Otto Scharmer's U theory is not an innovation management methodology, but a change management methodology. These 2 themes are often confused, as they are directly connected. Because in every innovation there is change, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Not every change generates innovation. The difference is in capturing value, something mandatory for innovation, but not for change.

This looks like a modified version of Otto Scharmer's work.

What does the curve represent? Meaning what is on Y axis? In other words: in what way, what unit or in abstraction of what is the curve going down first, then decelerate, turns and goes up again? This time I am bit disappointed with the video, somehow I don’t see any connection to complexity (and related fields) and what is described seems somehow shallow.... with just plethora of labels. I am sorry for such harsh words.... it’s based on the expectation of great quality I have due to your past great ability to convey rare and great ideas and my great appreciation of your work!

@SystemsInnovationNetwork

4 жыл бұрын

Hi Petr, I understand your point, this video is more in the context of the systems change course, Theory U is one method used by systems changers as a way to enable transformational change of the individual and build leadership

@petrskupa6292

4 жыл бұрын

Systems Innovation My question would be: if the points on the transformation pathway would be connected in straight line instead of U curve... would it make any difference?

@SystemsInnovationNetwork

4 жыл бұрын

@@petrskupa6292 I believe the U shape is used to express different levels of depth that one could not express visually with a line

@petrskupa6292

4 жыл бұрын

Systems Innovation Oh that’s sounds interesting. Depth - in what sense?

@bingoboy2000

4 жыл бұрын

Hi. If the general headline is 'How to change direction?' I think a not straigt line is apropriate to illustrate the change. Great work :9)

You try to give the video more brightness it will be great if you do

Unlike everything else I’ve seen from Systems Thinking, this is so generic that it contains no meaningful content while putting forward the illusion of careful thought by creating new words, where perfectly good ordinary words exist, thereby making the “theory” sound more complex than it actually is.

@user-zn1xu9jc4k

4 жыл бұрын

There is a huge diffrence between knowledge and science terms in spite of common sense knowledge terms and ideas. The tracker of theories terms linguistically understand the gap between ordinary bla bla and theorists clarity and accuracy in terms choosing and coining!