Search results

One problem that many organisations face today in the global economy is that too few ideas are turned into innovations. The purpose of this paper is to show how innovations in organisations may be obtained by means of creative energy fields.

The design employed in the research represents a holistic, change oriented approach to innovation, and the methodology is conceptual where an analytical model is used.

The paper provides arguments that organisations need to develop creative energy fields in order to enhance their innovative capacity and performance. In the paper the construct creative energy field is conceptualised as “a spot in an organisation where a Group of creative individuals collaborate and work together in order to bring to surface new ideas which may fuel innovation processes and Development in organisations”. The paper shows that creative energy fields are influenced by five distinct components; those of making a clear purpose, planning after the results have become apparant, an organisation’s rule breakers, drawing a map that changes the landscape, and igniting the flame of innovation. Furthermore, the findings encompass three conditions which need to be present in an organisation in order to make creative energy fields work.

The carried out focuses on the individual organisation which aims to enhance innovation performance.

In relation to practical implications, the paper shows, in particular, how an organisation may move into areas of innovation by means of a Lego system of organising.

To the authors’ knowledge, the creation and use of a novel construct, that of creative energy fields, represents newness and originality in innovation research at the level of the individual enterprise. Furthermore, the paper contributes to the extant management knowledge of innovation by showing how a Lego system of organising may foster innovation at the enterprise level.

One of the problems we face in the transition from an industrial society to a global knowledge economy is the need for a new breed of leaders and a new understanding of leadership. Creativity in organizations is traditionally considered to be the domain of the R&D department, and design and marketing functions. The consequences of this way of thinking are that creativity, innovation and the implementation of innovation have not been a part of everyday life throughout an organization, but rather things that are the responsibility of a few people often located in departments far away from the “front line.” It is the front line that is in daily contact with users/customers, and which, in the knowledge society, will become increasingly important. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how we can develop a new type of leadership in the knowledge economy. The authors suggest that the necessary conditions for this new type of leadership, which is refered to here as “innovation leadership”, are developed in a holistic model which includes the following elements: entrepreneurial action, innovative leadership, creative energy fields within the organization, high‐tech wealth creation and innovation as a business process.

The authors' perspective here is that of a holistic integrated model where leadership and administration coordinate and balance each other, promoting creativity, innovation, productivity and change. The methodology used is conceptual research, where an analytical model is discussed.

For the established policy in enterprises and other social systems it is important to open up to fields of contagion, cutting down parts of the forest and allowing the principle of the order of succession to reign freely. In established enterprises it is important to: uncover creative energy fields; identify innovation leaders; spread contagion by cutting down areas of the forest where you want the principle of the order of succession to apply; and ensure that you have active spreaders of contagious new creative energy fields in the enterprise.

If one freely interprets Hamel, then in order to promote the development of relational competence, 80 percent of the resources involved in high‐tech wealth creation should be allocated to innovation culture, and 20 percent to performance culture. Hamel says that innovation culture is constituted by “passion, creativity, initiative”. The most important aspect of innovation culture is not so much developing many new ideas and patents, but rather converting these ideas to profit for the company; the motto “from idea to invoice” springs to mind here. However, in most companies it is perhaps the performance culture rather than the innovation culture that is given priority.

The social implications can be stated by citing Hamel, who outlines five important lessons that need to be followed: go to the root of any problem; build what is new on new ground; commit to revolutionary goals, but reach the goals by taking small steps; evaluate continuously, but do not paralyse the system with analysis and quarterly results; and be persevering.

To the authors' knowledge, few authors (if any), have related systemic thinking (cybernetics) to the new leaders we need in the global economy.

The purpose of this paper is to present a vision for the future development of Kybernetes under a new editorship.

The new Editors are introduced, the strengths and history of the journal reviewed, and plans for its future development described.

The future of Kybernetes will build on its long and distinguished heritage, noting especially the strengths of interdisplinarity, internationality, and strong links with major cybernetic societies across the world. While maintaining these strengths, the new Editors will seek to develop further the conversations between diverse fields contributing to the journal and to bring a new emphasis to the interdisciplinary study of information, to studies of the social implications of cybernetics and related fields, and to profiles of thinkers in cybernetics, systems and management science.

This is only the second time that there has been a change of editor in the more than 40 years that Kybernetes has been published. The journal (and the whole field of cybernetics and systems) owes the past editors a great debt of thanks for their outstanding work, but the time has come for change. This paper starts to identify new directions under the new Editors.