Co-Evolutionary Design for Human- Compatible Systems

Vanharanta, Hannu

Industrial Management

Tampere University of Technology at Pori

P.O. Box 300, FIN- 28101, Finland

hannu.vanharanta@tut.fi

ABSTRACT

Nobody in this world is alone, because we live in relations and interrelations, i.e. in co- evolution, to our internal and external environment and situation. That is why we also have to design processes in a co- evolutionary manner. Co- evolution provides new opportunities to see our living in a positive, creative way, giving a new type of view of many design processes. In this keynote talk, a new co- evolutionary methodology is described and presented. The talk also covers some examples of how intro version as well extroversion can be adapted to knowledge creation in organizations. Top- down and bottom- up views can be combined to improve the productivity of organizations, as well as the performance and competence of individuals.

Key words:

human resource management, circles of mind, self- evaluation, creative tension, brain- based systems

INTRODUCTION

This talk first introduces the paradigm of co-evolutionary management as a way to shift the traditional focus of management science to the need for fundamental underst anding of the natural processes of continuous co- evolving of individuals and systems in which these individuals work. In this management paradigm, the following important focus areas are raised: c o-evolution in human performance, c o-evolution in business performance and c o- evolution in human- computer interaction. All these specific focus areas, in turn, can lead to a c o- evolutionary design practice for human- compatible systems. Depending on the general nature of this talk the new designed construct is presented on a high conceptual level.

The scientific basis lies in a cross- scientific research strategy, where results from modern neuroscience, behavioral science, management science and computer science interplay in a c o- evolutionary manner. The theoretical framework consists of many different specific old and new theories such as: Ashby’s law (Ashby, 1956), Miller’s Living Systems Theory (Miller, 1979), Rauhala ’s Holistic Concept of Man Theory (Rauhala, 1986), Ford’s Motivation Theory (1992), and Senge’s Creative Tension (Senge, 1994).

T his kind of theoretical cross- scientific framework is created because we understand that the co- evolving of individuals and organizations is a critical requirement for the development of individual’s and organizational competencies, which in turn are necessary for business survival and success in the knowledge- based and knowledge- dominated world markets. In addition, the resulting co- evolution methodology is introduced in the context of the human mind by applying a holistic concept of man metaphor and a new theory - based

metaphor, i.e. the circles of mind, to be used to build computer applications, i.e. the human- compatible systems for company develo pment. This kind of novel approach, therefore, represents an emerging paradigm for achieving holistic mapping and synergy for competence development of individuals , as well improvement of companies’ business process ontologies.

In these created scientific human- compatible applications, competences are limited to those that are important for a specific occupational role. These applications uncover the individuals’ creative tension related to his / her specific job. Based on the individuals’ current and future visions, human resource development and other action plans of the company can then be done in a much more targeted way and also the future competence paths can be simulated. When the objects are business processes, it is possible to analyze current business processes from the bottom- up perspectives in order to understand how these business process ontologies can be improved. He re, a bottom- up view of the business process gives us the emulated picture of the current business process status. Through the mapping it is then possible to get an inverse model of the business process and to create a new forward model, i.e. an action plan for what should be done inside the business process. By comb ining the top- down management view with bottom-up understanding, it is then possible to control, steer and command both the financial and the human resources to the targeted objectives and goals. The created meta-knowledge is therefore the most important new knowledge created together with all people and knowledge involved (c.f. Figure 1).

Meta-Knowledge Level

Perception, Internalization ,

Conversion of Bottom-Up View to

System Level View Classifications of Business Process Features Curent Reality and Current Business Situation

Aramo-Immonen, Kantola, Vanharanta 19.1.2005

Figure 1: Creation of Meta- Knowledge in the Business Management Context ( Aramo - Immonen et.al. 2005)

In the following, the underlying paradigm and the methodology behind this thinking is presented. Using these sample applications, the current stage of our research in this new fascinating management research area is illustrated.

