Blog

The missing link in TESE application

Introduction

The pace of engineering system evolution has never been faster. In a world where competitive advantage relies on innovation, trends of engineering system evolution (TESE) play a pivotal role. They help predict the future trajectory of system development, enabling more informed design decisions. However, previous analyses have primarily focused on the general principles of TESE, overlooking a crucial question: which trends should be applied at different stages of system evolution?

Dr. Sergey Yatsunenko has tackled this challenge head-on. His research fills a critical gap in the methodology, providing concrete recommendations for selecting TESE at various stages of system development. This marks a significant step toward a more precise and practical application of TRIZ in innovation management. Not only does it enhance our understanding of innovation dynamics, but – more importantly – it also improves the efficiency of implementation processes.

A comprehensive report on these findings will be available soon, as Dr. Yatsunenko’s research is the subject of his Level 5 MATRIZ (TRIZ Master) dissertation. Once the full text is publicly accessible, we will certainly revisit it. In the meantime, here’s a sneak peek at what’s to come.

Advantages and limitations of the traditional product life cycle approach

The traditional product life cycle model, structured around five key stages – concept, development, introduction, service, and withdrawal – has long been a reliable framework for organizing both strategic and operational activities. Its advantages are undeniable:

1. It enables clear planning and control over product implementation stages, making resource allocation and progress monitoring more efficient.
2. It facilitates the introduction of risk management mechanisms at every stage.
3. It ensures that a product remains competitive post-launch by maintaining quality through service and technical support.

However, in today’s fast-changing market, where technologies evolve rapidly and customization is becoming the norm, the rigidity of this model reveals significant limitations. Strict stage divisions struggle to keep pace with dynamic market trends, as products often require real-time modifications and personalization, which conflicts with predefined phases. Additionally, the lengthy implementation of each stage makes it difficult to respond swiftly to sudden shifts in consumer preferences.

Managing product development with TRIZ

This is where trends of engineering system evolution come to the aid of traditional approaches. As one of the foundational pillars of TRIZ, TESE serve as a key tool for forecasting and guiding innovation development.

Let’s briefly revisit the theory.

The core premise of TESE is that the evolution of technical systems is not a random process – it follows specific patterns. This means that engineers, innovators, and managers can anticipate future stages of system development and actively shape innovation pathways. By applying TESE, we not only gain a deeper understanding of how technical systems evolve but also acquire the ability to steer their future development in a structured way.

It is important to note that TESE cannot be discussed in isolation from the concept of the main parameter of value (MPV) – the single most critical aspect of a system from the user’s perspective. MPV is the key factor influencing a customer’s decision to choose one solution over another, making it an essential element in the strategic application of TESE.

The trends are organized in a hierarchical structure that reflects the relationships between them. In this structure, a subordinate trend serves as a sub-trend (mechanism) of a higher-level trend:

At the top of the TESE hierarchy sits the trend of the S-curve evolution, a fundamental principle describing how a technical system evolves over time. According to this trend, every system progresses through five distinct stages, with the dynamics of change in the main parameter of value (MPV) forming a characteristic S-shaped line:

The stages of system development according to the S-curve are as follows:

• Stage 1 (birth): the system exists as a concept, sketch, or prototype.
• Transitional stage: the system enters the market, initially targeting a specific niche.
• Stage 2 (rapid growth): the system moves into mass production, with increasing performance and efficiency.
• Stage 3 (maturity): development slows down as the system faces technological limitations.
• Stage 4 (decline stage): the system becomes inefficient or obsolete, gradually replaced by new technologies.

It’s important to distinguish between the S-curve and the five-phase product life cycle model. While the product life cycle focuses on market and operational aspects, the S-curve trend describes how the MPV evolves over time. In other words, the S-curve reflects the natural dynamics of system evolution, regardless of its market presence.

A key driving force behind the system’s development is the trend of increasing value, which is the direct mechanism of the main trend. This law underscores the need for continuous value growth, meaning that the ratio of a system’s total functionality to its overall costs must steadily improve. There are three main ways to achieve it:

1. enhancing functionality at a higher rate than cost increase (ΣF↑↑, ΣC↑),
2. reducing costs while maintaining the same functionality (ΣF_const, ΣC↓), or
3. optimization – simultaneously improving functionality and lowering costs.

Not every strategy for increasing value is effective at every stage of system evolution. The most suitable approach depends on the phase of the S-curve, as different actions yield better results at different points. In the birth and transitional stages, the priority is to enhance functionality while keeping cost growth as low as possible – at this stage, innovation and system development take precedence over cost efficiency. As the system reaches maturity, the focus shifts to reducing costs while maintaining functionality. In the decline phase, the primary goal is to minimize costs as much as possible, even at the expense of some functionality. It can be presented as follows:

For a system’s value to increase, its development must align with other key trends:

• trend of transition to the supersystem: as an engineering system evolves, it is integrated with supersystem components.
• trend of increasing completeness of system components: as an engineering system evolves, it acquires the following typical functions: operating agent, transmission, energy source, and control system.
• trend of decreasing human involvement: as an engineering system evolves, the number of engineering system functions performed by humans decreases.
• trend of increasing degree of trimming: as an engineering system evolves, system elements (components or operations) are eliminated without impairing the functionality of the system, and possibly improving it.
• trend of flow enhancement: as an engineering system evolves, flow rates of substances, energy, or information increase, and/or the flows are better utilized.
• trend of increasing coordination: as an engineering system evolves, characteristics of the components of the engineering system become more coordinated with each other and with the supersystem.
• trend of uneven development of system components: as an engineering system evolves, development is concentrated on the operating agent first, and on the rest of the system later.
• trend of increasing controllability: as engineering systems evolve, they develop more ways in which they can be controlled.
• trend of increasing dynamization: as an engineering system evolves, it and its components become more “dynamic”.

