Search results

Neurostrategy is an abductive decision-making process developed from the knowledge generated within the network of decision-makers. It links cognitive style with the team's decisional adaptability in relation to the organization's purpose. Neurostrategy differs from traditional methods, in which it addresses negative utility or decisional trauma, highlighting the variety of interests that are the main cause of team misalignment and allowing for the development of strategies to address them. Neurostrategy enables the classification of strategy deficiencies based on cohesion, coordination, communication and conduction (Co4).

This paper introduces a novel approach called relational neurostrategy (RNS) to elucidate the knowledge processes influencing decision-making. RNS aims to “capture” the intricate processes guiding decisions, enabling the network's decisional plasticity in both forms and contents. This adaptability is crucial for effectively addressing posed challenges, while simultaneously mitigating the impact of diverse interests. The methodology also ensures transparency in the decision-making process and generates an effective solution strategy.

The RNS addresses two critical aspects of the decision-making process. Firstly, it reduces unnecessary variety stemming from multiple interpretations and secondly, it minimizes the adverse impact of diverse interests within the decision-making network. This approach results in strong and credible decisions that reflect the collective intelligence, cooperation and collaborative efforts of the network, rather than being imposed as absolute truths.

The RNS stands out as a distinctive decision-making method, setting itself apart from existing approaches. Its uniqueness becomes evident in its ability to address the question “what prevents the authors from … ?” from this inquiry, RNS successfully integrates unrequired variety and negative utility. By doing so, it strategically narrows down the search field to the universe of distinctions that truly constitute the problem. This innovative process not only enhances efficiency but also fosters a high level of participation in the strategic design of potential solutions. In essence, RNS brings unprecedented value by effectively navigating the intricacies of decision-making and maximizing the relevance of the identified problem space.

The purpose of this study is to introduce the concept of Ecopoiesis. Introduction of the concept of ecopiesis, which explains the linkage strategy between relational and energetic resources (sustainability) that enable the relational viability of living things.

The design is based on the use of the relationship between abduction, epigenesis, cismogenesis and morphogenesis.

This paper concludes with a counter-intuitive proposal to the dominant lines of thought, distinguishing: Complexity as vital interweaving, Aristotelian Oikos as communitarian distinction, Organism-Entorno from relational theory (beyond the interactional), in a cybernetic referential framework that allows tending to sustain and sustain life from Ecopoiesis.

According to a relational theory of cognition, the sources of knowledge go beyond genetic and environmental factors. In the sphere of explanation, this study moves from “how much,” “why” and “how” to “why not.” Thus, the processes involved in understanding the living are forced to move from the logic of parts to the logic of patterns, which implies developing an explanation that considers the unique characteristics of development, encompassing the diverse origins of the organization of the living.

The biopsychosocial model (BPSM) on chronic pain is an interactive psychophysiological behavior pattern that cannot be separated into different independent components. However, the epistemological analysis of the classic BPSM, based on “biopsychosocial factors,” can be reduced to a list of biological, psychological and social factors, which can be addressed simultaneously, but independently, where simultaneity is seen as relationality. The purpose of this paper is to achieve a systemic and transdisciplinary vision of the idea of simultaneity and multidisciplinarity of the BPSM and propose a new model for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain.

Based on the following conceptual triad, co-autonomy, centralization and non-requisite variety, to constitute systemic indicators, the authors design a new conceptual model of cohesion, communication, conduction and coordination (CO4) model to deal with the relational system of chronic pain patients.

The indicators of the CO4 system as transdisciplinary structure create and focus a completely new relationship regarding the relational system of the chronic pain patients. This new conceptual framework transcends the objects and frameworks of each discipline separately, going beyond the multidisciplinary model.

The CO4 model allows a diagnostic and therapeutic standardization as a new model on chronic pain, improving therapeutic efficiency, resource use and laying the foundation for a common language in future chronic pain research.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the epistemological foundations associated with the concept of IC. Different researchers on intellectual capital (IC) agree on the issue that at present, knowledge generates sustainable competitive advantage. However, the distinction between the theoretical perspective and its practical application is not yet clear. Seemingly, this dissociation may be explained by the absence of an epistemological analysis related to IC, which accounts for the low number of pertinent specific publications.

This paper analyzes the named epistemological foundations associated with the concept of IC, from the point of view of the cognitive sciences, as well as its consequences in the design of methods and indicators of evaluation. The analysis employed is based on the cognitive groundwork of the representational and non‐representational schools linked to the primeval concepts which thus far support the definition of IC.

The cognitive sciences contribute guidance in the face of the implications of including IC within the domain of representation and that of non‐representation. The first operates in order to recover external elements and to project internal ones, making IC unviable as a process, and inevitably reduces it to the account of objects. In the second case, enactment ends up being incomplete due to the fact that it maintains the observer‐setting duality, which makes it improbable to understand IC as a network relational process.

The results enable the identification of new lines of development, which clarify and make explicit its epistemological foundations, but which differ from the prevailing ones.