BohoBusiness

Winning in the Age of Bohonomics

Archive for the category “innovation”

Robots and Bohemians: Unholy Alliance for Better Futures?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Jari Kaivo-oja (Research Director, Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku)

“Science, says Kevin Kelly, is the process of changing how we know things.  It is the foundation our culture and society.  While civilizations come and go, science grows steadily onward.  It does this by watching itself.” – https://edge.org/conversation/speculations-on-the-future-of-science Rise of the Robots is a landmark book which continues the provocative analyses of Lights in the Tunnel of Martin Ford (2009).

Silicon Valley entrepreneur Martin Ford gives us new and updated arguments to the discussion of technological revolution we are facing today everywhere, in the US, in the Euro zone and in the BRICS countries. Not only developed post-industrial countries rely on advanced robotics – but also developing countries are adopting new AI and robotics solutions. Only few eminent thinkers think about the futures of corportions and nations after rise of robots. Fortunatelly – we have eminent scholar and engineer Martin Ford to think forward. Technological foresight analyses tell that next 15-20 years are meaning enormous and disruptive changes in our economies and business networks. The threat of jobless future and massive technological unemployment are real and evidence-based. Only the very fool conventional neoclassical economist doubts it.

System modeler Martin Ford provides a lot of empirical evidence from US, which indicate not marginal changes but massive technological disruptions in the US economy. Martin Ford continues the tradition of John Maynard Keynes in his discussion about technological unemployment. He also continues the tradition of Joseph Schumpeter in his discussion of disruptive technological changes (McKinsey Global Institute 2013) . Martin Ford has now updated these classical analyses to meet the grand challenges of today and tomorrow. We must give full respect to him.

AI and robotics are making “good jobs” obsolete and vanishing. Smart software, robots and AI-based solutions replace many white-collar jobs. Paralegals, journalists, office workers, teachers, health care professionals and even computer programmers are poised to be replaced by disruptive technological innovations. Autonomous robotics and swarm robotics change many service architectures and service designs. Key change – identified by Martin Ford is that a tight relationship between wages and productivity does not hold any more in the US economy. This is a dangerous phenomenon for the future welfare of people. Robotics is not a novel issue in the economic history. In industries and agriculture there have been a lot of robots and automation solutions. All we know the Luddites discussion and Race Against Machine analyses of Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2011) (http://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-The-Machine-Accelerating-ebook/dp/B005WTR4Z ).

Now newest thing is the emergence of service robotics. We can see many service robotics innovations in health care, hotel and recreation industries, retailing, and libraries – and in many other service sectors. Personally, I think that Mr Martin Ford is absolutely right when he notes that we are moving towards a new economic paradigm of smart machines. He is not in bad company, because there are such research fellows like Ray Kurzweill and Michio Kaku, who think in similar way. Personally, I respect these eminent research fellows. It is also good to remember that Gardner Inc notes that “CIOs must start considering how to develop ethical programming for smart machines”. Realizing the potential of smart machines and AI — and ensuring successful outcomes for the businesses and societies that rely on them — will hinge on how trusted smart machines are and how well they maintain that trust. The trust matters. Central to establishing this trust will be ethical values that people recognize and are comfortable with. Transparency of rise of the robots will be needed.

There will be need to develop policies and social innovations which recognize disruptive innovations and their impacts on industries and services. As Martin Ford says we need transformation of higher education, new thinking in the health care sector, new industrial Industry 4.0 strategies (as Germans say it), national robotics strategies (like From Internet to Robotics, 2013) and new kind of consumer politics. We need also new social innovations for the super-intelligence solutions and for the singularity. Radical innovations cannot be managed by incremental innovations. More fundamental new ideas and inventions will be needed. These ideas must go beyond crazy year of  1848 (see De Maesschalck 2005 and  http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/888/). We are busy now to respond to these “old challenges of capitalism”. New capitalism needs BohoBusiness (2015) thinking if we want to be honest to ourselves.

It is interesting to compare our recent book BohoBusiness – Winning in the Age of Bohonomics with Martin Ford´s outstanding book Rise of the Robots. Our book shares many similar themes with Martin Ford´s book.  In our book key theme is a question: What human beings should do in the conditions of disruptive changes?  Our approach to question is linked to the analyses of learning, bohemian attitude, flexible radical organization culture, role of human creativity and social innovations. These issues are vital in the conditions of radical and disruptive changes. We are also discussion much about global trends and associated changes. In this context the ownership and distribution of wealth are not marginal issues. For example, creating a learning and creative hybrid economy in the conditions of robotics will be a very challenging social and cultural issue. Our book provides some new fresh insights to this broad old challenging issue.

Probably a biggest issue in robotics debate will be the question: “How are we organizing society when too many people are coming into the labor market and too many machines are throwing people out?”.  Our sincere answer is focused on self-organization of individuals, organizations and institutions of capitalism, because we rely on the learning capacity of capitalism. First pre-condition for this kind of self-organization is, of course, future awareness. Both Martin Ford´s book (2015) and our book (2015) have already now improved future awareness of many people and decision-makers. We need more political and economic decision-makers who understand complex social problems like robotics and AI driven society. However, a new economic paradigm is not automatically developed. We know quite well this societal challenge. One can just study the current storyline of post-modern Greece and its economy to understand this.

I just was an expert in the EU OSHA Bilbao conference in Bilbao, Spain in May 2015, where the official delegate member of Greece explained to me in EU OSHA workshop session what robotics means for Greece. I was informed that it means cosmetics robotics in isolated islands for them and they were very happy with this strategic economic growth approach.  In the session, the German delegate explained to me much more comprehensive program of the robotics strategy in German economy. To conclude …. pre-conditions on robotics matter – whether it is in the U.S. or China – just to mention it for curiosity. Of course, I know that US strategy “From Internet to Robotics” (2013) is a smart strategy and Ford focuses on it. Smart action from him, indeed. To sum up … the real character of corporations and organizations still matters. Organizations´ culture can make or break their existence and business. We still need visionaries and change makers. In many cases they are radical and bohemian game changers. In BohoBusiness we propose an unholy partnership: bohemian individuals and organizations combined with smart machines.

This combination is motivated with Win + (Win*Win) logic: A manager is saying: “I” = Win. A leader is saying: “Me = Win * Win”. A social innovator is saying: “We all” = Win + (Win*Win). Our message is: Grand robotics and AI strategy should follow “We all” –logic.

BohoBusiness book tells how this strategy will be implemented in real life contexts. Mercenary futures (not fragmented and alienated) futures wait for us, if we understand this BohoBusiness -equation.

Buy BohoBusiness

References

A Roadmap for U.S. Robotics From Internet to Robotics, 2013 Edition. Web: https://robotics-vo.us/sites/default/files/2013%20Robotics%20Roadmap-rs.pdf

Andersson, Cristina & Kaivo-oja, Jari (2015) BohoBusiness. Winning in the Age Bohonomics. Talentum. Helsinki.

