Blog

Home Blog TESE by MATRIZ

TESE by MATRIZ

TESE by MATRIZ

…or how the trends of engineering systems evolution evolved

Our knowledge base has just expanded to include another key concept – arguably the most important one in all of TRIZ. We’re talking about the trends of engineering system evolution (TESE). In TRIZ, TESE are more than just a tool. They reflect a deep conviction that technological progress isn’t a string of random events, but a pattern we can observe, understand, and consciously apply. TESE aim to capture the logic behind change – the rhythm of transformation that every system follows in its pursuit of a more ideal form.

In TRIZ, every technical solution is seen as a moment in a larger evolutionary process – not as a final destination, but as a link in a chain moving steadily toward increasing ideality. TESE describe this chain: not isolated innovations, but the broader directions in which technology naturally evolves. They show that innovation doesn’t have to be a chaotic burst of creativity – it can be an intentional step along a path humanity, as the creator of systems, is already walking.

TESE form a kind of roadmap for the technological evolution of the world. They also embody a belief that the process of invention can be made more rational, and that creativity itself can become more accessible, structured, and predictable. It’s a philosophy of creative order in a world that often appears ruled by chance.

TESE by MATRIZ

According to MATRIZ, the structure of TESE takes the form of a multi-level hierarchy that resembles a tree of dependencies. At the very top sits the trend of the S-Curve evolution, driven by the trend of increasing value. Just below it, we find five core “pillars” that support the rise in value:

Digging deeper, each of these pillars contains sub-trends and/or internal mechanisms that further define the dynamics of higher-level trends.

Figure 1. Hierarchy of TESE in MATRIZ methodology.

How did it all begin?

The origins of TESE in TRIZ go back to the time when Genrich Altshuller – a young naval officer and passionate inventor – began noticing recurring patterns within the thousands of patents he studied. But it’s worth noting that while TESE are inseparably linked to Altshuller, the story didn’t actually start with him. Long before, in various research communities, people were already trying to understand and describe the logic behind technological development. In the 1940s and 1950s, researchers at different scientific and technical institutes were analysing the evolution of machines, mechanisms, and industrial processes, looking for patterns that could help forecast future changes. Among these efforts were the first glimpses of what would later become the foundation of TRIZ: the idea that technology doesn’t evolve chaotically but follows certain laws.

So, Altshuller didn’t invent TESE out of thin air. Rather, he gave structure and direction to scattered intuitions that were already circulating among engineers of his time. He gathered them, organized them, and transformed them into a coherent system – turning engineering experience into a tool for systematic innovation. Altshuller wasn’t interested in isolated ideas. He was after the principles behind them – the hidden logic of technical evolution. His goal wasn’t to explain the past but to build a method for anticipating the future.

This idea gave rise to the concept of trends – initially called “lines of development of technical systems.” These were the first steps toward a systematic description of the changes that occur in technical systems, regardless of industry or application. Altshuller observed that many phenomena – such as segmentation, increasing dynamism, or transitions to higher system levels – recur across the development of different devices, mechanisms, and technologies. These weren’t coincidences. They were patterns.

As early as the 1950s, Altshuller and his team of engineers, analysts, and educators began the painstaking work of identifying and describing these patterns. By the 1970s and 1980s, a structure began to emerge – one that made it possible to move from a general understanding of system evolution to concrete ways of transforming it. It became possible not only to identify what stage a system was currently in and which main trends were active, but also to find specific solutions to help the system evolve in a desired direction. This work resulted in the first list of eight trends, grouped into three categories: statics, kinematics, and dynamics:

Statics

Law of the completeness of the parts of the system: A technical system must have four essential parts: engine, transmission, working unit, and control unit. Without these, it cannot function effectively.
Law of energy conductivity of the system: Energy must be transmitted efficiently through all parts of the system for it to function. Improving energy conductivity leads to system advancement.
Law of harmonization of the rhythm of the parts of the system: The operating speeds or rhythms of various system components must be coordinated for efficient performance and minimal losses.

Kinematics

Law of increasing the degree of ideality: Systems evolve toward increased ideality, meaning more useful functions with fewer resources (cost, energy, materials, etc.).
Law of the uneven development of parts of a system: Different parts of a system evolve at different rates. This non-uniform development often creates contradictions that drive further innovation.
Law of transition to a supersystem: Once a system reaches the limits of its evolution, it becomes part of a larger system (a supersystem) to continue improving.

Dynamics

Law of increasing Su-Field involvement: Over time, technical systems tend to involve more substance-field (Su-Field) interactions, leading to more complex and controllable operations.
Law of transition from macro to micro level: Systems evolve from using macro-level physical effects to micro-level (e.g., moving from mechanical to molecular or atomic-level solutions).

