2. TECHNICAL CREATIVITY PROCESS

There are two types of inventors. The inventor of an intuitive type quickly generates inventive ideas and only then tests them and applies them in practice. The representative of the logical type accumulates knowledge, experience, analyzes, masters the methods of creativity and on the basis of the processing of this information generates ideas. In real conditions, as a rule, the most common is the mixed type with a predominance of one of these. The inventors work most productively, combining both types without excessive expression of one of them. It is difficult to find an invention created without the participation of both intuition and logic.

According to the American psychologist J. Briper, the main feature of intuitive thinking is the tendency to cover the whole problem at once. There are no stages in the intuitive process, as opposed to the process of systematic thinking. Since the purely intuitive process of creating an invention is an exceptionally rare phenomenon, the selection of stages in the creative process in the interests of its optimization is of practical importance. There are many attempts to determine the structure of the creative process of the inventor. The specific schemes of the creative process published by researchers have much in common and in most cases they differ in the sequence of subdivision of individual stages into steps and the number of stages.

Researcher D. O. Hebb divides the creative process of the inventor into two stages, researchers T. Ribot, N. D. Levitov into three stages, G. Wallace, A. Poincaré into four stages, I. V. Strakhov into five, O. Seltz - by six, P. M. Jacobson, J. Rosmen - by seven, E. Fang and Ya. A. Chul - by nine stages. However, disputes about the number of stages are of no fundamental importance, since any division of the creative process is conditional. Even the sequence of individual stages in a real creative process is different, and sometimes one of the stages is completely absent. In other cases, the inventor returns several times to a specific stage of the process.

When teaching innovators in the Latvian public universities of technical creativity, the Riga Public Institute of Patent Science, the Latvian Institute of Advanced Training of National Economy Specialists of the Latvian SSR, the following scheme of the creative process of creation was adopted in the courses on the methods of inventiveness organized by the Latvian Republican Council of All-Union Society and Innovators (VOIR) inventions based on the research of the author of this book.

The creative process of the inventor is conditionally divided into four stages: preparation, design, search and implementation. Each of the stages has continuous feedback with the information of the invention, supporting knowledge and the method of invention developed by the foundation and is divided into steps (Fig. 1).

At the preparatory stage , knowledge accumulation occurs. facts, prerequisites and skills, carried out intellectual and creative preparation of the individual to the invention. The dream of the inventor, as a rule, is born on the basis of identifying and understanding the social need and objectively existing problem situation. Incentives for this are dissatisfaction with the existing position and a heuristic setting for the inventive problem. At this stage, a specific topic and its main question or purpose are also determined, and a desire arises to carry out the development of this topic.

The history of technology shows that inventors were people of different professions, originating from different classes of society, with varying levels of training. The farmer F. Blinov invented the first tracked tractor in the world, the gardener F. Monnier discovered a method of manufacturing reinforced concrete, the shoemaker V. Cascarolla found a luminous substance - phosphor, the steamer was created by the jeweler R. Fulton, the waiter of the Parisian restaurant J. Lenaur built the first gas engine, the cook F. The appert invented a method of preserving food, the doctor Mohammed Abu Burk al-Rasi developed a method of producing alcohol, the peasant serf P. I. Osokin created designs for an oil engine, a reaping machine, an underwater mine.

Awareness of the fact that the field of technical creativity is accessible to everyone, although the level of solving technical problems depends on the supporting knowledge, mental qualities of the individual and mastering the methods and skills of creative work, is the first prerequisite to invention.

Another prerequisite for technical creativity is overcoming the fear of solving a completely new task. Due to the massive development of inventiveness in our country, millions of production innovators are involved in solving various tasks of varying importance. However, many innovators are unreasonably afraid to take on the solution of technical problems at the level of the invention. The experience of the creators of the new technique convincingly proved that with the right methodological approach, solving the problem at the level of the invention is not more difficult than solving it at the level of rationalization proposal using random blind samples.

