Chapter 27 The Methodological Ladder of Industrialised Inventions: A Description-Based and Explanation -Enhanced Prescriptive Model

Abstract

This abstract discusses a research project that investigates the methodology behind successful industrial inventions, aiming to demystify the invention process. The main outcomes of this research are:

Identification of Phases: The research identifies specific phases through which successful industrialized inventions typically evolve. These phases are seen as an escalating series of steps, each necessary and, when combined, sufficient to guide an invention from conception to completion.

Explanation of Phase Structure: The study proposes that this phase structure acts like a ladder, with each step representing a condition that must be met before moving to the next. This structure helps steer the development process effectively.

Understanding Epistemic Failure: Using the phase structure, the research also explores why certain inventions fail. It looks at the conditions that lead to epistemic (knowledge-based) failure during the invention process.

Practical Application: The ultimate goal of this research is to provide a practical, prescriptive model for industrial research and development teams. This model aims to help these teams reduce their chances of facing epistemic failure and increase their likelihood of achieving epistemic success.

Case Studies: To illustrate the application of this methodological framework, the paper analyzes three case studies of well-known inventions: the microwave oven, the cyclonic vacuum cleaner, and chemotherapeutic penicillin. These examples show how the proposed "Methodological Ladder" aligns with actual industrial practices.

In summary, this research seeks to provide a clear and structured methodology for successful industrial inventions, backed by case studies, aiming to reduce the uncertainty and mystery often associated with the invention process.

27.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a meta-methodological investigation aimed at demystifying the process of invention. The main points of the introduction are:

Historical and Philosophical Background: Inventions have been extensively studied from various perspectives, including historical case studies and philosophical analysis. These studies have focused on the social, political, economic, and technological aspects of inventions and their impact on human history.

Mystery of Methodological Patterns: Despite extensive research, there remains a mystery about whether there is a common methodological pattern underlying successful industrial inventions. This mystery pertains to understanding the entire process of invention, from the initial idea to the final product.

Distinction in Invention Process: The literature often differentiates between the initial generation of an inventive idea and its subsequent development into a product. This separation is analogous to the philosophical distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, as proposed by philosophers like Popper.

Continuous Phenomenon of Invention: The author argues that dividing the invention process into separate phases (idea generation and product development) is arbitrary. Successful inventions are viewed as involving a series of "intermediary justifications" rooted in technological contexts.

The Methodological Ladder: This paper introduces the "Methodological Ladder," a model that describes and explains the entire invention process. This ladder is a series of steps or phases, each contributing to the gradual development of an invention.

Nature's Role in Sanctioning Inventions: The author emphasizes that the success of an invention is sanctioned by nature, not by human consensus. Inventions create new man-made physical phenomena that are validated by their compatibility with natural laws.

Meta-Methodology's Task: The task of a meta-methodologist in technology is to reverse-engineer successful inventions to identify the methodological patterns used. This reverse-engineering focuses on how these inventions were sanctioned by nature.

Prescriptive Model for Future Projects: The ultimate goal of this research is to provide a prescriptive model based on the Methodological Ladder. This model is intended to guide industrial research and development teams in achieving success in their invention projects.

In summary, the chapter introduces the Methodological Ladder as a unified, descriptive, and prescriptive model for understanding the invention process, emphasizing the continuous nature of this process and the role of nature in validating successful inventions.

27.2 The Descriptive Aspects

27.2.1 Preliminary Notes

In the study of successful industrial inventions across various fields like mechanical engineering, chemistry, and biotechnology, a consistent pattern of phases was identified. These phases are seen as key steps in the invention process, repeating robustly across different disciplines. The phases are:

The Epistemic-Trigger Phase: This is the initial phase where a specific problem, need, or opportunity is identified, sparking the inventive process. It's the moment that triggers the pursuit of a new invention.

The Novel-Domain Phase: In this phase, inventors explore new areas or domains that haven't been fully utilized or explored in the past. This could involve new technologies, materials, or methods that offer potential solutions to the identified problem.

The Inventive-Hypothesis Phase: Here, the inventor formulates a hypothesis or a conceptual solution to the problem. This inventive hypothesis is a speculative idea about how the problem might be solved using the new domain explored in the previous phase.

