Management: Innovation

Business is utter to consist of four elements Principles, Models, Rules and Behaviours, the first constrains the beau monde scope, the third the procedures, two being static elements. The interplay (feedback) between changing models and behaviours however is what drives innovation the exploration of adjacent new-made possibilities. This is a step at a time mode of innovation, yet rules actually prevent these improvements which, it is shown, derive largely from the staff breaking rules.After looking more closely at complexity concepts (see later), the importance of lyric poem and fable is considered, especially the need for free embodimentat intercourses (stories) between employees. The knowledge and approximations thus multifariousness are considered far more valuable to the company, in the new sentiment, than any time wasted. This leads on to applications of the co-evolution metaphor central to complexity thinking, stressing that the future is no longer predictable fr om the past.The importance of ideas in defining company possibilities, and the need for a high ratio of information (ideas) to infrastructure (events), brings us to the successful franchise system, said to be the current best model of CAS thinking in action. This highlights the importance of independent feedback between chasten levels in achieving adaptation, plus the superiority of information flow over infrastructure change.The ramifications of understanding and challenging our raw material assumptions (including principles) in order to make the necessary paradigm shift cannot be stressed enough, otherwise we scarcely tinker with the parts. Anyway, these serve to illustrate the benefits of devolving power and decision making to individuals or groups in the company (who form purposeful agents in the CAS). The self-organization that then occurs allows the rule transcendence (going beyond routine) necessary to generate that flexibleness crucial to success in a modern co-evolutiona ry environment.The point that such emergence takes time is hearty made, and highlights one possible hassle in the management of such complexity based systems impatience. Another problem is the ability of staff to adopt such lateral, divergent thinking (the creative basis of adjacent innovation), and this requires that the employees change their mindset also, to embrace and not abuse the new freedoms. This both necessitates and will drive a baseball club wide change, spare-time activity the same devolution of power complexity thinking isnt a change skilful to company behaviour, but to overall life sprint.Many of the concepts are presented in a guru style, as claimed truths, without justification, and this lack of learning means that inadequate background is given to many of the complexity terms used (e.g. attractor, fractal, fitness), so lots so that their true relevance could be missed by the intended business audience. For example, the important idea of crossover, the re-c ombination of oldish ideas in new ways to cause step jumps in performance, with stress being located instead on mutation style evolution (a move to an adjacent point on the fitness landscape).Additionally the emphasis on breaking down barriers, and the resultant freedom and unpredictability, neglects the spontaneously appearance of new dynamic barriers (by self-organization effects), which can prevent the feared chaos dissolving the business.On a more dilate level, there is inadequate mention of the many computer programs using complexity techniques available (outside the Santa Fe environment), which could champion businesses gradually introduce this style of thinking, targeting specific existing problems (e.g. using Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, bathetic Life and Cellular Automata techniques). Those seeking a more in depth knowledge of general complexity ideas should therefore look elsewhere, but considerable scope is still provided here for the remodelling of overall business structures, along the lines of the organic complexity paradigms recommended.It would have been nice to have seen simulations used to give quantitative comparisons between the new, complexity, assumptions and the old (in the style of Epstein & Axtells Growing Artificial Societies). It is not specific enough however, in my opinion, to convince old style managers to alter their ways. The implications that they must give up power, status and possibly reward for unpredictable cognitive gains is unlikely to conjure to closed minds, unless a suitable bottom-line accountant focus is given, emphasising a point that the book itself makes that new thinking must be phrased in terms of the old concepts to make an impact.It is suggested that there are different types of patterns bring in the organizational structure of a group. The patterns are referred to as paradigms.Closed pictureThe structure is a traditional hierarchy of authority (similar to a CC team). This kind o f team is good at creating computer software that is similar to its previous experience and it is less likely to be imaginative.Random ParadigmThe team is not strictly centered and depends upon the members of team to be responsible for their tasks. When innovation or technological breakthrough is required, teams following the random paradigm will excel. Unfortunately, this type of team will not always excel if everything is completely organized.Open ParadigmThe open paradigm is a combination of the closed and random paradigms. It structures the team so that there is control of tasks similar to the closed paradigm and has the attempts at innovation found in a random paradigm. Work is performed collaboratively with heavy communication and consensus-based decision making. This type of team structure is appropriate for teams that must deal with complex problems. Unfortunately, it may not be well suited for many people.Synchronous ParadigmThis depends on the modularity of the entire pr oject that is being solved. The problem can be broken down into small parts where team members work on a section independently. There is not much communication required among members.Such patterns, when changed to another pattern, can be called paradigm shifts, and form the underlying structure for public lecture about the future. They are pervasive and would be included in the driving forces as well as scenarios. They are the unwritten rules of how the emerging society might function.).