The possibilities of invention are enormous. Inventors can even refute the usual view, reflected in popular sayings. For example, the old sayings are well known: “you can't make a stocking out of a web”, “you can't make a silk wallet out of a pig's ear”. The inventor E. J. Saint-Hilaire in 1709 demonstrated stockings and gloves made of web in the Paris Academy of Sciences. Chicago chemist A.D. Little, after chemical treatment of pig ears, made of them silky wallets.

Ingenious inventors are first of all the people who were the first to realize social needs and courageously set tasks for their satisfaction.

At the design stage , the problem situation is determined and localized by collecting and analyzing available information. The initial formulation of the task is carried out, the central issue or focal point of the problem is identified, the necessary requirement is determined, essential limitations are established, the connections of the problem with related tasks are studied, the history of solving similar problems is studied, the need, relevance, feasibility and optimal solution level are analyzed. At the same stage, a mental, graphical or mathematical model of a problem situation is created, the main components of the task and their degree of fame are identified, plans for finding a solution are outlined, methods for this solution are selected and its purpose arises.

Inventive activity is the solution of technical problems by processing information in the conditions of its deficit. An information processing strategy that models the optimal behavior of a person under these conditions can be viewed as a theory and method of invention. From this point of view, the process of creating an invention consists of two main elements: a contextual framework, the main element of which is the totality of data on social needs and contradictions between them and the possibilities in the "man-equipment-environment" system, as well as an artificially constructed model of the invention, constantly adjusted in the process of solving the inventive problem.

With the correct formulation of the problem, it is important first of all to clarify the purpose of its solution. It is necessary to find out the goals of solving similar problems in the past, their change in the present, to reveal the reasons for these changes, to study the facts confirming the advisability of putting forward the task. Refinement of the goal facilitates the formulation of the central question of the problem, which allows the creative search for a solution to be concentrated in one focal point.

In many cases, it is advisable to divide the task into several subtasks and put forward a central question for each of them. However, often a parallel solution of such subtasks leads to results that are difficult to combine in one system. Therefore, an optimal sequence is established for solving the subtasks.

It is known that the formulation of an inventive task in specific terms, taking into account the rigid constraints, limits the creative thinking, hindering the achievement of the goal. For this reason, the inventive problem should initially be formulated in general terms without specific terms, without, however, losing sight of the purpose of the invention and the central question of the problem. The formulation of the inventive problem is, if possible, set forth in writing, graphically, and mathematically. Careful formulation of the problem is like a preparation of a problem situation and allows you to find at least some of the possible directions of searches, and often the starting points that limit the search for a solution to the problem.

At the search stage, a solution plan is anticipated by means of mental tests aimed at transforming the problem situation. At this stage, inventive ideas are generated, the principles for solving the problem are determined, which are verified with the subsequent selection of the optimal solution principle based on the identified positive and negative data. Then this principle is transformed into a specific scheme, which is analyzed and improved.

In search of a solution to the problem, the whole fund of typical methods of technical creativity is used. The methods of logical solution of inventive problems do not always provide for finding the original and effective idea of ​​the invention. Chaotic, random sampling methods are suitable for generating original ideas, but they rarely allow you to find a solution and are rather laborious. The most effective in most cases is directed methodical thinking with conscious use of accidents in the creative process.

Despite a methodically sound approach to solving an inventive problem, it happens that it comes to a dead end and the contradictions that have arisen for objective or subjective reasons seem to be insoluble. However, it does not follow from this that a specific inventive task is unsolvable. In principle, every inventive problem that can be posed can be solved, if not at the present moment, then in the near future. Of course, this applies only to real, and not to imaginary, erroneous tasks, tasks-chimeras. From the temporary deadlock, which often arises due to errors in the approach to the solution, there are many ways out. We point out some of them.

Revision and reformulation of the problem are often useful, since the analysis of the problem situation and creative, even unsuccessful samples usually give new information, reveal previously unnoticed connections, open new directions of search, expand or limit the search field of the solution, allow a deeper assessment of the problem and the possibilities of its solution.