Brynjolfsson, Erik & McAfee, Andrew (2011) Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution Is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. Digital Frentier Press. Lexinton, Massachusetts.

Cunliffe, John and Guido Erreygers (2001) “The Enigmatic Legacy of Fourier: Joseph Charlier and Basic Income”, History of Political Economy 33(3), pp. 459–484. De Maesschalck, Edward (2005) Marx in Brussel. Davidsfonds. Louvain.

Ford, Martin (2009). Lights in the Tunnel. Automation Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. Acculant Publishing. USA.

Ford, Martin (2015) Rise of the Robots. Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books. New York.

McKinsey Global Institute (2013) Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. May 2013. Report by James Manyika, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Peter Bisson, and Alex Marrs. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/disruptive_technologies

Changes, changes, changes …

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Eric Abrahamson (2000) noted in his famous Harvard Business Review –article that “To change successfully, organization should stop changing all the time.” Today we know that almost all organizations need dynamic stability and ability to change, but if there are too many changes there will be problems to manage all these changes. Often changes cannot be implemented without pain. However, an ideal change process should happen without pain.

One way to implement changes is to create modular elements of change. If change is too big, it creates a lot of stress and pain. Small change efforts that involve the reconfiguration of existing practices and business models are often the best practices of change. If we create big and massive change processes, risks are going to be bigger that planned massive change process is going to be a failure. If we can do this, change process will be organic change, not mechanic change.

To be ready for changes, we should develop change-able and learning organisations. One of the worst barriers against organic change is keen and even active refusal of learning. If we do not want to learn, all changes will be unsuccessful. Some beings are able to learn, some others are not able learn. If we want to develop change-able organisations, we must pay special attention to learning capacity of individual and social teams of organizations.

Professor Robert W. Rowden (2001) has recognized in his scientific article that there are three types of change: planned change, implementation-focused change and readiness-focused change. All these “change types” need a special attention. Sustainable, high performance depends on organisation´s ability to respond quickly and efficiently to changing circumstances in their decision environments, which are today networks, markets and crowds. Especially, our abilities and skills to make sense of changes, matter. Nowadays making sense is not easy. We must analyse a lot of data, information and knowledge. If we do not understand the nature of changes in critical networks, new markets and emerging crowds, we are out of success. Some other organisations, which do it better, will be more successful.

Today´s organizations operate in a challenging environment. In a more complex world, change has become the constant. Just add globalisation to technological shifts and multiply it by today´s volatile economic trends and the pace of change is breath-taking. Making sense of changes is today one of the biggest challenges in organisations and companies.

We should also understand that people are very interested why they need to change. Often people are very tired of changes, before planned changes. Generally speaking, the motivation of people depends on our sense making skill and abilities. If we cannot explain, in a good way, why changes are needed, we cannot motivate people to learn new things, change their habits and find better ways to work. Motivation is a key issue in change management process. If motivation level is low, change process is not going to be successful.

In change-able organizations a way of being is different. In this kind of organisation people are able to change fast, but also they are able to manage knowledge. For such learning organisations, typical characters are: constant readiness, continuous planning, improvised implementation and action learning. These characters require training and tutoring inside organisations. They do not emerge automatically in organizations.

People resist changes for many reasons. Sometimes they want to deny the needed changes. Sometimes people are anger and they blame managers and leaders. “Over my dead body” is one typical reaction to needed changes. “This is nothing new” is another reaction to changes. Sometimes people are simply confused. Then “I do not understand what is going on” is a typical reaction.

In classical Lewin´s study “Field Theory and Social Science”, he described the tendency by people to consolidate negative behaviours as “freezing”. This phenomena is still relevant for change management. Smart leaders can find ways to “unfreeze” by right messages, implementation activities and role models.

The organisational climate of change must be created every day in companies and organisations. Leaders of today need to manage implementation in ways that protect and grow business rather than destroy the very organisational skills and motivations which offer the potential for innovation and new business models. From this perspective we are living interesting times. Many organisations are not able to survive. Some others will find their ways from chaotic conditions.

Whether you are leader, manager or worker, we can ask: is your personal attitude right and mature enought to create optimal organisational climate of change?

Further reading

Abrahanson, E. (2000) Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000, 75-79.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock.

Rowden, R. (2001) The learning organization and strategic change. Society for the Advancement of Management Journal, 66(3), 11-16.

Hypercompetition and Hybrid Economy: How to Save Capitalism?

Financial Times Lexicon defines hypercompetition in a following way: ”A situation in which there is a lot of very strong competition between companies, markets are changing very quickly, and it is easy to enter a new market, so that it is not possible for one company to keep a competitive advantage for a long time”. (See http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=hypercompetition). Many economists have noted that hypercompetition leads markets to unstable conditions. Theories of general equilibrium in markets and automatic stabilization of markets do not hold, if markets are in unstable conditions. Richard A. D’aveni introduced this concept to scientific discussion of company and corporate theories. His book “Hypercompetition” is a classic book in the international management literature. One key statement of his book was that competitive advantage can no longer be sustained.

Hypercompetition results from the dynamics of strategic maneuvering amongst many competitors. It is the condition of rapid escalation of competition based on price-quality positioning.

Corporations and companies want to use other tools to compete under conditions of hypercompetition. They do not want to start price wars. In such conditions corporations want to be Cost & Quality (C-Q)-leaders or followers. They may want to create Timing and Know-How (T-K)-Value chains and build new efficiencies. In some case they may rely on Strongholds (S)-Core or on Distinctive Competencies. Deep pockets strategy is based on the availability of financial capital. (see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/archetype/archive/2006/07/24/677222.aspx).

To escape disastrous price wars, modern companies try to occupy different locations on the price like brand strategies, offering mass customization, quality axis, using micro-marketing, and shifting strategies based on the changing anatomy of industry trends.

To sum up, new arenas of hypercompetition are:

  • Cost & Quality (C-Q),
  • Timing and Know-How (T-K),
  • Strongholds (S), and
  • Deep pockets (D).

Hypercompetition is emphasized on several occasions – in particular, in the creative economy in the context of organizational development. Success is based on the fast changes in hypercompetitive business environment. Agents and leaders must change rapidly and understand and internalize weak signals in their decision environment. For a company to stay alive and competitive it must very innovative. It mean that a company delivers novel and advanced products and services for which there is little or no equal in the marketplace. Commodity differentiation and branding are key aspects of hypercompetition.  Hypercompetition is focused on is new ideas, inventions and innovations.

Now many experts have started discuss about hybrid economy. What is hybrid economy? How it is connected to hypercompetition? A hybrid economy is any type of local, state, or national economic system that involves a more or less equal focus on two or more different types of economy.