The Technological-Bundle Phase: During this phase, the inventor gathers and integrates various technologies, tools, and methods to develop a working prototype or model based on the inventive hypothesis. This phase involves practical experimentation and testing.

The Industrial-Design Phase: Finally, the invention is refined and developed into a product that can be manufactured and used in an industrial or commercial setting. This phase focuses on design for manufacturing, usability, scalability, and marketability of the invention.

27.2.2 What Is a Confirmed Technological Principle (CTP)?

The term "Confirmed Technological Principle" (CTP) in the paper is defined as a specific kind of statement in the field of technological knowledge, characterized by three main properties:

Technological: This refers to the statement being a value-neutral "hypothetical imperative". This means it proposes a conditional action: if one wishes to achieve a certain outcome (y), then one should perform a specific action (x). This is distinct from "categorical imperatives", which are prescriptive and often value-laden commands.

Confirmed: The principle must be supported by empirical data. Regardless of theoretical backing, a statement remains a hypothesis until it is validated through data. Once data supports the statement, it becomes a "confirmed" principle. Additional theoretical support is considered beneficial but not essential.

Principle: It denotes a general guideline or rule that outlines how to achieve a certain type of technological prediction. However, it does not include the detailed, auxiliary aspects needed for a complete industrial design, such as considerations for mass-producibility, safety, economy, and other practicalities.

In summary, a Confirmed Technological Principle is a general, data-supported, value-neutral guideline in technology that indicates how to achieve specific predictions or results, but without the detailed nuances necessary for finalizing an industrial design.

27.3 The Descriptive Phases

27.3.1 The Epistemic-Trigger Phase

The "Epistemic-Trigger Phase" is the first step in the process of creating a new industrialized invention. This phase is initiated by what is known as an "epistemic trigger," which occurs against the backdrop of technology's role in fulfilling various non-epistemic values such as improving quality of life, alleviating suffering, and achieving social, political, business, and financial benefits through the creation of new, mass-producible man-made phenomena.

An epistemic trigger is essentially an intriguing causal relationship that motivates the invention process. It can take one of two forms:

Technological Problem: This is when there is a desired outcome or effect for which there are no existing technological means or Confirmed Technological Principles to achieve it. Essentially, it's recognizing a gap or need in technology where a solution or method does not currently exist.

Technological Opportunity: This occurs when there is an existing cause (like data, scientific models, or established technological principles) that has not been technologically exploited outside of its traditional domain. These opportunities can arise from various sources such as accidental observations, unexpected experimental results, or previously overlooked data and principles.

The Epistemic-Trigger Phase concludes with the formulation of an "Epistemic-Trigger Statement," which clearly defines the starting point for the invention process. This statement either identifies a technological problem ("There is a technological problem: Problem E") or a technological opportunity ("There is a technological opportunity: Opportunity C"). This statement sets the stage for the subsequent development phases of the invention, directing focus either towards solving a specific problem or capitalizing on an identified opportunity.

27.3.2 The Novel-Domain Phase

The "Novel-Domain Phase" is the second stage in the process of creating a new industrialized invention, following the "Epistemic-Trigger Phase." In this phase, the statement generated from the previous phase initiates a comprehensive exploration for the most technologically viable domain in which the invention can be developed. This exploration often involves thinking creatively or "outside the box," and may be influenced by historical coincidences and unique case idiosyncrasies, although it can also be conducted through a systematic and deliberate thought process.

Key terms used in the literature to describe this exploratory process include "serendipity," "lateral thinking," "thinking outside the box," "flash of light," "sudden mental insight," "creative leap," and "cognitive leap." However, these terms might be misleading as they can encompass both this phase and the next one.

In this phase, an "Epistemic-Trigger Statement," which is typically perceived by most practitioners in a given technological context as belonging to a traditional domain, is reinterpreted by the inventor as belonging to a novel or different domain. This reinterpretation opens up new possibilities for inventive applications. For example:

Alexander Fleming identified a discolored Petri dish, which others might have discarded, as belonging to the domain of pharmaceutical issues, paving the way for the development of penicillin.

