Modern methods of invention. Method and checklists

Trial and error

One of the most common and ancient methods of inventing and finding new technical solutions is the trial and error method. This random search method does not contain any rules for generating and evaluating ideas. The key to solving a problem should be any idea that came to the developer’s mind by chance or intuitively. If, as a result of evaluating this idea, it is considered unsuccessful, then another new idea is put forward in its place, and everything is repeated many times until some acceptable solution is found. It is obvious that the path to an ideal technical solution using this method is long, or, as they say now, labor-intensive and low-productivity.

However, even major inventors and scientists have successfully used this method and achieved great success. One of the outstanding users of the trial and error method was the famous American inventor and entrepreneur Thomas Edison, who, by the way, was an honorary foreign member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. An endless swarm of ideas constantly swirled in this man's head. In the United States of America, Edison received 1,098 patents and about 3,000 more in 34 countries.

The trial and error method is advisable to use when solving problems with a small (no more than 20) number of options (brute force), but when solving problems of great complexity it becomes ineffective.

Method and checklists

For the first time, the use of the method of control questions to search for new ideas and the best design and technological solutions was proposed and implemented by the head of the invention bureau in Cambridge (England) in 1955. Tim Eyloart. Further development of this method was reflected in the original checklist of A. Osborne, in the rules of M. Tring and E. Laithwaite, in the list of questions and advice by D. Polya and other authors. The method of control questions is based on the use of so-called “check lists”, which are heuristics that include leading questions, advice, tips, and partial explanations.

The checklist for inventors and developers of new technical objects contains the following items:

1. List all the qualities and definitions of the proposed invention, indicate in which direction they are supposed to change.

2. Clearly formulate the tasks of creating an object, highlighting the main and secondary ones.

3. List the basic principles and disadvantages of known solutions to the problem under consideration, formulate your proposals for eliminating them.

4. Express and write down various, even fantastic, analogies (chemical, biological, economic, etc.).

5. Build some models of the object: mathematical, hydraulic, mechanical, electronic, etc., since models express ideas more accurately than analogies.

6. Try to use other types of materials, energy, other physical, chemical and other effects to improve the object.

7. Try to establish dependencies, mutual connections and logical coincidences.

8. Find out opinions on resolving the main problem from people who are completely unaware of this problem.

9. Have a free group discussion about the problem, listening to any ideas without criticism.

10. Try to use “national” approaches to solving problems: cunning Scottish, wasteful American, complex Chinese, comprehensive German, etc.

11. Try to always be with the problem, not parting with it not only at work, but also on a trip, on a walk, in a game.

12. We must try to immerse ourselves in an environment that stimulates creativity: visit a technical museum, an antique store, look through magazines, comics.

13. Compile comparative tables of types of materials, geometric parameters and other dimensions of the object and its elements, as well as their prices for different options for solving the problem.

14. Determine the ideal end results for the development of the facility.

15. Try to modify the solution to the problem posed over time, as well as by changing the properties and parameters of the object.

16. Try to “climb” inside the object in your imagination and examine it from the inside.

17. Identify and exclude from further discussion alternative solutions to the problem that lead away from the trajectory of finding the best solution.

18. Try to identify who is interested in the problem being solved and why.

19. Find out who was the first to come up with a similar technical object and when, and whether there were false attempts to improve it.

20. Who else solved a similar problem and what did they achieve?

21. Identify the boundary conditions for the manufacture and use of the object.

Method of morphological analysis

The term “morphology” (the study of form) was first used by Johann Wolfgang Goethe, a German thinker, natural scientist and world-famous writer and poet. He was the founder of the morphology of organisms - the study of the form and structure of plants and animals.

The author of the method of morphological analysis is the Swiss astronomer F. Zwicky, who did not give a detailed definition of this concept, but only indicated that this method allows one to find all possible solutions to the problem. Let us consider how and in what sequence the search for new technical solutions is carried out according to the rules proposed by F. Zwicky. At the same time, we will illustrate all stages of morphological analysis with examples of searching for technical solutions for creating a new all-terrain vehicle.

On first At this stage, an accurate and complete formulation of the task is given. In particular, the following consumer requirements for an all-terrain vehicle are put forward:

He must move over difficult rough terrain (on hard and loose soil, on water, ice) at any time of the year and day;

It must transport cargo and people in comfortable conditions, which means it must be protected from the external environment and equipped with appropriate life support equipment;

It must be controllable and provide movement in any direction with speeds and accelerations in predetermined ranges.

On second At this stage, the main morphological characteristics of a technical object (functional units, parameters) are formulated based on the laws of its structure.

In the example under consideration, the following are taken as the morphological characteristics of an all-terrain vehicle:

1. Methods for moving an all-terrain vehicle on the earth's surface.

2.Principles of movement.

3. Types of energy converters into motion.

4.Types of energy sources.

5. Types of all-terrain vehicle control systems.

6.Types of life support systems.

7. Options for orientation systems.

On third stage, an independent consideration of all morphological characteristics is carried out; For each of them, all conceivable possible solutions to the problem are outlined.

Fourth stage: compiling a multidimensional matrix in which each morphological feature corresponds to a graph of possible options for solving the problem.

Fifth stage: analysis and assessment of all, without exception, options for solving the problem from the standpoint of the best performance by a technical object of the consumer goals and technical functions formulated for it. At the same time, most of the options discussed turn out to be unpromising and unacceptable for one reason or another and are excluded from further consideration.

At the last, 6th stage, one or several synthesized options for solving the problem are selected, which may be promising for practical implementation.

Functional cost analysis method

In the engineering and inventive practice of technically developed countries of the world, starting from the 60s. XIX century, a new approach to reducing costs and improving the quality of technical products became widespread. This approach is called functional cost analysis (FCA).

Two approaches are used to reduce the cost of manufacturing and operating technical products: subject-based and functional. With the traditional object-based approach, the developer considers the object as a real holistic structure. With a functional approach, the developer completely abstracts from the actual design of the object and focuses on its functions. This approach also changes the direction of searching for ways to reduce the cost of manufacturing and operating a technical object. Having clearly defined and formulated all the functions of the analyzed object and their quantitative characteristics, the developer finds out: how important and necessary are certain functions that the prototype has? Is it possible to get rid of some “unnecessary” functions without compromising the overall consumer value of the object? What characteristics and parameters of object elements can be changed to reduce costs?

The FSA process consists of the following step-by-step types of work:

1. Preparatory stage at which the selection of a technical object is made, the goals and objectives of the FSA are determined, a group of developers of a project for creating a new or improving an existing object is formed.