This hybrid economy model is a relatively common structure that has been utilized in many different settings over the history of humankind. For example, in traditional agricultural society there were exchange and storage economies. Some examples of a hybrid economy may include a creative economy, a military-industrial based economy, a university-industry based economy, or hybrid economy based primarily on a mix of business and government. Thus, there are various forms of hybrid economy. New forms of hybrid economy include typically e-business and internet economics.

These forms of hybrid economies are not fitting well to pure exchange mechanisms of market economy. The reason for the existence of hybrid economies is that they promote stable systemic mechanisms than market economy or unstable hypercompetition.  The element of public good is typical for hybrid economies. We can even claim that in the future we need more elements of hybrid economies to make capitalism work better. If we want that capitalism delivers benefits and positive values to everyone, there is need to develop more innovative patterns for the hybrid economy. New forms of hybrid economy can also include dynamic elements of social innovation.

The transition to a hybrid model of competition does not mean that the market would disappear, and markets would not be relevant for transaction mechanisms. This is something that should be emphasized. Also hybrid economy is based on competition. Hybrid competition is a very important new element in the global hypercompetition. Hybrid competition is also connected to good governance systems and to trust of democratic agencies and institutions.

We can take a number of reasons why the hybrid competition has risen and continues to rise as an important part of people´s and organizations´ wealth creation processes:

• Globalisation and its associated cultural interactions;

• The penetration of the Internet and related digital networking;

• Digital technology innovations (Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Web 4.0 etc.);

• Pressures and unstable processes of  the hypercompetition;

• Ubiquitous r/evolution, the Internet of Things and other digital forms of evolution like Cloud Computing and Big Data), and

• Co-creation (co-creation processes) with the growing economic importance.

The global economy means a new division of labor in the world. Workplaces are lost in some countries and regions and in some other places people are creating new jobs.

Frequently asked question is what kind of new work places can be created after old work places are lost? One obvious answer is: “Something else”. People have always developed something else after the loss of permanent jobs. The big problem is that it may take too much time to find new jobs, if we do not make systemic changes to the postmodern societies.

If we rely only on the hypercompetition and market mechanism, our societies will be very unstable and cause a lot of social losses. If we really can develop new social innovations and new forms of hybrid economy, we can expect that social and economic transition processes will be faster, less unstable and cause less welfare losses.

Today we must allow multiple stakeholders to negotiate over how to attain a desirable future. Developing new innovative forms of hybrid economy will require new forms of dialogue and debates. The only option is not unstable hypercompetition, which mostly delivers benefits of exchange and markets unethically and unequally.

It is worth of underlining that people create their economies and systems of governance. It is worth of noting that in capitalism people are allowed to think freely. These two things are relevant if we want to save capitalism and re-invent it as a dynamic form of global governance.

Further reading:

Anderson, Theresa Dirndorfer (2011) Beyond eureka moments: supporting the invisible work of creativity and innovation. Information Research. Vol. 16, No. 1., Web; http://informationr.net/ir/16-1/paper471.html

D’aveni, Richard A. (1994)  Hypercompetition. Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering.  Web: http://books.simonandschuster.com/Hypercompetition/Richard-A-D’aveni/9780029069387

Florida, E. (2001). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Howkins, J. (2001) The Creative Economy. London: Penguin Books.

Howkins, J. (2009) Creative Ecologies. Where Thinking is a Proper Job. St Lucia, Queemsland: Queensland University.

Lessig, Lawrence (2008) Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: The Penguin Press.

Palmer, Tom G. (Ed.) (2012) The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won’t Tell You. Ottawa, Illinois: Students For Liberty & Atlas Network Jameson Books, Inc.

Wolff, Richard D. & Barsamian, David (2012) Occupy the Economy. Challenging Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Big Science and Big Innovations: An Adventure between Holism and Reductionism

As we know reductionism is the view that the behavior of a system can be explained by understanding its components. Reductionism is the basis of how any researchers starts to solve a complex problem. S/he divides the problem into sub-problems, analyzes them, and finds their solutions and may divide them to sub-sub problems for more simplification. And so progress of science continues. Mostly, this is the basis of the western science. When reductionist model is used as an explanation it depends on an analogy between the components of the model and the components of the system. The analogy is between the components of the model and the parts of the model. For example, Descartes proposed an idea that non-human animals could be reductively explained as automata.

Reductionism can mean either (1) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things. Reductionism can also mean (2) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. Methodological reductionism is the strong position that the best scientific strategy is to attempt to reduce explanations to the smallest possible entities. Thus, according to methodological reductionism, all scientific theories either can or should be reduced to a single super-theory through the process of theoretical reduction.

Reductionists do not view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts. They believe that sub-systems of the whole system do not have any problematic functioning. Reductionism in science means that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts.

Holism is another view to understand systems. The idea of holism was broadly presented by Jan Smuts, the famous military leader and a philosopher, but the principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: “The whole is more than the sum of its parts”. Holism is the view that some phenomena that appear at the system level do not exist at the level of components, and cannot be explained in component-level term. Thus, holistic models are more focused on similarities between systems and less interested in analogous parts. A holistic modeling approach to modeling often consists of two steps (not necessarily in this order): (1) Identify a kind of behavior that appears in variety of systems and (2) find the simplest model that demonstrates that behavior.

Holism is based on a basic idea that the whole has some properties that is parts lack. Holism has traditionally appeared as a model of thinking in the philosophy of biology, psychology and in the human sciences. Holism is the big modeling idea that natural systems (social, economic, physical, mental, biological, chemical, linguistic, etc.) and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts.

In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity analysis. There are hard systems theory and soft systems theory. Systems are frequently so complex that their behavior is, or appears, “emergent”: it cannot be deduced from the properties of the elements alone. Thus it is also “new”. Emergent, self-organizing systems are a part of the whole system in many scientific analyses of psychology, sociology and biology. Scientific holism holds the idea that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Even “big data” does not solve this fundamental scientific problem.

We cannot explain the existence of synergy without holistic thinking. According to scientific interpretation of holism, there are good ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in principle from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of system behavior in certain classes of systems. This is a very serious question for many fields of new inventions and innovations. Why to accept limits for ideas?

With roots in Joseph Schumpeter, the evolutionary approach might be considered the holist theory in economics. Evolutionary economics deals with the study of processes that transform economy for organizations, companies, institutions, corporations, industries, employment, production, trade and growth within, through the actions of diverse agents from experience and interactions, using evolutionary methodology. Evolutionary economics share certain language game elements from the biological evolutionary approach. Thomas Kuhn, the author of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962), accepted this kind of evolutionary approach to scientific (r)evolutions.

Innovation processes are not easily explained by reductionist models. Evolutionary economics is typically used when innovation processes are explained. Evolutionary economics analyses the unleashing of a process of technological and institutional innovation by generating and testing a diversity of ideas which discover and accumulate more survival value for the costs incurred than competing alternatives.

One can note that holism and reductionism are different models with different purposes. For reductionist models, realism is the primary value, and simplicity is secondary. For holistic models, it is the other way around.

