Socio-cybernetics and Business Cybernetics as Approaches in Dealing with the Relation between Technology and Social Complexity in Invention-innovation Processes

The aim is to start discussion about similarities and dissimilarities of Business Cybernetic and Socio-cybernetic concerning invention-innovation processes. Both of them deal with human aspects of life in a (requisitely) systemic style, although from slightly and essentially different viewpoints – business and social sciences, respectively. Both of them are relatively new sciences concerned with complexity of the contemporary life and controlling – managing – influencing it. What ever is the level of modernization of tools by technological innovation, they are always tools under control of humans. These humans can differ in knowledge, values, circumstances and socially beneficial use of tools. Thus, it might belong to roles of socio-cybernetic to help humans develop their subjective attributes toward more social responsibility in general; business cybernetic should do the same inside humans’ business life. The critical point seems to be much more in the cultural innovation of the contemporary humans than in the technological innovation. Such conclusion emerges also from a study about opinions of the world-top managers, again. But its findings are in danger of oversight because culture-related invention-innovation processes might endanger the power positions of the power holders, who are not requisitely holistic to see the crucial danger resulting from their own oversights leaving culture aside. 0 The selected problem and viewpoints Invention-innovation processes (IIP) are very complex and under crucial impact of humans and their organizations, as business systems (BS). Technology is the oldest admitted IIP topic, but in recent empirical literature innovation of business models, including the management style, is found even more crucial for success. (Collins, Porras, 1994; Collins, 2001; Chesbrough, 2003; Competition, 2004; Lester, Piore, 2004; Hippel, 2005; Nussbaum et al, 2005; Rooke, Torbert, 2005; Basadur, Gelade, 2006; Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, West, 2006; Davila et al., 2006; Gloor, 2006; Huston, Sakkab, 2006; IBM, 2006; Jaruzelski et al., 2006; McGregor, 2006; Daghfous, 2007; Jantschgi, 2007; Leydesdorff, 2006; Levitt, Dubner, 2006; Schwartz, 2006; Tapscott, Williams, 2006; The Economist, 2006, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Likar, Fatur, 2007; Mulej, 2007). This new insight, which smaller economies and companies have experienced for longer times than the bigger ones, might offer a new way out of the current very poor success of the big companies’ innovation projects: under five percent on average (Nussbaum, 2005). Except