Purpose:The main purpose of the article is to highlight the role and impact on modern management of natural processes of knowledge about their nature expressed through their diversity implied by the ontology of Nature.Demonstrating the validity of using ontology in management to explain the basics of management in relation to its functions.This management derives the knowledge of fundamental science, which is based on the study of the ontology of Nature.Design/Methodology/Approach: The authors accepted the thesis that complex processes which contemporary management encounters should be solved with the use of complex formal tools.Thus, both approaches must be related by a specific cognitive resonance (application of adequate theory methods to a given form of system diversity).The paper consists of ten points, preceded by an introduction.It demonstrates the structures of diversity based on fundamental scientific works related to the issue of diversity of reality.The objective goal of the article was achieved by referring to the concept of coherencecoherent participation, even of concepts different in terms of quality, related to the studied process in which these concepts (factors) function.Practical Implications: Thanks to the new and formal paradigms of modern science we are able to penetrate deeper into the nature of the real processes (economic, social, and even into the nature of our mind) -which was studied) and their complexity (structure).It can be said that every structure (especially a process) is its ontology.If I know the structure, I can manage it practically.Knowledge is acquired by examining the structure of processes, their dimensions (the degree of complexity), behavior, and then through the process of explaining why this and other objects (processes) behave this way and not otherwise.Ideally, it would be possible to put all this together and explain why a given process behaves differently from another and at the same time answer the question of its naturecomplexity,
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kołwzan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: