Exploring Invention Capability

Vaughan Michell, Rajeth Surrendran


Research on invention has focused on business invention and little work has been conducted on the process and capability required for the individual inventor or the capabilities required for an advice to be considered an invention. This paper synthesises the results of an empirical survey of ten inventor case studies with current research on invention and recent capability affordance research to develop an integrated capability process model of human capabilities for invention and specific capabilities of an invented device. We identify eight necessary human effectivities required for individual invention capability and six functional key activities using these effectivities, to deliver the functional capability of invention. We also identified key differences between invention and general problem solving processes. Results suggest that inventive step capability relies on a unique application of principles that relate to a new combination of affordance chain with a new mechanism and or space time (affordance) path representing the novel way the device works, in conjunction with defined critical affordance operating factors that are the subject of the patent claims.


  1. Aamodt, A. (1991). A knowledge-intensive, integrated approach to problem solving and sustained learning. Knowledge Engineering and Image Processing Group. University of Trondheim, 27-85.
  2. Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36(2), 274-287.
  3. Barry, K., Domb, E., & Slocum, M. S. (2010). TRIZ-what is TRIZ. The Triz Journal. Real Innovation Network. Retrieved 30th April 2015 from http://www. trizjournal. com/archives/what_is_triz/
  4. Baylis T. 2001 Spring operated current generator for supplying controlled electric current to a load CA2228936C. Retrieved 30th April 2015 from http://google.com/patents/CA2228936C?cl=zh
  5. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
  6. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019-1039.
  7. Giuri, P., Mariani, M., Brusoni, S., Crespi, G., Francoz, D., Gambardella, A., ... & Verspagen, B. (2007). Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research policy, 36(8), 1107-1127.
  8. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. Knowledge and strategy, 3-23.
  9. Gibson, J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston (1979) California Management Review
  10. Greeno J.G. Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2):336- 342,1994.
  11. Hall, J. G., & Rapanotti, L. (2009). Assurance-driven design in problem oriented engineering. International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements,2(1), 119-130.
  12. Michell, V. (2011). A focussed approach to business capability. In First International Symposium on Business Modelling and Software Design BMSD Bulgaria pp105-113.
  13. Michell, V. (2013). The Capability Affordance Model: Comparing Medical Capabilities. In Business Modeling and Software Design (pp. 102-124). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  14. Michell, V., & Roubtsova, E. (2014). Modelling Capability and Affordance as Properties of Human/Machine Resource Systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design, BMSD.
  15. Mishra, A. N., Devaraj, S., & Vaidyanathan, G. (2013). Capability hierarchy in electronic procurement and procurement process performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 31(6), 376-390.
  16. Pressman, D. (2014). Patent it Yourself: Your Step-by-step Guide to Filing at the US Patent Office. Nolo.
  17. Ruttan, V. W. (1959). Usher and Schumpeter on invention, innovation, and technological change. The quarterly journal of economics, 596-606..
  18. Scherer, F. M. (1982). Demand-pull and technological invention: Schmookler revisted. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 225-237.
  19. Sheahan M. 1999 Disc shaped container US 5897015 A Retrieved 30th April 2015 from http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5897015 .
  20. Starr, C. W., Manaris, B., & Stalvey, R. H. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy revisited: specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 261-265
  21. Warren, W.H.: Perceiving Affordances: A Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(5), 683-703 (1984)
  22. Williams, B. C. (1990). Interaction-based invention: Designing novel devices from first principles. In Expert Systems in Engineering Principles and Applications (pp.119-134). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  23. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal, 24(10), 991-995.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Michell V. and Surrendran R. (2015). Exploring Invention Capability . In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD, ISBN 978-989-758-111-3, pages 107-116. DOI: 10.5220/0005886001070116

in Bibtex Style

author={Vaughan Michell and Rajeth Surrendran},
title={Exploring Invention Capability},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,
TI - Exploring Invention Capability
SN - 978-989-758-111-3
AU - Michell V.
AU - Surrendran R.
PY - 2015
SP - 107
EP - 116
DO - 10.5220/0005886001070116