Why does technology need pluralism…
Why does technology need pluralism…
…or how feature transfer was born
Prolog
Almost every engineer knows that frustrating moment: you’re working on a new idea when suddenly you hit the dreaded word OR. It has to be either lightweight OR durable, cheap OR high-quality, simple OR effective. Technology seems to thrive on forcing us into contradictory choices, almost as if it wants to challenge our creativity. But what if we stopped thinking either–or and started thinking AND? It turns out technology doesn’t have to condemn us to endless compromises.
Our knowledge base recently gained a comprehensive overview of a powerful TRIZ tool called feature transfer. Taking this opportunity, let’s revisit the beginnings of this incredible tool.
Hybridization of technical systems is among the most effective ways to drive technological progress. The concept itself isn’t new – it’s been around since prehistoric times, when humans first consciously crafted tools and organized processes. Each historical era has brought new challenges and demands, solved by integrating technologies from diverse fields.
In TRIZ, hybridization holds a special place – it’s seen as a natural step in the evolution of any system. According to the trend of transition to the supersystem, a technical system needs to integrate with elements of its environment to continue evolving and remain competitive. By merging several systems, we give each one access to new resources, significantly boosting their capabilities. At the same time, removing unnecessary components can substantially reduce costs. The mechanisms behind these trends suggest which systems might work well together. But how exactly do we combine them effectively? This is precisely where the powerful feature transfer comes into play.
Simply joining systems together is fairly common practice in technology. Transferring a component – or even attaching a whole system – to another is typically the easiest and cheapest option. However, there’s a catch: to physically integrate a desired feature, the target system must have enough available space. That’s why this approach often feels primitive, and its results are rarely groundbreaking or truly innovative.
Yet, there’s a more elegant and sophisticated form of hybridization: using only the desired feature itself, without its physical carrier. This method often leads to unexpected and patentable innovations. Today, we call this approach pure feature transfer.
The first detailed paper on implementing pure feature transfer appeared in 1990, published in the Russian-language edition of TRIZ Journal. In their article titled Why does technology need pluralism?, authors Vladimir M. Gerasimov and Simon S. Litvin shared their practical experiences from real-world projects, effectively creating the first step-by-step guide for this method. At that time, the technique was known by a Russian name translating roughly as alternative system design (объединение альтернативных систем).
We have decided to revisit this article not just because it’s an intriguing piece of history. By analyzing and describing five real-world examples, the authors charted new paths in innovative hybridization, clearly highlighting the uniqueness of their approach. Today, 35 years later, some of these examples might feel a bit outdated – but their educational value remains as strong as ever. Readers interested in the original Russian text can follow the link provided. For everyone else, we’ve prepared an English translation:
WHY DOES TECHNOLOGY NEED PLURALISM?
Since the publication, feature transfer has been continuously refined, becoming one of the core TRIZ tools used today to identify and resolve problems. However, we’d like to return to the fundamental principles originally highlighted by the authors. Back in 1990, these principles were groundbreaking, quickly becoming essential elements of the TRIZ methodology. They’re worth revisiting, as they remain central to the uniqueness and effectiveness of the tool. We’ll briefly outline them below, incorporating the current state of knowledge.
The term of alternative systems
Before diving deeper, let’s briefly introduce the main players of our story and clarify what exactly we mean by alternative systems. Simply put, these are pairs of technical systems that perform the same main function (making them competing systems), but each has opposite strengths and weaknesses. Let’s illustrate this with examples directly from the article we’re discussing:
- spoked wheel vs. disc wheel – the first is lightweight and durable but difficult and expensive to produce; the second is simpler to manufacture but heavier and less durable for the same weight;
- mechanical peat rake (operating with a bulldozer bar) vs. pneumatic peat collector (“vacuum”) – the rake is simple, inexpensive, and very efficient but mixes dry peat with wet peat; the vacuum collects only dry peat, but it’s large, heavy, costly, and less productive;
- meat grinder housing with straight ribs vs. spiral-ribbed housing – straight ribs are easy to mold but crush the meat, causing juice loss; spiral ribs improve grinding quality and reduce energy use but require complex molds;
- plain bearing vs. roller bearing – plain bearing is simple, cheap, quiet, and handle heavy loads at high speeds but have a high starting torque; roller bearing offers low starting torque but are pricier, noisier, more complex, have lower load capacity, and speed limitations;
- E-shaped laminated core transformer vs. wound tape core transformer – the first is easy to produce but has an inefficient tightening mechanism, requiring extra holes, insulation, and additional components; the second has an efficient, simple tightening method, but the core itself is harder to manufacture, needing expensive machinery and adhesive processes;
- Bonded core stack vs. bonded core stack with copper rivets – the first one is quick and easy to produce but has low mechanical strength; the second one has high strength but requires drilling, riveting, and specialized equipment, increasing production time and cost.
Now that we’ve clearly defined the alternative systems, let’s move on to the specifics of the tool.
