Root Cause Management

Human Time Management

Time management and time drivers define the efficacy of human actions. Out of time does not exist. Reality does not wait for individuals’ preparation. Although it is of universal application, the ontology of time management and its drivers is a basic fundamental analytical tool to define responsibilities in work and learning processes.

Individuals’ actions are ruled by time drivers. These drivers put the described time management into action. These time drivers are:

  • The present
  • The future
  • The past
  • The “here and now”

Structurally it can be said that the proactive drivers and the reactive drivers are the essential drivers of individuals to adapt to universal time.

But the research on time management demonstrated that there are two major segments: individuals with a proactive action and individuals with a reactive action on the environment.

It was also seen that individuals with a reactive action on the environment systematically struggle avoiding involution while individuals with a proactive action fall in that situation when they do not include a minimal strategy to deal with the “here and now”.

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.


Mutations are structural changes to survive

We define mutation to all structural change in the purpose of a being, or of any of its “vital subsystems”. We refer to mutation every time that a subsystem is somehow annulled for some non-“traumatic” reason, and this is hence transmitted to future generations.

Modifications of functions will cause different effects according to the role the functions comply with. Mutations occur when the purpose of given concepts change.

If there is a modification in the adverbial function mutations could take place, and even if there is none, the system has lost stability and will generate a change in the verbal function.

Mutation may occur because of evolution or because of involution. In the first case mutations are based on the action of the verbal function to fulfill its purpose. Involution is produced by the inability of the verbal function to produce results.

Evolution implies that the verbal function, representing a more functional intelligence, turns to be the purpose of a concept.

Involution implies a structural change in the functionality of a concept. The verbal function sub-concept replaces the concept.

Socially, there is mutation when there is a change in the habits of a given society. The purposes of a society are implicit in its habits.

Fifth evolution law: The law of mutation

Mutation occurs when a living being or a being with artificial life is marginalized and his survival is threatened. In this context, living beings mutate and adapt again when they have the necessary energy to do so.

This law can be observed in the evolution of diseases. Viruses mutate frequently. They mutate when they need to find new ways to survive hostile environments.

Mutations occur in chaotic contexts. It is hardly impossible to influence mutations to cause evolution.

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.


Hegel, Marx and the Unicist Double Dialectic

Dialectic as defined by Hegel is contradictory with the concept of complex systems. Complex systems are integrated based on the conjunction “and”, and their evolution includes the complementation between the apparent opposites.

This dialectical thinking of Hegel, who considers the synthesis as a result of the opposition between a thesis and an antithesis, permits the construction of parallel realities based on the disintegration of the real world and the construction of a world where the limitless evolution of ideas drives towards an ideal.

Hegel builds an apparently upgrading fallacy.

Marx’s perceives the fallacy implicit in Hegel’s approach but he can not get rid of his dualistic approach to reality and his need to build a better future that only depends on the promotion of an adequate antithesis.

But his materialistic approach hindered him to accept an ethic of added value in the real world.

He built a dialectic based on the definition that thesis is given by an existent myth and the antithesis is a utopia that will change the myth creating a new environment. This implied considering that the utopia is a response to the existing myth.

But in real life, myths limit utopias, sustaining an underlying purpose which is considered a taboo.

Utopias are not responses to myths but reactions to taboos. They are born to change an existing purpose to be achieved.

Marxist dialectic drove to human declination because the fallacy he had built required materialistic absolute ideologies to sustain it.

The perception of dialectics

To perceive dialectics it is necessary to have a high abstraction capacity.

Those who do not have the abstraction capacity consider the dialectical behavior based on observable facts of reality. They cannot differentiate correlations from cause-effect relations.

Instead of seeing the relation between B and C as an effect relation they consider the relation causal, because they perceive the effect limiting function of C as a cause of B’s functionality.

When causal relations cannot be perceived it is not possible to forecast the probabilities of success of actions.

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.


Teamwork: are repairing actions necessary?

In a cooperative teamwork every damage produced by a member to another participant needs to be repaired. This repair is a cost the damager has to pay in order to reconcile with the group.

A repairing action implies regretting the damaging action, doing common good actions (for the members of the group) and substituting what has been damaged.

But this rule does not apply in competitive environments where competition prevails over cooperation. In these environments damagers are not responsible for the damage produced as long as they consider their actions as justified, unavoidable or necessary.

In actual teamwork many of the damaging actions are non-conscious. They are justified if they happen in a competitive environment, but require repair in a cooperative context, (intentions do not count).

The rules of an environment define the cooperative or competitive prevalence. Individuals need to follow these rules to be functional. For example the building of “spirit de corps” requires, on the one hand, the dominance of cooperation in the internal relationship in a group but, simultaneously, a strong competition with the external environment.

