Transcript of "Ung kyu han yor presentation_april_2011 [compatibility mode]"
Philosophical Insights in System Modelling : Application to the Field of Innovation Systems Key words: system dynamics, philosophy, mental model, regional innovation system UngKyu Han Dr. Martin Kunc 5th April 2011 YOR Conference, Nottingham University (1/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
CONTENTS 1. To Be Thought 2. Background 3. Philosophy, Mental Model, and System Dynamics 4. Previous Investigations 5. Applied to Innovation Systems 6. Conclusions (2/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
1. TO BE THOUGHT “How should we observe systems?” “Is the Earth central? or part of the solar system?” To argue the need to establish a dualistic philosophical view of a system in system dynamics modelling (3/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
2. BACKGROUND 1) System Dynamics (1) Modern SD initiatives - Industrial Dynamics written by J. Forrester (1961) - Ranging from pure sciences to social sciences, and from mathematical areas to non-mathematical ones (2) Intends to… - Discover the internal interactions and feedback processes that take place between diverse constituent factors within complex systems - Look into how changes in such elements cause expected or unexpected consequences within the systems modelled (4/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
2) Is System Dynamics a Tool, a Methodology, or a Paradigm? Graphical interface, modelling, computer simulation and application software Paradigm in problem-solving areas of management sciences “Without a clearly communicated philosophy, there is nothing to separate the subject from the simulation technique it uses.”, Morecroft (1983) says. (5/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
3. PHILOSOPHY, MENTAL MODEL AND SD 1) What is philosophy? - A Greek ‘Philosophia’ - ‘Love of wisdom’: subjective thoughts of human beings. 2) Are Scientists Objective? - Not ‘unbiased observers’; rather, fallible beings - Scientific ‘observations’ cannot be totally neutral (6/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
3) Mental Model “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” (7/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
4) Mental Model in System Dynamics In dealing with feedback problems within a system (1) In defining feedback problems (2) In analysing feedback problems (3) In interpreting feedback problems (4) In solving feedback problems ∴For System Dynamicists In the process of systemic problem generation, philosophical thinking is necessary in the description of internal behaviours within a system. (8/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
4. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Constructivism Vázquez and Liz, 2007 Schiere et al., 1999 Expressivism Reductionism Rafferty, 2007 Holism Schwaninger, 2006 Interpretivism Positivism - WHY NOT Synthetic Dualism of Philosophies? (9/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
3) Perception of a System by Philosophy PHILOSOPHY Constructivism, Interpretivism , Synthetic view Reductionism and Positivism Holism, and Expressivism CRITERION A whole- or sub-system (s) Main Object A whole system Constituent elements Top-down or bottom-up Logical Stream Top-down Bottom-up More than or just the sum of parts System Definition More than the sum of parts Just the sum of parts A whole- or sub-problems of a Problem Definition A whole problem of a system Sub-problems of elements system Non-common or common goals Goal Definition No common goal Common goals of components of sub-systems Variant or static context and Context and Observer Variant context and observer Static context and observer observer Variability Sensitivity to Changes Sensitive to the changes in internal Sensitive or non-sensitive to Not sensitive to the changes in changes of internal properties in properties internal properties a system Interpretation Flexible, inferential, pragmatic, and Flexible or inflexible, inferential or Inflexible, concrete, ideal, and non- concrete, pragmatic or ideal, and Flexibility contextual contextual contextual or contextual (10/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
5. Applied to Innovation Systems 1) Innovation System : An agglomeration of innovation actors to stimulate their innovation and business within a geographical area (11/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
2) From National to Regional Innovation System National Innovation System Regional Innovation System NISs World-wide Clearer Management of Spread Relative Dynamics by Region Japan’s Economic Serious Disparities Growth among Regions Need for Institutionally Localised Technology-based Systems Nation-wide US Support Business Support The Rise of EU in 1993 Japanese Government Economic European Currency Interventionism into EURO in 19951945 1953 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 now End of Korean War Shift from NIS to RIS End of the 2nd World War (12/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
3) Features of Innovation System - Evolutionary being - Continuous production of feedback problems (14/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