James Dyson saw a problem with a vacuum cleaner bag, typically considered a bag issue, as belonging to the broader domain of separation issues, leading to the invention of the cyclonic vacuum cleaner.

Percy Spencer noticed a melted chocolate bar due to exposure to radar, which radar engineers might have seen as a hazard, as an opportunity in the domain of food issues, leading to the development of the microwave oven.

The phase concludes with the formulation of a "Novel-Domain Statement," which either asserts that a particular problem belongs to a specific, perhaps previously unconsidered domain ("Problem E belongs to domain X"), or that a certain opportunity can be exploited in a new domain ("Opportunity C belongs to domain Y"). This reclassification of the problem or opportunity into a novel domain is a critical step in the inventive process, setting the stage for the development of innovative solutions.

27.3.3 The Inventive-Hypothesis Phase

The "Inventive-Hypothesis Phase" is the third stage in the process of creating a new industrialized invention. This phase follows the "Novel-Domain Phase," where a specific domain for the potential invention is identified. The focus of the Inventive-Hypothesis Phase is to develop a specific hypothesis about how the identified problem or opportunity can be addressed within the chosen domain.

Key aspects of this phase include:

Determining a Specific Hypothesis: Depending on the nature of the initial epistemic trigger (identified in the first phase), this phase involves formulating a hypothesis about a potential solution. If the trigger was a problem (an effect for which a cause is sought), the hypothesis will involve identifying a possible cause within the chosen domain (domain X). Conversely, if the trigger was an opportunity (a cause for which a preferred effect is sought), the hypothesis will involve predicting a potential effect that can be achieved within the chosen domain (domain Y).

Hypothesis Formulation: At this early stage, the hypothesis is often tentative and exploratory. It represents a possibility rather than a confirmed solution. The hypothesis is an educated guess or a creative idea about how the problem might be solved or the opportunity might be exploited.

Completion of the Phase: The phase concludes with the creation of an "Inventive-Hypothesis Statement," which articulates the specific hypothesis. This statement takes one of two forms, depending on the nature of the epistemic trigger:

For a problem-based trigger: “Within domain X, Problem E might be solved by Cause CX.”

For an opportunity-based trigger: “Within domain Y, Opportunity C might be exploited to produce Effect EY.”

This phase is crucial in the invention process as it translates the general direction identified in the Novel-Domain Phase into a more concrete and focused hypothesis. This hypothesis then guides subsequent phases of invention development, as it sets a specific path for exploring and testing potential solutions or applications.

27.3.4 The Technological-Bundle Phase

The "Technological-Bundle Phase" is the fourth stage in the process of developing an industrialized invention. This phase is critical as it involves the actual realization of the invention by combining and experimenting with different established technological principles. Here's a concise explanation:

Purpose of the Phase: The main objective of this phase is to transform the inventive hypothesis (developed in the previous phase) into a working invention. This is achieved by experimenting with a combination of Confirmed Technological Principles (CTPs) to create the hypothesized result.

Nature of Experimentation: Unlike scientific experimentation, which tests hypotheses on existing phenomena, technological experimentation in this phase is developmental. It aims to create a new man-made phenomenon based on a hypothetical idea. The experimentation is about making the hypothetical invention work, often through trial and error and innovative combinations of existing technologies.

Confirmation of the Hypothesis: The inventive hypothesis is confirmed or justified when a particular combination of CTPs successfully produces the desired novel effect or invention. This is the point at which the invention comes into existence as a new, confirmed technological principle.

Precision and Conditions: The statement defining the invention in this phase is more precise than in the Inventive-Hypothesis Phase. It not only describes the invention but often stipulates specific conditions or parameters necessary for the invention to function correctly or to achieve a certain level of performance.

Completion of the Phase: The phase concludes with the formulation of a "Technological-Bundle Statement." This statement takes a prescriptive form, detailing how to achieve the new effect or invention by implementing a specific combination of CTPs. The statement might be accompanied by engineering drawings or other domain-specific formats, depending on the nature of the invention.

The statement typically follows the structure: “To achieve novel effect E, implement technological bundle: CTP1, CTP2, ..., CTPn.”