Principles of an innovative approach to hybridization
Principle 1: Combine alternative systems according to the trend of transition to supersystem
Let’s start by revisiting the classic interpretation of the law of transition to the supersystem. Traditionally, this law stated that when a technical system reaches its developmental limits, it should merge into a larger structure – a supersystem – where it can continue evolving by accessing new resources and interactions.
However, patent analyses and practical problem-solving have shown that this integration doesn’t have to be reserved exclusively for systems nearing retirement. In fact, moving into a supersystem doesn’t need to wait until a system exhausts its potential; hybridization can be an effective growth strategy even for fully functional, active systems.
The key lies in understanding how the trend toward supersystems actually works. Today, this is among the best-developed trends of engineering system evolution (TESE). It consists of four distinct sub-trends that guide engineers on which systems should combine, how deeply they should integrate, and how many systems should be involved. These sub-trends are as follows:
- Parameters of integrated systems performing the same main function become increasingly diverse.
- Main functions of integrated systems become increasingly varied.
- The level of integration among engineering systems becomes deeper.
- The number of integrated systems steadily increases.
Each of these sub-trends has its own detailed mechanisms, but we won’t dive deeper into those specifics here – you can explore them thoroughly in our knowledge base.
Combining alternative systems according to the supersystem transition trend doesn’t just improve solutions that have already hit their developmental limits. It also opens the door to earlier-stage innovation, equips engineers with tools for deeper problem modeling, and helps create entirely new systems with greater ideality – offering better functionality at lower cost.
Principle 2: Choose the simpler and cheaper system as your base
When integrating alternative systems, one of them becomes the base – the foundation around which the hybrid is built. This base system is then enhanced with desired features borrowed from its alternative.
In traditional TRIZ thinking, especially within ARIZ, we were often trained to focus on improving the system that performs the main function most effectively – the more “efficient” one. However, experience has shown that this mindset can sometimes lead to unnecessary complexity.
Instead, when selecting a base system, it’s often wiser to choose the one that’s simpler and cheaper. Why? Because transferring the advantages of the more advanced system into a leaner, more accessible one is usually more feasible. The simpler system typically has more production resources readily available – existing lines, skilled operators, proven tooling etc. – and is often better understood and easier to modify. That makes it less risky and more practical for real-world implementation.
A great example comes from the bicycle wheel case described in the article. While the goal was to improve the spoked wheel, the design team ultimately chose the disc wheel – the cheaper and easier-to-manufacture option – as the base. They then transferred the key advantages of the spoked version – lightness and durability – into the disc wheel, resulting in a solution that was not only technically better but also realistic to produce.
It’s also possible that both systems are strong candidates to serve as the base. In such cases, it’s worth applying feature transfer in both directions. This can lead to a broader pool of potential solutions. The best choice will ultimately depend on the project’s goals and constraints.
Choosing the simpler, more affordable system doesn’t mean settling for something inferior. Quite the opposite – it’s a deliberate decision to prioritize simplicity and cost-efficiency, and then enhance that foundation with a key advantage from the alternative system. This strategy streamlines implementation, reduces production costs, and increases the likelihood of achieving real-world impact – not just a one-off prototype or a “technological marvel” that never leaves the lab.
Principle 3: Transfer the feature – not the hardware
As we mentioned earlier, physically combining systems or components is a common practice in engineering. What makes this hybridization approach innovative is that the base system doesn’t inherit the physical part itself – it receives the feature, extracted from its original carrier. The key is identifying the specific property responsible for the advantage, and then adapting that property into the base system – often through completely different means.
A few examples?
- The spoked wheel is lightweight and durable thanks to its tension-based spatial structure (tightened spokes). Instead of copying the spokes into a disc wheel, engineers recreated the internal tension using an expanding hub and a few adjustment bolts.
- The roller bearing provides a low startup torque thanks to rolling friction. That same effect was replicated in a plain bearing by adding microscopic glass spheres to the lubricant – without changing the bearing’s design.
- The assembled transformer core ensures uniform clamping thanks to a band – in the classic E-type core, this effect was achieved using curved clamping elements and a plastic strap, without drilling or riveting.
What’s fascinating is that the end result often looks exactly like the original base system. The shape, the form – it all appears unchanged. But inside? Different principles, different behaviors. The authors call this the effect of disappearance – the feature is transferred, but the physical structure that originally carried it is gone.
Principle 4: Resolve alternative technical contradictions at the system level
In classical TRIZ, a technical contradiction occurs within a single system – improving one parameter makes another worse. But when we hybridize two systems, X and Y, a new kind of contradiction emerges, one that exists on a higher, system-level scale. It takes the form of two alternative contradictions:
- If the system is implemented as X, it benefits from advantage A but suffers from disadvantage B.
- If the system is implemented as Y, it has the opposite of A as an advantage, but also the opposite of B as a disadvantage.