4) Philosophy-Mental Model-Views of a System (14/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
Region-oriented View Region-Nation Synthetic View Nation-oriented View Philosophy Constructivism, interpretivism, Dualism of philosophical threads Reductionism and positivism holism, and expressivism Main Object RIS as a whole system Different observing target by context A nation-dependent constituent unit around a region Logical Stream Local government’s top-down Mixture of local government’s top- Local government’s bottom-up innovation policies down policies for regional objectives innovation policies for a national agenda and bottom-up policies for national goals by regional context System More than the aggregation of local Different definition of the scale, Just the sum of local innovative actors Definition innovative actors range, and roles of a RIS by regional context Problem Regional innovation Different definition of the influencing Sub-problems of regions affecting Definition problems/challenges as a whole range of problems and required national innovation problems/challenges system solutions by regional context Goal Definition Regional development as an ideal Different goal definition by regional Sub-objectives of regions to achieve an goal of a local unit context ideal whole development of a nation Context and Variant innovation contexts and Flexible variability by contexts around Fixed innovation contexts and localised Observer localised innovation views of a a region and subjectivity of innovation views of a region; innovation Variability region; self-regulating innovation observers; flexible construction and mechanisms tied within given national mechanisms in a big picture of operation of innovation mechanisms innovation policies national innovation policies by regional context Sensitivity to Sensitive to the changes of local Flexible sensitivity level to the Not sensitive to the changes of local Changes innovation properties dynamics of regional innovation innovation properties properties by regional context Interpretation Context-based flexible political Variant flexibility of response to Non-context-based static political Flexibility response to variable regional regional context response to given national innovation situations policies (15/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
6. CONCLUSIONS 1) Philosophical thinking for system dynamicists to implement a more thoughtful problem-solving process, and for outside experts to acknowledge SD as a paradigm in the management sciences 2) ‘Constructivism, interpretivism, holism, and expressivism’ versus ‘reductionism and positivism’, and ‘synthetic dualism’ 3) A region-oriented view, a nation-oriented view, and a region-nation synthetic view 4) Philosophical views of a system remain highly influential in defining and observing systemic problems in the innovation system and in developing and implementing managerial regional innovation policies. (16/16) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
REFERENCESAltuzarra, A. (2010). Public funding for innovation at different levels of government: an analysis of Spanish manufacturing. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 20(May), 94-105.Andersen, D. F. (1980). How differences in analytic paradigms can lead to differences in policy conclusions. In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Anh, T. T. (2003). System dynamic applied to study the urban traffic congestion of Hanoi. Paper presented at the the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies Conference, Fukuoka.Baranoff, E. G. (2004). Risk management: a focus on a more holistic approach three years after September 11. Journal of Insurance Regulation, 22, 71-81.Barlas, Y. (1996). Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 12(3), 183-210.Barlas, Y. (2002). System Dynamics: Systemic Feedback Modeling for Policy Analysis: Encyclopedia for Life Support Systems. Oxford: UNESCO Publishing.Barlas, Y., & Carpenter, S. (1990). Philosophical roots of model validation: Two paradigms. System Dynamics Review, 6(2), 148-166.Boschma, R., & Iammarino, S. (2009). Related variety, trade linkages, and regional growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85(3), 289-311.Braczyk, H. J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (1998). Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World. London: UCL Press.Campbell, C. A. (1996). Land literacy in Australia: land care and other new approaches to inquiry and learning for sustainability. In A. Budelman (Ed.), Agricultural R&D at the Crossroads: Merging Systems Research and Social Actor Approach. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.Cooke, P. (2007). To construct regional advantage from innovation systems first build policy platforms. European Planning Studies, 15(2), 179 - 194.Cooke, P. (2008). Regional innovation systems, clean technology & Jacobian cluster-platform policies. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 1(1), 23-45.Cooke, P., & Schienstock, G. (2000). Structural competitiveness and learning regions. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(3), 265- 280.Dash, D. (1994). System dynamics: Changing perspectives. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 7(1), 87-98.Doloreux, D. (2003). Regional innovation systems in the periphery: the case of the Beauce in Québec (Canada). International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 67-94.Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14(1), 3-29.Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.Engel, P. G. H. (1995). Facilitating innovation : an action-oriented approach and participatory methodology to improve innovative social practice in agriculture. Proefschrift Wageningen, Engel, [S.l.]. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/134647Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Massachusetts: MIT Press. (18/22) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
Forrester, J. W. (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technology Review, 73(3), 52-68. Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5-24. Gary, M. S., Kunc, M., Morecroft, J. D. W., & Rockart, S. F. (2008). System dynamics and strategy. System Dynamics Review, 24(4), 407-429. Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 75-99. Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68. Goodstein, D. (1992). What do we mean when we use the term ‘science fraud’? The Scientist, 6, 11. Graf, H. (2011). Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(1), 173-198. Gregoriades, A., & Karakostas, B. (2004). Unifying business objects and system dynamics as a paradigm for developing decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 37(2), 307-311. Han, U. K. (2009). Managerial measures for sustainable development of science parks in the UK and Korea,. MSc Degree, The University of Warwick, Coventry. Herstad, S. J., Bloch, C., Ebersberger, B., & van de Velde, E. (2010). National innovation policy and global open innovation: exploring balances, tradeoffs and complementarities. Science and Public Policy, 37, 113-124. Herstad, S. J., & Brekke, T. (2010). Globalization, modes of innovation and regional innovation systems. Paper presented at the the International Seminar on Regional Innovation Policies, Grimstad. Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C.-l. (1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organization Studies, 14(4), 483-503. Isaksen, A. (2001). Building regional innovation systems: Is endogenous industrial development possible in the global economy? Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 24(1), 101-120. Jackson, M. C. (1999). Towards coherent pluralism in management science. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(1), 12-22. Jackson, M. C. (2005). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester: John Wiley and Son. Jung, S. Y. (1995). Integrated regional technology policy (Trans.). Science and Technology Policy, 38-53. Krugman, P. (2003). Growth on the Periphery: Second Wind for Industrial Regions? Glasgow: Fraser Allander Institute. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (third ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lane, D. C. (1999). Friendly amendment: a commentary on Doyle and Fords proposed re-definition of mental model. System Dynamics Review, 15(2), 185-194. Lane, D. C. (2000). Should system dynamics be described as a ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(1), 3-22. (19/22) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
Lane, D. C. (2001). Rerum cognoscere causas: part I - How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate? System Dynamics Review, 17(2), 97-118. Lee, J. H. (2008). Korean regional innovation strategies: focused on the Gumi mobile cluster. Paper presented at the Korea-France S&T Policy Seminar, Paris. Levine, R. L. (1983). The paradigms of psychology and system dynamics. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Society, New York. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation. London: Pinter. Luyten, J., & Hoefnagel, B. (1995). Het oog van de wetenschapsfilosoof, visies op wetenschap en technologie [The Eye of the Science Philosopher]. Meppel: Boom. Meadows, D. H. (1980). The unavoidable a priori. In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Meadows, D. H., & Robinson, J. (1985). The Electronic Oracle: Computer Models and Social Decisions. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Metcalfe, J. S. (1995). Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 25-46. Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1990). Innovationsorientierte regionalpolitik: ansatz, instrumente, grenzen. In H. E. Gramaztki, F. Klinger & H. G. Nutzinger (Eds.), Wissenschaft, Technik und Arbeit: Innovationen in Ost und West. Kssel: Deutscher Instituts Verlag. Morecroft, J. D. W. (1983). System dynamics: Portraying bounded rationality. Omega, 11(2), 131-142. Morecroft, J. D. W. (1994). Executive knowledge, models, and learning. In J. D. W. Morecroft & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for Learning Organizations. Portland: Productivity Press. Nauwelaers, C., Reid, A., Muller, E., Gundrum, U., & Koschatzky, K. (1995). Innovative Regions? A Comparative Review of Methods of Evaluating Regional Innovation Potential. Brussels: European Commission and European Innovation Monitoring System. Nelson, R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford English Dictionary. (2010, 09 January 2011). organization, n., from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/132452?redirectedFrom=organisation Papageorgiou, G. N., & Hadjis, A. (2008). New planning methodologies in strategic management; an inter-paradigm system dynamics approach. Paper presented at the the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Athens. Park, S.-C. (2009). Innovative governance and strengthening national competitiveness in Finland. International Journal of Public Policy, 4, 495- 515. Pedersen, K., Emblemsvåg, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (2000). Validating design methods & research: the validation square. Paper presented at the the ASME design engineering technical conference, Baltimore. Popper, K. (1979). Objective Knowledge, An Evolution Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rafferty, M. (2007). Reductionism, holism and system dynamics. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston. (20/22) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
Ratzsch, D. (1996). The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. Illinois: InterVarsity Press. Rebernik, M., & Mulej, M. (2000). Requisite holism, isolating mechanisms and entrepreneurship. Kybernetes, 29(9/10), 1126 - 1140. Renting, H., De Bruin, R., & Pohlmann, E. (1994). Building Bridges: An Integral Approach of Ggriculture, Environment, Nature and Landscape in Eastermars Lânsdouwe. Wageningen: Agricultural University. Richardson, G. P. (1999a). Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. Miami: Pegasus Communications. Richardson, G. P. (1999b). Reflections for the future of system dynamics. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(4), 440-449. Roberts, K., & Coutts, J. (1997). A Broader Approach to Common Resource Management: Landcare and Integrated Catchment Management in Queensland, Australia Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper (Vol. 70). London: Overseas Development Institute. Roberts, S. A., Kiselica, M. S., & Fredrickson, S. A. (2002). Quality of life of persons with medical illnesses: counselling’s holistic approach. Journal of counselling and Development, 80(4), 422-432. Röling, N. (1996). Towards an interactive agricultural science. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2(4), 35 - 48. Schiere, J. B., & Grasman, J. (1997). Agro-ecosystem health: Aggregation of systems in time and space. Paper presented at the a seminar agro- ecosystems health, Wageningen. Schiere, J. B., Lyklema, J., Schakel, J., & Rickert, K. G. (1999). Evolution of farming systems and system philosophy. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 375-390. Schwaninger, M. (2006). System dynamics and the evolution of the systems movement. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), 583- 594. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Shapin, S. (1982). History of science and its sociological reconstructions. History of Science, 20, 157-211. Spedding, C. R. W. (1995). Sustainability in animal production systems. Animal Science, 61, 1-8. Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 291-330. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World. Miami: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Sustainable Silicon Valley. (2010, 30 November 2010), from http://www.sustainablesv.org/ Tignor, W. W., & Myrtveit, M. (2001). Object-oriented design patterns and system dynamics components. Paper presented at the the International System Dynamics Society, Atlanta. Towill, D. R. (1993). System dynamics-background, methodology, and applications, 1. Background and methodology. Computing and Control Engineering Journal 4(5), 201-208. Vanderby, S., & Carter, M. W. (2010). An evaluation of the applicability of system dynamics to patient flow modelling. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61, 1572-1581. Vázquez, M., & Liz, M. (2007). System dynamics and philosophy: a constructivist and expressivist approach. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston. (21/22) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
Vázquez, M., Liz, M., & Aracil, J. (1996). Knowledge and reality: some conceptual issues in system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, 12(1), 21-37. Vennix, J. A. M. (1990). Mental models and computer models: design and evaluation of a computer-based learning environment for policy- making. PhD Degree, The University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen. Woodward, J., & Goodstein, D. (1996). Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science. American Scientist, 84(5), 479-490. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IDEAS AND SUPPORT! For more information, please contact UngKyu Han at email@example.com (22/22) UKHanSystem Dynamics UngKyu Han
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.