How do TESE help define and develop MPV? First, they help determine which system characteristics evolve naturally and hold the greatest significance for users. For example, if driving range is the key value for electric vehicle users, TESE can pinpoint the most effective pathways for improving it. Second, TESE enable the elimination of random, ineffective modifications. Instead of relying on trial-and-error improvements, they highlight the most probable and effective development directions, ensuring that enhancements deliver maximum value to users while keeping costs optimal. Third, they help align technology with market expectations. Studies show that consumers often struggle to clearly define their own needs. TESE allow companies to listen to the voice of the product, which – when combined with market research – helps precisely identify the key value parameter and its most promising development pathways. Ultimately, TESE act as a roadmap for innovation development, guiding companies away from technological dead ends and enabling them to manage product improvement efficiently, always keeping user expectations in focus.

Applying the appropriate trends based on the system’s development stage

Despite the vast potential of TESE, their effective application requires careful selection based on the development stage of a technical system. Not all trends are equally relevant at every phase of product or technology evolution. For example, during the early stages of system development, such as prototype research, different trends will be crucial compared to those needed in the maturity or decline phases.

Early stages demand more radical innovations, favoring trends that drive breakthrough changes. In contrast, the maturity stage focuses on optimization and cost reduction, requiring a different set of evolutionary trends. Some trends may seem theoretically attractive, but their implementation at a given stage could be financially unviable or technologically impractical. Therefore, understanding TESE is not enough – their practical adaptation to business and technological conditions is essential.

The effective use of TESE in real-world innovation processes remains one of the key challenges faced by the TRIZ community. While existing knowledge has focused on the general principles of technical system evolution, there has been a lack of practical guidelines for applying these principles at specific points on the S-curve.

Recent research addresses this gap by providing a set of recommendations that guide the precise selection of trends based on the system’s current phase. These recommendations are based on the thorough analysis of case studies of technology evolution across various industries, combined with TRIZ methodology.

To evaluate the effectiveness of different trends, a three-level rating system was used:

• 3 points: a highly important trend that is critical for successfully advancing through this stage of system development – its application has a direct impact on competitiveness, survival, and further evolution of the system,
• 2 points: a medium important trend that is important for maintaining stability and optimizing the system at this stage – while it contributes to improving certain aspects, it is not decisive for the system’s survival or competitiveness,
• 1 point: a low important trend with limited impact at this stage of technical system development. Its application is not a priority and can be postponed or minimized without significantly affecting the system’s overall performance and progression.

The final recommendations have been structured into a comprehensive table, assigning priority ratings to each trend based on its relevance at different stages of system development:

The analysis has shown that not all trends hold the same significance at every stage of a system’s life cycle – their effectiveness depends on the dynamics of development and the phase in which the technology currently exists. The top trends – the trend of the S-curve evolution and the trend of increasing value – play a crucial role throughout all phases of system evolution. This is understandable, as every technical system follows the same evolutionary stages, and its value must increase at every step to remain competitive. Other trends become particularly relevant during the rapid growth and maturity stages, where optimization efforts intensify.

In the early development phases, including birth and market entry, the trend of increasing system completeness and the trend of transition to the supersystem are especially important. At this stage, the system undergoes fundamental structural changes and the introduction of new functions. The focus is on building the system’s core architecture and testing its usability. During intensive growth and especially at the maturity stage, all other trends also become highly relevant. This makes sense – once a system reaches stability, the focus shifts to optimizations that enhance efficiency and reduce production costs. Finally, in the decline phase, most trends lose relevance, and cost minimization becomes the primary concern. Some trends help streamline processes but are no longer critical for further system development.

The introduction of TESE selection guidelines for different development stages represents a valuable addition to TRIZ methodology, providing practical recommendations. These insights enable more informed innovation management, leading to more efficient resource utilization, better technology development planning, and reduced risk of misguided investment decisions. This is a topic we will undoubtedly revisit in the future.

*

The first article on this topic was published a few months ago in the Polish industry magazine Production Manager. In this publication, Dr. Sergey Yatsunenko shared for the first time some of his remarkable research findings and analyses.

Production Manager is a professional journal aimed at production managers and manufacturing management specialists. Its primary goal is to provide up-to-date insights, analyses, and best practices related to efficient production process management. In the Polish market, it serves as a valuable knowledge resource for industry professionals, helping them optimize processes, implement modern technologies, and enhance their leadership skills in production teams.

To read the original Polish article, visit the magazine’s website.

*

About the authors

Sergey Yatsunenko

A PhD in physics, combining analytical thinking with a passion for innovation and technology. An expert in intellectual property and patent strategy. President and Board Member of MATRIZ. His passion for innovation extends beyond his daily professional activities. His commitment to market development is evident not only in his strong client relationships but also in his active support for startups, where he eagerly shares his expertise and provides guidance to emerging businesses.

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, managing a team and actively involved in search and TRIZ activities in R&D projects. Scientific Secretary of The International TRIZ Association (MATRIZ).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, managing a team and actively involved in search and TRIZ activities in R&D projects. Scientific Secretary of The International TRIZ Association (MATRIZ).

References

1. Głos produktu zestrojony z głosem klienta; Dr. Sergei Yatsunenko, Dr. Sergei Ikovenko, Magdalena Kurpińska; Production Manager 4/2024;
   https://production-manager.pl/o-czasopismie/wszystkie-wydania/production-manager-4-2024
2. TRIZ certification tests preparation, edition I Dr. Sergey Ikovenko, Magdalena Krupinska, Dr. Sergey Yatsunenko; Warsaw: Crido R&D, 2023 ISBN 9788395985188.