THE CO- EVOLUTIONARY MANAGEMENT PARADIGM

Co-evolution and co-evolutionary processes

T he notion of co- evolving processes is well rooted in systems science, as well as in other sciences. Nothing can be perceived in isolation, and therefore, a methodology that supports that kind of thinking seems to be a necessity. As a basic theory we can use the living systems theory by Miller (Miller 1976), who started from cell level and ended up with supranational systems like EEC (c.f. also EU, UN, etc.). According to Miller, different systems in the construct of living systems have similar systems and subsystems as well as unit processes inside. Control engineering focuses on feedback loops and a comparator to maintain an optimal process flow in a system. Org anizational and management theories also nowadays have keen interest in holism, as well as individual creativity to find new ways to handle complexity in contemporary business management. Also, from the view of other areas like philosophy, the systemic view has gained ground as the basis for our thinking. The complex whole is functioning through its parts, and the progress and growth depends on the interaction between those parts and the created networks. A steady state in these systems and subsystems is impossible. Co-evolution seems to be the common dominator, which through the relations and interrelations, makes possible the timely progress of all the possible systems and subsystems.

In view of the discussion above, we have introduc ed the paradigm of co- evolutionary management as a way to shift the traditional focus of management science, from management as a set of activities that includes planning and decision making, organizing, leading and controlling, and the related manager’s jobs (Griffin, 2002), to the need for fundamental understanding of the natural processes of continuous co- evolving of individuals and the organizations in which these individuals work. Furthermore, we have proposed that the co- evolving of individuals and organizations is a critical requirement for the development of individual’s and organizational competencies, which are necessary for business survival and success in the knowledge- based and knowledge - dominated world markets.

In the proposed context of c o-evolution, it is important to see the current (perceived) reality from different points of view. It is also important to understand the time dimension and the change processes inside the systems and subsystems. By increasing the views it is possible to increase the information variety in human brains, and that way decrease the errors in perceiving the current reality. From a human point of view, it is therefore important to understand both our internal world as well as the externa l environment in which we live. Co- evolution applied towards an internal view (introspection of own properties or characteristics) extends our ability to simultaneously evaluate and develop different personal characteristics. Co-evolution focused on the external world and different external processes (extroversion) provides a possibilit y to frame, categorize, conceptualize, understand and perceive the current reality in a diversified way. From the business point of view, the co- evolutionary process viewpoint helps us to identify first the current meaning then the need for change, both in people as well as in business processes.

Co-evolution in human performance

In order to illustrate an application of the co- evolutionary management paradigm in the human resource management area, we can examine the following relationships, provided by Jackson in his book on “Systems Thinking - Creative Holism for Managers ” (Jackson, 2004). In Figure 2, presented by Jackson, the most important factors for measuring human performance are presented.

Potentiality

÷ Latency

÷ Productivity

Actuality

Figure 2: Measures of human performance according to Jackson (2004)

Actuality is what we manage to do now, with existing resources, under existing constraints Capability is what we could achieve now, if we really worked at it, with existing resources and unde r existing constraints Potentiality is what we might be doing by developing our resources and removing constraints, although still operating within the bounds of what is already known to be feasible Latency: The ratio of potentiality and capability Productivity: The ratio of capability and actuality Performance: The ratio of potentiality and actuality and also the product of latency and productivity

Where according to Jackson (2004):

Furthermore, the important relations are as follows (Jackson, 2004):

In the above framework, the application of the co- evolutionary paradigm would lead to the most desired outcomes. First, we observe that the above equations indicate the importance of keeping the ratios up (high values ) in order to increase overall human performance. If we continue further from the potentiality, we have to find out on the personal level what is the future state the person is targeting, i.e. the individual’s creative tension. It is the “autopoietic energy” that a person has to change from the current state to the future targeted state s/he wants to be in. On the current level (actuality), it is important to know what a person manages to do now, i.e. how s/he performs at the present and what are the constraints of such performance? The capability or the capabilities to do something is the best ability or the best qualities that the person could exhibit now. The human competence, in turn, is the ability to doing something well (high efficiency) and effectively (high effectiveness) in the immediate future (expanding on the potentiality). By applying the time dimension to the above equations we enter the dynamic models, which are very well described through the co- evolution of the components and their relations and interrelations in time.

