.Marx is ironic about this viewpoint: “On the other hand, the difference between the labor instrument and machine is sometimes treated like this: with the labor instrument the locomotive force is the human, while with the machine the function of such locomotive force is played by the forces of nature, which are different from the human force, for example, the animal, water, wind, etc. However, in this case, a plough with harnessed bulls, related to different epochs of production, would be a machine, while a round-knitting Klaussen machine, which is brought into motion with the hand of one worker and makes 96 000 loops per minute, would be a simple instrument” [25].
[10] From private correspondence.
  site.nav.on_main |