Over time, a ninth law was added to the original list, classified under kinematics: the law of increasing system dynamism [2].

Even then, researchers began to draw connections between these groups of laws and the S-Curve – a model representing the life cycle of technical systems. The laws of statics were seen as characteristic of the system’s birth and formation phase; the laws of kinematics marked the beginning of growth and peak development; and the laws of dynamics applied to the final stage of evolution and the system’s transition to a new form.

In 1991, Yuri Petrovich Salamatov published his book for inventors studying TRIZ – The System of laws of development of technology: Fundamentals of the theory of development of technical systems [3]. In this work, he compiled Altshuller’s nine laws and the logic of the three blocks, supplementing them with his own graphical models and around 200 patent-based examples. We highly recommend this book – not only as a valuable historical resource on the development of TESE, but also as a treasure trove of real-world examples illustrating each trend.

TRIZ experts didn’t stop with the state of knowledge from the early ’90s. Statistical analysis of hundreds of thousands of patents continued, and with it, the trends kept evolving. The most experienced TRIZ practitioners and theorists kept building on the pioneering work of Altshuller and his contemporaries. They sought practical applications, proposed additional trends, introduced sub-trends (referred to as mechanisms in MATRIZ), and explored possible structures for organizing TESE.

Where did the MATRIZ structure come from?

If you’re looking for the original structure proposed by Altshuller’s team and described by Salamatov, you won’t find it in today’s MATRIZ methodology. The earlier division into statics, kinematics, and dynamics has been replaced by a hierarchical tree, where some trends act as sub-trends of others. At the top of this hierarchy sits the meta-trend of S-Curve evolution. This new approach streamlines the diagnostic process: first, identify the maturity phase of the system on the S-curve – only then choose the appropriate line of development. What was once a descriptive catalog of trends has evolved into a statistically validated design tool.

While the TRIZ community widely agrees on the practical value of TESE across industries, there is far less consensus when it comes to terminology and the overall system structure. Today, several distinct schools of thought coexist.

One of the hottest innovation hubs in the late 1990s was Boston. In 1999, GEN3 Partners was founded there – a company created to merge business analytics, engineering, and TRIZ’s Russian roots into a method for delivering “scientific innovation” on demand. The experts affiliated with GEN3 quickly began adapting Altshuller’s tools for Western product development. The collision of established theory with commercial application soon led to major contributions in the evolution of TESE. This culminated in an internal publication titled Trends of engineering systems evolution: Guide [6]. For the first time, 11 master trends were clearly outlined, each supported by dozens of mechanisms, forming a coherent hierarchy. We highly recommend reading this guide – not only for its insight into the early structure of TESE by MATRIZ, but also for its wealth of illustrated, real-world examples.

The S-Curve evolution and increasing value were defined as driving forces. The remaining nine trends (including trimming, flow enhancement, uneven development etc.) described branching directions in product evolution. Most trends were divided into logical phases to support forecasting of technology jumps. Over the following years, this system was refined through the analysis of thousands of patents and hundreds of real-world projects – for companies such as GE, Samsung, P&G, and Boston Scientific. In its training programs, GEN3 presented a complete hierarchical trend model. This structure was eventually adopted into the official MATRIZ curriculum.

But what about the trends themselves?

When you compare the GEN3 trends – later adopted by MATRIZ – with Altshuller’s original list, at first glance, it may seem that not only the structure has changed, but the trends themselves are entirely different. But is that really the case?

It’s true that some new trends were introduced, such as the trend of increasing degree of trimming – understandably so, since trimming wasn’t part of the TRIZ toolkit in its early days. But what about those seemingly exotic laws from the original set, like the increasing Su-Field involvement, the transition from macro to micro level, or the energy conductivity of the system?

Let’s take a closer look.

In the late 1970s version of TESE, the law of increasing Su-Field involvement actually contained the early logic behind what would later become the trends of increasing dynamization and increasing controllability. At that time, these directions weren’t yet listed separately. But by the early 1980s, methodologists like V. Petrov began treating increased dynamism and controllability as independent lines of evolution – effectively “flattening” the original law into more specific elements.

In GEN3’s guide, the Su-Field trend no longer appears as a separate item. Instead, its logic had been redistributed among other trends. Lyubomirskiy and Litvin didn’t “delete” the law – they simply presented a more streamlined taxonomy, encouraging practitioners to focus on clarity and avoid duplicating concepts. What was once a standalone principle was now broken down: its mechanical aspects absorbed by the increasing dynamization trend; its energy-information logic incorporated into increasing controllability; and the formal term “Su-Field” retained only in the Su-Field analysis tool.