Co-evolution in business performance

Another example of the application of our co- evolutionary management paradigm can be illustrated using the concept of productivity in company performance calculations (See Figure 3). The all- important operational attribute influencing overall company performance is productivity (c.f. Kidd 1985; Kay, 1993). Capital productivity indicates how much capital is invested in relation to added - value operations in the company, and market productivity indicates how much profit is yielded in relation to all added-value activities. Capital productivity is added- value divided by total capital (total assets), and market productivity is operating profit divided by added-value. Added-value is the market price of products and services sold less the market costs of purchased materials (or services) contained with them(c.f. Kidd 1985; Kay, 1993, Vanharanta 1995). In Figure 3, we can see the same kind of performance patterns as was the case with human performance illustrated in Figure 2., In this example it is again important to keep the ratios high to in order to assure good overall profitability performance. Before we can change the ratios we have to find out : Where the company is now? How it has behaved in the past? And what are the current objectives and goals of the company? T he company ’s position (situation) at present defines its current possibilities to grow and develop. After that, by understanding the company ’s present position (situation), it is possible to provide new instructions, such as How to increase the overall financial performance of the company? i.e. return on total assets.

Profit

÷

Added-value

Market productivity

x

Return of total ÷assets

÷ Capitalproductivity

Tot al assets

Figure 3: Measures of capital performance (c.f. Kidd 1985; Kay, 1933)

In real life, we have to understand and utilize the notions illustrated in these two figures (Figures 2 and 3) simultaneously and concurrently, so that we can understand the capital profitability as well as human performance at present , and the same in the immediate future. The equations are similar, giving the asymptotic curves. By combining the information in these equations, we can determine the possible new space where we can handle both the concepts at the same time , i.e. financial performance as well as the human performance. What we see here are the relationships, which are important with respect to the question of how we can change all these ratios. It is the co- evolutionary way of thinking related to the two equations (which cannot be directly combined), which leads to the overall performance of financial and intellectual capital, i.e. the market value of the company (c.f. Edvinsson & Malone, 1997).

From the financial point of view, we have to consider how our financial assets are harnessed to create added value and how our customers are willing to pay for that created value. From the human point of view we have to consider, what are the human characteristics (properties) with which we can find the best possible human performance in each specific situation?

Co-evolution in computer design

A third example can be found from computer science. Managing a computer design process you can also use c o- evolutionary ideas and paradigms. In the developed applications we have used a methodology based on co- evolution. The basic idea has been that we try to map applications according to the ideas from the modern brain science. First , all the applications are seen to contain the same systems as the human brain has. There we can see the user with his or her brain processes touching the computer screen through the user interface (see Figure 4). As in contemporary Internet applications it is possible to navigate the information and then combine the information according to the user needs (cf. hyperknowledge / Vanharanta et. al, 1997). Again, in these application s the idea is the same, we support the current user through the user interface, but we also try to support the basic human processes in the mind, i.e. interpretation, memory, motivation as well as automatic activities. On the other hand, the combination possibilities are huge, and therefore, we have to bring the computer user to a specific context and that way decrease the possibilities we have for an efficient and effective use of the computer content. In these computer applications we first describe the content and the objectives of the application itself. In the examples, which we will show you in the next pages , we are focusing the user’s attention to specific competences in different work roles, as well as to specific business process ontologies in his or her work environment . This way we try to get an idea of what the computer user him or her self is thinking, as well as how he or she sees the business processes from the bottom- up view in his or her company environment and situation. The principles of the co-evolutionary computer design idea can be depicted as follows in the Figure 4.

Human Activities                         System Functions

Automatic Systems Memory Systems Interpretation Systems Motivation Systems Knowledge system User / Decision Maker

User

Focus

mSI

mSO

Focus

Inner

a Otter p

Functionalit y

K lingmDI

K reas

f K desc

K procmDO

K pres

Automatic Systems

Memory Systems

Interpretation Syste ms

Motivation Systems

Human Communication                            Processing System                     Application Knowledge

Figure 4: Human- Compatible Computer System

In this kind of overall system design the computer has been illustrated to have the same subsystems as we have in our brains. The framework can be applied to many different applications in which we have hardware as well as software. We can increase our knowledge through computer interaction. Hyperknowledge is then created on the computer screen. The

c onstruction contains the basic ideas of co- evolution. We use co mputers and develop ourselves through the computer interaction. Some information is brought to us automatically, some applications extend our memory capac ity, some applications may help us to interpret the current reality and some applications may help us to motivate our activities and efforts, some applications do all system areas. All applications are in this way somehow increasing and supporting our brain processes.