2. Information and analytical work. At this stage, information is collected and analyzed on the design and technological solutions of the prototype, on its operating conditions, on design and operational shortcomings, on the costs of its manufacture and maintenance. A list of basic indicators and requirements for a technical object is compiled, and criteria for its development are determined. A constructive functional structure is being developed. The functions of the elements are classified and analyzed, the costs of the functions are determined and compared in pairs, and the functional areas of greatest concentration of costs are identified. Based on the analysis carried out, the task of finding more rational, optimal (in terms of cost) design and technological solutions is formulated.

3. Search and research stage . This is one of the creative and dominant stages of work, which spends up to 50% of the total time to complete the project. Here, each function is examined on the subject: is it needed, is it possible to transfer this function to another element, is it possible to combine functions, is it possible to simplify, reduce the cost or standardize certain elements. At this stage, the main tools for the search and research activities of developers are standard methods for resolving technical contradictions, heuristic methods and techniques for searching for new ideas and rational design and technological solutions. The final stage of this stage is the presentation of the results in the form of a technical proposal and a preliminary design.

4. Development and implementation of FSA results . At this stage, the most effective and promising options for designing technical objects are selected (in some cases with the involvement of experienced experts), the manufacturability and cost-effectiveness of their production are determined, and recommendations for their implementation are formed.

Methods of inventive creativity

It is worth saying that for novice creators of inventions it is very important to know proven, practice-tested methods of inventive creativity. According to experts, more than fifty have currently been developed, and taking into account private methods, several hundred methods for finding solutions to creative problems. These methods are aimed at developing both logical thinking and intuition. Of the many methods for finding new original solutions to practical problems, we will highlight the most well-known.

Trial and error, sometimes called “blind search”. This method was used in his inventive practice by the greatest mathematician and mechanic of Ancient Greece, Archimedes. His inventions still command the respect of scientists today. Among them are incendiary mirrors, blocks for lifting weights, water-lifting machines operating using the “Archimedean screw”, military throwing machines, etc. Archimedes proposed in his works the creation of new technical objects by combining 14 known elements. Some of the many such combinations later became inventions and were used to solve practical problems in various industries. Subsequently, humanity has made repeated attempts to improve this method. The famous writer and inventor N. Petrovich rightly points out in this regard: “If we set out to consistently, starting from the time of Archimedes and ending with our enlightened twentieth century, to trace and describe all attempts to create a methodology for invention, then we would get an encyclopedia of many volumes. It could easily have been titled “The Unsuccessful Martial Arts of the Mind with the Trial and Error Method for Two Thousand Years.”

The outstanding American inventor Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931), author of 1099 inventions, worked on inventions by dividing a technical problem into a number of specific tasks and, for each of them, simultaneously organizing a search for the most successful solution by testing numerous possible options. Edison's undeniable inventive talent and his implementation of trial and error techniques in technical creativity led to the creation of a number of outstanding technical innovations. Moreover, according to Edison himself, it took an average of seven years to work on one invention.

Method of control questions. Solving inventive problems using the above-mentioned trial and error method requires consideration of all possible options, the number of which reaches a significant number for fairly complex problems. For example, to invent the alkaline battery, Edison had to carry out 50 thousand experiments. In order to somehow organize, make the consideration of options more meaningful and purposeful, lists of leading, “prompting” questions are compiled. This is the essence of the test question method. . It became widespread in the 20-30s of the twentieth century. The list of A.F. is widely known. Osborne (USA), consisting of nine groups of questions: “What can be reduced in a technical object?”, “What can be turned upside down in a technical object?”, etc. Each group has sub-questions such as: can something be shortened, narrowed, compressed, etc. .

Of particular interest is the following memo list compiled by the English inventor T. Eyloart (cited by):

1. List all the qualities and definitions of the proposed invention. Change them.

2. Formulate the objectives clearly. Try new formulations. Identify secondary tasks and similar tasks. Select the main ones.

3. List the shortcomings of existing solutions, their basic principles, new assumptions.

4. Sketch fantastic, biological, economic, chemical, molecular and other analogies.

5. Build mathematical, hydraulic, electronic, mechanical and other models (models express the idea more accurately than analogies).

6. Try different types of materials and types of energy: gas, liquid, solid, gel, foam, paste, etc.; magnetic and electrical energy, heat, light, impact force, etc.; different wavelengths, surface properties, etc.; transition states - freezing, condensation, transition through the Curie point, etc.

7. Establish options, dependencies, possible connections, logical matches.

8. Find out the opinion of some people who are completely unaware of this issue.

9. Have a random group discussion, listening to everyone and every idea without criticism.

10. Try “national” solutions: cunning Scottish, comprehensive German, wasteful American, complex Chinese, etc.

11. Sleep with a problem, go to work, walk, take a shower, drive, drink, eat, play tennis - everything with it.

12. Wander around in stimulating environments (scrap yards, technical museums, thrift stores), look at magazines, comics.

13. Sketch out a table of prices, quantities, movements, types of materials, etc. for different solutions to a problem or different parts of it; look for gaps in solutions or new combinations.

14. Having determined the ideal solution, develop possible elements.

15. Modify the solution to the problem in terms of time (faster or slower), size, viscosity, etc.

16. In your imagination, climb inside the mechanism.

17. Identify alternative problems and systems that remove a certain link from the chain and thus create something completely different, leading away from the desired solution.

18. Whose problem is this? Why him?

19. Who came up with this first? History of the issue. What interpretations of this problem have taken place?

20. Who else solved this problem? What has he achieved?

21. Identify generally accepted boundary conditions and the reasons for their establishment.

These and similar lists typically only tell you what to do, not how to do it.

The method of control questions makes it possible, to some extent, to “break away” from the usual, established ideas about a subject, helps to overcome or reduce psychological inertia, and change the direction of the search.

Method of analogies with living nature. The essence of the method is clear from the name. Inference by analogy, as is known, consists of transferring knowledge obtained as a result of the analysis of an object to a less studied object, similar in essential properties and qualities. Such conclusions are one of the sources of scientific hypotheses. Attempts to “spy” in living nature for rational solutions to their problems have been made throughout the history of mankind. Among the first about whom history has preserved sufficiently detailed information is Leonardo da Vinci. He is known not only as an artist, the author of the “smile of Mona Lisa (Gioconda)”, but also as a major inventor using the method of analogies. He created designs for aircraft, a helicopter similar to the Archimedes screw, a two-spindle spinning wheel, chain drives, a ball bearing, a pendulum clock, an inflatable lifebuoy, a diving suit, etc. .

The search for analogies in the activity of a living organism and the functioning of technical systems has attracted scientists at all times. Thus, the human heart was considered as a well-functioning mechanical pump. The age of electricity has given rise to an analogy between the processes occurring in the nervous system and those realized in electrical circuits. Today one of the most popular analogies is the “computer metaphor”. Its meaning lies in the relationship to natural intelligence as a computing device. Many aspects of intelligence are considered by analogy with the properties of computers (long-term and random access memory, procedural and declarative representation of knowledge, etc.), which are known to computer designers and programmers. This metaphor led to the creation of a new field of psychological research on intelligence, cognitive psychology.