This phase is crucial as it represents the transition from theoretical hypothesis to practical, working technology, marking the birth of the new invention.

27.3.5 The Industrial-Design Phase

The "Industrial-Design Phase" is the fifth and final stage in the process of developing an industrialized invention. This phase focuses on refining and optimizing the invention, ensuring it meets various socio-economic requirements. Here's a concise explanation:

Objective of the Phase: The primary goal of this phase is to refine the technological bundle created in the previous phase. This refinement involves adding more Confirmed Technological Principles (CTPs) to the existing invention to make it suitable for industrial production and market demands.

Focus on Socio-Economic Requirements: The invention is further developed to meet a range of socio-economic requirements. These include considerations like the choice of materials, mass-producibility, cost-effectiveness, safety, user-friendliness, environmental impact, and aesthetics. The complexity of these requirements varies depending on whether the invention is simple or complex.

Integration of Additional Factors: Additional CTPs are integrated into the invention's design to address the socio-economic requirements. This integration ensures that the final product is not only technologically sound but also viable for industrial production and market acceptance.

Completion of the Phase: The phase concludes with the formulation of an "Industrial-Design Statement." This statement is prescriptive and outlines how to achieve an industrial design that incorporates the novel effect or invention by implementing an expanded technological bundle. The statement might be accompanied by detailed engineering drawings or other formats pertinent to the specific field of the invention.

Statement Structure: The typical structure of the statement is: “To achieve an industrial design that incorporates novel effect E, implement technological bundle: CTP1, CTP2, ..., CTPn+p.”

This phase marks the transition of the invention from a technological concept to a fully realized industrial design, ready for production and market introduction. It ensures that the invention is not only innovative but also practical and responsive to market and societal needs.

27.4 The Case of the Microwave Oven: Synopsis and Brief Analysis

The case of the microwave oven's invention by Percy Spencer is summarized through a series of methodological phases that outline its development:

Epistemic-Trigger Statement: The process began when Spencer, working at Raytheon, observed that a chocolate bar in his pocket melted near a switched-on magnetron, a radar component. This observation indicated a potential technological opportunity in the effect of magnetron-generated radio emissions, unrelated to heat.

Novel-Domain Statement: Spencer identified that the effect of magnetron-generated radio emissions could be applicable in the domain of food, suggesting a new way of cooking.

Inventive-Hypothesis Statement: Based on this novel domain, Spencer hypothesized the potential for a new type of cooking apparatus utilizing magnetron-generated radio emissions.

Technological-Bundle Statement: The invention was realized by combining specific technological components: an evacuated envelope made of a highly conductive material, anode vanes, a cavity resonator, an electron-emissive cathode member, and a magnetic means. The process of cooking with this device involved exposing foodstuffs to microwave emissions within the envelope for set durations.

Industrial-Design Statement: The first industrial design, known as the “Radarange,” was tailored for volume applications like restaurants and hospitals. It included additional features like cold-water cooling for the magnetron, a hinged door with handle, manual controls, and specific requirements for electricity, plumbing, installation, and user instructions.

This case illustrates the systematic progression from an initial observation (epistemic trigger) through conceptualization and hypothesis formation, to the development of a technological solution and its refinement into a practical industrial design.

27.5 The Case of the Cyclonic Vacuum Cleaner: Synopsis and Brief Analysis

The invention of the cyclonic vacuum cleaner by James Dyson is outlined in a series of methodological phases:

Epistemic-Trigger Statement: The invention process began in 1978 when Dyson, working as an inventor and designer, noticed that the bag in his vacuum cleaner quickly clogged and lost extraction power after initial use.

Novel-Domain Statement: Dyson realized that the problem of vacuum bag clogging should be viewed not just as a filter-separation issue but as a broader issue of separation. He considered applying a solution from a different context – the use of cyclones in the spray-equipment industry for powder separation.

Inventive-Hypothesis Statement: Dyson hypothesized that within the domain of separation issues, centrifugal force could be used in place of a bag for separating dust and debris in a vacuum cleaner.

