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

 

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:

- There is a “Trend of S-curve evolution” [3]

- 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 engineering system should necessarily include a motor, a transmission, an operating member and a control member [1].

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.

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.

Most probably, the first mentioning of S-curve evolution of the systems could be related to mthe middle of the 19^th 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 19^th 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].

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^îÑ, 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.

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 20^th 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.

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.

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.

 

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) - www.resultat-ru.ru/rtraining.htm

·         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.
www.znaj.ru/html/2202_4.html

·         … understanding of the processes, developing in different spheres, from MATCEM to collective unconscious…
www.reklama-mama.ru/forum/viewentry.asp?entry=21933&r=634035&page=23

·         All possible fields (bonds) between the components of the system – MATCEM). www.oborudovanieregion.ru/service/Materials

·         Don’t jump over the steps of the MATCEM formula! www.worldcrisis.ru/crisis/408844

·         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). http://triz.org.ua/data/w97.html

·         The main rule of su-field analysis? – The finished Su-Field should be constructed to the end! MATCEM! www.studioagir.com

·         The field in the list are arranged in the order of increase of their energy-saving value – this is the so called MATCEM sequence: http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/5971.html

·         It is possible to use the abbreviation MATCEM, which is easily rememebered and has become a kind of a “name card” of TRIZ. http://alexander-kynin.boom.ru/TRIZ/SMART/SMART-R.htm

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.

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 Ì (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 MATEÌEmCBcLNph {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..

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].

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 ÌA TRIZ to the education of TRIZ specialists ( http://www.matriz.ru/file.php/id/f5689/name/sertif-appendix-1.pdf ), 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.

 

“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:

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. 

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 â [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.

 

 

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) http://www.altshuller.ru/triz/zrts3.asp .

3. A. Liubomirsky, S. Litvin, Trends of engineering systems evolution, GEN3 Partners, February 2003, http://www.metodolog.ru/00767/00767.html

4. Kynin A.Ò., Lenyashin V.A. Evaluation of engineering systems parameters using the growth curves, TRIZ-Summit-2008, http://www.metodolog.ru/01428/01428.html

5. Esphyr Zlotina, Vladimir Petrov. Introduction to the theory of inventive problem-solving, Manual. Tel-Aviv, 1999. http://www.trizminsk.org/e/23110.htm#a2

6. V.A.Shiryajeva. Development of system-and-logics thinking of the students during the process of studying the inventive problem-solving (TRIZ) http://www.trizminsk.org/e/prs/236002.htm

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 http://www.metodolog.ru/01488/01488.html

8. A.Ò. 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. http://www.metodolog.ru/01175/01175.html

10. B. L. Zlotin, A.V.Zussman. Models for the creator, TRIZ Journal, 93,1 Theory of teams development, Kishinyov, 1994, http://triz-summit.ru/ru/section.php?docId=3946

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. Ì.Rubin, Principle of capture and variety in systems evolution. Introduction to the theory of capture. 2006, Saint-Petersburg. http://www.temm.ru/ru/section.php?docId=3433

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, http://triz-summit.ru/ru/section.php?docId=4013

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, http://triz-summit.ru/file.php/id/f4397/name/Chem_Effects-09-2%2002.doc

19. “Engineering management”, Training program and curriculum for 2002, Chair of engineering management of Moscow Energy Institute (Technical University), http://www.bsmpei.ru/Podrobnee/IngenerMenedg.html

20. S.Litvin, V.Petrov, Ì.Rubin. Basics of TRIZ knowledge, 15.01.2007, http://triz-summit.ru/ru/section.php?docId=3603

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. http://lugovoy-k.narod.ru/marx/23/020.htm

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. – 2^nd 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, http://www.temm.ru/ru/section.php?docId=3432

32. Rubin M.S., On theory of designing innovative technological systems, 2008, Saint-Petersburg. http://www.temm.ru/ru/section.php?docId=3935

33. Petrov V. Transition to more complicated and energy intensive forms. – Tel-Aviv, 2002 http://www.trizland.ru/trizba/pdf-books/zrts-16-energo.pdf

34. Petrov V., Zlotina E. Structural Su-Field analysis. – Tel-Aviv, 1999. http://www.trizland.com/trizba/pdf-books/vepol.pdf

35. Petrov V. Trends of engineering systems organization. – http://www.trizland.ru/trizba/pdf-books/zrts-06-organ-ts.pdfTel-Aviv, 2002

36. Murashkovsky Yu.S. “Beyond the limits of laws”, TRIZ-Summit 2006 http://triz-summit.ru/ru/section.php?docId=3429

 

August12, 2009.

 

 

 

 

---