In creativity, analogies of various types are used (functional, structural, substrate analogies; analogies of relationships, external form). Inventive practice shows that the more distant the areas between which analogies are drawn, the more unexpected, original result should be obtained when solving a problem. It should be borne in mind that the most complex problems always have simple, clear to understand, incorrect solutions; therefore, conclusions made by analogy with specific objects are, as a rule, only plausible in nature and require subsequent careful verification and technical justifications.

In technical creativity, analogies play another role - they are convenient to use to identify trends in the development of technical objects, social and personal needs and technical means created to satisfy them.

Methods for using chance. There are many examples in the history of science and technology when chance helped make a serious discovery or invention. In addition to the well-known legends about Archimedes and Newton, there are some more reliable cases. The story of the discovery of radioactivity by the French physicist A.A. is widely known. Becquerel is the result of the fact that he accidentally developed an unexposed photographic plate that was located next to the uranium salt. After laboratory experiments, chemist Fahlberg forgot to wash his hands before sitting at the dinner table. Feeling that for some reason all the dishes were sweet, he connected this with traces of the substance he had just received on his hands. As a result of studying this substance, the scientist discovered saccharin. Accidentally spilling hydrogen peroxide on a goose feather helped Richardson invent a method for bleaching hair. Marile owed the invention of a method for dry cleaning fabric to a contaminated worker's suit that accidentally fell into a barrel of turpentine. Such examples could be continued further. At the same time, as the French scientist Louis Pasteur rightly pointed out, “Chance does not help everyone; fate bestows only on prepared minds. The famous “Newton’s apple” could only appear as a result of the scientist’s twenty years of work. For this reason, passively waiting for random results, errors, etc. can hardly be called prudent.

Subtypes of this method are the focal object method and the method of garlands of randomness and associations.

Focal object method proposed by the American C.S. Whiting . The name of the method comes from the word ʼʼ focus(meaning in optics the point at which a parallel beam of light rays passing through the optical system is collected) and means that in this case we mean focusing attention on some object.

In accordance with this method, the solution to a technical problem is carried out through a series of sequential steps:

¨ definition of the focal object͵ ᴛ.ᴇ. the object to which our attention is directed;

¨ selection of random objects (from two to six);

¨ compiling a list of selected objects and all their characteristics;

¨ generating ideas by attaching features of randomly selected objects to the focal object;

¨ development of initial ideas and generation of new ones through free associations (objects that are involuntarily remembered after a given object are recorded, then after a new one, etc.) according to all the characteristics of randomly selected objects. Combining the focal object sequentially with each element of the resulting series of associations leads to new ideas;

¨ assessments and selection of useful solutions.

The method of garlands of accidents and associations, proposed by Riga engineer G.Ya. Bush, provides the following behavioral recommendations when solving some complex problems, when it seems that they are insoluble at all:

1) there is no need to lose heart, you should remember that if the problem does not contradict physical laws, it will definitely have a solution, if not at this stage, then in the future;

2) you need to look for ways out of the deadlock that has arisen, among which the following are proposed:

2.1.change the level of tasks. For example, instead of improving the device, you need to look for a new principle of its design;

2.2. transform the problem into a two-stage one, first providing for solving its simple part, which will act as a hint for solving the main problem of the invention;

2.3. pose an auxiliary question to clarify possible solutions to the problem when changing the parameters of the object;

2.4.consider the inverted (ᴛ.ᴇ. inverse) problem;

2.5.involve decision principles that exist in other industries, seemingly completely far from the one under consideration;

2.6.organize the collective generation of ideas, ᴛ.ᴇ. brainstorming;

2.7.temporarily stop searching for solutions. This creates the opportunity to look at the task from new positions after some time.

Morphological method. Its essence is to conduct a morphological analysis, ᴛ.ᴇ. in the study of structural connections and relationships between objects, phenomena, ideas. In this case, all possible relationships are first identified, regardless of their value. A method that makes it possible to create a large number of original technical objects in a short time was proposed in 1942. Swiss astronomer F. Zwicky.

Based on the morphological approach, a whole family of methods for the practical solution of inventive problems has been developed, and one of them is the morphological box method. In accordance with this method, the search for solutions to technical problems consists of several stages:

¨ precise formulation of the inventive problem;

¨ dividing an object (process, problem) into main functional units (parameters);

¨ consistent independent consideration of all nodes (parameters) and selection of all possible solutions for them;

¨ compiling a multidimensional table (a morphological box) that would contain all the options for solving the problem. Each functional unit (parameter) in the table corresponds to a specific column (ʼʼaxisʼʼ), which lists all possible (from the point of view of the inventor) options for its solution. In the case of two axes, the table has the simplest form (regular two-dimensional); if available n axes - n- measuring box;

¨ analysis and evaluation of all possible solutions without exception from the standpoint of optimal achievement of the goal (usually the function that the device should perform);

¨ selection of one or more best options for practical use. In complex situations, the use itself also requires morphological analysis.

If there are more parameters (characteristics), then for each of them a vertical axis is taken, on which all possible alternatives (options) are plotted, and then each of them is sequentially considered together with all other alternatives.

The method is effective only for solving simple problems. For complex problems, it is essential to consider many combinations. Thus, using this method to predict only one type of jet engines, F. Zwicky obtained (with 11 axes) 36,864 combinations. He managed to create several jet engines that were based on new principles.

Brainstorming method (or “brainstorming”). Proposed by the American psychologist A.F. Osborne's method arose as an attempt to eliminate one of the most serious obstacles to creative thinking - the fear of criticism of the ideas put forward. In order to eliminate this obstacle, the method involves putting forward and analyzing any ideas (including the most fantastic, obviously erroneous, comic ones), since they can stimulate the emergence of more valuable inventions. This lifts the ban on criticism. The following example shows that this approach is effective.

During the Second World War, a transport ship under the command of naval officer A.F. Osborne transported cargo to Europe without proper escort of warships. Having received a radiogram about a possible attack on the ship by German submarines, A.F. Osborne invited team members to offer their thoughts on how to confront the impending danger. One of the sailors suggested lining up the team along the side towards which the torpedo would approach, and using a friendly blow to “blow” the torpedo to the side. Subsequently, equipping the ship with a fan, creating a powerful directed flow of water, actually saved the attacked ship from a torpedo, which was actually blown away. Today this technical solution, of course, is already outdated. At the same time, the method has gained wide popularity when searching for solutions in uncertain situations. This is no coincidence. Osborne intuitively “caught” the mechanism of the brain, the distribution of functions of generating and analyzing ideas. The implementation of an idea that was absurd at first glance was the basis for the development of the brainstorming method (cited by).

