Unicist standard


Traditional Management versus Unicist Conceptual Management

This unicist conceptual management approach upgrades, but includes, the preexisting traditional approach to business management. This upgrade is a paradigm shift in management that allowed managing root-causes, developing the conceptual design of solutions, building maximal and minimum strategies and developing the necessary actions to produce results. In other words, what the unicist conceptual management did, was upgrading the management approach to ensure the generation of value.

Traditional Management vs Unicist Conceptual Management

The unicist conceptual management approach integrates:

  1. Business Strategy: The Unicist Strategy emulates the strategy implicit in the intelligence that underlies nature and establishes a maximal strategy to grow and a minimum strategy to survive.
  2. Conceptual Design: This conceptual design defines the unified field of the functions of adaptive systems and defines their dynamic process architecture.
  3. Root-Cause Management: It manages the root-causes of problems and the root-drivers of solutions.
  4. Unicist Actions: This approach defines the actions that need to be done following a logical synchronicity in order to work as a critical mass to ensure results in adaptive environments.

Benefits of the Unicist Conceptual Management Approach:

  • +40% increase of the speed of business growth
  • +25% of increase of marketing effectiveness
  • +20% of cost saving in business processes
  • +30% of complex projects cost saving
  • 99.5% of results assurance
  • 80% of cost reduction for business process maintenance and improvement
  • +30% increase in the efficacy of the participants

This superior level of business design and management became possible due to the discovery and emulation of the intelligence that underlies nature and the discovery that concepts drive human actions. This is the management model of the XXI Century.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.


The Unicist Logical Approach to Strategy to make Businesses Grow

The unicist logical approach to strategy is based on managing businesses as adaptive systems. It implies using the unicist logic to define the dynamic of a business including the restricted and wide scenario in order to forecast the natural evolution and what can be done to influence it.

Unicist Ontogenetic Map of StrategiesUnicist strategy is defined as the conscious action to influence an environment to achieve an objective. This objective implies growth. The procedure to develop a strategy is defined by the use of unicist logical tools based on the specific ontogenetic maps.

Therefore strategy implies being aware of the actual reality, understanding the implicit trends and knowing the threats and opportunities.

Conscious actions imply necessarily a trade-off. Individuals and institutions grow because they appropriate more energy than they deliver.

Therefore strategies are only successful in the long run when the procedure of strategies includes a solution to minimize the cost of the delivered value.

Strategies always include the following agents: the individual or organization, a “competitor” and a “client”. Competitors are those who are willing to occupy the same vital space. Clients are those who receive the added value one delivers. The client can be the whole environment as an entity or an individual.

Strategies include naturally two elements to adapt to reality: an active function to increase the vital space while adding value and an energy-conservation function to ensure the survival of the organization or individual.

Thus from an operational standpoint a strategy is basically defined by the integration of a maximal strategy and a minimum strategy to adapt to the environment.

Adaptation does not imply over-adaptation. Adaptation implies influencing the environment while being influenced by it.

Specific Strategy Building

Specific strategies are based on the input provided by the wide context scenarios and the restricted context scenarios.

These scenarios have to provide the information of the gravitational forces that influence the specific activity, the possibilities for developing them, the catalyst that may exist and the inhibitors that need to be avoided or accepted as limits for the strategy building.

Unicist Ontogenetic Map of Specific Strategy BuildingAn organization or individual is equilibrated when maximal strategies are being developed while minimum strategies are built to ensure the survival.

Maximal strategies are designed to expand the boundaries of an individual or organization, while minimum strategies happen within the boundaries of an organization.

That is why maximal strategies require dealing with uncertainty and risks and only a conscious knowledge of the unified field that integrates the wide context, the restricted context, the specific strategy and the architecture of the solution allows managing it.

To deal with maximal strategies it is necessary to have a high level of consciousness that allows dealing with backward-chaining thinking that allows envisioning the solution.

Backward-chaining thinking implies approaching a strategy with a hypothetical solution and beginning a falsification and validation process that allows building a final solution.

Minimum strategies are those that happen within the known boundaries of an individual’s or organization’s activity working in a context of certainty.

Therefore, in these types of strategies, only a medium level of consciousness is required. Minimum strategies are based on forward-chaining thinking that allows working step by step based on the known methods of a known field.

Segmentation of Strategies

Strategy BuildingThe four structural operational segments of strategies will be defined considering them as static. Each one of them develops a different type of strategy:

1) Surviving Strategies
2) Defensive Strategies
3) Dominant Strategies
4) Influential Strategies

These segments can be described in unicist standard language as follows:

1) Surviving Strategies

These are the strategies that aim to survive within the boundaries of an activity. They are based on a win-win approach that has to be managed as a zero sum strategy in order to avoid appropriating value from the environment. These strategies are natural for marginal activities developed by people who work at the “border” of their environment. The price they pay is that surviving activities have no critical mass that sustains them. Therefore they need to be continuously active in order to ensure survival. They need to work 24/7.