Most often, the formulation of the problem is revised using the following techniques:

• changing the planned level of solving the problem, for example, replacing the design task of improving the object with the task of finding a new principle, allowing to achieve the goal of the invention;
• setting the task in a more general way, indicating only its goal;
• changing requirements to the results of solving the problem;
• splitting tasks into several subtasks with their own focal points;
• a two-step formulation of the problem, which involves solving a simpler task at first, which serves as a hint;
• setting an auxiliary task to find out how the problem would be solved if the parameters of the object were changed from zero to infinity;
• formulation of the inverted problem;
• problem statement with the definition of the ideal desired components;
• the formulation of a simplified task at the level of technical capabilities of a certain epoch of the past, for example, at the level of technical capabilities of antiquity;
• problem statement with a fundamental change in conditions, (for example, moving to the conditions of an imaginary planet in accordance with the descriptions of science fiction literature).

In addition to transforming the formulation of the problem, other ways are possible to break the deadlock when it is solved. Most often, the inventors in these cases use:

• selection of new methods of solution from the arsenal of the method of invention (the library of heuristic methods for solving inventive problems);
• mental attempts to solve the problem by the least probable methods traditionally used to solve inventive problems in other, very remote areas (for example, an attempt to apply the principles used in the selection of new breeds of livestock in the field of radio engineering);
• organizing a collective generation of ideas with the involvement of specialists from various fields and individuals who are not aware of this issue;
• depicting a problem situation using flow diagrams with an indication of the sequence of steps and the structure of the process, points of principally possible solutions or elements of the process;
• updating the experience of the past. At the same time, information and methods for solving similar and inverted tasks in the past are searched for, at the level of modern knowledge and capabilities, old, not implemented patents and privileges, rejected projects are considered;
• attempts to benefit from the side effects of failed mental samples;
• division of social needs into sub-needs, followed by the creation of a separate technical object to meet each of the sub-needs;
• search for new, unnoticed links between the components of the task and the elements of the intended technical object. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of seemingly insignificant at first glance, relationships and conditions;
• temporarily defacting the task and the objects created by abandoning the qualitative certainty of the objects while preserving their inherent relationships or by abandoning some of the relations while preserving the qualitative certainty;
• attempts to establish conditions under which a solution would not be feasible in order to find out whether it is possible to abandon the task itself or replace it with another to achieve the same general goal;
• collection of knowingly absurd ideas for solving this or an inverted problem with the subsequent analysis of the possibility of their use;
• temporary cessation of searches. This creates a psychological opportunity for guesswork and allows you to look at the problem with a fresh look.

The implementation stage of the solution is characterized by technical, aesthetic and legal design of solving the inventive problem, specifying it and making additional changes. At this stage, an experienced verification of the solution is carried out, it receives a scientific, technical and economic justification, amendments are made to it, prompted by practice, the solution is implemented and is being developed further. In some cases, the expansion of the scope of the originally intended application of the invention can be attributed to this stage.

The stage of the implementation of the inventive task, in the opinion of PK Engelmeyer, is purely handicraft and does not require the creative work of the inventor. N. D Levitov relates to the same stage verification of the invention and various modifications resulting from such verification. S. M. Vasileysky includes at this stage a detailed technical and economic substantiation of the achieved result, the main drawing and manipulation operations.

The interpretation of the last stage of the creative process as a purely handicraft contradicts the modern concept of the creative process of invention. No matter how original and precise the principal solution of the problem, it is by thinking and well-intentioned alone, without practical actions — economic justification, production and verification of a prototype, laboratory and other tests — it is difficult to create a suitable invention. The operations to implement the invention contain creative elements. At this stage, the initial decision is often significantly modified and supplemented. Patenters are familiar with the difficulties that arise when an application for an invention is filed prior to its experimental verification.

The exclusion of the inventor from participation in the final stage of the invention, which often happens, usually leads to disappointing results. The well-known inventor R. Diesel considered only the implemented solution to be the invention. Soviet inventor V.I. Mukhachev proposed a rule according to which an inventor who solved a creative task should participate in the implementation of his invention. The participation of the inventor in the implementation stage of the decision broadens his horizons, strengthens ties with practice, enriches creative experience. The unity of theory and practice is the highest expression of the unity of the spiritual and material aspects in all human activities and, in particular, in the creation of new technology.