Trends of Technical Evolution (TRIZ)

Overview

Altshuller's patent analysis shows: technical systems do not evolve randomly but along a small number of recurring **evolution trajectories**. Placing the current system on these trajectories predicts with high hit rate where the next product generation will go.

The module collects **eight classical trends**. Each line has clearly named stages — the jump to the next stage is an innovation hypothesis the team can systematically check.

• **Aggregation:** mono → bi → poly → integrated system (e.g. single headlight → twin → LED matrix → adaptive lighting system).
• **Dynamism:** rigid → jointed → elastic → fluid → field (e.g. steel beam → spring element → hydraulics → electromagnet).
• **Scale:** macro → meso → micro → nano (e.g. mechanical pump → MEMS pump → molecular transport).
• **Automation:** manual → mechanised → automatic → autonomous (e.g. knob → servo → controller → AI control).
• **Completeness:** engine → transmission → tool → control — the system gradually internalises all four sub-functions.
• **Controllability:** open loop → measured → adaptive → smart (e.g. fixed feed rate → feed sensor → adaptive control → learning).
• **Niche matching:** universal → adjustable → individually fitted → self-adapting (e.g. off-the-shelf shoe → orthotic shoe → custom-made → self-fitting sole).
• **Uneven development:** which subsystem lags? The classical bottleneck phenomenon — one component dictates the progress of the whole system.

The eighth element ("uneven development") is qualitative — no fixed stages, only a note. It complements the other seven by asking for the **weakest link**.

Approach

• Name the system — a concrete technical unit, not a whole product portfolio.
• Walk through every trend and place the system on the stage scale. When in doubt, pick the closest stage — the rating is not the point, the complete walk is.
• Per trend, write a note on the **next stage**: what would the jump mean concretely? Which component / behaviour would have to change?
• For the eighth trend (uneven development), identify the weakest subsystem — usually the component that blocks the jump on one of the other seven trends.
• Prioritise the resulting list of "next-stage opportunities" (with other TRIZ tools or simply by cost / impact).

Trends cannot be driven arbitrarily far: each line saturates. A system at the top stage of a line has no further headroom in that dimension — progress moves to other trends. Recognising this **saturation** is often more important than the next stage jump.

Relation to other TRIZ tools

• **9-Windows** — the future column of the 9-Windows is the free-form sibling of this checklist. Placing the system on the eight trends gives that column structure.
• **Ideal Final Result (IFR)** — the next stage jump in a trend is often a good IFR candidate.
• **Resources Checklist** — many stage jumps need a concrete resource (e.g. the jump from "mechanised" to "automatic" needs a sensor signal).
• **Contradiction Matrix** — when the stage jump fails on a technical contradiction, formalise it there.

References & further reading

• G. S. Altshuller: "Creativity as an Exact Science" (1984) — chapter on laws of technical evolution.
• D. Mann: "Hands-On Systematic Innovation" — chapter "Trends of Evolution" (most extensive modern treatment).
• V. Souchkov: "TRIZ Body of Knowledge" — definition Patterns of Evolution.
• Y. Salamatov: "TRIZ — The Right Solution at the Right Time" — well-illustrated industry examples per trend.

Examples

This module ships with the following example datasets — load any of them in the app with a single click.

Available in the following cycles

• No fixed phase in cycle DMAIC (lives in the "More" tile).
• No fixed phase in cycle DMADV (lives in the "More" tile).
• 8D: D5 — Corrective Actions