2) Defensive Strategies

They aim to defend the boundaries of their activity against true threats. They are based on establishing the necessary operational and control systems to defend the “borders” of their activity. They are power driven because they need to exert power in order to defend their activity. They are focused on paying the necessary prices to sustain their business. The prices they pay sustain their survival and at the same time hinder their expansion. They work necessarily with strict zero-sum low cost, self-sufficient activities because they cannot trust others to defend their business.

3) Dominant Strategies

Dominant strategies are based on the influence the individual or the organization has in an environment. They are focused on developing the necessary value propositions that can be sustained with their influence. They tend to impose functional monopolies that allow them to establish the standard for their activities in the environment. They need to invest a high level of energy in developing their influence through image building and the exclusion of the individual or organizational competitors that do not accept their standards. They work with value adding strategies in order to legitimate their dominance.

4) Influential Strategies

They are based on exerting influence by improving the value proposition of their competitors. They are based on having the necessary speed to be “faster” than the competitors which allows them winning in their environment. Their value propositions are innovative and they are successful when they have the necessary critical mass to influence the environment. They are innovation driven in order to exert the influence of a higher value proposal. They naturally build alliances in order to obtain the necessary influence for their value propositions.

Synthesis

Maximal strategies are based on adding value to the environment while winning in the specific environment they work in and are sustained by the power they have to influence the context.

Maximal strategies define two positions in the environment:

  1. On the one hand, maximal strategies are natural to leaders that exert a dominant position in the environment.
  2. On the other hand, they are natural to influential individuals or organizations.

Minimum strategies are based on developing win-win strategies and paying the prices necessary to survive.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org


Discovery of the Nature of Decision Making

The discovery of the Concept of Decision Making opened the possibilities for increasing the accuracy of this process by introducing the essential aspects that drive decision making processes: the objective aspects, the subjective aspects, the reasonable groundings and the ethical justifications.

About Foundations

Foundations are reasonable, understandable and provable arguments. Fallacy avoidance is ensured when foundations are included in a decision making process. That is why foundations are basic in decision making.

Decision MakingFoundations avoid decisions when the end justifies the means. Foundations establish the reasonable limits of what can be decided.

There are several conditions that have to be given when making a grounded decision.

Foundations must be reasonable: that means that the nature of a reality needs to be described in a reasonable way.

Foundations must be provable: which means that they have to be able to be proven directly or through their materialistic aspects. The nature of a reality can only be proven through forecasting its materialistic evolution.

Foundations must be understandable: which means that an individual can only participate in a decision process if s/he understands the nature of the decision.

Decision Making Segments

Empiric decisions

It is the decision that is basically based on provable groundings. Empiric decision making uses all the empirical tools to sustain the validity of what is being decided (Statistics, experiences, pilot tests, etc). Empiric decisions are put into action based on economic justifications with the limits of subjective justifications.

Logical decisions

Logical decision making is based on the capacity of understanding and reasoning the arguments that sustain the decision making process.

Logical decision making processes use explicit or implicit models to analyze reality in order to make things happen. Logical decision making processes are put into action based on subjective justifications and are sustained by the economic justification of what is being decided.

Subjective decisions

Subjective decision making is based on the ethical and subjective justification of the individual who is deciding. Although the materialistic decision making is included, it is limited by the subjective boundaries of the individual.

Subjective decisions dominantly use feelings, intuition, beliefs, convictions and personal goals as drivers. Subjective decision making processes are put into action based on logical groundings and are sustained by empiric validation.

Materialistic decisions

Materialistic decision making is based on the ethical and materialistic justifications driven by the needs of deciders. Materialistic decisions have a high level of objectivity in order to build a bridge between the objective needs of the environment and the individual.

Objective decisions are based on measurable facts, objective relations between values, benefits and costs and the need to grow of all participants. They are put into action based on empirical groundings and sustained by logical validation.

Diana Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.net/financials/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/turi.pdf


Stock markets depend on the trend towards evolution

The evolution of markets is what makes them more reliable. Thus, markets that evolve, naturally establish a context that allows making businesses.

Investment requires an evolution context and speculation is more profitable in involution contexts. Therefore investments foster evolution and speculation fosters involution.

About Evolution and Involution

The double dialectical process that produces the double pendulum generates a high level of entropy in each movement.

The higher the level of evolution, the smaller is the amplitude of the pendulum and the lower is the entropy.