A.F. Osborne, when creating the method, was based on the fact that some people have a more pronounced ability to put forward ideas, while others have a more pronounced ability to analyze and critically comprehend them. So that they do not interfere with each other while doing work together, it was proposed to divide the participants in the search for a solution to a technical problem into two groups, for example, “dreamers” and “critics” (idea generators and analysts).

The task of “dreamers” is only to put forward ideas. The environment should be friendly, conducive to the bold proposal of any ideas. At the same time, not only verbal criticism is prohibited, but also any gestures, ironic smiles, etc. The “dreamers” (5 - 10 people) should include people from different specialties with different levels of education and qualifications who can offer several dozen ideas in a short time (from 15 minutes to 1 hour). In this case, not only independent new ideas should be taken into account, but also attempts to improve or combine those just proposed. There is no doubt that the group must have a leader who is capable of providing a wide range of opinions during a collective brainstorming session and who can quietly turn the process of generating ideas in the right direction. At the preliminary stage, the organizer ensures a clear formulation of the task, as well as the selection of two groups of participants: “idea generators” and “analysts”. Brainstorming usually lasts 1.5-2 hours.

When solving a problem, both groups must answer the questions: 1) how should the development be completed and 2) what prevents the desired from being achieved. The functions of these two groups differ: “generators” must express as many ideas for a solution as possible, while “analysts” select from this stream ideas that are promising for further development. A prerequisite for the implementation of the method is the categorical prohibition of any judgments regarding the generated ideas, both favorable and critical. Sometimes ideas that are frankly unsuccessful at first glance lead to promising solutions. The success of a brainstorming session is most often determined by the correct selection of participants and the provision of a creative atmosphere during its conduct.

After completing the “storming”, the participants collectively edit the list of ideas they have developed. At this stage, it is already possible to have a “semi-critical” attitude towards them and expand the list with new ideas that arose during the editing process. Practice shows the high effectiveness of the method: when working individually, several people in total offer 10-20 ideas in 15-30 minutes, while a group of the same size taking part in a brainstorming session is able to generate from 50 to 150 ideas in the same time.

The selected ideas are transferred to a group of experts, who first divide them into feasible and impracticable (at a given level of technology development), and then select the most acceptable ones. At the same time, a thorough search is carried out for the “rational grain” in each idea put forward.

The brainstorming method is successfully used in the fields of management, business, economics, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
It has not lost its importance for the collective solution of inventive problems in various fields of technology, and in the learning process (for training novice inventors). There are many types of brainstorming: “mass brainstorming”, “conference of ideas” method, etc.

Related to this method is method of synectics, or “combining dissimilar elements”, proposed by the American scientist V. Gordon in the 50s of the 19th century. . Creative synectic groups (5-7 people) are created from representatives of different professions or scientific disciplines, people of different ages, education, different qualifications, etc. The root of synectics is brainstorming, but it is carried out by permanent groups who, mastering special techniques and gaining experience, work more effectively than randomly assembled people. The organization of technical creativity using the synectics method is implemented in 4 stages:

1. Selection of a group of specialists - “synectors”.

2. Mastering the practice of using analogies in solving various technical problems.

3. Analysis of the problem and search for its solution.

4. Evaluation of the results of solving the problem, their optimization and implementation.

At the first stage, a group of specialists aged 25-40 years is selected, who have changed their profession at least once during their life journey. The selection criteria used are profession, education, flexibility of thinking, range of knowledge and practical skills, contrast of psychological personality types.

During the second stage, mutual understanding is formed in the team, the interest of each participant in effectively solving inventive problems, and the prerequisites for “synectic” thinking are created:

¨ the ability to abstract from details, highlight the essence of the task, abstract from the usual context, mentally move away from the subject of development;

¨ ability to manage the process of development of trivial ideas;

¨ skills of increased tolerance for other people’s ideas, willingness to take them into account and develop them;

¨ confidence in successfully solving the problem;

¨ the ability to detect something special in ordinary phenomena and use the identified original qualities as starting points for creative imagination.

To develop such thinking, the team trains in using analogies of various types:

¨ direct - the developed technical object “synector” is compared with similar objects from various fields of technology and natural science;

¨ personal - “getting used to” the image of the object, identifying the “synector” himself with any element of the problem situation, the object under study or some part of it, in order to penetrate into the essence of its work;

¨ symbolic - realized in the selection of metaphors and comparisons, in which the characteristics of one object are identified with the properties of others;

¨ fantastic - allowing you to imagine things as they are not, but as the “synector” would like to see them.

At the third stage, group members:

¨ get acquainted with the formulation of the problem in the wording as it is presented by the customer;

¨ identify obvious (trivial) solutions (which are unlikely to create something new and original);

¨ look for analogies that turn the unusual into the familiar, while ignoring physical laws is allowed;

¨ the main difficulties and contradictions that impede the solution of the problem are identified.

The essence of the fourth stage is a discussion, based on the results of which interesting ideas are formulated, which are brought to a degree sufficient for the production of a solution model.

IN "reverse brainstorming" method When creating an innovative solution, they start from a list of shortcomings of the analyzed object, which then must be extremely critically examined. In this case, the list should be as complete as possible. The object of analysis is specific products, technologies, their individual elements, etc. The method is widely used to solve such problems as drawing up technical specifications for the development of an object of invention, conducting an examination of design documentation, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
The subject of collective discussion is: a description of the analyzed object, an analysis of its known shortcomings associated with manufacturing, operation, repair, as well as an idea of the ideal final result and undesirable shortcomings.

When selecting participants for the group of “generators,” they additionally include specialists who provide the entire life cycle of the object. The rules for discussion participants are the same as for direct brainstorming. The result of the work is a list of possible contradictions and shortcomings of the object, edited by “analysts”. The search for ways to eliminate shortcomings and limitations is carried out by direct “brainstorming”.

The identified shortcomings serve as the basis for setting new inventive problems. Step-by-step brainstorming involves a consistent solution to a problem from problem formulation to implementation.

Sevenfold search strategy. The essence of this method, developed by G.Ya. Bush, consists of the consistent, systematic and repeated use of various tables, matrices, diagrams, diagrams, etc. The author of the method proceeds from the fact that a person can subject up to seven objects, concepts, and ideas to effective simultaneous consideration, comparison, and study.

The method distinguishes between strategic and tactical parts. The strategy is divided into seven stages:

1) analysis of the problem situation, social needs.

2) analysis of the functions of analogs and prototypes. Identification of optimal conditions of consumption and operation. Determination of current and main functions.

3) statement of the problem. Formulation of the problem in general form, determination of the required level of solution and the level of quality of the technical object.

4) generating inventive ideas aimed at better fulfilling the object’s functional purpose. Selection and use of heuristic means.