Cultures like the Japanese and the German are based on cooperation. The institution of “hara-kiri” is the expression of the need to repair in extreme conditions.

Depending on the goals, cooperation or competition have to prevail or need to be integrated to build social capital. Both are ethical behaviors with different functionalities.

Repairing actions are necessary to build social capital or to cooperate, but are unnecessary in competitive environments. In these environments damages are part of the rules of the game. Sorry, nothing personal… is a saying that suffices.

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


Unicist Strategy: Believing to see or seeing to believe?

Believing to see or seeing to believe is a dilemma in human behavior but not in the field of strategies. Strategies begin to exist in the mind of the strategist having nothing to be seen.

Believing to seeThe driver of strategies is growth, which implies that strategies are expansive.

The development of a strategy is based on envisioning the unified field of the solution that will exist and is inexistent at the moment it is being designed.

That is why a high level of consciousness is needed to manage strategies, which implies believing before things can be seen.

Maximal Strategies are by definition expansive. Expansive actions require providing additional added value to the environment and thus they are implicitly innovative. The innovation is implicit in the additional added value.

Maximal Strategies require “believing to see”

Believing to see is necessary for conceptual thinking. Concepts are essential. Therefore they need to be approached based on abstract beliefs that need to be confirmed in their manifested operational actions.

Conceptual thinking implies reflection that goes beyond the sensory experiences of individuals. Homological experiences are the benchmarks to be used to apprehend new action fields.

Believing to see is an approach to the nature of a reality in order to influence the future evolution and develop present actions.

Backward-chaining thinking is necessary to approach any activity that deals with adaptive systems and complexity. The oneness can only be approached with backward-chaining thinking processes which are integrated in the unicist reflection process.

2 = Infinite Solutions is an arithmetic metaphor of backward-chaining thinking.

It requires the use of a high level of inner freedom, because there are no sensory parameters to confirm the validity of a process. That is why a “believing to see” approach needs to be sustained by destructive and non-destructive pilot tests.

Maximal strategies which allow expansion beyond the present boundaries of an activity require the use of backward-chaining thinking and using individuals’ beliefs that need to be validated with sensory experiences.

Minimum Strategies require “seeing to believe”

Minimum strategies work within the boundaries of an activity. That is why they do not deal with the unknown and there is no need to envision things that do not exist. That is why a medium level of consciousness suffices to manage them. They provide the security and safety of maximal strategies. They are conservative to sustain the boundaries of an activity in order to survive.

Seeing to BelieveConservative thinking requires seeing to believe. That is why when a new concept is being discussed and an individual asks for an analogical benchmark, it is because s/he is avoiding entering a new field.

Seeing to believe is necessary to deal with operational thinking.

When operation has to be done it is necessary to deal with a credibility based on seeing. Seeing is used in a wide sense considering all the aspects that deal with sensory experiences to apprehend reality.

Seeing to believe is based on the past experiences of individuals to generate the credibility of present actions.

Forward-chaining thinking is the secure approach to reality which avoids having a high level of inner freedom because the external reality is apprehended through sensory experiences.

The use of sensory information avoids the need to make decisions based on internal freedom.

1 + 1 = 2 is an arithmetic metaphor of forward-chaining thinking.

Minimum strategies, which need to ensure survival, require forward-chaining thinking and using the sensory experiences to believe.

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.


Introducing Adaptiveness in Business is a Complex Problem

Complex problem solving is for the few. That is why the learning of complex aspects solving is for those who have assumed the responsibility of simplifying the processes to allow ordinary people to work with them.

Knowledge of Adaptive SystemsThe apprehension of complexity in business requires four basic conditions:

  1. Being driven by a superior ethical intelligence that drives actions towards value generation for “others”. It has to be considered that the mind inhibits the apprehension of concepts for one’s benefit. Only pre-concepts or anti-concepts are perceivable for those who seek for personal benefits.
  2. Being able to reflect until the “gamma brain waves” become accessible to apprehend concepts.
  3. Having both experiences and the necessary technical-analytical knowledge in the specific field that allow an intuitive approach without being driven by anti-intuition.
  4. Being able to consciously emulate the complex system in mind in order to become part of it which requires having the necessary language to do so.

These conditions are necessary but, anyhow, at the end, “there will be certainty of error and probability of nearness”.

If these conditions are not given, individuals become “observers” of a given reality and cannot apprehend the complex system as such and can only make systemic approaches leaving complexity aside.

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.


Unicist cognitive objects are a type of semiotic objects

Individuals need to have the necessary semiotic objects in mind in order to be able to recognize reality and deal with it.