Theoretically, evolution could drive towards perfection, where materialistic and non-materialistic reality is one. At this level reality as it is perceived by humans could not exist.

But this is just hypothetical. Real life includes involution, which occurs when a specific object becomes dysfunctional to the environment.

Thus involution begins including increasing amplitude of the double dialectical pendulum.

This implies increasing entropy between the positions, generating a trend in which the loss of energy that occurs between the polarities generates an involving trend.

Involution drives toward the death of the object, its mutation or its recovery, when it finds a source of energy to compensate the involution trend and begins an evolution cycle.

In any case, it implies a new object with a different energy level with or without mutations.

Diana Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist


Unicist Forecast of the Evolution of Markets

The Unicist Approach to Future Research is based on the research of the unicist ontogenetic intelligence of nature that started at the beginning of the 80’s.

It was a step by step discovery based on the apprehension of the nature of social phenomena entering afterwards in the institutional and individual evolution. Its integration with biology and physics was the final stage that was achieved.

This approach is based on the fact that future and past are not symmetric. This is the case of all the environments that are evolving or involving. The past and the future are only symmetric in stagnated environments.

The objective of the unicist approach to future research is to define a future scenario in order to adapt and influence it.

When an individual “looks back” at the history, the events that occurred are reasonable, understandable and logical. Therefore when approaching the future what is required is having the “logic” that is evident when analyzing the events of the past.

The building of future scenarios is based on the fact that the structure of the unicist ontology of a specific environment needs to be found in the past and that the facts of the present are used to infer the future.

The unicist approach to future research is based on inferring the future based on the laws of evolution established by the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which allowed developing the unicist ontology of evolution.

This allows building reliable future scenarios.

Diana Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.net/financials/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/turi-1.pdf


Pilot testing: The core of a pragmatic approach to business

Doers are natural users of pilot tests because they provide the security that what they are doing will work.

Pilot testing implies testing a functionality and requires a precise design of the tests. The “trial and error” applications are not pilot tests. Pilot tests must include both destructive and non destructive tests.

Pilot tests are the drivers of the unicist reflection processes. Pilot tests have two objectives:

  1. Destructive Testing
  2. Non-destructive Testing

1) Destructive Testing

Falsification, in the field of complex problems, implies finding the limits of the validity of a given knowledge. To do so, it is necessary to develop experiences in homologous fields until the limits of validity are found.

Two elements are homologous when they have the same “nature”. A whale and a dog (an extreme example) are homologous if they are considered as mammals. A dollar and a yen are homologous considering that they are both money.

2) Non-destructive testing

Validation implies the factual confirmation of the validity of knowledge. Validation is achieved when knowledge suffices to exert influence on a reality in a predictable way.

The validation process is homologous to a non-destructive test in the field of material research. Validation implies cause-effect relations. Therefore, validation can only be applied to a simplified field of a complex reality.

Conclusion

Pilot tests must include both non-destructive and destructive tests. The application of destructive tests requires being aware of the concepts of the realities where this test is applied.

Knowledge is secure when its validity and its limits were found. Exceptions to this rule are universal natural laws which are “universally homologous”.

Diego Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized world-class research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org


The Factor Zero – The power of nil – Part IV

Complex adaptive systems are integrated by a conjunction of “objects”. Mathematically, this integration of objects implies a multiplication of their representative factors. If one of them is “zero”, the whole adaptive system doesn’t work.

Factor ZeroAdaptive systems cannot allow the existence of zeros. One zero suffices to destroy a system.

The Factor “Zero” is an anti-concept that destroys any adaptive system. It establishes the groundings for inaction, annulment or destruction.

The ontology of the factor “zero” describes how human inaction, annulment or destruction is sustained by a fallacious ethics.

It is the ethics of stagnant survivors that provides them a feeling of superiority based on their capacity to hinder value adding actions in their area of influence.

Factor “zero” is the integration of suspicion, doubt and unawareness in order to avoid the responsibility of an adaptive system and destroy it.

It suffices if one of these elements exists. We will use the ontological structure to define them:

The purpose of suspicion is distrust. This implies that the final objective of the factor zero is to install distrust in order to destroy what threatens the individual.

It adopts extremely subtle disguises in order to work. If not it would be noticeable and avoidable. Usually, when the factor zero is perceived it is because it already worked.

Suspicion is driven by the fear an individual feels in a situation and the guilt of being unable to deal with it. The active function of the factor “zero” is given by the doubt individuals have when dealing with adaptive systems.

Doubt is basically driven by the individuals’ super-ego and operationally by their superiority complexes, the counterpart of inferiority complexes, and their unwillingness to make trade-offs with the reality they work in.

The energy conservation function of the factor “zero” is given by the unawareness individuals have of the situation they are living in.