5) specification of ideas (structure, design, form, material, operations and their sequence).

6) assessment of alternatives and selection of rational solution options, selection of the optimal option.

7) simplification, development and implementation of the solution.

The tactical part of the method consists of practical techniques used at different stages of the process of creating a new technical object.

One of them is the “seven key questions” technique. As G.Ya. points out. Bush, the Roman orator Quintillian (1st century AD) identified seven questions that are extremely important to answer so that information about an event, phenomenon, process, or task is complete. These include the following: who? What? Where? how? For what? How? When? These questions are aimed at obtaining information, respectively, about the subject, object, place, means, purpose, methods and time related to the phenomenon or event in question.

Step approach method is based on a systematic analysis of the reasons that determine the development goals and obstacles to the development of specific solutions. Its implementation should be presented in the form of the following chain of actions:

¨ the final goal of solving the problem is determined;

¨ the basis for the need for a new solution is identified;

¨ there are contradictions that make solving the problem extremely important;

¨ identifying obstacles (or restrictions) to eliminating identified contradictions;

¨ a search is carried out for possible means to overcome obstacles;

¨ a model of the problem is built and the correctness of the solution is checked.

The implementation of the method helps to systematize the available information and transform the found idea into a technical solution.

Method of “opening matrices” is based on morphological analysis, but is focused mainly on a systematic study of the acceptable number of execution of the created object. Based on the results of the analysis, a table is constructed, in the rows of which the selected characteristics of the object are written, and in the columns - the heuristic principles of their implementation. At the intersection of a row and a column, information about the corresponding possible solutions is recorded in each cell. The implementation of this method is complicated by the fact that the use of functional and constructive features of an object as indicators makes it difficult to select appropriate heuristic techniques.

Functional invention method, ᴛ.ᴇ. , development of operations for the implementation of a technical object (physical transformation, chemical transformation, etc.) and the need that must be satisfied with the help of this object. The implementation of the method should be presented as a sequence of actions to determine the functions of individual elements of a technical solution, identify the main function, find ways to change the latter, find methods for implementing auxiliary functions that are necessary to implement the new main function.

Functional design method, proposed by R. Koller, is based on complete abstraction from the design features of the object. Attention is concentrated on the analysis of the functions that a given object must perform. During implementation, the main function of the object is specified, which is represented as a set of elementary paired (direct and inverse) operations (emission - absorption, increase - decrease, connection - separation, connection - separation, etc.) . The method also involves the use of mathematical and logical operations. The identification of elementary operations made it possible to carry out a combinatorial search for their possible carriers to reproduce the basic functions of the constructed objects. The method is suitable for automated search of structures for the implementation of new technical solutions.

Algorithm for solving inventive problems (ARIZ) is a comprehensive program based on the laws of development of technical systems and allows you to analyze the original problem, build its model, identify a contradiction that prevents you from obtaining the desired result in the usual (known) ways, and find the most effective method for resolving this contradiction. The essence of ARIZ is described by G.S. Altshuller. He also proposed a classification of inventive problems, including five levels of complexity:

1. Problems for which it is sufficient to use means (devices, methods, substances) that are used for their intended purpose. The object itself does not change. In the decision process, it is enough to “brute force” several, quite obvious options. The problem and the means to solve it usually belong to one narrow field of activity.

2. Tasks in which some changes in the object occur and a transition to an industry scale takes place. The number of solution options under consideration increases to several dozen.

3. Tasks in which a significant change in the object is expected. The principles of the solution are most often borrowed from other areas of technology.

4. Problems in which the object changes completely, and solutions are based on the achievements of fundamental science, primarily in the field of physical and chemical effects and phenomena.

5. Tasks in which a change occurs in the entire system that includes the object. Here, the means of solution are most often based on extensive experimental data (the results of hundreds of thousands - millions of experiments, our own and those described in the literature). Scientific discoveries can be the starting point for solving problems at this level. For example, two discoveries made in the 20th century and awarded Nobel Prizes were of decisive importance for the development of advanced information technologies. The first of them is the laser-maser principle established by Charles Townes (USA) and Russian physicists N. Basov and A. Prokhorov. The second is integrated circuits and semiconductor heterostructures for high-speed and optoelectronics, developed by an international team of scientists: D. Kilby (USA), G. Kremer (Germany) and Zh. Alferov (RF) (cited by). These discoveries created the prerequisites both for improving the performance of previously existing devices and for creating fundamentally new ones, which today are widely used in satellite communication systems and the Internet, mobile phones, etc.

The discovery of the principles of functioning of natural objects equips inventors with new means of creating technical solutions. A generalization of the experience of creating technical solutions by inventors is presented in intersectoral fund of heuristic techniques. This fund is focused on various fields of technology and contains a systematic, generalized description of techniques, as well as 2-3 examples of solving technical problems that activate technical creativity at the stage of eliminating the main shortcomings and contradictions of the prototype. The structure of the fund includes 12 groups of heuristic techniques (Table 1).

Table 1.

Methods of inventive creativity - concept and types. Classification and features of the category “Methods of Inventive Creativity” 2017, 2018.

In 1953, the American psychologist A. Osborne attempted to improve the “trial and error” method. Trying to solve a problem using this method, the inventor comes up with an idea (“What if we do it this way?”) and then checks whether it works or not. There are people who, by their mentality, are good at generating ideas, but are bad at analyzing them. And vice versa: some people are more inclined to critically analyze ideas than to “generate” them. Osborne decided to separate these processes. Let one group, having received a task, only put forward ideas, even the most fantastic ones. Let the other group only analyze the ideas put forward.

Brainstorming (brainstorming), as Osborne called his method, does not eliminate chaotic searches. In fact, it makes them even more disorderly. As we have seen, “trials” go for a long time in the direction of the “vector of inertia”: they are not just random, they are mainly directed in the wrong direction. Therefore, the transition to “simple disorder” is already some kind of progress.

The basic rules of brainstorming are simple:

1. The group of “generators” of ideas should include people of various specialties.

2. “Generation” of ideas is carried out by freely expressing any ideas, including clearly erroneous, humorous, and fantastic ones. The time limit is one minute. Ideas are expressed without evidence. All ideas are written down in a protocol or recorded with a tape recorder.

3. When “generating” ideas, any criticism is prohibited (not only verbal, but also silent - in the form of skeptical smiles, etc.). During the assault, free and friendly relations must be established between its participants. It is desirable that the idea put forward by one participant in the assault is picked up and developed by others.

Fig 3 American psychologist A.F. Ooburn improved the “trial and error” method by proposing “brainstorming*

4. During the examination, all ideas should be carefully considered, even those that seem clearly erroneous or frivolous.

Typically, an idea generation group consists of six to ten people. The duration of the assault is short: 20-40 minutes.