Thus, the choice of modeling is a normative choice. We should be open for both perspectives of the big science. Reductionism helps us to focus. Holism helps us to open our eyes.

Index

Reductionism

Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Weinberg, S. (1992) Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York. Pantheon Books.

Jones, R.H. (2000) Reductionism: Analysis and the Fullness of Reality. Bucknell University Press.

Thomas Kuhn

Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Kuhn

Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Sructure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holism

Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Evolution

Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Downey, A.B. (2012) Think Complexity. Sebastopol, CA: O´Reilly.

Jan Smuts

Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

Audi, R. (1999) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ameba Organizations, Serendipity and the Multiverse

Serendipity is not a new concept, because Horace Walpole committed the word serendipity to paper for the first time about 250 years ago.  Horace Walpone said he formed the concept from the Persian fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip. In the book, three successful princes “were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of”. Today serendipity is widely accepted concept with 5 670 000 hits in a 0,20 second in the Google (evaluated 11.6.2012).

Serendipity means a “happy accident” or “pleasant surprise”. Serendipity is an accident of finding something good or useful without looking for it. It is not easy to see when serendipity is really happening, because it is not easy to define when human behavior unintentional and things happen like an accident. Thus serendipity is the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident. The concept of serendipity is connected to innovation theory. In innovation research, authors have found that sometimes also innovations are discoveries by accident. If people are very active, sometimes happy accidents really happen.

Only one sure thing in serendipity is that activity of people matter. And proactivity matters even more. If people are active there will more possibilities, more accidental discoveries and more pleasant surprises. Various thinkers discuss the role that good luck can play in science. Good examples are Colombus’ discovery of America, Nobel’s discovery of dynamite and Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. The serendipitous quality of innovation is highly recognized by many professionals of innovation research. It is also linked to the success of corporations and companies to their ability to create knowledge not by processing information but rather by tapping the tacit and often highly subjective intuitions and insights.

The higher the probability of an event is, the more certain we are that the special event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the confidence a person has that a random event will occur. Serendipity as a concept is closely connected to the concept of probability. A probable action or opinion was one such as sensible people would undertake or hold, in the special circumstances. Typically happy accidents have a low probability level. If an event has a high probability level, it is not a happy accident, it is an expected event. If there are some intentions behind an event, it is not a serendipity issue.

So intentionality is typically a elementary part of strategic and visionary thinking.  Serendipity is relevant in such a business environment where agents do not have special intentions – they just act without intentions.  They just act somehow and try to survive. From this perspective the concept of serendipity is an evolutionary concept.

An interesting question is whether a corporate or small company can do serendipity management and also have some strategies and vision, which are intentional ones. My personal answer is: Why not? If some things cannot be planned properly, why try to do these things with stress and lose much scarce resources? It is not worth of try too much. It is good to work like an ameba. Better way to success is to be relaxed and give serendipity a free room in organizations, whether they are small companies or large corporations. This kind of free and flexible organization can be called an ameba organization.

In the future many organizations will find this kind of flexible ameba organization a good solution when they operate in the multiverse. The term “multiverse” was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. The multiverse or meta-universe is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.

New technology will make multiverse a very relevant concept. In the future technological development with ubiquitous technology, nanotechnology, robotics and material technology change our relation to time, space and matter. This process will lead us to different realms of multiverse. There will be 8 realms of multiverse: Reality as such, augmented reality, physical virtuality, mirrored virtuality, warped reality, alternative reality, augmented virtuality and virtuality.

Multiverse will create for us infinite possibility for serendipity and ameba organizations. Business gurus B. Joseph Pine and James H. Gilmore have noted in their updated  book “the Experience Economy”, that work will be theatre and every business is a stage. This is a working principle of serendipity management.

Index

Serendipity: How the Vogue word became Vague

Web: http://livingheritage.org/serendipity.htm

Multiverse

Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/onMultiverse

Infinite possibility

Pine II, B.J. & Korn, K.C. (2011) Infinitive Possibility. Creating Customer Value on the Digital Frontier. San Francisco: CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Experience economy

Pine II, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. (2011) The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Updated Edition. Boston (MA): Harvard University Press.

Boosting Corporate Creativity

There is a critical need of every business today: leveraging creativity. There are not “hocus-pocus” solutions how to develop, nurture and manage models for sustained innovation. One thing is certain issue in a process of boosting corporate creativity: It is not one-man show. Collaboration must be embedded into corporate culture as a way to foster ideas, inventions and innovations of products, services and processes.

One self-evident starting point for boosting corporate creativity is the following: Creative people make innovative organizations. If there are no creative persons and change agents inside an organization, this kind of organization never will be innovative.

Too often organizations and corporations want have average persons with average abilities and teams. Going beyond the average with high level of diversity is seen to be too dangerous and risky in many corporations.

Uniform business culture is seen safer than more individual and proactive business culture. Many managers and leaders want to be inside their “safety zones”. However, we really need unique products and services to be competitive in the markets of hyper-competition. There is not too much fresh thinking in organizations and corporations. Sometimes our wrong self-images, rigid self-esteems and self-punishment mechanisms prevent us to innovate. In corporations we must destroy the barriers to get new ideas.

Too uniform approaches do not help us to make a difference. Infinite possibility awaits those willing, able, and prepared to make the journey to creativity and innovations. We must be brave to explore and exploit new possibilities. First we do it in our imaginations, then with our technology, and finally through our direct action and experience. Creating new ideas and innovations is inherently fun, but also necessary. People need muscles, but they need also big creative muscles and strong brain power.

How to boost creativity in the corporate world? It is possible to present 10 principles to boost creativity:

  1. Develop many new channels and sources for new ideas and inventions.
  2. Make barriers to getting new ideas as low as possible.
  3. Collect many ideas with predictable, directional and surprising ways and evaluate them with collaborative models and co-creative ways.
  4. Implement ideas and inventions. Test and pilot ideas and inventions.
  5. Develop a broad understanding of innovation management and creative thinking.
  6. Identify blocks to creative thinking and the skills individuals can use – and managers can foster to increase creative responses.
  7. Use knowledge and intuition based methods to get fresher ideas and solutions more often.
  8. Allow a personal creative drive and innovation flow which will help people to achieve their personal and professional goals.
  9. Create creativity programs for individuals to improve their creative abilities inside the corporation.
  10. Motivate and give value to creativity and new ideas. Create an effective incentive system, which motivatescreative thinking, inventors and innovations.

Organizations need also bohemian game changers. They never settle for average performance. They know that you can perform a task better this time than you performed it in previous times. With any task you set your mind to, always give it your best. They have stopped living their life in a routine calendar system.

Mediocrity mentality will never help your organization to big success. It will do damage in the material as well as in your spiritual life. Only doing enough to get by is considered mediocrity, not excellency. Mediocrity is dangerous for creativity and destroying innovation activities. Mediocrity is ordinariness as a consequence of being average and not outstanding. Mediocrity refers to a person of second-rate ability. The individuals that practice mediocrity take on its characteristics, which is inferiority and inadequacy.

