Calibrate whether the problem requires invention or just search

Determine whether your problem is already solved elsewhere before investing in original invention.

Why it works

Altshuller classified inventions on a scale from level 1 (routine design: solution known in the field) to level 5 (discovery: new phenomenon required). Most practitioners over-estimate the novelty of their problem and under-invest in search, while genuine level-4 and level-5 problems get under-resourced because they look solvable with level-1 search. Calibrating the invention level prevents both wasted creative effort on solved problems and superficial search on genuinely hard ones.

How to do it

1. Ask: "If I searched the literature, competitors, or adjacent industries for 2 hours, would I likely find this problem solved?" If yes, the invention level is low — search first.
2. If search returns nothing close, ask: "Does solving this require a new principle or just a new combination of known principles?"
3. Allocate creative investment proportionally: low-level problems get deep search; high-level problems get systematic inventive techniques.

Evidence

Altshuller’s five-level classification is a practitioner taxonomy from his patent analyses, not a psychologically validated scale. Its value is as a calibration heuristic: it prevents mismatching creative effort to problem difficulty. (anecdotal)

The level classification is a rough guide; many real problems span levels, and the boundary between "search" and "invention" is often unclear until after the fact.

Common mistake

Treating every problem as requiring original invention, which wastes effort rediscovering solutions that already exist and are simply unfamiliar.