In the same way we can operate with other concepts than computers in the conscious experience of humans. If we put an object into the conscious experience, for example, different business processes as described above , it is possible to create extroversion of business processes. T he actor can go around that concept and can get a view of the current business process. These kinds of applications need supporting concepts as well as technology to find out the basic ideas of motivation, interpretation, memory and automatic systems and how these different sub- systems can be used in real life applications. They do need also other living system concepts so that we can keep the processes up and running.

T he created human-c ompatible system has several different application possibilities, some of which are discussed in the following chapters. Before we can go directly to the applications we have to describe other concepts so that we can go down to the practical level.

THE BRAIN BASED META PHORS

Holistic Concept of Man Metaphor

The holistic concept of a human being (HC HB) is a human metaphor, where the basic dimensions of the HC consist of a body, a mind and a situation (Rauhala, 1986, Rauhala 199 5). These modes of existence of the human being are called: 1) corpo reality , or existence as an organism with organic processes (the body) 2) cons cio usness, or exis- tence as a psychic - mental phenome non, as perceiving and experiencing (the mind) 3) situ- ationality, or exis tence in relation to reality, i.e. the situation. A human being has properties that characterize the qualities of that individual in a specific situation. (Vanharanta, Pihlanto and Chang, 1997). In our case, we consider an active human being in a work role situation, where he or she can evaluate his or her own competences through introspection, and he or she can make perceptions that characterize the qualities of the external concepts or objects in his or her conscious experience.

The first mode of existence, corporeality, maintains the basic processes of existence and implements the physical activities of the human being. The human brain and sense organs (internal and external) are needed when a human being is observing the objects and concepts in a specific situation. In consciousness, the active human being experiences, perceives and unders tands phenomena encountered. This is more than a mere thinking process, because such qualities as experiencing, perceiving and understan ding are included. When a human being uses his or her inner and outer senses and receives physical signals from the environment , the situation provides consciousness with a meaningful content, and a human being understands this content, i.e. perceives the corresponding object or concept to be “something.” Situationality is the third dime nsion of human existence. Situationality accentuates that a human being exists not only “as such,” in a vacuum or isolation, but always in relations and interrelations to reality with its multitude of aspects. The world, or reality, is all that exists conc retely or ideally, i.e. the world with which people in general can

relate to. Situation (or the situation of life) is the part of the world with which a particular human being forms relations and interrelations. (Vanharanta, Pihlanto and Chang, 1997).

In the following three figures (Figure 5) the holistic man gets a form in which these three different modes of existence are presented simultaneously. In the figures (Figure 5) we can also see how an object in a situation creates meaning in the conscious part of the human mind.

Intuition Feeling

Belief

Body           Mind             Situation

Corporeality Consciousness Situationality

Corporeality Consciousness

Situationality

Will

Scientific information

Everyday knowledge

Activities

Corporeality Consciousness

Situationality Figure 5: The Three Modes of Existence and the Creation of Meaning (Vanharanta, Pihlanto & Chang, 1997)

Each individual’s situation awareness is always unique as well as “the product of living”, i.e. the world view. Different human beings may even understand exactly the same object(s) in their situation in an individual way. This all is a very important when we make introspection or when we evaluate business processes with the human- compatible systems.

The Circles of Mind Metaphor

The HCHB metaphor, or the idea of the human being in a specific situation as a totality, is not a sufficient metaphor to be used for the development of brain- based computer systems. It lacks the new current research findings from the unconscious part of the human brain. Baars combines psychology with brain science and also unit es the old conception of the human mind with the workspace of the mind (Baars, 1997). The totality can then be explained through the idea of the theatre metaphor, where the self as an agent and observer behave on the theatre stage. Close to the stage is the unconscious part of the brain (the audience) divided into four main areas: motivational system, automatic systems, interpreting system, memory system, as well as the spotlight controller, context and the theatre director him or herself. A combination of the HCHB and the theatre metaphor by

Baars gave us a new idea of a particular, but very practical metaphor. The new metaphor was named the Circles of Mind metaphor (Vanharanta, 2003), and was based on the theatre metaphor by Baars and also contained the ideas from the presented HCHB- metaphor. The Circles of Mind metaphor was also designed as a physical object so that the metaphor could be used for different design purposes. This physical object then led to new ideas of brain based systems containing also the physical body following the Cartesian body- mind relationships, i.e. a thinking thing and an extended thing (Maslin, 2001). One version of the Circles of Mind metaphor is presented in the Figure 6.