Bureaucracy and too formal administration mechanisms can also destroy innovation activity inside organization.

To boost creativity is a big possibility for all the corporations. There is need to take creativity seriously and develop systemic strategic thinking and actions in favor of creativity and innovative organization.

Index

1 Creativity

Gardner, H. (1993) Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Mauzy, J. & Harriman, H. (2002) Creativity Inc. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

2 Corporate creativity

Lockwood, T. & Walton, T. (2008) Corporate Creativity. Developing an Innovative Organization. New York: Allworth Press.

Meeting Robotization and Automation Challenge of the Ubiquitous Society: Towards Infinite Possibility Frontiers?

Technological and in broad sense ubiquitous revolution is today delivering a world of opportunity and leisure. Today computer technology is cheap. People are expensive. Computers are becoming smaller and smaller, and can be attached, embedded or blended to almost all things from man-made to natural ones in the world. During ubiquitous revolution computers become integrated parts of these things instead of independent individual artifacts. Due to the attachment, embedment and blending as well as emerging ubiquitous networks, ordinary things surrounding us are capable of (1) computing and communicating, (2) connecting and/or being connected to each other, and (3) behaving and acting rationally with some smartness or intelligence. Smart ubiquitous machines and robots are so called “everywhere” systems.

But this kind of new technological opportunity will not be delivered to all. For many people coming ubiquitous tech revolution will deliver misery and decline. Because of economic cost structures many workers will be replaced by the new technologies over the coming decades. Robots and automation mean silent revolution in many work places and societies. The economics of this new world will be revolutionary.

One big problem of this revolutionary technology wave is that our policy makers do not understand it. They are not understanding, what is happening when computers and robots are doing most of the work. This means that our world has the potential to become immeasurably wealthier and richer. It is up to us to decide who will benefit and how the benefits of ubiquitous revolution should be distributed and redistributed. The basic dynamics of the cyber age creates many open windows for us.

The advance of science and technology is offering us a gift. But do we know how to receive it? The gift could be nothing less than prosperity for all. More wealth is available for not just those people who are able to grab it for themselves. Big link to prosperity to wealth has been the job. New technologies are powerful creators of jobs, until the moment it becomes mature and breaks free of human involvement. Many technologies have an infant age, an adolescent age, a mature stage and finally an old age. This technological cycle create promises, but need constant care and attention. During this technology cycle many jobs are created. New technologies open new horizons, but they also destroy some old structures and models of behavior. Some innovations are also disruptive, not constructive.

In its mature stage the old technology is well understood and can fend for itself. It does not require assistance to get on with its work. Jobs are eliminated but it still delivers the goods. However, in its old age old technology is subject to attack and replacements. This cycle is a typical process of capitalism. Capitalism can only be understood as an evolutionary process of continuous innovation and creative destruction as Joseph Schumpeter defined it.

B. Joseph Pine II and Kim C. Korn (2011) have presented a big vision of future technologies in their book “Infinite Possibility”. They see that ubiquitous revolution will create for us infinite frontier concerning the progression on economic value. Customization and commoditization of goods, services, experiences and transformations are key activities in this process of “infinite possibility”. The digital frontier provides us many possibilities in the universe, where time, space and matter create many alternative possibilities.
Real and virtual spaces are creating one interesting dimension of the space. Atoms and bits are creating second key dimension of the matter. Thirdly, actual and autonomous time is third critical dimension of the time. These 3 dimensions of time, matter and space create new frontiers for wealth creation and innovative solutions in economies and societies.

To understand the scale and scope of new possibilities in these 3 dimensions can help us to create more wealth and more jobs in the future. Infinite possibility is not gross overstatement. It is analogical to LEGO brick game, a simple thing of material substance, which is genuinely immeasurable, and truly limitless.

Now need bohemian creativity to build our own LEGO games of the future. This means that we must be ready to build up new technological innovation, new business innovation and new social innovations for a society with new technological infrastructures and settings. We must be able to create modular and systemic innovations, which are really reshaping human futures.

Index
1 Ubiquitous robot
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_robot
2 Joseph Schumpeter
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumpeter
3. Infinite possibility paradigm
Pine II, B. Joseph and Korn, Kim C. (2011) Infinite Possibility. Creating Customer Value on the Digital Frontier. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Ltd.
4. LEGO thinking
Gregersen, Hal, Dyer, Jeff and Christensen, Clayton M. (2012) Book excerpt: How strong are your Lego thinking skills? April 27th, 2012. Web: http://smartblogs.com/leadership/2012/04/27/book-excerpt-how-strong-are-your-lego-thinking-skills/

Cultural Mediocrity and Bohemians as Change Makers of Organizational Cultures

Bohemian persons are often feeling otherness, and often they feels they are in some way misunderstood. A bohemian, who do not fit the typical “average” category, has many challenges and problems, because this “average” category is considered in many organizations the only right category. Many talented people have to deal with the fringes of society in order to realize their dreams and visions.

In many cases bohemians are neglected because of “work place democracy”. However, we know that the limitations of democracy lie in the moral, and even spiritual, quality of the electorate. A democracy is as good as its people and tends to promote a moral and cultural mediocrity. One paradox of today is that modern democratic society seems to be characterized by a rising tide of trivia and empty entertainment. Ordinary citizens may want more, but also bohemians want more, much more.

For many organizations it is typical that they allow the bold thinking only in specific circumstances. Courage to break with can be taken in general in the context of “development Days”, “creativity workshops” or “spring assembly events”. On other days of a year bohemian experts will be “hippies”, “nerds” and “persons with propeller hats”. They are the ones all other in the “organizational chart” can laugh at good will. For a bohemian it is typical that they are not taken particularly seriously or other experts underestimate their performances.

When one talks about bohemians, there are often presented different characterizations of a bohemian person. Typical classifications for bohemians are:

• The diversity of competences,
• spontaneity,
• robustness
• living in the moment,
• artistry,
• ambivalence, and ambivertism,
• the ability to be inspired,
• vagary,
• angularity,
• roughness, and
• a strong character.

These characterizations are certainly in the right direction to characterize the bohemian tribe. In the reality, however, bohemians can be found from very different social and ethnic origins. Bohemians may be both men and women, as well as a bohemian can also be found in different age groups. Actually, there is no single psychological standard definition for the bohemian people. Bohemians are special kinds of people who also want emphasize the specificity of their own.

Bohemian man can be extroverted, but there are also inward-looking bohemians, not so expressive. Bohemian people work very often in creative professions and have broad innovative potential of the toughest technical and social applications. Art, science, sports, and economic life are attractive fields of life for bohemians. Bohemians can provide creative contributions to these important areas of life.