In Fig. Figure 3 shows the assault scheme (for three participants - L, B, C). The assaulters have different specialties (conventionally, this is shown by three different circles), so the tests are not so tied to the VI inertia vector,

as usual. In addition, the rules of storming stimulate the “generation” of bold and even fantastic ideas: those storming go beyond the boundaries of a narrow specialty - and it is there, beyond these limits, that the solutions of the highest levels lie.

The diagram reflects another important storming mechanism - interaction and development of ideas. Assault participant A expressed the idea / immediately modified it IN- an idea arose 2. Now L sees his idea differently, this allows him to continue its development (arrow 3). A chain of ideas is formed 1 -2 -3 -4, aimed at a second level solution. True, the mechanism for picking up ideas is sometimes just as sequential (chain 5 -6) leads away from the decision...

The already mentioned book by J. Dixon, “Systems Design: Invention, Analysis and Decision Making,” contains protocols for several brainstorming sessions. Here is an excerpt from one protocol that recorded the solution to the problem of how to separate green (unripe) tomatoes from ripened ones during sorting.

TOM: We sort them by color. In this case, you probably need to use a color indicator. ED: Emissivity or reflectivity. A green tomato should be highly reflective.

DAVE: Hardness. We press on them lightly or touch them. DICK: Electrical conductivity. TOM: Resistance to electric current. DAVE: Magnetism!

DICK: Size. Aren't green tomatoes smaller?

– ED: Weight. Soz: ripened tomatoes will be heavier. TOM: Size and weight have to be related to each other.

DAVE: Size and weight give density. ED: Specific volume.

TOM: Ripe tomatoes have a lot of water, so they have a specific water volume. DAVE: Do they swim or sink?

DICK: Maybe sort them by density - depending on whether they float or sink?

ED: Not necessarily in water, maybe in another liquid.” TO

Various types of brainstorming are known: reverse storming (identifying the shortcomings of a machine or process; identifying shortcomings allows you to pose new inventive problems), individual, paired, mass, two-stage (two stages of an hour and a half each, during the break there is a free discussion of the problem), stage-by-stage (they are stormed sequentially problem statement, solution, development of an idea into a design, implementation problem).

In recent years, brainstorming has been used to solve design, engineering, and various kinds of practical problems. This success is due not so much to the advantages of the brainstorming method as to the disadvantages of the traditional trial and error method. If the initial temperature is -100°, then the transition to -50° is already a thaw.

The “stupidity” of the search, elevated to a principle by brainstorming, is compensated by the quantitative factor - the task is stormed by a “horde”. Externally, the assault looks impressive - the task is solved in one day. But the gain here is largely apparent: 50 people spend the same amount of work in one day as one person does in 50 days. And brainstorming always requires (taking into account the time for preliminary preparation) several hundred man-days. Gain is achieved only by reducing unpromising attempts in the direction of the “vector of inertia.”

Brainstorming has a positive effect, for example, when it comes to finding new ways of advertising, but it does not produce significant results when it comes to more complex problems that can be solved at the inventive level: here its “ceiling” is second-level solutions.

There are two ways to improve brainstorming: move on to professional brainstorming (I'll talk about this a little later) and increase the efficiency of the brainstorming procedure itself. The second way was studied by the General

at the National Laboratory of Invention Methods at the National Research Institute of VOIR on problems for which the researchers knew the answer. With this setup of experiments, the experimenters were, as it were, above a maze in which the subjects were wandering: it was clearly visible whether this or that step led to the answer or somewhere to the side.

At the same time, the fundamental shortcomings of brainstorming became clear. Brainstorming excludes the control of thinking - this is its fundamental drawback. Storming really helps to overcome inertia: the thought moves “from a dead point”, accelerates... and often overshoots the place where it needs to stop. Dozens of times during experiments, the following picture was observed: one participant in the assault expresses a thought leading in the right direction, another picks up this thought and develops it; There are a few steps left before reaching the finish line, but at this moment someone puts forward a completely different idea, the chain breaks, and the group again finds itself in its original positions.

During brainstorming, explicit criticism is prohibited, but it is almost inevitably replaced by hidden criticism in the form of putting forward new proposals that suppress the development of other ideas.

We conducted brainstorming sessions with a ban on hidden criticism: it was not allowed to break the developing chains of ideas - it was necessary to bring each idea to its logical conclusion (“What if you divide the ship into two parts?... I propose dividing it into many parts: a ship made of blocks... A ship made of small particles... From powder... A ship made of individual molecules, a ship-cloud... Made of individual atoms..."). With such an organization, the effectiveness of the assault increases. But the time required also increases sharply: the assault has to be carried out over many days. This is no longer a brainstorm, but a brain siege.

During a brain siege, you can control thinking to some extent, but the essence of the matter does not change: the search is still carried out by a simple search of options.

Probably, some of the inventors had a tempting idea: is it possible to get - for each problem - a list of all possible options? After all, having such a list, you don’t risk missing anything...

To compile a complete list you need a special method. Such a method (more precisely, an approximation to it) is the so-called morphological analysis, proposed in 1942 by the famous American astronomer F. Zvshsky.

At first glance, it may seem strange that an astronomer came up with a method for organizing creative thinking. In fact, everything here is natural. Astronomy was the first science to encounter large dynamic systems (stars, galaxies) and was the first to sense the need for methods to analyze such systems.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Dutch astronomer Hertzsprung and the American astrophysicist Russell constructed the “Spectrum - Luminosity” diagram. On one axis of this diagram the spectral types are indicated, and on the other the luminosity of the stars. It turned out that each spectral class of stars corresponds to a certain luminosity. Order was immediately introduced into the countless number of stars - the stars were placed on the diagram along one line (“main sequence”). Moreover, the idea of the development of stars has also been streamlined: with increasing age, the spectrum of a star changes; the star moves along the "main sequence" line in the diagram.

The Hertzspruig-Russell diagram had a huge influence on astronomical thinking (like the periodic table on the thinking of chemists). In subsequent years, it was refined and developed, new lines were found for giant stars, dwarf stars, etc., and new two-dimensional and three-dimensional diagrams were constructed.

In 1939, F. Zwicky, analyzing the white spots on the “Mass - Luminosity” diagram, made an outstanding discovery - he theoretically proved the existence of neutron stars. Three years later, when Zwicky was attracted to rocket development, he transferred the method of constructing multidimensional diagrams to technology, calling it the morphological method.

The essence of this method lies in the construction of multidimensional tables (morphological boxes), in which the axes are the main indicators of a given set of objects. Suppose we need to find the optimal design of a backpack device for movement

submarine swimmer. We can start going through various “what if we do this?” For example: what if you use an electric motor and batteries? Or: what if we use the energy of compressed air and a turbine? Or: what if you use the energy of compressed air, not with a turbine, but with a fishtail fin?...