Technological-Bundle Statement: The solution involved using two cyclones in the vacuum cleaner: a steeply tapered cyclone for faster speed to pick up dust and a gently tapered or parallel-walled cyclone for slower speed to pick up larger debris. This approach allowed for bagless vacuum cleaning using centrifugal force for separation.

Industrial-Design Statement: For the first product, the “Cyclone,” suitable for the consumer market, several features were added: incorporating the smaller cyclone within the larger one, using clear material for the outer cyclone for visibility and to show when emptying is needed, using durable materials with high rubber content for the body, and including a telescopic hose with an "instant changeover valve" for easy transition from floor to overhead cleaning.

These stages illustrate Dyson’s innovative approach, starting from identifying a common problem and reimagining its solution using principles from a different industry, leading to the development of a revolutionary product in the vacuum cleaning industry.

27.6 Chemotherapeutic Penicillin – Synopsis and Brief Analysis

The development of chemotherapeutic Penicillin can be summarized in a series of methodological phases:

Epistemic-Trigger Statement: The process began with the recognition of a technological opportunity when Alexander Fleming discovered in 1928 that filtrates of Penicillin had an effect on certain pathogenic bacteria, causing lysis (cell breakdown).

Novel-Domain Statement: Fleming perceived Penicillin’s potential beyond its natural occurrence, identifying it as belonging to the domain of pharmaceutical issues.

Inventive-Hypothesis Statement: It was hypothesized that Penicillin could be used as a chemotherapeutic drug for treating deep-seated infections.

Technological-Bundle Statement: The method for using Penicillin as a chemotherapeutic drug involved culturing it in a controlled medium, purifying it, and administering it in high doses to fight infection. The treatment was most effective when given early after an injury or infection.

Industrial-Design Statement: The first industrial design, “surface-cultured Penicillin F” produced in Oxford, UK, required culturing Penicillium notatum, purification through specific techniques, and intravenous administration. Later, an improved mass-producible design, “deep-fermented Penicillin G,” was developed in Peoria, USA. This version used Penicillium chrysogenum, cultured in a corn-steep liquor medium through deep-fermentation, and also required intravenous administration.

These stages illustrate the transformation of Penicillin from a natural phenomenon into a groundbreaking man-made pharmaceutical invention, revolutionizing the treatment of bacterial infections.

27.7 The Explanatory Aspects

27.7.1 Explaining the Ladder’s Structure

The Methodological Ladder structure proposed for understanding the invention process comprises a sequence of phases, each characterized by specific types of statements that mark their commencement and conclusion. These phases act as individually necessary and collectively sufficient conditions that guide an invention from its initial idea to a fully realized industrial design.

Epistemic-Trigger Phase: The process begins with the identification of an intriguing causal relation, either a technological problem (effect for which a cause is sought) or opportunity (cause for which a preferred effect is sought). The phase concludes with an Epistemic-Trigger Statement, which defines the invention's aim.

Novel-Domain Phase: This involves identifying a relevant domain for the epistemic trigger. The inventor perceives the epistemic trigger as belonging to a novel domain, distinct from traditional views. The phase ends with a Novel-Domain Statement, specifying the domain where the solution or opportunity lies.

Inventive-Hypothesis Phase: This phase focuses on formulating a specific inventive hypothesis within the identified domain. It concludes with an Inventive-Hypothesis Statement, proposing a possible solution or utilization within the domain.

Technological-Bundle Phase: Here, the hypothetical invention is developed through experimentation, combining it with confirmed technological principles to create a functioning model. This phase ends with a Technological-Bundle Statement, detailing how to achieve the novel effect using a combination of principles.

Industrial-Design Phase: The final phase involves refining the technological bundle to meet socio-economic requirements, like mass-producibility, safety, and user-friendliness. It concludes with an Industrial-Design Statement, outlining how to incorporate the novel effect into a practical, industrially viable design.

Each phase builds upon the previous one, forming a ladder-like structure where the completion of one phase is necessary for the commencement of the next. This structure provides a systematic approach to inventing, ensuring each step logically follows from the last, leading to the successful completion of the invention process.