A bohemian is a person who is often not suitable for the average person’s profile. Bohemians often want to consciously stand out from the masses and have different social contexts and “tribes”. People see and perceive bohemians usually strange – even the difficult people to handle. The authenticity and the inner voice, listening oneself are important things for bohemians. Bohemian people are generally interested in unconventional ideas and novel practices. They are interested in new ideas, inventions and proposals.

Generally, they are often called to invent and re-invent different policy areas and to be pioneers of new ideas and ideologies.
In many organizations, bohemian life style is a challenge and many organizations have difficulties to rigid adapt organizational systems and relationships to bohemian styles. Many corporate organizations and public sector organizations want – consciously or unconsciously – to recruit – not so bohemian employees, who work quietly to make standards things and projects routinely and in a mechanical way like in old industrial organizations. In the future, these types of people and organizations trying to be mechanic robots and robot societies will be easily substituted with robots and new smart technologies.

Many organizations are also such that bohemians cannot easily present their new ideas and take active initiatives on new challenges. Rigid hierarchies and inflexible organizational silos prevent organizations from obtaining access to the best creative human capital. New, bohemian types of organizations are first facing major challenges to do the right thing. If bohemian personalities are allowed to take creative and new roles and flexible job descriptions, they also tend to engage actively in these roles and job descriptions.

Bohemian persons are able to change schemata in the organizations. Schemata, whether plural of schema, are knowledge structures a person forms from past experiences. Bohemian can create new forms of schemata and reformulate old schemata.

Incentive structures of bohemian organizations are different compared with industrial organizations of Taylorism. “Synthesized workflows” approach of Taylorism is not the right approach to create unique products and services. So called “scientific management” must be reformulated, if we want to keep members of creative class inside the box of scientific management. This challenge is not a small one. We must re-define organizational paradigms, control systems, organizational structures, power structures, symbols, organizational rituals and routines. Even stories and myths of organizations must be re-invented.

For many business organizations would do well to think about it they are able to offer reasonable opportunities for bohemian talents to make a special contribution in their organization. Without re-inventing their organizational systems, leadership patterns and management styles this will be a mission impossible. Why organizational cultures develop in organizations is due to external adaptation and internal integration. Bohemian people play a special role both in external adaptation process and internal integration process. That is why bohemians´ role cannot be neglected in the post-modern organizations. External adaptation reflects an evolutionary approach to organizational culture. Internal integration is an important function since social structures are required for organizations to exist. Thus bohemians are key players from the evolutionary and functional organizational perspectives. Bohemians can create strong cultures inside organizations. The “average approach” leads to weak culture. Weak culture means that there is little alignment with organizational values and control must be exercised through extensive procedures and bureaucracy. Strong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus because of their alignment to organizational values.

If the organization’s culture is too “average oriented” and favors “middle of the road” recruitments, bohemians of the creative class do not offer their unique talents to such organizational structures and cultures. In this old-fashioned organizational culture scenario, they will have to seek new dynamic organizations or start-up their own businesses. General and very typical assumption is that the workers should be as robots. This approch will not help to attract bohemian talents, because they do not want to be like robots. Permissiveness, tolerance and deeper cultural understanding of diversity are important issues for organizations that really want to get top experts and keep them in their organizations.

Index

1 Beyond mediocrity
Web: http://www.dharmalife.com/issue15/comment.html
2 Organizational culture
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture
3 Schemata
Mandler, J. M. (1984) Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Widmayer, Sharon Alayne (2012) Schema Theory: An Introduction. George Mason University.
Web: http://www.mrjthompson.com/Documents/SchemaTheory.pdf
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)
4 Organization research
Handy, Charles B. (1976) Understanding Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barney, J. B. (1986) Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), pp. 656-665.
Shein, Edgar (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zhang, Xibao (2009) Values, Expectations, Ad Hoc Rules, and Culture Emergence in International Cross Cultural Management Contexts. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
5 Frederick Winslow Taylor
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor
6 Scientific management
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management

Enjoy Your Life with Bohemian Attitude and Lifestyle! Navigation Guidelines for Trans-mediated Reality from the History of Art

Lifestyle is one of the most important things for today´s people. It is even more important for tomorrow´s people and youngsters. Lifestyle affects the way people work and live their leisure time. A key trend for change in lifestyles has been the individualization, or even ultra-individualization. Many people seek after distinctive way of life or very special work profile. Everyday life is a series of events with the meaning and intention. Human relations, clothing, patterns of consumption and entertainment are parts of lifestyle. Lifestyle affects person’s values, attitudes and general outlook on life. We select our lifestyle in order to enjoy our lives.

With a special bohemian attitude life can be more interesting and more enjoyable. We can understand our realities from the art perspective, not only from science or religious perspective.

People want to live their own lives so that they stand out from other people in some way. “Be unique or do not exist” is one behavioral rule of bohemian people. For bohemians the way of life is a key issue. It’s hard to imagine that bohemian persons would like to be part of a social establishment, or the bohemian expert settle for mediocrity. On the contrary, bohemian people shun mediocrity. They make themselves look like the operating environment, very personal and tailored for very special cultural rules. They are thinking: The more special – the better; the more strange – the better. In competitive urban environments many experts are talking about the Warhol economy, where bohemians drive creative industries like fashion, art and music. The cultural scene of New York is an arena of trendsetters and emerging trends.

Bohemian is a word developed in the 1800s in France. This generalized term describes many artists, creators and writers, who spend their unusual and irregular life. One Finnish poet and legendary rock musician Juice Leskinen described this kind of life style by writing a bohemian note: “I received a tattered life”. He really did it.

Originally the word meant the Bohemian Czech historical region of Bohemia population. Original Bohemian artists resembled the French view, wandering gypsies, who lived outside of the established social practices, and who were uninterested in conveying conventional circuit disapproval. Bohemian lifestyle is exceptional, avoiding traditional parties and the public acceptance. Often they have sharp contradictions with conventional political views, beliefs and opinions. Bohemian are having typically quite liberal sexual activity, non-material, very, very modest lifestyle and often living in voluntary poverty. In addition, a bohemian culture is a kind of “romanticism of misery.” Bohemians often make virtue out of necessity.

In history, typical bohemian lifestyle cultures have been avant-garde, the culture of the Beat-generation, Goth culture, hippie movement, liberalism and French Moulin Rouge. For example, avant-garde (referring to “advance guard “) refers to people or works that are experimental and a violation of the established trends of their time. The word is used especially in the fields of visual arts, film, literature and music in the context of new trends, but also for any new paradigm, for example when talking about culture or the novel political sphere.

The concept of avant-garde has become a topical debate on the fate of modernism. Bohemians are avant-garde persons in their lifestyle. For bohemians – the average has always been over.

