I would be interested in reading your work, particularly in the conceptual framework. However, at this point, I am rather skeptical.

Is this mode of reasoning really something that cannot be captured in established innovation/NPD theories? I am just generally careful with verbally uplifting metaphors to the level of new theories while they are mostly just a more evocative re-weording of established theoretical perspectives.

Don't get discouraged though, as I said, I would be interested in seeing what you have. Share a pre-print here :-)

it is good to know that this is the approach followed by elon musk.

what do you basically intent to research here? within FPR/ PT, what exactly are you looking at?

i think one would perhaps need to contrast it with existing methodologies and tools, to see how unique it really is, and why it is truly unique.

there are an array of creative problem solving techniques, and an array of lateral thinking techniques. so i would be interested to know why and how this is unique

so here is the baseline: I don't even think that it's new or that it's even a problem-solving 'methodology'. Because methodologies are usually Step-1-2-3 recipes. This type of thinking (Musk calls it first principle reasoning, but it's actually not a way of reasoning, but more like a thinking framework, so Physics Thinking is maybe the better term) is very much established in physics. It's a kind of powerful insight machine, so maybe 'problem-finding' might be better wording. And it turns out that there are a bunch of interesting similarities between the inherent logic of physics and innovation.

1.) Physicists have learned the hard way (Relativity!) that you always have to consider the initial problem conditions from a certain perspective. You can not rely on logical conclusions from previous (superficial) insights of earlier problems, because the universe is relative, not absolute. And it changes, it's adaptive. So it often depends on the individual perspective and the individual phenomenon. Do not think in right or wrong scales, because right from point A might be wrong from point B. Instead, try to describe the relation between what is going in the world with concepts that explain underlying cause-effect-relations (which is basically the scientific method, in a slightly specialized physics way). Because these cause-effect relations explain a phenomenon from wherever you consider it, even though the details might change from your perspective.

2.) in order to succeed in this endeavour, they make extensive use of concepts and models. The key here is that physicists strive for concepts that are as fundamental and universal as possible - hence first principles, because they can not be explained by anything else but explain a lot of other things out there as building blocks for all types theories. Gravity works everywhere in the universe, because is has been abstracted from actually cases and made universally valid with the help of mathematical tools. So go and look for fundamental concepts that might explain the underlying mechanism, not only the particular phenomenon under consideration. This might help you go beyond obvious and visible stuff - go beyond a particular problem-solution-statement.

These concepts can be analogies like 'imagine the atom like a grain of sand' - which later turned out to be wrong, but what was useful in the beginning. Or 'imagine electromagnetism like a wave in a pond when you drop a pebble into it'. And that is the clue: Use whatever works best to build a working hypothesis, and then collect data and iterate the model. There is no wright or wrong, it just has to explain the phenomenon in a fundamental way. And it if doesn't anymore, iterate your concept.

This a very reductionist perspective on physics, and it leaves out more important issues (like the whole part of mathematical laws and universality, which then truly makes physics what it is today). But the basic mental model is still super interesting to me. Because here is the similarity between physics and innovation:

1.) Do not trust established opinions, instead use a kind of blank slate approach. Always. It you want something new, stop thinking something old. What has worked for example A might work as well for B - but there might be a way better approach for B that is not related to A, so do a blank slate consideration for B, as loads of circumstances have led to approach A which might be totally absent in case B.

2.) Strive for underlying cause-effect mechanisms, do not think in existing problem-solution-loops. Like the root-cause-approach. Go deeper, because it explains better. Leave the actual problem behind, strive for the underlying abstraction.

3.) Find or invent and use concepts / models to explain what is actually happening - as long as they enable you to explain stuff in line with actual data from the world. If not, refine them and iterate. Loads of concepts might be available in all types of areas of knowledge (psychology, sociology, economics...), but don't be afraid to use/create new ones as a first approximation to a problem. And then do testing and iteration through experiment.

So basically 2+3 is First Principle Thinking and 1 is the explanation why it is especially interesting in innovation scenarios. Everyone in innovation tells you to break rules and leave old paths and think outside the box - but no one gives you helpful tools. And no, stuff like Design Thinking is not a helpful tool for insight. It's just a tool that gives you obvious ideas.

I can't share more for now, as I previously have, which has led to intellectual property theft in academia (taking my ideas, leaving me behind ... sad enough). Just 2 more things:

Musk for example considered a manufacturing site as a machine 'like a CPU unit' and his relevant KPI was 'volumetric density' (a concept from an internal combustion engine) which gave him the insight that you can speed up car production by a factor of 5-10 (with automation), which brings down unit costs for cars. Clearly conceptual models like the atom model above. A first principle approach, even though not a universal law. And: Read 'Physics as a way of thinking (Smith)' for more insights!

yes, it sounds like a (another) creative problem solving technique. and i would consider a technique or framework as a type of methodology or recipe like you call it.

the thing with creative problem solving techniques is that they help to provide perspective, what innovation is a lot about.

and if you care going to search, you will find innovation metaphors or similarities in a number of fields, not just physics. some would argue that one perspective only - physics perhaps in this case - is limiting. the more different perspectives you can source, the better