Here, the contradiction lies between two complete systems that share the same main function but have opposing characteristics. Framing the problem this way naturally leads to a more ambitious question: How can we create a system that combines the strengths of both, without inheriting their weaknesses? This goal goes beyond simply creating a new version of system X or system Y. It often results in the emergence of a third system – a fundamentally new design that may look like the original base system on the outside, but operates differently and carries new functional traits.
Principle 5: Use resources from the alternative system – or from both
If an alternative system possesses a desirable feature, it must be enabled by something – specific resources such as materials, energy, space, or information. And here’s the key insight: if that system consistently delivers the feature, those resources are guaranteed to exist. The challenge lies in uncovering and repurposing them. These enabling resources often remain hidden when we focus solely on the base system. That’s why an essential part of the feature transfer process is learning how to reveal them.
The original article outlines various techniques for identifying and leveraging such resources. However, back in 1990, when Litvin and Gerasimov wrote their paper, one now-crucial tool hadn’t yet emerged: cause-effect chain analysis (CECA). Today, CECA is considered state-of-the-art in TRIZ for precisely this kind of task. It helps to understand how a feature is functionally achieved in the alternative system, hence to separate that function from the physical structure that delivers it.
That said, CECA in the context of feature transfer looks a bit different from the full-scale version used in broader analytical work. First, it’s much more streamlined – we’re not dissecting the entire system, just a narrow slice that explains the mechanism behind the specific advantage. Second, classic CECA typically consists only of disadvantages. In this case, our focus is solely on advantages, so that rule no longer applies. Instead of analyzing what’s going wrong, we reverse the process: we examine what’s going right in the alternative system and break it down to understand how it works, and what resources make it possible.
Ultimately, this simplified CECA allows us to pinpoint which hidden resources enable the alternative system’s strength – and gives us the tools to reuse or replicate those resources in the base system.
Feature transfer today
This post comes 35 years after the publication of Litvin and Gerasimov’s article. Since then, feature transfer has grown into a mature and well-established tool. Its underlying algorithm has been refined and stabilized. Let’s go through it:
- Identify the main function of the initial system / component that is being improved.
- Formulate its advantages and disadvantages.
- Identify the pool of competing systems.
- Select an alternative system from the pool of the competing systems.
- Select the base system out of the initial and the alternative systems (the base system is the one that was selected for improvement (transferring a feature to).
- Use CECA to identify the feature in the alternative (feature-providing) system that can eliminate the disadvantage of the base system.
- Formulate the feature transfer problem.
Today, feature transfer continues to prove its power in everyday practice – helping reduce system costs, minimize innovation risks, and boost the patentability of new products. It’s no longer just a clever idea – it’s a go-to method for creating smarter, more efficient, and more competitive solutions.
Once again, we invite you to explore our knowledge base – there you’ll find not only the full feature transfer algorithm, but also clear explanations of all the key concepts, along with insights into the nuances and advanced techniques behind today’s hybridization strategies.
Still, it’s worth knowing where it all began. We genuinely encourage you to dive into the original texts we’ve shared – understanding the foundations makes the modern tools even more powerful.
A final word about the authors
Vladimir M. Gerasimov was a respected TRIZ expert, best known for co-developing the function-cost analysis (FCA) technique together with Simon S. Litvin. He also contributed to integrating TRIZ with value engineering analysis (VEA), resulting in the creation of the unified TRIZ-VEA system. Gerasimov authored numerous publications on the application of technology evolution trends in value analysis of production processes, and on the methodology behind value analysis itself.
Dr. Simon S. Litvin is one of the world’s leading innovation and TRIZ experts, co-founder and president of GEN TRIZ LLC. Litvin has decades of experience in developing, teaching, and implementing innovation methods. He has led projects for global companies such as Alcoa, British American Tobacco, Chiquita, Clorox, and Covidien. He holds over 20 patents, has published nearly 100 academic articles, and authored six books.
Both Gerasimov and Litvin made major contributions to the advancement and global spread of TRIZ – bridging theoretical foundations with real-world industrial applications.
That said, it’s important to emphasize that although the article lists two authors, the development of feature transfer wasn’t solely their achievement. The tool reflects years of collaborative effort, deep discussion, and real-world experimentation. Many distinguished TRIZ Masters helped shape it over time, including V. V. Mitrofanov, B. L. Zlotin, V. E. Dubrov, A. L. Lyubomirsky, A. M. Pinyayev, and Y. P. Salamatov.
*
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, managing a team and actively involved in search and TRIZ activities in R&D projects. Scientific Secretary of the International TRIZ Association (MATRIZ).
*
Special thanks from the author go to Dr. Sergey Logvinov, who initiated revisiting the article and helped shed light on several important perspectives.
Deep gratitude also goes to Dr. Sergey Ikovenko for countless hours of discussion on the methodology – and for his remarkable ability to explain even the most complex concepts with clarity and simplicity.
References
- Vladimir M. Gerasimov, Simon S. Litvin, Зачем технике плюрализм, available at:
http://www.trizminsk.org/e/20121123.pdf - www.wiki.matriz.org