Avant-garde artists and people are sometimes combined with street art, graffiti, or with anti-trends, wild cards and the ground-breaking new emerging issues. However, avant-garde is not a single art movement such as surrealism and cubism, since important concepts are constantly changing over time. Some of the avant-garde strategy of action is publication of manifest/s. It is usually a series of strong statements expressing the direction of movement of artistic ideas and intentions, and what the opposing advocates. The manifesto can be one key achievement of the artist or artist team achievement. Provocations are important part of the bohemian communications. Manifests are underlining new forms of cultural expression. Looking for new means of expression was almost willful in all artistic fields of avant-garde. Teenagers are often having bohemian sub-cultures because they like provocations.

Often the big idea is polarized and manifests to the publication of a major fuss as possible “fanfare”. Management of art and cultural creative industries is more demanding than conventional business branches. It is close to innovation management, but underlining art and aesthetics as key issues of management. Organizations wanting to attract bohemian personalities and creative thinkers need to emphasize a strong commitment to excellence and artistic integrity to be successful beyond the short term. Often great world class artists are working outside the establishment and the major system. For example, great film maker Woody Allen wants to work outside big film studios. He seeks actively distribution in the USA and Europe as a precursor to securing financing to see his art and film projects to fruition. Artistic ventures are sometimes very controversial and provocative. Sometimes artists are very focused on non-profit management organizations and do not want to be “Wall Street capitalists”.

In the 20th century it became very clear that the avant-garde did not fit in the totalitarian societies. Bohemians are not “fitting in” to totalitarian cultures. The German Nazis did the Bauhaus art school and thought it impossible to operate all of the modernist trends of “decadence of art.” Also Soviet Bolshevik repression of the century was an impassioned avant-garde. Spanish philosopher and essayist Jose Ortega y´Gasset says that the immediate effect of every avant-garde is that it creates its own top-level elite. He said that avant-garde creates obscure phenomena to divide audiences who understand and those who do not understand the new genres of avant-garde. This cultural gap does not follow any political or economic lines. There is also trans-avant-garde, which means the ultimate avant-garde border, the other side of the art. This “other side” is very interesting zone for bohemian artists and scientists. This kind of trans-avant-garde culture is having many impacts on economy and politics, when political and economic agents cannot trust in existing cultural structures and organizations. Trans-avant-garde is a vital source of wild cards of our times.

Avant-garde is key concept of bohemian culture. There have been artist forms of avant-garde. Such artist avant-garde movements have been avant-garde-jazz, cubism, Dadaism, futurism, impressionism, expressionism, abstract expressionism, modernism, surrealism and so called Zaum movement.

Another key concept of bohemian culture is activism. Activism is a policy of direct action. The concept of citizenship or civic activism means a national public functioning of society, such as the actions of different associations. Activism can be profiled as a case for or against an issue. A citizen, who actively works either independently or in a group pushing something, is often referred to as an activist.

Activism is receiving public attention in forms of demonstrations and civil disobedience. Change activism includes campaigning, lobbying, publications, seminars, and non-formal co-operation with policy makers. Civil action is framed by non-governmental organizations and movements, which bring in the same way-minded people together, organize, and organize their activities and act in some forms.

Today, Internet activism has moved to the virtual networks, and, is has taken new forms of web logs and wikis. Internet activism is today having a dynamic nature of trans-media and it has challenged both the traditional policy making and the old established media, and it has created a new and alternative publicities as well as exposing the politically sensitive information that traditional media has not been able to “find out”. The attention economy or experience economy are the key strategic arenas of bohemian tribes and individuals.

Sources
1 Lifestyle
Web: http://lifestyle.msn.com/
2 Mediocrity
Web: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mediocrity
Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/friedman-average-is-over.html?_r=2
3 The Warhol economy
Currid, E. (2007) The Warhol Economy. How Fashion, Art and Music Drive New York City? Princeton & Oxford. Princeton University Press.
4 Juice Leskinen
Web: http://www.last.fm/music/Juice+Leskinen
5 Bohemianism
Niman, Michael I. (1997) People of the Rainbow: a Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemianism
6 Woody Allen
Bjorkman, Stig (2005) Woody Allen on Woody Allen. Faber.
Web: http://www.woodyallen.com/
Web: http://woodyallen.net/books.html
7 Non-profit management
Lowell, S. et al (2001) Not-for-profit management. McKinsey Quarterly 1, 147-155.
Web: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bohemian
8 Beat-generation
Holmes, John Clellon (1952) This is the beat generation. Web: http://www.litkicks.com/Texts/ThisIsBeatGen.html
9 Goth culture
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goth_subculture
Hodkinson, Paul (002) Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture. Dress, Body, Culture Series. Berg.
Venters, Jillian (2009) Gothic Charm School: An Essential Guide for Goths and Those Who Love Them. Harper Paperbacks.
10 Hippie movement
Web: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/History+of+the+hippie+movement
11 Liberalism
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
12 French Moulin Rouge
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Moulin_Rouge!&target=blank
13 Avant-garde
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-guard
Philip Nel. (2009) The Avant-Garde and American Postmodernity: Small Incisive Shocks. University Press of Mississippi.
Wood, Paul (1999) The Challenge of the Avant-Garde. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14 Bauhaus
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus_manifesto
Frampton, Kenneth (1992) The Bauhaus: Evolution of an Idea 1919–32. Modern Architecture: A Critical History (3rd ed. rev. ed.). New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, Inc.
15 José Ortega y Gasset
Web: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/grasset.htm
16 Cubism
Cauman, John (2001) Inheriting Cubism: The Impact of Cubism on American Art, 1909-1936. New York: Hollis Taggart Galleries.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism
17 Dadaism
Jones, Dafydd (2006) Dada Culture. NY and Amsterdam, Rodopi.
Richter, Hans (1965) Dada: Art and Anti-Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
Web: http://dadaism.wikispaces.com/
18 Futurism
John Rodker (1927). The Future of Futurism. New York: E.P. Dutton & company.
Gentile, Emilo ( 2003) The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism. Praeger Publishers.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
19 Impressionism
Moskowitz, Ira & Sérullaz, Maurice (1962) French Impressionists: A Selection of Drawings of the French 19th Century. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Rewald, John (1973) The History of Impressionism (4th, Revised Ed.). New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
Web: http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Impressionism
20 Expressionism
Gordon, Donald E. (1987) Expressionism: Art and Ideas. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dijkstra, Bram (2003) American Expressionism: Art and Social Change, 1920-1950. New York : H.N. Abrams. In association with the Columbus Museum of Art.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionism
21 Abstract expressionism
Anfam, David (2008) Abstract Expressionism— A World Elsewhere. New York: Haunch of Venison.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism
22 Modernism
Crouch, Christopher (2000) Modernism in Art Design and Architecture. New York: St. Martins Press.
Eysteinsson, Astradur (1992) The Concept of Modernism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
Web: http://www.mastersofmodernism.com/?page=Modernism
23 Surrealism
Durozoi, Gerard (2004) History of the Surrealist Movement. University of Chicago Press.
Breton, André (1973) Surrealism and Painting. Icon.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism
Web: http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/SurManifesto/ManifestoOfSurrealism.htm
Web: http://www.cnac-gp.fr/education/ressources/ENS-Surrealistart-EN/ENS-Surrealistart-EN.htm
24 Zaum movement
Knowlson J. (1996) The Continuing Influence of Zaum. London: Bloomsbury.
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaum
Web: http://thebirchonline.org/fall05/semiotics.html
25 Attention economy
Simon, H. A. (1971) Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World. In Martin Greenberger, Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Simon, H. A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Davenport, T. H. & Beck, J. C. (2001). The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Schmid, H. (2009) Economy of Fascination: Dubai and Las Vegas as Themed Urban Landscapes. Stuttgart, Berlin: E. Schweizerbart science publishers.
Haque, U. (November 8, 2005). “The Attention Economy”. Bubble generation – Strategies for a discontinuous future. Retrieved November 27, 2005. Web: http://majestic.typepad.com/seth/2005/11/media_futures_t.html
26 Experience economy
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999) The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Schmitt, B. & Simonson, A. (1997) In Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. New York: The Free Press.

