EIRP Proceedings, Vol 10 (2015)

Cascade Innovation, a Model of a

Romanian, Original Business Economy

George Teodorescu¹

Abstract: Every nation and its culture have an own mentality profile behind the economy surface. This mentality profile should be reflected in the general features of the business culture. Better the business culture is matching the mentality, more dedicatedly a nation can exploit its talents for its economic success. However they are nations, with an outstanding talent of intuition and creativity, where the spontaneous solutions and their variety build a sizeable short cut and surprising results, even if some aspects are not addressed in the process and the solutions are not as optimum.

Keywords: mentality profile; economic success; business models

Mentality Specific Business Models

Every nation and her culture have an own mentality profile behind the economy surface.

This mentality profile should be reflected in the general features of the business culture.

Better the business culture is matching the mentality, more dedicatedly a nation can exploit her talents for her economic success.

Some nations are excellent in a thorough planning, upgrading consequently with incremental steps;

• others are concentrating with acerbic focus on perfection and sense of quality;

• and yet others have an outstanding replicating talent and productivity.

However they are nations, with an outstanding talent of intuition and creativity, where the spontaneous solutions and their variety build a sizeable short cut and surprising results, even if some aspects are not addressed in the process and the solutions are not an optimum.

This dichotomy is striking in the approaches to planning.

They are there two dominant mentalities, which determine the strategies to follow:

• the comprehensive planning, assuming that everything will stay under control;

• the rough planning, implying a large space for improvisation and serendipity.

For sure the comprehensive planning implies the trust in the human rationality and her ability of investigating reasons, identifying patterns and algorithms as well as forecasting collateral, random influences. It is supported by strict rules and stern discipline, rigor, accuracy and punctuality. It requires time for detailed planning and is rigid, prescriptive and unless unexpected happens, leads to expected results.

The rough planning is a foggy mixture of bravery and irresponsibility, believe and secret hope, that a mystic force will intervene just in time to make the aspired target possible. This attitude challenges the inspiration and the sense of improvisation, the creativity and the dodging reflex. It is flexible and absorbs generously random events, fast and comfortable. Nevertheless it ends sometimes in regret.

A dominant “universal” business model, grew up for a while to be considered “the successful one” and is successful indeed, for those nations, who created it, following their own mentality. However an “universal business model” might be a hindering, uncomfortable corset for the corporate life of people with a polar mentality and different talents.

Adapting to a different business culture implies compromises and sizable effort, slowing down the creativity, but minimizing the risks.

Invention and Innovation

Here is required, to sort out a semantic nebulosity, the usual confusion between the terms: “Invention and innovation”. They are not synonyms, as they are often mistaken for, but different, consequent terms.

The Invention is the outcome of the mental process of conceptualizing.

The Innovation is the creative process for conversing the Invention in a new product and business.

As such the Invention is a generous concept, triggering the consequent process of Innovation, which is conversing it stepwise to usable, market reality.

These two terms are organically related, as the Invention alone is just a splendid play of imagination, whereas the Innovation without Invention remains a sterile procedure, a great, efficient, but useless tool.

The Integral Innovation addresses both: Invention talent and Innovation skills avoiding the dead ends, which would result by addressing them separately.

Creativity Space

In the realm of ideas, named the creativity space, they are as well mixed up terms, like: “Approach, Concept and Solution” which are creative mental outcomes, ideas, hence: Invention categories.

They are distinct but related, consecutive terms.

The Approach is the generative point of view, the attitude, which is related to culture, mentality, aspiration, thinking pattern, even mood, and not least to personality.

The Approaches Axle is the apex, driving coordinate of the Creativity Space. A new Approach is a game-changing outcome, generating new branches of economy, even a different economic era.

The Concept is the general mental representation, a vision, a potential option, the outline of a possibility.

The Concepts Axle is an array of seminal sources radiating into a diversity of solutions.

A new Concept generates new categories of solutions, is a leap-frog generating leadership with a serious handicap to competitors, it is a major reason to start a company, to invest venture capital.

The Solution is the feasible projection of a concept, the blue print convertible into physical, operational components, the design.

The Solutions Axle is the projection line of the concept radiation, the versions of realizing a concept.

A new Solution, a new version of a concept, is an advantage on the competitive market.

The Sub-versions of a solution, the upgrades, redesigns, are minimal activities for survival under competitors’ pressure.