Automation

Context

Memory Interpreter Motivator

Spotlight Controller

Mental

Director Self

Will

Res Cogitans / A Thinking Thing

Thinking

Causality

Perception

Person al properties

Classes Competences

Physical

Inner Senses

Extension

Res Extensa / An Extended Thing

Body

Introspection

Outer Senses

Conscious Experience

Figure 6: The Circles of Mind metaphor (Vanharanta 2003)

CREATIVE TENSION AND RESPONS IVE ENVIRONMENT

Individual’s vision of the future

Before we can delineate the path of our future, it is important to know: Where are we now? Why are we there? Where could we be? and then also in a dynamic way: Are we getting there? The realistic positio ning, i.e. a clear picture of current reality, is the starting point of the future visioning. Senge has named this future visioning the “creative tension” (Senge, 1994). It is the force behind the concept of personal mastery, which contains the continuous learning, generating and sustaining of the creative tension in our lives. Learning does not imply the way how we increase information content, but a continuous ability to produce the results we truly are seeking in our life (c.f. purpose). According to Senge (Senge 1994, p.142), in order to achieve a high level of personal mastery, people must share several basic characteristics: “They have special sense of purpose that lies behind their vision, they share the “current reality” as an ally not an enemy, they are deeply inquisitive, i.e. committed to continually seeing reality more and more accurately, they feel connected to others and life itself, they feel as if they are part of a larger creative process and live in a continually learning mode.” All this describes a tension between the visioning of future to the idea of the current reality. If we have a personal vision and we also see current reality objectively, then the two form ”creative tension”. The creative tension is very close to the concept of psychological energy: to draw us from where we are – in current reality – to the

vision we have and the “big me” concept of how to move a person toward the reality of the vision (Vanharanta, 2004).

The nature of the modern responsive environment

In the global and dynamic business environment of modern days, personnel are considered to be among the most important strategic resources and a source of competitive advantage and success for an organization. A human resource management department in every organization needs useful tools to develop and manage the competences of the organization’s workforce, and to improve them in order to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing business environment and intense competition. The fundamental challenge for managers in organizations is to meet both the individuals’ and organizational purposes and requirements (Levinson, 2003). It is understood that the integration of both individuals’ and organization’s goals is important. Self - motivation of employees occurs when individual needs and organizational requirements converge. A critical issue is how can any superior know what a subordinate’s personal goals and wishes are? Commitment must derive from the individual’s wishes to support the organization’s goals and objectives. Objectives lack significant incentive power if they are unrelated to employees’ underlying personal aspirations. A mode rn respo nsive e nviro nment can provide individuals with an opportunity to be self- motivating by setting their own objectives and finding the new ways to utilize the creative tension in individuals, groups, teams and in the whole organization. Modern organizations are also keen to develop their business processes so that they better meet the requirements of their work force. The internal environment should be responsive so that the members in the organization can maximize the achievements with their professional competence. That is why a bottom- up analysis is crucial to learn about and successfully utilize the innovative ideas created by employees. Achievement is in relation to the responsive environment as well as to the creative tension in humans.

HUMAN- COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS

Application environment

Our human- compatible systems have been constructed as Internet applications. The application environment is a specific work- role environment. The evaluation process starts by self- assessments conducted among employees or a given business process. The goal is to get a grasp of individuals’ own introspection of their vocational competences or understanding of their external business processes. Own self - assessment takes place through an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings i.e., introspection. An individual doing self -assessment can be seen as an autopoietic (self - defining) system: he or she defines himself / herself at work in the surrounding org anization. A person can also evaluate an object in his or her situation, i.e. external business process by making a bottom- up extroversion of a chosen business process.

Technology

In the created applications we have used contemporary Internet technology, fuzzy logic as well as neural net technology to develop and implement user- friendly computer interfaces for these applications. The fuzzy logic gave us the possibility to use linguistic meanings directly for the test subjects. Neural net technology gave us possibilities to present in visual maps the overall picture of human competences as well as competence simulation possibilities. M ore detailed descriptions of the applied technolog ies is provided in several

published and in some still unpublished articles. In this key note talk some examples from those articles are presented.