27.7.2 Explaining Cases of Failure

In this section, the author discusses why certain technological developments failed to materialize, using a methodological approach. Three specific cases are analyzed to understand why potential inventions did not progress into successful industrialized products:

Radar Engineers and Microwaves: Radar engineers during World War II observed the heating effect of microwaves, as seen in melted chocolate bars or partially burnt birds near radar installations. However, they did not recognize this odd causal relation as technologically intriguing, thus failing to generate an Epistemic-Trigger Statement. This lack of recognition meant they missed the opportunity to explore microwave technology for non-military applications, leaving it to Percy Spencer to later develop the microwave oven.

Vacuum Cleaner Manufacturers and Cyclonic Technology: Global vacuum cleaner manufacturers were aware of the problem of diminishing extraction power due to clogged bags. Still, they categorized this issue within the narrow domain of bag-filter issues rather than the broader domain of separation issues. This limited perspective prevented them from generating a Novel-Domain Statement, necessary to explore alternative solutions like cyclonic technology, which James Dyson later successfully developed.

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin: Although Alexander Fleming discovered the antibacterial effects of Penicillium mold and hypothesized its potential as a chemotherapeutic drug, he failed to transform this hypothesis into a successful technological invention. His scientific environment, emphasizing the need for theoretical explanations before practical application, hindered the development of a technological bundle for Penicillin. This gap in methodology led to the failure of Fleming’s program to produce Penicillin as a widely used drug, leaving it to Howard Florey and the Oxford team to achieve this later.

These cases illustrate that the failure to progress through the necessary phases of the Methodological Ladder can halt the development of potential inventions. Each phase is crucial, and missing or inadequately addressing any phase can lead to missed opportunities and unmaterialized inventions.

27.8 The Prescriptive Aspects

The prescriptive aspects of the Methodological Ladder in industrialized inventions are outlined as follows:

Search for a Technologically Intriguing Causal Relation: If you aim to develop an industrialized invention, start by identifying a causal relationship that presents a technological intrigue. This can be either a desired effect lacking a known technological cause or a known cause lacking a recognized desirable technological effect. Once identified, articulate this in an Epistemic-Trigger Statement.

Search for a Novel Technologically Viable Domain: After pinpointing a technologically intriguing causal relation, look for a new and viable technological domain where this relation can fit. Successfully finding this domain leads to the formation of a Novel-Domain Statement.

Search for a Hypothetical Causal Counterpart: If you have identified a novel technological domain, the next step involves finding a hypothetical causal counterpart for the intriguing causal relation. This means looking for a hypothetical cause if the Epistemic-Trigger Statement is about an effect, or a hypothetical effect if the statement is about a cause. Upon finding this, create an Inventive-Hypothesis Statement.

Search for a Confirming Technological-Bundle: With a hypothetical causal counterpart in hand, the next phase involves experimenting (through trial and error and/or theoretical guidance) to find a combination of causal relations (a technological bundle) that validates and brings the hypothetical invention into reality. This successful identification is captured in a Technological-Bundle Statement.

Search for Additional Socio-Economic Requirements: Finally, once a technological bundle is confirmed, the next step is to consider additional socio-economic requirements that this bundle must meet to be accepted as an industrial design. Successful identification and integration of these requirements lead to the formulation of an Industrial-Design Statement.

In essence, these steps prescribe a sequential process of discovery and development, guiding inventors from initial concept through to a viable industrial design. This process is based on identifying and exploiting technological opportunities and solving problems through systematic exploration, hypothesis formation, and experimental confirmation.

27.9 A Concluding Remark

In the concluding remark of the paper discussing the Methodological Ladder, the author emphasizes that the reader should find the descriptive, explanatory, and prescriptive aspects of this ladder convincing. The key point made is about the ontological nature of methodological practices, which are described as value-neutral. This means that these practices, much like logic, are impartial and effective in transporting ideas to fruition, provided that the correct procedures and criteria are followed.

However, the author also issues a warning about the potential hazards of this methodological power. They stress the importance of strategic, value-laden considerations, including rational and moral reasoning, to balance the potent knowledge amassed by modern societies. The author cautions that while the Methodological Ladder is a powerful tool for developing industrialized inventions, it should be used responsibly and ethically, directed towards positive and beneficial ends.