In the Integral Innovation theory, the concept of Creativity Space offers a structure, for the sequential relationship steps between Invention categories (Approach and Concept) and the Innovation ones (Solutions, Procedures and Products).

The Creativity Space shows the conditional hierarchy among the coordinates of Invention (approaches, concepts and solutions), demonstrating the importance of higher Conceptual Creativity.

It seems to be a contradiction, but the higher investment risk in Conceptual Creativity, working on new Concepts, is a safer strategy, even it is a venture.

The low risk effort in designing new versions of a known concept or of redesigning, upgrading it incrementally is a time extensive engagement.

During this laborious and asymptotic process toward perfection, somewhere else a conceptual change or even a new approach can devastate the elaborate work of perfecting, making the addressed, known concept obsolete.

This apparent paradox shows that higher is the risk in the Creativity Space, more chances turn up for a sustainable leadership, hence for a longer market success.

Diversity of Business Models

On one hand it becomes obvious the need for educating Integral Innovators, on the other hand, becomes transparent the need for diversifying the contemporary business models around the world, according to the diversity of mentalities and talents, unchaining potential frustrated by adaptation to the “Universal Model”.

They are cultures prone to Invention and other ones, which seem to be dedicated to Innovation. This differentiation exists by individuals within every population too, but we are addressing here the general profile of the majority.

The “universal business model” establishes universal solutions and routine, therefore leads to market saturation and customers lack of interest, hence to a ruinous price and productivity and high quality competition.

Cascade Innovation as a Mentality Specific Romanian Business Model

The Romanian mentality is characterized by an extensive creativity, unsteadiness, improvising talent, swift reaction and frequent focus changes.

This mentality is a difficult match to the “universal business model”, but a splendid ground for developing a specific business model, based on the local, creative talent and mentality.

This might lead to a special kind of corporate activity, characterized by a fast follow up of concepts and game changing ideas.

The effect on the market would be a competition on diversity and originality, inviting to experiment instead of consuming routine.

Challenging the customers instead of delivering expected, already known solutions, would change their attitude to the market, to a partnership. The pristine, unaccustomed product would invite them to think and adapt, entraining them in the creative process.

The resulted, outstanding conceptual outcome would be a tool against market saturation, generating a competition of concepts instead of price and quality one, an Original Business market, with highly original products in a rapid follow up, a Cascade Innovation as a business model.

The competition on the market will regulate anyway the proportion between heuristics and optimization, between freshness and perfection, which necessarily will be reflected by the price.

Different is Better than Perfect

Originality is a key quality, perceived by the market as freshness and newness.

However, the originality means “new”, “recent” too. This means, that the time for upgrading and perfecting, smoothing the rough concept is still to come.

Nevertheless, the appeal of an unusual idea is there, signalizing a tough ride.

The choice between “different “and “ perfect” is a matter of mentality too: for many people different is better than perfect, the other ones prefer the perfect, tame routine, who is just minimally involving them, working perfectly.

The Cascade Innovative output of companies, would trigger a different, emotional market and a fiery competition of creativity, creating a break through and spectacular leading edge for the involved economy.

Cascade Innovation would be a term for such a special Original Business economy, based on the natural and extraordinary features of the Romanian mentality.

This differentiated understanding upon the business cultures shall be endorsed by the higher education too, where the heuristics should be learned parallel with the optimization, for a balanced mentality, enabling the students to use both thinking and acting pathways.

Furthermore, a special master education of talented, creative bachelor graduates should open them the opportunity for studying the solving problems in the key of heuristic thinking. The graduates would be Creative Entrepreneurs, boosting the start up or thoroughbred inventors enhancing the creative outcome and inspiring a spectacular, game changing development.

References

Gigerenzer, Gerd (1991). How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond Heuristics and Biases (PDF). European Review of Social Psychology 2: 83–115. Retrieved 14 October 2012.

Gigerenzer, Gerd Todd, Peter M. and the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gigerenzer, Gerd and Gaissmaier, Wolfgang (January 2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 62. Ssrn.com. pp. 451–482.

Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and Paul Slovic, eds. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics & Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Olga Kiss (2006). Heuristic, Methodology or Logic of Discovery? Lakatos on Patterns of Thinking. Perspectives on Science, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 302-317.

Pólya, George (1945). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V. & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.

Zbigniew Michalewicz and David B. (2000). Fogel How To Solve It: Modern Heuristics. Springer Verlag.

Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Diaconis, Persi (2002-12-11). The Problem of Thinking Too Much.

Refbacks

• There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.