Competence and Business Process Applications

In the human self- assessment applications, theoretical competences are linked to practice through a set of statements, which employees are asked to evaluate giving their personal opinion of both their own personal current reality and personal vision : how things should be in an ideal targeted state. Several profiles have been constructed and tested in real life situations. In the following, we have the list of the current competence applications:

• Astroid for sales managers
• Deltoid for control room operators     Cycloid for project managers
• Epitrocoid for HRM professionals
• Conchoid for servicemen
• Helicoid for executives
• Nephroid for human work professionals / nurses / doctors / teac hers, etc.
• Tricuspoid for entrepreneurs
• Cardioid for the evaluation of human physical health and related bodily properties. (Vanharanta & Kantola, 2004)

In the business process applications , we have applied the same basic technology. In these applications, the observer, the active human being, looks at a business process through a set of statements, which describe the underlying business process. Using the application, the meaning created in the actor becomes apparent in the answers. T his way we can get a bottom- up current view, as well as the future bottom- up target view of the underlying business processes. It is then possible to create useful meta- knowledge for management purposes through this emulation. Some applications have already been verified and validated:

- Lituus  focuses on knowledge creation and learning in organizations

- Bicorn focuses on evaluating the safety culture

- Trident is an investment portfolio analysis application

- Tractrix is a R&D portfolio analysis application

- Trifolium is an e- business analysis application(Vanharanta & Kantola, 2005)

Test runs

All the ready- made applications above have been tested for technical verification and validation. All the test runs have been successful , and the Cronbach’s alpha index has been on an acceptable level. In software development work, we have followed the normal spiral process. Hundreds of people have already tested these computer supported brain- based competence development systems , and tens of people have tested the business process applications.

TEST RESULTS

In the following we illustrate some different sets of results achieved with test subjects (see Figures 7 and 8). In both figures, the blue bars represent current reality, while the red bars

represent the vis ion of an individual. The difference between the two is the creative tension. The first set of results is for a single subject who has used the project manager’s application Cycloid (Liikamaa, Van haranta 2004), (see Figure 7). This first case run was made in a big global company. The second one is the test run made by a group of employees, who have evaluated their organization’s knowledge creation processes as well as the learning environment. Based on the first test run, we can observe the individual’s creative tension along with the current state and future (targeted) aspirations of the subject. It can be notic ed that this employee intends to decrease the level of his/her commitment to the organization in the future. The results also reveal that this employee has valued himself very highly in three competences, and that the subject does not meet the requirements of a highly competent or qualified project manager, i.e. relatively low conceptual thinking, analytical thinking and achievement drive.

2004)

Figure 7: Test runs with the Cycloid - application (Liikamaa, Vanharanta,

Another test run made was conducted with the Lituus- application (Paajanen, Kantola, Karwowski & Vanharanta 2004), (see Figure 8). The results support the idea that the creative tension can also be measured when the subject evaluates a specific object in his or her conscious experience, i.e. in his or her situationality. In this case, subjects evaluated the knowledge creation and learning environment in a power plant company. The accumulated test runs revealed many important issues to be developed in the company. The strongest pressures were focused on knowledge channels, business management and requisite variety. The differences in the bar- lines illustrate the levels of respective creative tension.

Figure 8: Test runs with the Lituus - application (Paajanen & al., 2004)

Figure 9: Content of the Lituus- application (Paajanen & al., 2004)

There have also been tests with neural nets as well as with simulation tools. In the following, two results are presented with computer interfaces (Figure 10 and Figure 11).

Figure 10: Optional training paths of the three team members to achieve the target team in the future(Example Kantola et. al. 2005),

Figure 11: Alternative trainings during the first training cycle (Example by Kantola et.al., 2005)

In the first simulation optional training paths for the three team members were simulated to achieve the target team competences in the future. In the second simulation alternative trainings I-IV during the first training cycle will take this individual to different clusters. Each of the competences can be presented separately using feature planes. Also, the path of the competence progress can be presented on the neural net map.

CONCLUSIONS

In this key note paper, I have introduced the paradigm of co-evolutionary management as a way to shift the traditional focus of management science from management as a set of activities that includes planning and decision making, organizing, leading and controlling, and the related manager’s jobs (Griffin, 2002), to the need for a fundamental understanding of the natural processes of continuous co- evolving of individuals and the organizations in which these individuals work. I have also proposed that the co- evolving of individuals and organizations is a critical requirement for the development of individual’s competences and organizational performance, which are necessary for business survival and success in the knowledge-based and knowledge- dominated world markets.