Unawareness requires learning avoidance in order to exist. The learning capacity is sustained by the energy conservation principle given by the inferiority complexes of individuals. Operationally, learning avoidance and inferiority complexes define unawareness.

At an operational level the factor “zero” can be considered as the consequence of integrating doubt, unawareness, human complexes and price paying avoidance.

Diego Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. https://www.unicist.net/financials/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/turi.pdf


Every strategy has an ideology defined by the strategist

The Unicist Logical Approach defines that an ideology is a belief that uses a defined technology to sustain a specific interest. As there are no strategies but strategists, individuals project their ideology on any strategy they might be building. This ideology is basically influenced by their strategic intelligence and their type of logical thought while its purpose is implicit in the ethical intelligence they are using.

Strategic IdelologyThere are four ontological segments within the strategic ideology:

  • Creators
  • Conservatives
  • Security Seekers
  • Freedom Seekers

Creators

Their understanding of reality is based on their understanding of facts.

There are two kinds of creators, those based on an operational approach to reality and those based on a conceptual approach.

They transcend through their deeds, and apprehend reality based on personal immersion.

Operation driven creators use analogical approaches and concept driven creators use analogical and homological approaches.

Conservatives

They are idea-driven strategists with a strong analytical and/or systemic approach to problem solving.

There are thematic driven conservatives and systemic driven conservatives. They both seek for security while tending to focus on thematic or systemic solutions.

They transcend through their ideas.

They have a top-down / theory-practice approach to reality. They approach reality based on thematic homologies and factual analogies.

Security seekers

Security seekers are individuals that influence reality with frontal or flank proactive actions.

Flank actions are usually focused on exposing the implicit weaknesses that are present within the strengths of competitors.

Frontal actions seek for influencing through superiority. They use to confront with competitors strengths.

Frontals understand the ideas of their opponents and are effective when they are objectively superior.

They are democratic in the fields in which they are talented and autocratic in the fields in which they are not.

Freedom seekers

They are individuals that influence reality based on innovative actions and/or focused solutions. Therefore, there are two kinds of freedom seekers: innovators and focused solution builders.

Innovative action builders seek for the occupation of empty spaces and the expansion of business possibilities.

Actions of “Focused solution builders” are based on the introduction of alternative paradigms.

They are natural innovators, artisans and artists.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.net/financials/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/turi.pdf


Managing Businesses as Adaptive Systems

Businesses are, by definition, adaptive systems that need to evolve in an adapted way in an environment. Therefore, knowledge is essential to manage businesses. Knowledge implies having the necessary information to make decisions and implementing them in order to generate a business.

Reliable knowledge can be achieved when the fundamental knowledge and the technical analytical knowledge have been acquired.

Fundamental analysis is the approach that defines the limits of the possibilities of the evolution of a given reality. Fundamentals define the boundaries implicit in the functionality of such reality.

Technical analysis deals with the cause-effect relation between “variables” that have been identified making a systemic compromise.

The discovery of the unicist theory of evolution and the structure of concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and their deeds established the structure for fundamental analysis integrating it with technical analysis in order to develop reliable knowledge.

While technical analytical knowledge uses predominantly a dualistic logic, Fundamentals knowledge is based on the use of integrative logic.

Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist


Context for Business Virus Multiplication – Part V

Anticoncept of the Object Driven Organization

The objective of viruses is to multiply in order to facilitate the achievement of the personal goals. Virus multiplication needs a context.

The context of virus multiplication is the existence of all or some aspects of the anti-concept of object driven organization.

It implies that there has to be an organization with a weak immune system.

Organizations with weak immune systems have the following characteristics:

  1. They are task driven
  2. They have analogical and common sense procedures
  3. They have verbal and subjective action guides
  4. They are based on experience driven activities

The Anti-concept of the Unicist Object Driven Organization

There are people who need to approach reality based on their subjective experience. The object driven organization cannot be used when the minimum strategy of the users is based on experience based intuitive common sense procedures and subjective (personal) action guides.

In this case processes are based on task orientation which is guided by the previously mentioned subjective experience.

In the following lines you will find a short description of the organizations in which the object driven organization cannot work.

Goodwill dependant

The object driven organization is a threat when the goodwill of the members of an organization is the driver for work.

Directive dependant

The object driven organization exceeds the acceptable responsibility level when people prefer to follow personal instructions instead assuming the responsibility of processes.

Leadership dependant

The object driven organization diminishes the image of leaders when those who lead need to exert power within the organization.

Benchmarks dependant

The object driven organization is a utopia when the members of organizations are used to “copying and pasting” the organizational processes of others.

Diego Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. https://www.unicist.net/financials/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/turi-1.pdf