With the morphological method, before making a choice, it is necessary to construct a multidimensional table, on one axis of which it is necessary to plot (in this case) the type of energy used (electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc.), on the other axis - different types of engines (electric motors, turbines, rocket engines of various systems), on the third - types of possible propulsion devices (propeller, fin, rocket, etc.). Such a box will cover almost every conceivable combination.

Of course, the box will be fuller the more axes there are & it and the longer these basic. Thus, the box compiled by Zwicky to predict only one type of rocket engines had - with 11 axes - 36864 combinations!...

This, in fact, is one of the main disadvantages of the morphological method. When solving an inventive problem of even moderate difficulty, there may be hundreds of thousands or millions of options in the box*.

Another drawback of the method is the lack of confidence that when constructing a box, all axes and all classes along these axes are taken into account. The intuitive search for options is replaced by an intuitive search for axes and classes. The benefit is that we move from sorting through small (and therefore easily lost) units (options) to selecting large units (axes, classes along axes). Losing in time means that if we miss at least one oey, we automatically lose a very large group of options. And with axes, as with options, the most trivial ones stick out in your eyes, and the most interesting ones hide behind psychological barriers. Still, the morphological method is a big step forward compared to the usual enumeration of options.

The most effective use of this method is when solving general design problems (designing new machines, searching for new layout solutions). Let's take snowmobile design as an example. It is possible to construct a morphological box with the following axes and classes along the axes *.

1. Engine: internal combustion; gas turbine; electric; turbojet;

sailing (for snowmobiles this makes sense).

2. Propulsion:

monowheel (cabin inside the wheel); regular wheels; ribbed wheels; oval wheels; square wheels; cylindrical pneumatic rollers; caterpillars; snow screws; skis and vibration skis; propeller; airbag; legs (walking mover); spiral propulsion; leaf spring propulsion; impulse-friction propulsion; snow-thrower;

rotating plates and at least 15 more combined propulsors.

3. Cabin support:

on the mover (for example, on skis); directly onto the snow.

4. Cabin type: open;

closed single-hull;

catamaran;

double tandem type.

5. Providing depreciation: due to the propulsion;

due to special shock absorbers; without depreciation.

6. Control:

changing the direction of the engine; changing the direction of the propulsion; snow rudders; air rudders.

7. Providing reverse gear: engine reverse; propulsion reverse;

without reverse (reversal).

8. Braking: main motor; auxiliary engine; air brakes; snow brakes.

9. Mechanical protection against freezing in parking lots;

mechanical using a motor;

electrical;

chemical;

thermal;

without protection. We have not covered all possible axes and not all classes of axes. However, there are already over a million options in the box.

The morphological method must therefore be recognized as a useful auxiliary technique.

To somehow streamline the selection of options, you can make lists of leading questions. This method is called the control question method. Various lists were proposed by many authors back in the 20s.

In the USA, A. Osborne’s list of questions is most widely used. This list contains nine groups of questions, for example: “What can be reduced in a technical object?” or “What can be turned over in a technical object?” Each group of questions contains sub-questions. For example, the question “What can be reduced?” includes sub-questions: can something be compacted, compressed, condensed, condensed, or miniaturized? shorten? narrow? separate? crush?

One of the most complete and successful lists of accessories

lies to the English inventor T. Eyloart TO Here are some items on this list: “Draw fantastic biological, economic and other analogies. Establish options, dependencies, possible connections, logical coincidences... Find out the opinions of some people who are completely ignorant in this matter... In your imagination, climb inside the mechanism..."

In essence, each question is a test (or a series of tests). When compiling lists, their authors naturally select relatively strong questions from inventive experience. However, the selection is carried out without examining the internal mechanics of invention. That's why lists tell you what to do and don't explain how to do it. How, for example, “to establish options” or “to trace possible connections” if there are a lot of them? How to build an analogy or how to “get inside the mechanism in your imagination” so that it actually leads to solving the problem?

The noMOfaeT test question method reduces psychological inertia to some extent, and that’s all.

When trying to improve brainstorming, it is not difficult to find that it would be advisable to use two options:

1. Create not just one method, but a complex of different methods.

2. Organize the matter so that this complex is used by groups of people who are specially trained and gradually accumulate experience in methodological problem solving.

The American researcher William Gordon proceeded from these principles, who proposed the so-called synectics and founded the inventive company Synectics in 1960.

The word “synectics” translated from Greek means “combination of heterogeneous elements.” The prospectus of the Synectics company gives the following definition: “Synectics groups are groups of people of various specialties who meet for the purpose of attempting creative solutions to problems through unlimited training of the imagination and the combination of incompatible elements.”

Synectics is based on brainstorming conducted by constant in groups. Such groups, accumulating techniques and experience, work stronger than those assembled by chance. Synectic groups usually include people from different specialties (for the training of one group, the Synectics company charges from 20 to 200 thousand dollars; customers are General Motors, IBM, General Electric and other major companies).

Solving a problem by a synectic group begins with familiarization with the “problem as it is given” (PKD). Then the group, clarifying the problem, turns it into a “problem as it is understood” (PKP). Then the solution itself begins, based, as Gordon writes, on turning the unusual into the familiar and the familiar into the unusual, that is, on systematic attempts to look at the problem from some new point of view and thereby knock down psychological inertia. To do this, synectics uses four types of analogies

Direct analogy (DA)- the object under consideration is compared with a more or less similar object from another branch of technology or with an object from living nature. For example, if we want to improve the process of painting furniture, then the application of PA will be to consider how minerals, flowers, birds, etc. are painted, or how paper is painted, how a television image is “painted”

Personal analogy (LA)-it is also called empathy: the person solving the problem gets used to the image of the object being improved, trying to figure out the feelings and sensations that arise. For example, in the previous case, you can imagine yourself as a black sheep who wants to get some color

Symbolic analogy (SA) - a generalized, abstract analogy For example, for a grinding wheel SA will be “precise roughness”

Fantastic analogy (FA) - some fantastic creatures are introduced into the task, performing what is required by the conditions of the task, or some fantastic means (invisibility hat, running boots, etc.)

The progress of the synectic meeting is necessarily recorded with a tape recorder, then the recording is carefully studied in order to improve the solution tactics.

Synectics is the most powerful thing that foreign countries have in the field of invention techniques. But the possibilities of synectics are very limited. Synectics remained a mechanical set of techniques, divorced from the study of objective laws of technology development. The tasks of the second level and lower sublevels of the third level - this is the ceiling of synectics.

For effective solution inventive tasks at higher levels require heuristic a program that allows you to replace search options with targeted advancement to the solution area. In other words, we need a heuristic algorithm that can reduce, say, a fourth-level problem with a cost of 100,000 trials to a first-level problem with a cost of 10 trials.

