# Formalization of the Notion of Technical Systems Evolution (Part 2):Various Types of Evolutionary Series of Technical Systems

### Y. B. Karasik, Thoughts Guiding Systems Corp., Ottawa, Canada. e-mail:karasik@sympatico.ca

Design of any technical system involves the following steps:

1. Identifying the portions of a new technical system, which can be borrowed from other systems;
2. Designing the original parts;
3. Modifying the borrowed parts (if needed);
4. Combining everything together.
If a borrowed part is most of the new technical system then it can be viewed as a mainstream to which other borrowed parts are tributaries. Moreover, the mainstream evolutionary series can be defined as follows:
Definition #1: Let {Snk(tmk)} be such a sequence of technical systems that:
1)Snk+1(tmk+1) borrowed from Snk(tmk), but not necessarily from it only;
2)Snk+1(tmk+1) is closer to Snk(tmk) than to any other system, from which it borrowed;
3)Snk+1(tmk+1) is closer to the portion P of Snk(tmk), which it borrowed, than to (Snk+1(tmk+1) - P), i.e. the subsequent system is closer to what it borrowed from the previous system than to what it did not borrow from it. In other words, the borrowed portion P is the most of new system Snk+1(tmk+1).
Then we call such evolutionary series mainstream.
Mainstream evolutionary series differ from evolutionary series of the same abstract system defined in [1] in that the subsequent system does not have to borrow most of the previous system.

If, conversely, we require that the subsequent technical system borrows most of the previous one but the borrowed portion does not have to constitute most of the new system, then it is evolutionary series where the subsequent system swallows up the previous one. TRIZ pattern of evolution involving transition to super-system is an example of such a swallowing up evolutionary series, which can be defined as follows:

Definition #2: Let {Snk(tmk)} be such a sequence of technical systems that:
1)Snk+1(tmk+1) borrowed from Snk(tmk), but not necessarily from it only;
2)Snk+1(tmk+1) is closer to Snk(tmk) than to any other system, from which it borrowed;
3)Snk(tmk) is closer to P than to (Snk(tmk) - P), i.e. Snk+1(tmk+1) borrowed most of Snk(tmk).
Then we call such evolutionary series swallowing up.

We can also define generic evolutionary series as follows:

Definition #3: Let {Snk(tmk)} be such a sequence of technical systems that:
1)Snk+1(tmk+1) borrowed from Snk(tmk), but not necessarily from it only;
2)Snk+1(tmk+1) is closer to Snk(tmk) than to any other system, from which it borrowed.
Then we call such an evolutionary series generic.

The question arises: with respect to which evolutionary series TRIZ laws and patterns of evolution are formulated ? Consider, for example, evolutionary series of one and the same abstract technical system defined in [1]. Can one say that the last member of such a series is always more ideal that the first one ? The same question applies to the mainstream, the swallowing up and the generic evolutionary series.

Mono-bi-poly pattern is of the swallowing up type. Does it purport to say that any evolutionary series of one and the same abstract technical system is a subseries of a swallowing up series ? Does TRIZ law of transition to super-system also purport to say this ?

R E F E R E N C E S:

1. Y. B. Karasik, "Formalization of the Notion of Evolution of Technical Systems", Anti TRIZ-journal, Vol. 7, No. 8, September, 2008.