T he above presented applications, based on the proposed c o- evolution methodology and metaphors, enable us to visualize and examine the (perceived) current reality and a personal vision of individuals. We can also visualize individual’s creative tension based on his / her conscious experience at work in the context of his/her specific job and role. Recent experiments with test subjects employed by our industrial partners have empirically verif ied and validated the above. We now have strong evidence that competence- based self- evaluation applications, i.e. human- compatible systems, clearly recognize individuals’ own current reality and their needs for professional and personal development . We have also shown that it is possible to analyze the business- processes using the bottom- up approach, and to identify important information for managerial purposes.

Creative tension seems to be unique for each individual and can be harnessed by the developed human- compatible systems by introversion and extroversion.

REFERENCES

Aramo- Immonen, H., Kantola, J., Vanharanta, H., (2005), IRMA-Conference, San Diego, presentation July 2005.

Ashby, W. R., 1956, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall Ltd, London. Baars, B., J., (1997), In the Theatre of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Edvinsson, L., Malone, M., S., (1997), Intellectual Capital, ( p. 52). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Ford, M., E., (1992), Motivating Humans, SAGE Publications, London.

Griffin, R., (2002), Fundamentals of Management, (3rd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company

Jackson, M., (2004). Systems Thinking Creative Holism for Managers, (pp. 99-100).

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Kay, J., (1993). Foundations of Corporate Success . New York: Oxford University Press. Kantola J., Vanharanta H., (2005), Preliminary tests with simulation tool, Tampere

University of Technology

Kidd, D., (1985). Productivity Analysis for Strategic Management. In Guth, W., Handbook of Business Strategy,(pp. 17/1 – 17/25). Massachusetes: Gorham & Lamo nt.

Levinson, H., (2003). Management by Whose Objectives? In Harvard Business Review on Motivating People,(pp. 73 – 101). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Liikamaa, K. & Vanharanta, H. (2004). Cycloid - the key to successful projects. In: Fallon E.

F. & Karwowski, W.

(eds). Human & organizational issues in the digital enterprise, HAAMAHA ´04 9th international conference, Huma naspects of advanced manufacturing: Agility and hybrid automation, 25th- 27th August ´04,(pp. 448- 459), Galway, Ireland.

Maslin, K., T., (2001). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. (p. 313). Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Miller, J.G. (1979), Living Systems . USA: McGraw- Hill Inc.

Paajanen, P., Kantola, J., Karwowski, W. & Vanharanta, H. (2004). LITUUS: A system for the development of learning organizations. In: Chu, H.- W., Aguilar, J. & Ferrer, J. (eds). ISAS CITSA 2004 10th international conference on international systems analysis and synthesis, July 21- 25, 2004, (pp. 412- 416). Orlanda, Florida, USA.

Rauhala, L., (1986), Ihmiskäsitys ihmistyössä, “The Conception of Human Being in Helping

People.” Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Rauhala, L., (1995), Tajunnan itsepuolustus, “Self - Defense of the Consciousness”. Helsinki:

Yliopistopaino.

Senge, P., M., (1994), The Fifth Dicipline the Art and practice of the Learning Organization.

New York: Currency Doubleday.

Vanharanta, H., (1995), Hyperknowledge and Continuous Strategy in Executive Support Systems, Åbo Akademi University Press, Åbo.

Vanharanta, H., Pihlanto, P. and Chang, A., (1997), Decision Support for Strategic

Management in a Hyperknowledge Environment and The Holistic Concept of Man, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, California, (pp. 243- 258).

Vanharanta, H. and Kantola, J. (2004) http://www.myevolute.com/

Vanharanta, H and Kantola, J. (2005) http://www.mycompanyevolute.com/

Vanharanta, H., (2003). Circles of mind. Identity and diversity in organizations - buildingbridges in Europe Programme XIth European congress on work and organizational psychology 14-17 May 2003, Lisboa, Portugal.

Vanharanta, H., (2004). Development of human resources in organisations using the concept of creative tension. In: Fallon E. F. & Ka rwowski, W. (eds). Human & organisational issues in the digital enterprise, HAAMAHA ´04 9th international conference, Human aspects of advanced manufacturing: Agility and hybrid automation, 25th- 27th August ´04, Galway, Ireland.