The phrase “creative transcendence” may not have appeared before this section. It however excellently describes a prevailing notion in several theories discussed in the previous chapters. The concept here is to extend the inference of the foregoing discussion. We will start with Emmeche et al’s observation of virtual borders relating different fields separating them but causing their interaction. We introduced this phenomenon as supervenience. Whilst dealing with Rogers et al’ DIM we illustrated the diffusion of innovation using the graph in Fig. 6. The point before the inflection point is clearly lower than at the peak of adoption. Although there is a difference in the levels, the inflection itself is not really an acute turn. It is a curve, and this implies some gradualness in the “transformation” or adoption.
The phenomenon of heterogeneity in DIM has some characteristics of, and functions to illustrate, supervenience. It is that indescribable yet beautiful accommodation of variety, multiplicity and “multi-culturedness” it possesses that interests us. The interaction of differences facilitates creative transcendence from a scale or level to another with some smoothness more interesting than in homophilic environments.
If this point of inflection facilitates a shift, then we can describe it as being at the border. It is a nexus327. This zone should be celebrated as a region for insight that Holland cites. What is insight? It is the ability to see deep and beyond one’s paradigm. In other words, a
transcendence past the limitations of one’s zone to grasp the mechanisms of the next, higher, new zone or work out how that next zone should be formulated.
Not only is there transition (or movement) in this phenomenon we are dealing with, there is some of translation. Early adopters are at this intersection and must almost equal those participating in the innovation process on their insight. Both groups must oscillate between old and new forms of a concept as they test and “taste” the new and contrast it with the old.
326
Rabb, 2014. This phrase is used here with a slightly different connotation. It appeared to best describe the notion in two words!
86
Weick’s remarks about sensemaking, at a point, and in a sense, appear to relate it to
supervenience. This is because the process of sensemaking works towards the creation of a composite picture. It starts at the subjective level whilst gravitating towards the
intersubjective. It wants to fulfil the requirements of the “generic subjective”328 level. This is composite and a gestalt.
In another dimension, it can still be argued, therefore, that since innovation is an open
system, the spread or diffusion is part of the innovation process. An innovation is transformed and developed continuously. We can support this using the DIM. What is of concern is
having a measure of readiness to adopt or innovate. It is a function of competence, resources, culture and other factors we discussed under Dey's enablers.
Supervenience is one reason why we can never “feel” evolution and let alone predict it. It can only be historically perceived when we work to analyse what is emergent at the global scale and attempt an explanation of prior processes. We cannot, however be accurate about what caused it. This is because, as we prefer to view the processes as complex phenomena in their typical tradition, we can never attribute the outcome to direct causation. Innovation is a process dependant on the exploitation of relationships between multiple concepts at distinct levels.
4.8 Summary
Several theories had been discussed before the opening of this chapter. It was necessary to condense the debate into workable themes. The exercise also established emergence concepts within innovation.
Chiefly, innovation is characterised by systems that are complex. These manifest because of several factors that include those that are external and internal in the open innovation
concept. The systems also extend to individual influences identified in the DIM for instance. The theme of systems within innovation must be considered, regarding innovation, in terms of how well they can be managed. Innovation exhibits unpredictability and uncertainty characteristics. This makes it eligible for perception as an emergent phenomenon. Prediction and uncertainty are inversely related to control.
Information presents a heterogeneity factor and increases complexity. It sophisticates
management activity. On the surface, however, it is necessary to accumulate it to find a basis
328 Weick, 1995
87
for decision making. This is the irony it presents. In this light, information must be a significant consideration when discussing prediction and control.
There should be an objective of extracting value from an innovation process. But value is a composite. It is the result of a thorough process targeting at realising a new reality. In this manner, the notion has connotations of levels and a requirement to impose some the realisation of benefits at a stage that balances investor concerns and thoroughness in the process.
The discussion of levels is incomplete without the regard of the interaction between them. That edge was identified as a zone of translation.
88