ung kyu han yor presentation_april_2011 [compatibility mode]

UKHanUngKyu HanSystem Dynamics

UngKyu Han

Dr. Martin Kunc

5th April 2011

YOR Conference, Nottingham University

Key words: system dynamics, philosophy, mental model, regional innovation system

Philosophical Insights in System Modelling

: Application to the Field of Innovation Systems

(1/16)


6. Conclusions

2. Background

4. Previous Investigations

5. Applied to Innovation Systems

1. To Be Thought

3. Philosophy, Mental Model, and System Dynamics

CONTENTS

(2/16)


“Is the Earth central? or part of the solar system?”

1. TO BE THOUGHT

To argue the need to establish a dualistic philosophical view of a

system in system dynamics modelling

“How should we observe systems?”

(3/16)


(4/16)

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

2. BACKGROUND


2) Is System Dynamics a Tool, a Methodology, or a Paradigm?

(5/16)

“Without a clearly communicated philosophy, there is nothing to separate

the subject from the simulation technique it uses.”, Morecroft (1983) says.

Graphical interface, modelling, computer

simulation and application software

Paradigm in problem-solving areas of

management sciences


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)


“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

3) Mental Model

(7/16)

http://pocketbook1.up.seesaa.net/image/090822monariza.jpg


4) Mental Model in System Dynamics

In dealing with feedback problems within a system

(1) In defining feedback problems

(3) In interpreting feedback problems

(2) In analysing 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)


4. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Constructivism

Reductionism

Holism

Expressivism

Interpretivism Positivism

Schiere et al., 1999

Rafferty, 2007

Vázquez and Liz, 2007

Schwaninger, 2006

- WHY NOT Synthetic Dualism of Philosophies?

(9/16)


3) Perception of a System by Philosophy

PHILOSOPHY

CRITERION

Constructivism, Interpretivism ,

Holism, and Expressivism

Reductionism and Positivism

Main Object A whole system Constituent elements

Logical Stream Top-down Bottom-up

System Definition More than the sum of parts Just the sum of parts

Problem Definition A whole problem of a system Sub-problems of elements

Goal Definition No common goal Common goals of components

Context and Observer

Variability

Variant context and observer Static context and observer

Sensitivity to Changes Sensitive to the changes in internal

properties

Not sensitive to the changes in

internal properties

Interpretation

Flexibility

Flexible, inferential, pragmatic, and

contextual

Inflexible, concrete, ideal, and non-

contextual

Synthetic view

A whole- or sub-system (s)

Top-down or bottom-up

More than or just the sum of parts

A whole- or sub-problems of a

system

Non-common or common goals

of sub-systems

Variant or static context and

observer

Sensitive or non-sensitive to

changes of internal properties in

a system

Flexible or inflexible, inferential or

concrete, pragmatic or ideal, and

contextual or contextual

(10/16)


(11/16)

1) Innovation System

: An agglomeration of innovation actors to stimulate their

innovation and business within a geographical area

5. Applied to Innovation Systems


(12/16)

2) From National to Regional Innovation System

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 now

Shift from NIS to RISEnd of Korean War

End of the 2nd World War

1945

Japan’s EconomicGrowth

US Support

Japanese GovernmentEconomic

Interventionism

Nation-wideBusiness Support

Serious Disparitiesamong Regions

NIS's World-wideSpread

Clearer Management ofRelative Dynamics by

Region

Need for InstitutionallyLocalised

Technology-based Systems

The Rise of EUin 1993

European Currencyinto EURO in 1995

1953

National Innovation System Regional Innovation System


3) Features of Innovation System

- Evolutionary being

- Continuous production of feedback problems

(14/16)


(14/16)

4) Philosophy-Mental Model-Views of a System


(15/16)

Region-oriented View Nation-oriented View

Philosophy Constructivism, interpretivism,holism, and expressivism

Reductionism and positivism

Main Object RIS as a whole system A nation-dependent constituent unit

Logical Stream Local government’s top-downinnovation policies

Local government’s bottom-upinnovation policies for a national agenda

SystemDefinition

More than the aggregation of localinnovative actors

Just the sum of local innovative actors

ProblemDefinition

Regional innovationproblems/challenges as a wholesystem

Sub-problems of regions affectingnational innovation problems/challenges

Goal Definition Regional development as an idealgoal of a local unit

Sub-objectives of regions to achieve anideal whole development of a nation

Context andObserverVariability

Variant innovation contexts andlocalised innovation views of aregion; self-regulating innovationmechanisms in a big picture ofnational innovation policies

Fixed innovation contexts and localisedinnovation views of a region; innovationmechanisms tied within given nationalinnovation policies

Sensitivity toChanges

Sensitive to the changes of localinnovation properties

Not sensitive to the changes of localinnovation properties

InterpretationFlexibility

Context-based flexible politicalresponse to variable regionalsituations

Non-context-based static politicalresponse to given national innovationpolicies

Region-Nation Synthetic View

Dualism of philosophical threads

Different observing target by contextaround a region

Mixture of local government’s top-down policies for regional objectivesand bottom-up policies for nationalgoals by regional context

Different definition of the scale,range, and roles of a RIS by regionalcontext

Different definition of the influencingrange of problems and requiredsolutions by regional context

Different goal definition by regionalcontext

Flexible variability by contexts arounda region and subjectivity ofobservers; flexible construction andoperation of innovation mechanismsby regional context

Flexible sensitivity level to thedynamics of regional innovationproperties by regional context

Variant flexibility of response toregional context


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)


REFERENCES

(18/22)

Altuzarra, A. (2010). Public funding for innovation at different levels of government: an analysis of Spanish manufacturing. European Journal ofEconomics, 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 theSystem 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 forTransportation 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.


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 Ford's 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)


Lane, D. C. (2001). Rerum cognoscere causas: part I - How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and thevoluntarism/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 PolicySeminar, Paris.

Levine, R. L. (1983). The paradigms of psychology and system dynamics. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Society, NewYork.

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=organisationPapageorgiou, 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)


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 Eastermar's 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)


Vázquez, M., Liz, M., & Aracil, J. (1996). Knowledge and reality: some conceptual issues in system dynamics modeling. System DynamicsReview, 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.

(22/22)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

IDEAS AND SUPPORT!

For more information, please contact UngKyu Han

at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]