A similar shift happened with the law of transition from macro to micro level. In Altshuller’s original hierarchy, this trend explained the move toward miniaturized actuators or tools, with each “step down” providing more precision and better control. But researchers eventually realized that miniaturization was rarely the end goal – it was a means to achieve greater dynamism and controllability. As a result, the macro → micro transition began to be treated as a method within those broader lines of evolution. Like the Su-Field trend, it didn’t disappear – it just moved backstage in the MATRIZ hierarchy, supporting higher-level design decisions related to control, dynamics, and resource selection.

The story of the law of energy conductivity of the system was outlined in a 2014 article by Yuri Lebedev and Sergei Logvinov [4]. This trend remained virtually unchanged for many years – up until around 2002, based on available publication dates. In the book Search for new ideas: From inspiration to technology (Theory and practice for inventive problem solving), authored by Genrikh Altshuller, Alla Zusman, and Boris Zlotin, this principle is no longer presented as a standalone law, but as part of a broader trend: increasing coordination in systems.

Vladimir Petrov offered a slightly different take. He described the trend as the increasing saturation of systems with appropriate energy, viewing it as a sub-trend within the transition to the micro-level trend – although, in his interpretation, it wasn’t about reaching a minimum required energy level, but rather about a directional line of system evolution.

In the work of Litvin and Lyubomirskiy, this trend takes on an entirely new form rather than simply building on its predecessor. Reframed as the trend of increasing efficiency in the use of substances, energy, and information flows, it not only covers a much broader spectrum of flows, but also shifts focus: from merely enabling a system’s existence to actively improving its performance.

Their article introduces a comprehensive list of 42 mechanisms – practical guidelines for enhancing flows in a system. These mechanisms are grouped by flow type and categorized into two main areas: variation in flow conductivity and variation in flow efficiency.

Subsequent work helped shape the form this trend takes today in the MATRIZ methodology, where it appears under the name trend of flow enhancement.

So, what has really changed?

As we can see, while the trend structure promoted by MATRIZ has been clearly streamlined and reorganized, a closer look at the trends themselves reveals that there has been no real break from the past. On the contrary – many of Altshuller’s classic ideas are still very much present, though now they may be renamed, broken down into more actionable elements, or grouped under broader categories.

What has changed is not the core logic of how systems evolve, but the way that logic is presented and applied. Early TESE concepts were rooted in abstract formulations and broad system-level observations. Today, those same ideas have been refined into tools that are easier to use in practical innovation work. Instead of long lists of general laws, we now have a hierarchy of trends, mechanisms, and flow diagrams that help innovators diagnose a system’s stage of evolution and choose the most appropriate development path.

This shift reflects the growing emphasis on usability and clarity in TRIZ methodology. For engineers and innovation teams, the updated structure offers a more intuitive map – one that translates deep theory into step-by-step guidance. In this sense, the evolution of TESE mirrors the very process it describes: increasing ideality, improved coordination, better flow, and more precise control.

TESE by MATRIZ may look new on the surface, but at their core, they still rely on the same insights that shaped TRIZ from the beginning. It’s not a reinvention – it’s a maturing system, built on solid foundations.

About the author:

Magda Krupinska

A certified TRIZ (Level 3) and DFP (Level 3) expert, co-author of four TRIZ and DFP textbooks translated into multiple languages, experienced in training and lecturing. On a daily basis, actively involved in search and TRIZ activities in R&D projects. Scientific Secretary of the International TRIZ Association (MATRIZ).

References

https://wiki.matriz.org/knowledge-base/triz/trends-of-engineering-systems-evolution-tese-5919/
G.S. Altshuller. Find an idea. Novosibirsk, „Science”, 1986.
Y. Salmatov. The system of laws of development of technology, Fundamentals of the theory of development of technical systems (Система законов развития техники, Основы теории развития технических систем).1991-1996. Available at (in Russian):
https://www.trizminsk.org/e/21101000
Y. Lebedev, S. Logvinov, Integration of Flow Analysis with Function Analysis. 2014. Available at:
https://r1.nubex.ru/s828-c8b/f2170_2a/Lebedev-Logvinov%20TRIZ-Summit%202014%20ENG.pdf
V. Petrov, История законов развития систем (History of the laws of development of systems). 2008. Available at (in Russian):
https://triz-summit.ru/triz/history/204833/
A. Lubomirski, S. Litvin, Trends of engineering systems evolution (Законы развития технических систем). 2003. Available at (in Russian):
https://www.metodolog.ru/00825/00825.html
V. Petrov. System of trends for engineering evolution as forecasting tool. In TRIZ-based forecasting methods. Collection of scientific papers Library of TRIZ Developers Summit. 2010. Available at:
ttps://r1.nubex.ru/s828-c8b/f3757_ff/TRIZ-Summit-2010-sbornik-rms.pdf