When dealing with adaptive systems it is necessary to have in mind their fundamentals to influence them.  These fundamentals are stored in the long term memory as semiotic objects.

Long term memory

Cognitive objects are stored in the long term memory and are accessed if the individual approaches reality in an adapted way.

The access of long term memory requires a structural approach.

Intuition is an “automatic” response which includes the information of the objects stored in the long term memory.

Let us consider an example: The way a chess master approaches a multiple-game party.

This case has been studied by different researchers that concluded that a master recalls the multiple objects s/he has in his/her mind to categorize the situation of the opponents.

The more situations s/he can recall and relate to diagnose a situation, the more flexible his/her approach to the real game and the more chances s/he has to win.

Long term memory is integrated by:

1) Episodic memory, to recall personal experiences from our past.

2) Semantic memory, to store facts, information, concepts, rules, principles, and problem solving skills.

3) Procedural memory, to remember how to perform or employ a strategy.

These three types of long term memory are integrated. They store the cognitive objects that people need to respond on time to influence an environment.

Objects storage

The objects stored in mind must fulfill several conditions.

1) They must include the conceptual structure to be meaningful

2) They must be secure, to be reliable

3) They must include the individual’s beliefs, to be remembered. When the individual’s beliefs are not included they are forgotten.

4) They must include knowledge, which includes the possibility of application.

5) They must include groundings which have to be reasonable, comprehensible and provable.

6) They must include action procedures to make the objects useful.

An individual needs to have in mind the necessary semiotic objects of the specific field or of a homologous reality in order to deal with an adaptive system.

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.


Unicist Strategy Building: an Emulation of Nature

The unicist strategy building process, using the double dialectical logic allows emulating the organization of nature in order to optimize processes, maximizing the possible results and minimizing the energy consumed. This approach is necessarily preceded by diagnoses and followed by designing the necessary architectures to make the strategies become business processes.

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

Specific Strategy Building

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.

A business 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.

Ontogenetic Map of Specific Strategy Building Processes

When an individual or organization has only minimum strategies, it tends to disappear. Minimum strategies are necessary either to ensure growth once the maximal strategy has been achieved, or for marginal survival.

The influence an individual or organization has on the environment functions as a catalyst for the development of a minimum strategy. The lack of influence acts as an inhibitor and endangers survival.

Growth as a trend of the environment and as a need of the individual or organization is the driver of the minimum strategy.

Minimum strategies are driven by the need to grow and are catalyzed by the influence the organization or the individual has in the environment.

When there is neither a driver nor a catalyst, the minimum strategies become desperate survival efforts to permit an organization or individual to be alive the next day.

In that case there are no strategies, but there are just intuitive and common sense driven actions to ensure survival.

Segmentation of Strategies

The 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

Strategy BuildingThese 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.


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.



The unicist reflection is necessary to manage complex problems

Unicist reflection is a pilot test driven solution approach. This approach was developed to deal with complex human adaptive systems, such as businesses, to develop scenarios, diagnoses and strategies to achieve possible results. It allows dealing with the ambiguity of reality.

Unicist reflection is an approach to complex human adaptive systems to understand their nature, define the possibilities to influence them, apprehend the algorithms that allow exerting influence and generate added value.

Unicist reflection has no relationship with other introspective approaches like religious introspection, transcendent meditation, yoga or other technologies that have been developed for different purposes.


The reflection process can be synthesized in the following steps:

0 – Focus on the solution

1 – Dealing with projections

– Destructive pilot tests

2 – Dealing with Introjections

– Non-destructive – Destructive pilot tests

3 – Dealing with integration

– Non-destructive pilot tests

4 – Dealing with communion

– Results validation

5 – Dealing with the unified field 

From an essential point of view, this synthesis can be described as:

1)      It reflects outside

2)      It reflects inside

3)      The outside vanishes

4)      The inside vanishes

5)      All is one

Unicist Reflection requires having a final picture in mind. It requires positive thinkers; individuals who see the bottle half full, not half empty.

Unicist reflection implies assuming full responsibility for results. And, of course, full responsibility implies being in the solitude of power but having the power of solitude.

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.


The ambiguity of the perception of adaptive systems

The ontogenetic intelligence of nature defines that, at an essential level, there is a double dialectical behavior that is defined by a double pendulum, oscillating between freedom vs. security and expansion vs. contraction.

This essential evolutionary behavior explains the double meaning of the ambiguous perception.

The mind of the individual is either seeking for freedom or security and is either working at an expansive or at a contractive level.

That is why the double meaning implicit in an ambiguous perception is not hazardous but logical, following the ontogenetic intelligence of the perceiver.

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