Bohos in Co-creation: Meeting the New Criteria of Quartet Helix Model

Many people say that there cannot be many “chief cooks” in a kitchen. This old wisdom is so strong that some people really behave like this wisdom should be realized everywhere in the society. Personally, I claim that questioning this old wisdom is a critical gate to better results and to new breakthrough innovations. Co-operation of people who are “able to make a difference” is a key challenge for talent management. If we don´t see this challenge, many promising possibilities are lost forever.

Co-creation is one key concept of today´s management sciences. Interactive value-creation is one element of co-creation. How to make co-creation process work? This strategic question is in many smart minds of management gurus.

The power of co-creation will be a big challenge for 21st century organizations. Famous scholars Venkat Ramaswamy and Francis Gouillart (Free Press, 2010) are talking in their book, “The Power of Co-Creation” about the co-creation (CC) principle. This principle means: “engaging people to create valuable experiences together while enhancing network economics”. According to the authors, co-creation principle has four components: (1) Experience mindset, (2) context of interactions, (3) engagement platforms and (4) network relationships. All these components are critical for the winning teams.

For example, Apple embraced co-creation principle to enhance the speed and scope of its innovation, generating over 1 $ billion for its Apple-Store partner developers in two years. Also Starbucks has launched its MyStarbucksIdea.com to create and tap into new ideas from customers. Many other successful corporations (like Nike and Unilever) have adopted the co-creation principle. We can say that the co-creation principle is already working and bringing good results. We can expect that many other organizations can get nice results with the adoption of the CC principle.

Ongoing ubiquitous technology revolution includes different kind of innovations, not only technical innovations. We will need new technical innovations, new business innovations and social innovations to “survive” ubiquitous revolution. Also the relative importance of systemic innovations is growing because of the ubiquitous revolution. Autonomous innovations are not easily developed in the ubiquitous technology environments. New innovations are built in multidisciplinary teams.

But can the CC principle work even better with the bohos? Yes it can. Co-creation means the adoption of Quartet Helix Principles, which is more challenging than Triple Helix Principle. The traditional Triple model with industries, the government and the academia is not enough for a successful innovation system. We must add consumers and users to the innovation game. Well educated and informed consumers are ready to take advantage of choice.

Mass consumption society is over, at least in post-industrialized societies. We must pay more attention to both supply and demand side of the business networks, we must take also very critical and smart lead consumers into attention. Can we do it without boho energy and knowledge? The answer is “no”.

Modern organizations need discovery-driven planning and pilot experiments. The rigid supply chain management is not enough. We must understand complex interactions of stakeholders. With the little help of ambitious boho teams we can understand d many things in a better way. How this will happen?

Moves towards the Quartet Helix Model are like baby´s walk to innovation success.

The steps are small but strategically important ones. There must be incremental goals, but also visionary goals. We must be able to set incremental goals which embower hot boho teams to make a difference. Starting small and manageably is a key issue in the co-creation processes. We must be able to specify clearly what the user and service professionals expect to do. One motivational challenge is to keep joint records achievement and performance success.

A big mistake is to give just one option for the boho teams. It is better to present many options through which they can achieve the goals and visions. The one road model does not work in the boho team management. It is also important to frame the strategy in an aspirational way to excite ambition inside a boho teams. Wise managers also understand that also bohos need role models and peer-to-peer support to build personal confidence. Information, incentives and resources are needed to make remarkable changes. Anybody understands this basic fact. We cannot expect top level results in the Mental Olympic Games without these resources. The next Prada collection is not created without information, incentives and resources. Aspirational brands are based on these kinds of special resources.

Building inner special resources inside the boho team is key issue for the management of boho teams. Boho teams needs “safe places” for co-creation processes. As we noted above, experience mindset, context of interactions, engagement platforms and network relationships are the four critical elements. All the elements are connected to the “safe places” thinking. Any place for co-creation does not work, because mental images are a critical element of co-creation process. Confidence with personal mental images plays a very important role in creative interaction and co-creation. Craze, mania, rage are words that are often used in the context of new idea creation. We cannot expect these words to be realized in dull and non inspirational environments.

We must be very critical concerning “safe places” where we will work. For very successful boho teams this issue is a critical pre-condition for innovation success.

Index

Co-creation
1 Ramaswamy, Venkat and Gouillart, Francis J. (2010) The Power of Co-Creation: Build It with Them to Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits. Simon and Schuster.
2 Ramaswamy, V. (2009) Leading the transformation to co-creation of value. Strategy and Leadership. Vol. 37 No. 2, 32-37.
Apple Store
3 Web: http://store.apple.com/us
Strarbucks
4 Web: http://www.starbucks.com/
5 Web: http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/
Nike
6 Web: Webhttp://www.nike.com/nikeos/p/nike/en_US/
Unilever
7 Web: http://www.unilever.com/
Triple Helix Model
8 Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triple_Helix
9 Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (eds.) (1997). Universities in the Global Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Cassell Academic, London.
Quartet Helix Model
10 Kaivo-oja, Jari (2011) Futures of Innovation Systems and Systematic Innovation Systems: Towards Better Innovation Quality with New Innovation Management Tools. E-book 9/2011. Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre.
Ubiquitous technology
11 Weiser, Mark (1991) . The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3): 94—104
Web: http://sandbox.xerox.com/ubicomp/
12 Greenfield, Adam (2006) Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
13 Jurvansuu, Marko (2010) Roadmap to Ubiquitous World. Where the Difference between Real and Virtual is Blurred. VTT Research Notes 2574. VTT: Helsinki.
14 Web: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=fi&rlz=1T4SKPB_fiFI292FI293&q=cache:ZhdFaR2KOXAJ:http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2011/T2574.pdf+Jurvansuu+ubi&ct=clnk
Prada
Web: http://www.prada.com/
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prada
Aspirational brands
Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirational_brand

Post Navigation