**5. Reflection's example**

Following the next examples, the purpose of the BoC model can be stated in thesis as the reflection and identification of elements aiming at the careful definition of an action plan.

#### **5.1 Example 1**

Let us take as example one real 'problem' that can interfere in the context of companies', organisations', processes', products', territories', *etc.*, activities, that is mentioned in the Jeremy Rifkin's book entitled 'The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism':

'Everywhere a younger generation is sharing bicycles, cars, houses, clothes, and many other numerous articles, preferring the access to the possession. An increasing number of young adults choose not to have branded articles in favour of more generic ones or brands with a higher purpose. These youngsters are revealing themselves as much more interested in the materials' goods usability value, rather than in the interchangeability or status value. An economy of share comprised of collaborative prosumers is, in its genesis, a more empathetic and less materialistic one. The unbridled consumption was replaced by an economy of sharing' [41].

This reference text refers to the essential question—Are companies, organisations, processes, products, territories, *etc.*, prepared for a shift in the economy that tends to a greater extent to sharing and to the common goods? In this context, what elements are necessary to answer this new reality, in the scope of the questions enunciated in the BoC model, such as 'What companies, organisms, *etc.*, have the capacity to approach uncommon environments?', or, 'Are companies, organisms, *etc.*, only capable of survive in specific markets?' In summary, do companies, organisms, *etc.*, that show elements pre-adapted to the new context have more chances to adapt and thrive in the new reality characterised by the change in the economic paradigm?

#### **5.2 Example 2**

Let us take as example one real 'problem' that can interfere in the context of companies', organisations', processes', products', territories', *etc.*, activities, that is mentioned in the Gilles Lipovestky's book entitled 'Le Sacre de L'autenticité':

'There is no exclusive value attributed to the singularity of subjects, but also to the singularity of objects; there is no exclusive fidelity's glorification to the subjective

#### *Biology of Creativity: A Nondesign-Inspired Model to Enhance Creativity and Innovation Skills DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112738*

self, but also to the fidelity of brands in relation to themselves; there is no exclusive appreciation for the 'natural' behaviour of people, but for the ecological products that respect the environment as well. The authenticity ideal, originally intra-personal, penetrated in the universe of the 'things' and of the company: we desire, everywhere, meaning, truth, transparency, naturality, sincerity, and fidelity to the new self. The hypermodern universe is characterised by the authenticity ethics' extension to the products' saleable sphere' [42].

This reference text refers to the essential question—Are companies, organisations, processes, products, territories, brands, *etc.*, prepared for a fidelity ideal towards themselves, one of authenticity that penetrates the universe of products, and to the creation of transparent and truthful narratives? In this context, what elements are necessary to answer this new reality, in the scope of the questions enunciated in the BoC model, such as 'Are we homogenising the products?', and 'Do companies, organisms, *etc.*, and products have some sort of evolutive capital?' In summary, do companies, organisms, brands, *etc.*, have an evolutive capital that distinguish themselves as the singular authentic subjects, that allow them the creation of transparent and truthful narratives? And that in a way that allows them the creation of non-homogeneous products in the cultural context that tends to the globalisation trend and loss of identity?
