The aims of that second article are to explore the stability of the new Matrix and to provide quantified data on how well the two matrices predict the Inventive Principles being used by recent inventors.
The aim of this article is primarily to explore the differences between the two matrices in terms of the overall prioritized sequence of Inventive Principles recommended by the Matrix.
The rise of this Principle is consistent with the self-x theme discussed in Reference 4.
This characteristic appears to be particularly significant in the aerospace sector in general and the design of aerodynamic components in particular.
Increased manufacturing capability and the consequent shift towards highly three-dimensional forms is consistent with the rises of Principles 3, Local Quality and 17, Another Dimension as inventive strategies.
Closer examination of the 1985-2003 patents analyzed for the Matrix 2003 research reveals large numbers of patents resulting from improvements made possible by design Time System Complexity X Point of maximum viable complexity Period of ‘Trimming’ Merging of Components/Sub-systems drafting and manufacturing technologies.
Most notably the shift towards multi-axis machine tools, rapid prototyping and casting technology means that designers can increasingly take advantage of increases in use of all of the dimensions of the artifacts they specify.