Such an algorithm cannot be created based on the experience of an individual inventor or even a group of inventors. To obtain a workable heuristic algorithm, you need to: identify objective patterns of development of technical objects; explore large amounts of patent information; create a solution program in which each step organically follows from the previous one; Constantly develop and improve this program in practice.

I started this work in 1946. I would not like to say now, in retrospect, that even then the idea was to obtain a general methodology for invention. The original goal was much simpler: to find techniques that would help in my personal inventive practice. However, by 1948, inventions had faded into the background. It became obvious that “inventing a way to invent” is a much more interesting problem. “Ordinary” inventions remained the role of guinea pigs; on which the algorithm for solving inventive problems was tested.

In the following chapters we will take a closer look at the basic principles of the invention methodology and the algorithm for solving inventive problems. Now I will only note that the algorithmic methodology considers the process of solving an inventive problem as a sequence of operations to identify, clarify and overcome technical contradiction. The focus of thinking is achieved by focusing on the ideal way, perfect device. At all stages of the solution, a systemic approach. The algorithm also includes specific steps to eliminate psychological barriers and has a developed information apparatus - data on standard techniques for overcoming technical contradictions.

In order to create a practically workable method for solving inventive problems, every conclusion and every recommendation was necessarily tested in practice.

The first, still very cursory, essay on this topic was published in 1956 in the far-from-technical journal “Problems of Psychology” and did not attract the attention of the inventors. The situation changed only in 1959, when Komsomolskaya Pravda spoke about the practical results obtained by the invention method. Following this, its basic principles were set out in the magazine “Inventor and Innovator” TO Throughout the year, a discussion took place on the pages of the magazine.

The majority of the discussion participants expressed confidence that the technique “will become a powerful weapon in the hands of thousands of innovators in technology and production.” The methodology was also approved by the Expert Council of the Committee for Inventions and Discoveries under the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

Summing up the discussion, the editors wrote: “In our time of rapid development of science and technology, when creative creativity has become the work of millions of Soviet people, the problem of revealing the “secrets” of inventive skill, deducing reasonable rules, effective ways of working on technical innovations is becoming more and more pressing ..."

In 1961-1965, a number of works were published that gave inventors the opportunity to use the technique in solving new technical problems, to test and improve the recommended methods of creative work in practice. At the same time, the study of the experience accumulated by the inventors continued. Questionnaire surveys of innovators were conducted twice - inventors from more than 180 cities of our country participated in them. Seminars on the theory and practice of invention were organized in Moscow, Baku, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Dubna and other cities. The total number of inventions made using the proposed methodology - according to very complete data - exceeds 3 thousand

In 1968, the Central Council of VOIR created the Section for the Methodology of Technical Creativity, and a year later - the Public Laboratory for the Methodology of Invention. The laboratory, which united the efforts of enthusiasts, prepared and published educational materials - a program, collections of problems, texts of lectures. Teacher training was imposed, and now theory and practice solving inventive problems is taught in public inventive creativity institutes, in youth inventive schools, in technical and creative universities.

Since 1971, the educational and research Public Institute of Inventive Creativity has been operating in Baku under the Republican Council-VOIR and the Central Committee of the Komsomol of Azerbaijan. The institute trains inventors capable of solving complex creative problems in various branches of technology. The main academic subject at the institute is algorithmic methods for solving inventive problems. The ability to use a heuristic algorithm is developed in the process of practical training - first on educational tasks, and then on new ones taken from production practice.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

PREFACE

A Brief History of Invention Methods 1

Humanity has always had a need for invention.

This book is about how to make the process of invention easier and how to develop creative thinking.

The origins of invention go back to ancient times. Apparently, the beginning of invention was laid by the process of humanizing our distant ancestors. To obtain food and protect themselves, surrounding objects (stones, sticks, etc.) were first used. The first “inventors” used objects made by nature. Therefore, the first “inventions” were for the use of “devices”, substances and methods known in nature for a new purpose. The process of invention, in those distant times, consisted of observation and luck (accident) of our ancestor.

Thus, “navigation” most likely began from the moment a person noticed that a log in the water could keep him afloat. And shipbuilding dates back to the invention of the first raft.

“It is believed that the history of shipbuilding and navigation goes back 6,000 years! At the same time, they talk about the use of a raft by man, they mean a raft held together from several logs. The use of unprocessed trunks, with twigs and branches, as a floating device for searching for food or overcoming space began, apparently, much earlier". 2

The first attempts to create a method of creativity were made in ancient Greece. Let's name only the most famous names: Democritus of Abdera, Aristotle, Archimedes of Syracuse. Subsequently, the work was continued by the Roman poet and philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus, the English philosopher Roger Bacon, the Spanish scientist Raymond Lulius, the English philosopher and statesman, Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, the French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes, the Dutch philosopher Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza, the German philosopher, mathematician, physicist Gottfald Wilhelm Leibniz, Czech mathematician and philosopher Bernard Bolzano, French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré, Russian scientists P. Engelmeyer, V. Bekhterev and A. Bogdanov.

The first workable methods for activating the creative process began to appear in the late 20s of our century. These include the method of focal objects, proposed by the German professor Kunze and improved in the 50s by the American scientist Charles Whiting; brainstorming, proposed in 1939 by American Alex Osborne; morphological analysis proposed in 1942 by the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, synectics developed by the American William J. Gordon in 1952, etc.

Subsequently, other creative methods began to appear, for example, the Taguchi method (Thought), QFD (Quality Function Deployment), "6 Sigma", TQM (Total Quality Management) and some other methods.

All these methods are successfully studied today in various courses. They are quite simple, studying them does not take much time, and they give practical results.

All these methods intensify the selection of options, allowing you to get more ideas. They all use the traditional trial-and-error method, which rarely or accidentally leads to inventive solutions.

These methods do not allow solving complex inventive problems.

Inventive solution get Those. The root cause of the problem is identified and eliminated. Whereas with traditional (template, routine) thinking one gets template solution, in which one is always looking for compromise. Those. they try to slightly improve some parameters and unwittingly worsen others.

Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), developed by Heinrich Altshuller. It is designed to solve inventive problems and develop inventive thinking.

Inventive Thinking- this is systems thinking that identifies and resolves contradictions that lie in the depths of a complex problem (inventive task).

TRIZ allows you not only to solve complex inventive problems, but also to predict the development of systems (including technical ones), develop creative thinking and much more, which you will learn about below.

TRIZ is quite unique, constantly developing and improving by hundreds of talented students of Heinrich Altshuller. Thousands of people teach TRIZ, and it is difficult to count TRIZ users today. They are available all over the world. As we have already written, the TRIZ movement has been created.

Based on this, it is unlikely that any other theory will be able to compete with TRIZ.

Modern methods of invention. Method and checklists

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Similar documents

PREFACE